So Capria and I got back last night after a great weekend in MT with her parents and sister and sister's boyfriend. It was amazing how healing it was to be in the mountains. I love living in the city, but I have never felt the strong need to get out on breaks into wilderness as I have recently. We got to go hiking in the snow an hour or so from my in-law's house. It was hot enough to get sunburned but there was still three feet of snow pack. I saw bear and mountain lion tracks. It was great fun.
We also got to hang out with John and David Totten for an evening and morning. That was an added bonus. I think they are coming to visit in Seattle in a few weeks. It sounds like the Quiet Ones are taking Missoula by storm, which is really cool.
I also got to chat a bit with Martin, my father-in-law about, all though we never used this term, world systems theory. Martin is an intelligent and insightful individual and I always enjoy our talks. One of the issues we discussed is related to this Kristof editorial in the New York Times. Namely, the importance for moral and ethical responsibility in shaping the future of the world. I don't have time to go into it now, but maybe I will in the future. This is the last week of classes, so I am swamped.
So last night I tried to unwind by watching the CSI:Miami finale. Big mistake. It was such a disappointment when compared with CSI's finale, directed by Tarentino. That was a lot of fun. It's amazing what a good director and writer can do to a so-so show.
But Miami. The low point in the show, for me, was when Horatio (who tries to make every line sound like a dramatic monologue. I wanted to shoot him by the end) is interviewing one of the terrorist suspects. "So," he says in his tough-cop manner, "you dropped out of college. Spent a lot of time overseas. Now, you're building bombs. You've got a grudge against this country?"
The young, white, middle-class suspect replies: "This isn't a country. It's a corporation, that goes to war to make money."
But of course! Anyone critical of America's corporate culture is on the road to terrorism. Half of them are probably carrying dirty bombs right now and are just dying to expose millions of people to deadly radiation in the name of humanitarianism. I wanted to throw things at the screen.
Of course, H, our hero, is not anti-corporation. The man lives in Miami and drives a silver Humvee. But did you know that, besides his heart being in the right place, he is a crime scene investigator, a detective, a narcotics agent, a homeland security member, AND part of the bomb squad? In appropriate slow motion fashion, he walks up to the ticking dirty bomb, pulls the trigger wire, the beeping stops, and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. That Horatio. He must have had MacGyver as a teacher.
Sorry. I don't watch a whole lot of TV. So I get fed up with it pretty easily. On a more enjoyable note, I watched Fellini's La Dolce Vita the other night. Such a contrast. I've been really getting into Italian directors over the last year, particularly the stuff that was coming out in the 60s. Very cool. Anyway, I apologize for this stupid post. Back to work!
It is really depressing watching the coolest intellectuals in the world die. I had just been getting into Ricoeur's stuff in recent months. Apparently, he was one of the protestant members of the "French Theological Turn" in phenomenology. I also heard he was friends with the late Pope (a world-class philosopher in his own right.)
C'est la mort.
So yesterday was Syttende Mai, Norway's national day of independence. Had I ever heard of this day before? I definitely had not. But Andy, my 1/4 Norwegian friend, caught me up to speed. You can read a little about this holiday here.
The things I found most interesting:
1. You celebrate with Norway's national alcoholic beverage, Aquavit. Aquavit is 80-proof and herbal. But what makes Aquavit really amazing: part of the production process involves filling cherry casks with the stuff and putting it on a roundtrip ship voyage to Australia. This causes it to go over the equator not once, but twice, maximizing something to do with gravity. Don't ask me. But they've been doing this for 150 years.
2. A Norwegian toast involves the word (I'm transliterating here) "schkul." This is derived from the same root as our word "skull." Why? Because those crazy Vikings once drank out of skulls, that's why. Awesome.
Anyway, that's how I spent my evening last night, despite the piles of work I have to do . . .
Check out these pictures. I can't read the Japanese, but they are strangely compelling images.
For some of my readers, this post will lack a fair bit of context. Forgive me.
I have been watching this with a certain amount of trepidation and soul-searching.
This is a blog war between, more or less, two perspectives that fall under the rubric of reformed christianity. Each side claims to be properly interpreting the Bible, each side claims a certain legitimating genealogy, each side quotes the same theologians, each side is promoting the true Truth. One, however, is right. The other is wrong. Neither side will be convinced of the other's position (short of a miracle).
Anyone who knows me knows which side I identify with. At the same time, this has made me wonder if I truly identify with that side or if I merely assent to that side's position. There is a difference.
Why do I doubt my own identification? Because this short-lived shouting match reveals a serious problem in the "reformed" perspective. This is not a battle between opposites; this is an argument between evil half-brothers. This is Jekyll and Hyde. This is the part of the tradition people don't like to talk about but keeps rearing its ugly little head and using our own tools against us.
My point is that doctrines of Sola Scriptura and the appeal to historical Christianity is not enough, because Scripture needs to be appealed to well, and history must be understood properly. Thus, inherent in these beliefs is an outside standard that legitimates them. The foundational doctrines are simply that: foundations, not structures. And, obviously, people can build very, very different structures based on the same foundation.
I'm not saying the Bible isn't the Word of God, or if it is we can't access it with any degree of certainty (far from it -- I'll address this later). But I am returning again and again to this very basic question: what is Christianity? I've lived much of my life assuming I understood what that question was -- but is that assumption justified? And does my assumption result in taking me far away from the reality of the situation?
I am not a theologian, and I acknowledge the fact that I may be wrong in all of this. But this online debacle has pushed me further in the direction I have already been moving toward: that Christianity is about my relationship to God which which determines my love for my neighbor. That Christianity is about loving God with all your heart soul mind and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself. And not about Christian Politics, Christian Education, Christian Systematic Theology, Christian Psychology, Christian Confederates, Christian Denominations, or anything else you'd want to add. (Footnote: I can already hear the objection that the list I just offered is the logical outworking of loving your neighbor. In theory: maybe. In practice, from my own experience: rarely. I'm not saying these are completely illegitimate; I am saying they do not answer the question "what is Christianity?")
This is what the Bible is about. The Book is not primarily there for you to systematize, hack up, and use to lobby for your positions. The Book is there to change you, because it is the sign of He who is Infinitely and Wholly Other, who sees without being seen, and who is so defined by love that He died so that you can know him. So I'm not against the Bible, nor am I completely opposed to theologies, systematic or otherwise. I'm simply saying that our emphases and methods have molded it into our own image, and that image can be pretty ugly.
Any more, that is the way I see Christianity. And I don't think I am breaking from the tradition. Because what was the "reformation" but an attempt to bring people back to a relationship with God? The battle over doctrine was simply a means to getting to that point. Lately, I'm seeing St. John of the Cross and certain traditions of negative theology as far more valuable, for myself, than St. Thomas Aquinas and Abraham Kuyper.
I'm not sure how coherent this is. I'd like to hear what other people have to say.