Shadows Of Divine Things

The Wealthy and the Poor

2008-06-19T13:04:00.003-05:00

These actual events took place in front of the Stock Market on Wallstreet in New York City. For a reference to the facts given in the video see the book referred to below (it is linked for easy access)

I know this is true from direct experience - having worked at one of the largest financial institutions in the world which is privately owned by one of the wealthiest families in the world. For a detailed description of these events read Shane Claiborne's book titled The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical."

I Still Have Books for Sale

2008-04-16T11:49:00.005-05:00

I am continuing to post theology, apologetics, philosophy, and other academic books for sale at Ebay. I will be selling about three hundred or more books over the next month or two, so keep checking back in. All but two of my current titles have sold, so be sure and bid strong if you are interested in a title.

If you are interested, my Ebay user ID is Marzzhill, or you can simply go to this - a link to my user profile page. All of my books will be listed there.

Books for Sale

2008-04-06T07:30:00.000-05:00

If you are interested in buying some theology texts, general Christian reading, historical texts, apologetics, etc. Then know that I am actually selling a very large portion of my library at Ebay beginning today. I will be posting books for sale over the next few weeks. The ones that do not sell at Ebay will be taken to the local used book store and/or sold at our upcoming garage sale this summer.

To find my sales on Ebay - my user name is Marzzhill. You can search by member user name at Ebay - if you have trouble finding me at Ebay then here is a link to my user profile page.

Karl Barth: Recognizing the Righteousness of God

2008-03-23T15:30:00.002-05:00

“There is a fundamentally different way to come into relation with the righteousness of God. This other way we enter not by speech nor reflection nor reason, but by being still, by listening to and not silencing the conscience when we have hardly begun to hear its voice. When we let conscience speak to the end, it tells us not only that there is something else, a righteousness above unrighteousness, but also—and more important—that this something else for which we long and which we need is God. He is right and not we! His righteousness is an eternal righteousness! This is difficult for us to hear. We must take the trouble to go far enough off to hear it again. We make a veritable uproar with our morality and culture and religion. But we may presently be brought to silence, and with that will begin our true redemption.

It will then be, above all, a matter of our recognizing God once more as God. It is easy to say recognize. But recognizing is an ability won only in fierce inner personal conflict. It is a task beside which all cultural, moral, and patriotic duties, all efforts in “applied religion,” are child’s play. For here one must give himself up in order to give himself over to God, that God’s will may be done. To do his will, however, means to begin with him anew. His will is not a corrected continuation of our own. It approaches ours as Wholly Other. There is nothing for our will except a basic recreation. Not a reformation but a re-creation and a re-growth. For the will to which the conscience points is purity, goodness, truth, and brotherhood as the perfect will of God. It is a will which knows no subterfuges, reservations, nor preliminary compromises. It is a will with character, a will blessed and holy through and through. It is the righteousness of God.”

Karl Barth, The Word of God & the Word of Man (Harper & Row, Publishers: New York), trans. by Douglas Horton, 1957; 23-24.

Personality Test Number 2

2008-03-20T23:05:00.000-05:00

I'm not so sure of the results on this test, but it was fun to take nonetheless.

INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.

Free Jung Word Choice Test (similar to MBTI)
personality tests by similarminds.com

INTP personality types are best described as follows:

loner, more interested in intellectual pursuits than relationships or family, wrestles with the meaninglessness of existence, likes esoteric things, disorganized, messy, likes science fiction, can be lonely, observer, private, can't describe feelings easily, detached, likes solitude, not revealing, unemotional, rule breaker, avoidant, familiar with the darkside, skeptical, acts without consulting others, does not think they are weird but others do, socially uncomfortable, abrupt, fantasy prone, does not like happy people, appreciates strangeness, frequently loses things, acts without planning, guarded, not punctual, more likely to support marijuana legalization, not prone to compromise, hard to persuade, relies on mind more than on others, calm.

favored careers:

philosopher, game designer, scientist, software engineer, freelance artist, research scientist, assassin, freelance writer, physicist, software developer, mathmetician, geologist, computer scientist, philosophy professor, webmaster, slacker, medical researcher, painter, mortician, systems analyst, comic book artist, computer technician, website designer, scholar, archeologist, computer repair, forensic anthropologist, astronaut, researcher, historian, systems engineer, genetics researcher, astronomer, enviromental scientist, egyptologist

disfavored careers:

human resources, public relations, social worker, guidance counselor, health care worker, trainer, school teacher, wedding planner, movie star, hospitality worker, supervisor, child care worker, fundraiser, customer service, stay at home parent, office administrator

Are You Going to Pee Standing Up or Sitting Down?

2008-02-20T22:59:00.003-06:00

I'm not sure what to think about this video - a good friend e-mailed me and told me about it. How in the world does anyone get a sermon like this out of Scripture?

Hallelujah

2008-02-07T10:40:00.000-06:00

I was first introduced to this song, and this artist by Neil Peart, the drummer of the rock band Rush via Peart's book titled Traveling Music (a book I highly recommend if you like Rush, or rock music in general).

The song is titled Hallelujah and was originally written and performed by Leonard Cohen. The song is magnificant, well written and lyrically beautiful. Various version have been recorded or performed in the past, but none sound as good as Jeff Buckley's version. Recently at one of our usual gatherings, a friend of mine named Sandy played the song. It had been a while since I had heard the song, and now I cannot get enough of it. When Buckley breaks into the vocal part it is nearly angelic, and having listened to various versions (e.g. Rufus Wainright, Leonard Cohen, John Cale, etc.) his voice quality and raw emotion in the song is unmatched. Below are the lyrics and here's a link to YouTube where Jeff Buckley is performing the song. Apparently Sony Music disabled the "embeded code."

I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this: the fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

Well your faith was strong but you needed proof
you saw her bathing on the roof
her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
she tied you to her kitchen chair
she broke your throne and she cut your hair
and from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Baby I've been here before
I know this room, I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

There was a time you let me know
What's real and going on below
But now you never show it to me, do you?
And remember when I moved in you,
The Holy Dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

Maybe there's a God above
And all I ever learned from love
Was how to shoot somebody who outdrew you;
It's not a cry you can hear at night
It's not somebody who's seen the light
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

Apparently, after a bit of research on the song, the lyrics have changed from artist to artist (which is fairly typical).

Jeff Buckley was an up and coming new artists and had released only two albums before he died. According to Wikipedia, this is how Buckley died: "On May 29, 1997, as the band's plane touched down on the runway to join him in his Memphis studio, Buckley went swimming in Wolf River Harbor, a tributary of the Mississippi River, while wearing steel-toed boots, all of his clothing, and singing along to a radio playing Led Zeppelin's 'Whole Lotta Love'.

A roadie of Buckley's band, Keith Foti, remained ashore. After moving the radio and a guitar out of reach of the wake from a passing tugboat, Foti looked up to see that Buckley was gone. Despite a determined rescue effort that night, Buckley remained missing, and the search was called off the following day due to heavy rain. It is likely Buckley was sucked under the water by a strong under-current and fell into unconsciousness due to the sudden force pulling him under. Three days later, his body was spotted by a tourist on a riverboat marina and was brought ashore."

Here's to you Jeff Buckley, thanks for recording such a good song and making it better.

Kirkin' of the Tartans: Psalm 23

2008-02-03T15:25:00.000-06:00

This translation of the 23rd Psalm comes from the Order for the Lord's Supper in the Book of Common Order introduced to Scotland from Geneva in 1560. The liturgy was prescribed by the General Assemblies of 1562 and 1564. It came to be known as Knox's Liturgy, named for John Knox, the minister most responsible for introducing Presbyterianism to Scotland.

The Lord's my herd, I'll want for nocht,

He gars me tae lie doon

In girsie howes, an syne I'm brocht

Faar wimplin burnies croon.

An fan for ither joys I craik,

An wanner faur frae God,

He airts me, for H/is ain Name's sake,

Intil his ain richt raod.

Ay, an I gang throwe yon dark glen

Faar waesome shadows faa

He'll keep near-haun me, and I ken

I'll hae nae fear ava.

Tho mony faes aroon me staun

His kindness nivver fails;

He spreads my table, an his haun

Fills my cup till it skails.

Een sae, gweed guidin an gweed-gree

Gang wi me ilka day;

And in God's Hoose faur up on hie

I fain wad bide for aye.

Invisible Children

2008-01-21T09:14:00.000-06:00

My sister came to visit us over the extended weekend, since I get Martin Luther King, Jr. day off from work today. She brought with her some information about a new organization that she was helping support called Invisible Children. She had several DVDs that were very moving about children in Uganda who had been literally stolen from their families by a rebel resisitance group in the country called The Lord's Resitant Army (LRA), they are very similar to the war rebels depicted in the film Blood Diamond (which actually occurs in Sierra Leone).

These children, once kidnapped are brainwashed and are forced to kill families, other children, etc. in Uganda. Many of the girls that are kidnapped are taken and used as "sex slaves" and are repeatedly raped and beaten. The Invisible Children organization is selling braclets that are made by rescued children and other people in Uganda in an attempt to raise money to help other children get rescued from the LRA.

The reason I have such a passion for this is due in part to the fact that my wife and I support an orphaned child in Uganda via Christian Children's Fund. I have known about the LRA and have always been concerned for the little boy we support. Of course Christian Children's Fund has assured me that he is safe from the LRA, but there are tens of thousand's of children who are not.

Below is a detailed description of what the organization is all about. I hope this will move anyone reading this to help suport this group. It is a very worthy cause and desperately needs our help.
_______________

Invisible Children (IC) had its beginnings in 2003 when three filmmakers decided to develop a documentary telling the story of the children in Northern Uganda, and inspire a generation to act.

What developed from this is an organization headquartered in the US with an office in the district of Gulu in Uganda. Their mission continues to raise awareness and facilitate participation.

Invisible Children is offering a life-long investment in the vulnerable youth of Gulu, providing them with quality education and valuable life skills that enable them to take responsibility for their future and the future of their country.

To achieve this goal they emphasize community involvement and Ugandan leadership. As a part of a global community, they also promote cross-cultural education, and continuously look for ways we can better work together in defending the oppressed and promoting peace. Combining their ambition to raise awareness of the sufferings of a voiceless people, with the development of programs that are affecting change, IC has become the force behind a revolution.

The Need

In over 20 years of war, Northern Uganda has endured the suffering of 1.6 million displaced persons and the abduction of an estimated 30,000 children forced to fight as child soldiers, a result of a war between a rebel group, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Ugandan government. Over 90% of the population in the district of Gulu has been forced into Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps, where there is an estimated death rate of 1000 people per week. Both employment for adults and education for the children are rarely a viable option.
In an organized effort to holistically rebuild schools, raise the standard of education, and encourage young people to participate in the larger world around them, IC launched their Schools for Schools (S4S) program in the fall of 2005. IC S4S’s effort encouraged and inspired American students to raise funds for their fellow students in Gulu. By the deadline of May 2007, 1.2 million dollars was contributed to the program by 580 schools and 13,099 students, through fundraising efforts managed by the students themselves.

Gulu High School was one of the earliest schools to be identified as a possible partner in the program. The S4S staff admired the reputation of the school in the district, its history with respect to the conflict in the North, its academic performance, and the cooperation of the administration with our programs.

The school began in 1914 and since that time has graduated students that had a profound affect on Uganda, including Milton Obote, the first President of Uganda. Through the course of the conflict, the school has been occupied by the LRA, had 18 students abducted from the campus, and served as a battleground between the entrenched LRA and the UPDF detachment, which still occupies a barracks site just off the campus. The school is a coed boarding school with just over 1,000 students (approximately one-third of which are girls.) About 75% of the students come from the IDP camps, and many are orphans, formerly abducted, child mothers, or HIV/AIDS-infected. The school has a strong PTA, Board of Governors, and Development Committee whom S4S works with in every step of implementation.

S4S staff have interviewed the Headmaster and Deputy Headmasters along with many teachers and students, and participated in classroom observations to measure the quality of education being provided. Their test results are consistently higher than average for the area and strive to offer numerous programs for the students including the only program for blind students in Northern Uganda. The facilities require large amounts of refurbishment and numerous new buildings are required.

The Project

In their S4S’s pilot program, IC built a dorm to house 100 female students. Constructed in the center of campus, it provides greater security than the current facility off site. The existing facility was also overcrowded, with 50 girls per room and no capacity to accept additional female students. The new dorm was designed to accommodate 10 girls per room and provide a study room to be shared by all residents of the dorm.

Following in their footsteps and matching the funds given by American students for the S4S program, Wellspring International has committed to providing funds to build a second floor to the dormitory to accommodate an additional 100 female residents. In addition to the room accommodations, the total grant amount of $135,180.24 USD will include laundry and bathroom facilities. This is an IC children effort, and Wellspring is privileged to come alongside in providing funds for them to complete their vision for this particular project.

What I'm Currently Reading

2008-01-14T11:00:00.000-06:00

I have shifted gears a bit on my reading shedule and decided to pick up, once again, Hans Urs Von Balthasar's work titled Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"? This is due in part to a conversation I recently had with my good friends whom I meet with for our regualr "gatherings."

The issue of the salvation off all men, as opposed to views such as limited atonement, etc. was a hot button at our last meeting. I am currently in transition with regard to my thinking on this issue and this topic actually derailed my current studies on justification.

It's hard to stay on track when there are so many topics I desire to study. Has anyone out there read this book, and if so what are your current thoughts?

The Darth Vader Blues (Now That's Funny)

2007-12-29T13:31:00.000-06:00

Merry Christmas

2007-12-25T00:01:00.000-06:00

And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins. (Matt. 1:21 NASB)

------------------------------------------------------------

Behold the Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us." (Matt. 1:23 NASB)

------------------------------------------

I wish everyone a blessed Christmas. May the Mercy of God and the Love of Christ be with you this Christmas season.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

The Fourth Sunday of Advent

2007-12-23T13:46:00.000-06:00

God of mystery, in Christ you created the world. In Jesus you have redeemed it. Even now you are returnng all creation to your purposes, and you have called us as your partners. But we neglect your call. We disrespect oursleves, disbelieving that you make us in your image. Disrespecting ourselves, we ignore our neighbors in need, though they also bear your likeness. Disrespecting our neighbors, we abuse the earth and its resources. We take more than we need. We clutter the creation with rubbish. God, forgive us. Renew our trust, that hoping in Christ, we may honor one another and your creation. And by doing so honor You. Amen.

Third Sunday of Advent

2007-12-16T22:01:00.000-06:00

God of liberation, in Jesus Christ you promise release from all that binds us. In you, we find freedom from guilt and death. Nonetheless, O God, we choose imprisonment. We are captivated by false idols and selfish lifestyles. We invest in prisons of addiction and self-aggrandizement. We lock ourselves within walls of willfulness and self-centered pursuits. Forgive us, God, and free us yet again, that this Advent will welcome our full freedom, in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Second Sunday of Advent

2007-12-09T09:40:00.000-06:00

Collect for the Second Sunday of Avent:

Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of the holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.

- Taken from the Collect at the Morning Prayer service of St. Andrews Episcopal Church.

First Sunday of Advent

2007-12-02T22:35:00.000-06:00

Advent is a term from the Latin word adventus which means "arrival". Advent is the new year of the Christian Church and the church season that leads to Christmas Day. It means that the Lord is coming, Jesus Christ, our brother in our humanity and our God in His divinity is about to arrive. Thanks be unto God. May God richly bless you during this Advent season.

Prayer of Confession:

"God of the future, you are coming in power to bring all nations under your rule. We confess that we have not expected your kingdom, for we live casual lives, ignoring your promised judgement. We accept lies as truth, exploit neighbors, abuse the earth, and refuse your justice and peace. In your mercy, forgive us. Grant us wisdom to welcome your way, and to seek things that will endure when Christ comes to judge the world."

Assurance of Pardon:

"Hear the good news! Who is in a position to condemn? Only Christ, and Christ died for us, Christ rose for us, Christ reigns in power for us, Christ prays for us. Anyone who is in Christ is a new creation. The old life has gone; a new life has begun. Know that you are forgiven and be at peace. Amen."

Turning Pages: Books I'm Currently Reading or Have Recently Purchased

2007-12-01T23:25:00.000-06:00

Below is a list of books I am currently reading or books I have on my near future reading list. As you can see, my interest is currently the issue of justification.

I also have on my reading list an article a very good friend of mine recently published in a popular philosophy of religion journal. The article is titled Weighing evils: the C.S. Lewis approach. So, as you can see, I am playing catch up on some new reading and have fallen behind due to work related studies.

Excellent Quote

2007-11-28T21:26:00.000-06:00

Nothing is more practical than finding God, that is, than falling in love in a quite absolute, final way. What you are in love with, what seizes your imagination, will affect everything. It will decide what will get you out of bed in the morning, what you will do with your evenings, how you will spend your weekends, what you read, who you know, what breaks your heart, and what amazes you with joy and gratitude.

-- Pedro Arrupe

Happy Thanksgiving!

2007-11-22T18:33:00.000-06:00

One of the better Budweiser commercials

Happy Thanksgiving. Sit back, enjoy a beer and a game!

I'm Published

2007-11-09T10:45:00.000-06:00

Wow! One of my Flickr photographs of the Dallas Mavericks was chosen to be published in the Dallas Schmapp Guide. You can see the photo in the guide at this link. The photo itself is below.

I'm curious as to why they chose this picture since it was taken with a point and shoot digital camera and was taken from a pretty good distance. I had a much better photo posted on Flickr that was an action shot and taken from near center court, and the lighting is better. That photo is below.

Oh well, go figure, I'm just happy to actually have a photo in the guide. GO MAVS!!!

Two Years Old

2007-10-24T09:45:00.000-05:00

This blog is officially two years old as of yesterday. My first post for "Shadows" was on October 23rd in 2005. Wow! That seems like such a long time ago - time flies, doesn't it?

One Vote '08

2007-10-08T00:01:00.000-05:00

I don't usually get very political on this blog, but I am in full support of the One campaign. Whether you are liberal or conservative, Republican, Democrat or Independent, this is an issue that crosses all political "boundaries." The U.S. alone has the economic means to make a huge impact, make your voice heard, let's end world hunger and poverty.

A Period of Silence

2007-09-24T08:22:00.000-05:00

Hello to anyone who still might read this blog. As often as I have tried to make time to write posts, it has been too difficult this fall to do so. My work requires that I pass two securities licenses (which require that I study at least 4 to 5 hours a day), I am also teaching a series at my church, and I am working about 50 hours per week. So what time is left over for me, I give to my family.

So this fall, I will not be able to post. However, once I get these tests behind me, I'll have more time to post. The deadline for me to take and pass both tests is January 10th 2008. If I do not pass these tests, I cannot keep my job. No pressure, huh? So this blog will be on hold until the beginning on 2008, at which time I'll attempt to resume posting.

Make Poverty History

2007-09-08T13:55:00.000-05:00

I have recently become a part of an awesome campaign to "Make Poverty History." Check out the web site, and if you have an interest please join the campaign.

"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
- Mother Theresa

"The US cannot win the war on terrorism unless we confront the social and political roots of poverty."
- Colin Powell

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much...it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

This Is The Truth

2007-09-08T09:07:00.000-05:00

A friend of mine has this posted on his blog and it was too good to pass up. Watch the entire clip, it will turn around in the middle.

Another Quick Tag

2007-08-30T09:15:00.000-05:00

Back in June I was tagged by a friend of mine, David. And recently tagged again, same tag, by Steve Scott. So, what I'm going to do is simply link here to the past tag, and that will cover the new tag, how effecient is that? So, here's the link to the old tag, and enjoy a good laugh at my expense.

In Transition

2007-08-25T17:05:00.000-05:00

Ok, I guess I need to explain my absence from blogging, as if this has any import whatsoever, since by now no one actually reads this blog any longer. Nonetheless, I have been away, or better yet, I have failed to post, due to a new job that has kept me extremely busy. It seems I'm always working to get by and pay the bills but to keep pace with "life" at this time robs me of any life.

Woe is I. Oh well, stay tuned, cause when I get caught up I do intent to continue posting, so keep checking back every once in a while.

Gradations of Sin (Part One)

2007-08-07T19:55:00.000-05:00

As of late discussions of degrees or gradations of sin have come up several times in various discussions I have had. Having been raised Southern Baptist, at least in my local church where I was raised, sin was viewed on an even playing field, so to speak. What I mean by this is that the Baptist view I was raised in regarding sin was that a sin was a sin was a sin, murder was just as wrong as stealing because all sin is wrong. I've come a long way since the denomination of my youth, and emphatically disagree with this type of thinking.

However, it must be stated here that I also disagree with the "results" Roman Catholic view on this issue as well (a little more about this will be discussed in subsequent posts). When I say the "results" of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) I mean the end result of their thinking on these issues; the ultimate outcome in certain circumstances. I agree with the RCC that there are gradations of sin. Murder is in fact a greater sin than stealing, and lust is not as great a sin as the actual act of adultry or fornication. Where I part ways with the RCC is with the results of committing certain sins, the "punishment" of certain sins.

Keeping this issue at a basic level, to say that all sin is equal in its weight or effect, etc. seems to me anyway, to be quite wrong headed. But to declare that when more serious sins (i.e. cardinal sins) are committed this leads to eteranl destruction without the possibility of redemption or forgiveness in certain circumstances (once again I'll detail this issue later) seems wrong headed as well. What I hope to accomplish in this brief series is the idea of gradation of sin and to examine the RCC view of cardinal sins versus venial sins and their effects. To that end I write, and I hope anyone out there who has any input will feel free to add their two-cents. I am certainly not an expert on this issue, so feel free to slap me down if you disagree, but do so cordially please. ;-)

Quote of the Week

2007-08-02T21:20:00.000-05:00

"You will find as you look back upon your life that the moments when you have truly lived are the moments when you have done things in the spirit of love."

- Henry Drummond

I'm Back, and I'm Sick . . . YUK!!!

2007-07-28T08:55:00.000-05:00

Well, I am back to blogging, but I got really sick two days ago. Someone where I work showed up very ill and several people, including myself, ended up catching what he brought to work . . . summertime sickness . . . nice (he says sarcastically as he blows his already raw nose)!

Anyway, I'll be around though, I intend to post a few articles on gradation of sin, which has been a current topic of discussion in my life as of late. So I want to get it out there and see if I get any response. So . . . stay tuned.

Taking a Bit of a Break

2007-07-17T19:05:00.000-05:00

For the next week or so things will be quiet around here. I am taking a bit of a break from blogging and shall return in about a week. Until then, may the peace of the Lord be with you.

How Often Do You Seek "Assurance of Pardon"?

2007-07-15T14:15:00.000-05:00

In the almost two years I have had this blog, aside from various other blogs being the source of people coming to my blog, most of the people who end up on my blog have come from Google searches. The most interesting thing about these Google searches is the topics of the searches. In other words, my blog has been the destination point from Google searchers seeking such topics as music, churches, various theological issues, various people searches (i.e. Calvin, Luther, etc.), but the most common Google search is, hands down, "Assurance of Pardon."

This "search topic" has always made me wonder, do people search for this because they seek assurance of pardon in their own lives, or because the need for such assurance drives them to research and seek out answers about that topic? I know, I know, perhaps I am reading too much into this, these are just Google searches you say. But I know from my own personal experience that I search topics at Google in order to find answers to what I am seeking. Therefore, that being the case, it would seem to follow that perhaps the most sought after answer is to the question do we really have "assurance of pardon"?

Do people seek answers to this topic because of a basic need within their own lives to be "pardoned"? Or is this just a hot topic? I tend to lean toward the former as opposed to the latter, but perhaps there are other options that drive people to seek out this topic, maybe they are researching for a term paper, or what have you. Nonetheless, I do find it very intriguing that this topic is, by a very large margin, the highest Google search that ends up at my blog.

See, I'm Not So Foul Mouthed After All

2007-07-14T00:05:00.000-05:00

Ha!! My blog got a "G" rating! Now if I wrote my blog while I was driving in my car, it would probably get a rating of NC-17.

Why I Love Jonathan Edwards

2007-07-12T08:15:00.000-05:00

Below is a guest post I was asked to write for Ben Myers at Faith and Theology. I never actually posted this at my own blog, and he recently re-ran the thread again so I thought I would go ahead and post the article here. Hope you enjoy!

Jonathan Edwards has been called the greatest American thinker. Having read and re-read much of what Edwards has written, I would agree with this sentiment. In fact, Edwards was one of the first theologians I encountered in my own theological studies. After studying both theology and philosophy, I have often thought that the best theologians are those who have immersed themselves in philosophy. And Edwards was no exception.

Edwards had, I think, a nice balance between theology and philosophy, and he knew how they worked together. His work on human nature and human will (especially in The Freedom of the Will) still offers perhaps one of the best explanations ever produced on the fallen human condition. In addition to his theological work, Edwards was a Congregational pastor, and his sermons were published and are still being read today. Among these is, of course, the famous (but often misunderstood or misrepresented) sermon titled Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

But aside from all this, Edwards was also a poet, a musician, a lover of nature and the outdoors, the last of the great puritans, and a friend and counselor to many in his day, even when he himself was suffering from great bouts of depression. While I do not necessarily agree with everything Edwards wrote, I still think he is a force to be reckoned with. In my opinion he is one of the most underappreciated theologians in Christian history—but time will tell how much he really contributed to the theological landscape. Perhaps eventually we will catch up to the thinking of Jonathan Edwards.

Let Mercy Come and Wash Away . . .

2007-07-09T00:05:00.000-05:00

What I've Done

Excellent video, song and message by Linkin Park

The Practice of the Presence of God

2007-07-08T15:55:00.000-05:00

"That we ought, once for all, heartily to put our whole trust in God, and make a total surrender of ourselves to Him, secure that He would not deceive us.

That we ought not be weary of doing little things for the love of God, who regards not the greatness of the work, but the love with which it is performed. That we should not wonder if, in the beginning, we often fail in our endeavors, but that at last we should gain a habit, which will naturally produce its acts in us, without our care, and to our exceeding great delight.

That the whole substance of religion was faith hope, and charity, by the practice of which we become united to the will of God; that all besides is indifferent, and to be used as a means that we may arrive at our end, and be swallowed up therein, by faith and charity.

That all things are possible to him who believes; that they are less difficult to him who hopes; that they are more easy to him who loves, and still more easy to him who perseveres in the practice of these virtues.

That the end ought to propose to ourselves is to become, in this life, the most perfect worshipers of God we can possible be, as we hope to be through all eternity.

That the greater perfection a soul aspires after, the more dependent it is upon divine grace."

- From Brother Lawerence's The Practice of the Presence of God

Jesus Video

2007-07-01T15:05:00.000-05:00

Last night a friend of mine showed me some "Jesus videos" that were used in a church curriculum to demonstrate how Christianity and Jesus are commonly misunderstood. The setting for these films was a teaching curriculum in a particular church, but apparently in previous courses of this same curriculum the overall point of the class was misunderstood due to preconceived notions about what it means to be Christian, etc. So these films were used to break down those misconceptions. The film is actually quite funny, and you can see the various misconceptions throughout this whole film series. This is third film in the series - you can click on the you film itself and it will take you to Youtube where all the other films have been posted.

My Top 25 All-Time Favorite Rock Albums

2007-06-30T09:25:00.000-05:00

Ok, time to take a break from "theologizing" and throw out some simple "life stuff." Recently the Beatle's album Sgt. Pepper celebrated its 40th anniversary, an album I love very much. So, I thought this would be a cool time to post my top 25 all-time favorite rock albums. It should be pointed out that this list has changed over the years.

The criterion for this is not The Rolling Stones top 500, nor is it the opinion of music critics around the world. The criterion, or "rules" I have set for this are as follows:

1) How the album impacted my own life (and my own music for that matter)
2) Album sales are irrelevant in this criteria
3) Album cover art is irrelevant - my focus is the music
4) Only one album per group is allowed, because if this was not the case the first 13 or so positions would be nothing but the Beatles, and then the Eagles would fill the other positions. ;-)
5) These are in order of most favorite, etc.

Ok, with the above rules, my top 25 favorite rock albums are:

1) Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - the Beatles
2) Hotel California - The Eagles
3) Led Zepplin IV - Led Lepplin
4) Highway 61 Revisited - Bob Dylan
5) S. F. Sorrow - The Pretty Things
6) No Dice - Badfinger
7) Southern Accents - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
8) Rumors - Fleetwood Mac
9) Moving Pictures - Rush
10) Escape - Journey
11) Breakfast in America - Supertramp
12) Screaming for Vengence - Judas Priest
13) Zebra - Zebra
14) Makin' the Point - Franke and the Knockouts
15) So - Peter Gabriel
16) The Stranger - Billy Joel
17) Who's Next - The Who
18) Joshua Tree - U2
19) Fields of Gold: The Best of Sting 1984 - 1994 - Sting
20) III Sides to Every Story - Extreme
21) Now and Zen - Robert Plant
22) Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys
23) Metallica (The Black Album) - Metallica
25) Back in Black - AC/DC

Gospel of Fear

2007-06-28T12:25:00.000-05:00

This post was on a blog that I stumbled into. I'm not sure what to think of this type of film, although this is the type of theology, belief system that I grew up around/in, and I have changed in my thinking/theology since then. I cannot help but think on the one hand, because of my background, it does make me fear and think in the back of my mind - could this be true? On the other hand, I think what kind of God is being preached here? Does God actually "hate" like He is presented here? The one thing I am certain about in this film is that the gospel is not presented, this is NOT the gospel. I'm curious as to what others think about this film. If you watch this and have any comments please post them, I am very interested as to what others think about this?

Eight Random Facts/Habits About Me

2007-06-27T20:50:00.000-05:00

Apparently I've been tagged again. Yes this is the second time I've been tagged with a particular meme since I began this blog almost three years ago. My friend David has tagged me this time around. The tag must begin with the posting of these rules:

1. I have to post these rules before I give you the facts.
2. Each player starts with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
3. People who are tagged need to write their own blog (about their eight things) and post these rules.
4. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
5. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

Ok, those are the rules; here are my eight random facts/habits:

1. I have a tendency to curse. In fact, this habit is elevated to ungodly levels when I drive in Dallas traffic. My wife hates this about me, but it’s true, I can let out a series of curse words before I actually realize what I am saying. Ok, I'm not proud of this, it is one of my worst habits.

2. I have a hard time throwing things away. Not trash, mind you, but things, which means I am a packrat. Granted, the older I get and since I have been married (for the last 12 years) and we have moved so many times (8 times) in that time frame, this habit has, as of late, decreased. To give you an idea, I have shirts that are over 18 years old - no joke - and because I still fit into them, what would be the point of getting rid of them?

3. I cannot play too many video games because when it comes to video games I have extremely obsessive compulsive behaviors. I can play a video game for hours on end, days in fact with no sleep, etc. Also, once I complete a video game, I will play it again for years on end, even if I am bored with it, I'll continue to play it.

4. This may sound like I am gloating, but really I'm not. I have never met anyone who has as wide a range of taste in various styles of music as me. I love all music from heavy metal, to classical, rock, jazz, blues, R&B, soul, funk, country, new age, Broadway musicals, international, etc. The only style I do not enjoy is rap.

5. I do not like the sound of a baby crying. AT ALL!!

6. I love being completely alone, especially if I am outdoors, such as in the country or on a trip where I am driving long distances. Being alone actually energizes me. It gives me complete freedom to think and ponder.

7. I love snakes. Seriously, I am completely fascinated by these creatures. In fact, one summer when I was about 13 years old, I had caught about 50 or so snakes and had them in various plastic show boxes or aquariums on my back porch. This drove my mom up the wall though.

8. I cannot keep meme rules, it’s true, I just can't.

Because of number 8, I am only going to tag two people, Chris Tilling and my good friend Josh.

Theology Directs Us to the Triune God

2007-06-25T09:25:00.000-05:00

I love theology. However, I do not love theology simply for the sake of theology. Rather, I love theology because it directs me to the triune God, to the gospel, to the resurrection of Jesus, to the things of God. Theology is a means, if you will, to the proclamation of the gospel, to the understanding of the triune God; it stems from the Scriptures and should always turn back to the Scriptures: like a perfect circle. The gospel has always been discourse or proclamation. It was initially proclaimed, long before it was written down. Therefore, theology is also discourse since its source is the gospel. That is why theology can never be done in a vacuum, it must be discussed, it must be prayed, and it must be proclaimed, and it must be performed (put into action).

Below are some quotes about theology and the task of theology by some of the greatest theologians to ever take up pen and write theology. These quotes come from men who had very different backgrounds, upbringings, quite different educational backgrounds, and different points of view on various issues. However, in and through all these diversities you can see a common thread at work in their thought. With that in mind, here is what some of the great thinkers had to say about theology:

“Now the seed and imitation (mimēma) of something which is given on the basis of a person’s capacity to receive it is quite different from that thing itself, of which the communication and imitation are received according to the grace of God.”
– Justin Martyr

---------------------------------

“The task which is laid upon theology, and which it should and can fulfill, is its service in the Church, to the Lord of the Church. It has its definite function in the Church’s liturgy, that is, in various phases of the Church’s expression; in every reverend proclamation of the gospel, or in every proclaiming reverence, in which the church listens and attends to God.”

- Karl Barth

--------------------------------

“Theology is taught by God, teaches God, and leads to him.”

-Thomas Aquinas

--------------------------------

“True theology is divided into: (1) infinite and uncreated, which is God’s essential knowledge of himself in which he alone is at the same time the object known (epistēton), the knowledge (epistēmōn), and the knower (epistēmē), and that which he decreed to reveal to us concerning himself which is commonly called archetypal; and (2) finite created, which is the image and ectype of the infinite and archetypal (viz., the ideas which creatures possess concerning God and divine things, taking form from that supreme knowledge and communicated to intelligent creatures, either by hypostatical union with the soul of Christ [ whence arises “the theology of union”]; or by beatific vision to the angels and saints who walk by sight, not by faith, which is called “theology of vision”; or by revelation, which is made to travelers [viz., those who have not yet reached the goal and is called “the theology of revelation”] or the stadium.
- Francis Turretin

---------------------------------------------

“Systematic theology uses the method of correlation. It has always done so, sometimes more, sometimes less, consciously, and must do so consciously and outspokenly, especially if the apologetic point of view is to prevail. The method of correlation explains the contents of the Christian faith through existential questions and theological answers in mutual interdependence.”

- Paul Tillich

----------------------------------------------------

“True theology has, therefore, for its essence, truth divine as revealed by the will of God; for its content, light, and power is not only fully worthy of complete trust, but rather can be stated to be totally and completely self-authenticating. No one can speak or feel worthily about God, or about divine matters, unless he is aided by God, and neither does anyone know God except by His own self-revelation through God the Son.”
- John Owen

-------------------------------------------------------

“Theology is to take for its rule the specific character by which the gospel is the gospel and not some other sort of discourse; theology must be thinking that guards the proclamation

in this authenticity.”

- Robert W. Jenson

------------------------------------------------------

“The truths of divinity are superlative excellency, and are worthy that all should make a business of endeavoring to grow in the knowledge of them. They are as much above those things which are treated of in other sciences, as heaven is above the earth. God himself, the eternal Three in one, is the chief object of this science; and next Jesus Christ, as God-man and Mediator, and the glorious work of redemption, the most glorious work that ever was wrought: then the great things of the heavenly world, the glorious and eternal inheritance purchased by Christ, and promised in the gospel; the work of the Holy Spirit of God on the hearts of men: are duty to God, and the way in which we ourselves may become like angels, and like God himself in our measure. All these are objects of this science.

- Jonathan Edwards

To What Extent Does Time Depend Upon the Soul?

2007-06-22T08:30:00.000-05:00

The relationship between time and the soul (or mind/intellection) seems to be one of complete dependence. In other words, Aristotle clearly indicates that if there is no soul, there is no time. Hussey translates this passage by declaring, “‘If there were no soul’ must be understood as ‘if the universe were such that it was impossible for there ever to be any soul in it’ - as appears from the next sentence: ‘if it is impossible that there should be something to do the counting.’”[1]

If this is the case, then the relationship between time and the soul is not one of complete dependence, since other works of Aristotle[2] seem to indicate that the ‘substrates’ exist without being perceived. Hussey details this idea by declaring, “All but the Topics passage refer to the case of sense perception. The primary objects of sense-perception, the ‘sensibles’ (aisthêta) such as colours and tastes, have no existence independently of perception.” Hussey continues this line of thought by declaring, “whereas the ‘substrate’, i.e. the material bodies which are called ‘perceptible by sense’ derivatively, do so exist. So there is a sense in which ‘something sense-perceptible’ could exist even if there were no perceivers (Categories 7) and a sense in which this is false (Metaphysics IV. 5, de Anima III.2).”[3] Hussey introduces a very good point here, for Aristotle declares that the ‘now’ of time is the same in the substratum since motion goes with magnitude, and time goes with motion. (219b 13-16). However, how this squares with Aristotle’s definitive remark that time requires a soul still seems to remain unsettled. Thus, the second question, ‘can there be time without a soul?’, may provide further help with the question, ‘to what extent does time depend upon the soul?’

Can There be Time Without a Soul?

In his book Aristotle: A Complete Exposition of His Work and Thought, W. D. Ross delineates, “Aristotle raises, without very definitely answering, an important question when he asks whether there would be time if there were not soul. It might be urged, he points out, that if there were no one to count there would be nothing that could be counted, and therefore no number.” Ross goes on to conclude, “All that could then exist would be not time but its substratum movement; i.e. there would still be movement, but it would have no measurable aspect.”[4]

While Ross’ conclusion, prima facie, seems to indicate that there could possibly be time without a perceiver, it also seems to be wrought with other difficulties and merely raises more questions. For instance, what is movement that has no measurable aspect? Moreover, it seems that the measurable aspect of movement would be the very thing that might be needed in order to indicate that there was movement occurring. In other words, it seems that movement could not be movement without measurability. However, measurability seems to rely upon some sentient mind to measure. And thus we are back to Aristotle’s conclusion that time is mind dependent.

In his commentary to Aristotle’s Physics Ross repudiates Aristotle’s statement that time is dependent upon the soul. Conen, responding to Ross’ repudiation declares,

What reason does Ross advance for his repudiation of Aristotle’s statement that time depends upon the soul? Aristotle is wrong, says Ross, because motion exists independently of the soul and it is “obvious” that motion cannot exist if time does not exist. Just what makes this fact obvious Ross does not say. Is it Aristotle’s definition of motion? But there does not seem to be anything in “the act of a being in potency in so far as it is in potency” that implies time as a prerequisite, or which suggests an “obvious” deduction to this fact. Perhaps, then, something in experience makes it obvious. But Aristotle’s whole analysis of experience has gone to show that, far from being a prerequisite of motion, time is rather a consequent of motion, and this, only with respect to the numbering soul. Time is not, as Ross would have it, a sine qua non of motion, somewhat as space would be bodies. It is rather motion that is a sine qua non of time, as is also a numbering soul. [5]

The observations made by Conen can not be ignored. It seems a rather difficult task to support a declaration that time could exist without a soul. And once again we are back to Aristotle’s conclusion that time is mind dependent.

In keeping with the current question, Hussey brings to his reader’s attention this particular idea. Hussey declares, “There are two kinds of ‘coutables’ viz. The concrete totalities and the abstract numbers. If there were no soul, the abstract could not exist, since they are created by the mental operation of abstraction. The concrete totalities would still exist but would not be countable.”[6] Essentially Hussey seems to be saying the same thing Ross said at footnote 47. Moreover, Hussey’s comments seem to strengthen the idea that Aristotle has, in fact, an idealist view of time. Since, if the concrete totalities were not countable, and the concrete totalities are the things which a mind perceives (and thus counts), and if what Aristotle declares is true, that if there is not someone to count there cannot be anything that can be counted, then to say concrete totalities would exist but not be counted is a contradiction. Besides, in Aristotle’s view of time, we apprehend time only when we have marked movement (before and after), and this is done in the two ways which Hussey put forth above, namely the abstract and the concrete. The abstract is counted when motion is not perceived because there is still motion in the mind via thought. And of course, the concrete is counted because the movement is actually perceived and marked (before and after), as Aristotle declared.

Lastly, in answering this question, Aquinas concludes that “time does not have a perfect existence outside of the soul.”[7] He comes to this conclusion based on his response to the notion that time does not exist because it is composed of non-existent parts (i.e. time as an attribute).
Aquinas details his conclusions by declaring,

He [Aristotle] says that, if there is no soul, one must say either that time does not exist, or, more correctly, that without soul time is some kind of a being—if, for example, it happens that there is motion but no soul. For if there is motion, it is necessary that there is also time. For before and after are in motion, and the before and after of motion, insofar as they are numerable, are time. To understand this answer it must be realized that, if there are numbered things, then there must be number. Hence, both numbered things and their number depend on one who numbers. Now the existence of numbered things does not depend on an intellect which is the cause of the things, as is the divine intellect. However, their existence does not depend on the intellect of the soul. Only numeration itself, which is an act of the soul, depends on the intellect of the soul. Therefore, there can be sensible things when no sense power exists, likewise there can be number and numerable things when no one who numbers exists.

But perhaps the conditional proposition which he gave first is true; that is, if it is impossible for their to be someone who numbers, then it is impossible for their to be anything numerable. This is similar to the following true proposition: if it is impossible for there to be someone who senses, then it is impossible for their to be something sensible. For if there is something sensible it can be sense. And if it can sensed then there can something which senses.
. . . In the same it follows that, if there is something numerable, then there can be something which numbers. Hence, if it is impossible for there to be something which numbers, then it is impossible for there to be something numerable. But it does not follow that, if there is no one who numbers, then there is nothing numerable, as the Philosopher’s objection proceeds. . . . Nor is anything concerning motion actually found in things except a certain indivisible part of motion, which is a division of motion. But the totality of motion is established by a consideration of the soul which compares a prior disposition of the mobile objects to a later one. Therefore, time also does not have existence outside the soul in respect to its own indivisible part. For the totality of time is established by the ordering of the soul which numbers the before and after in motion, as was said above. Therefore the Philosopher significantly says that, if soul does not exist, then time is “some kind” of being, that is, an imperfect being. In the same way, if there happens to be motion but no soul, motion is also said to be imperfect. [8]

Aquinas seems to conclude above that without the soul time is some type of imperfect being. Which is also the case for motion, in that if there is no soul to perceive the motion the motion is imperfect. However, it seems that Aquinas would have to concede that this could never be the case granting the divine intellect[9], and thus there would always be at least one perceiver who sees the motion and does the counting. Once again we are back to Aristotle’s original claim that time is mind dependent.

[1] Hussey, 172.
[2] Categories 7, 7b 33-8a 6; Topics V.9, 138 b 30-37; Metaphysics IV.5, 1010b 30 - 1011a 2; de Anima III.2, 426a 15-26. These references were taken from Hussey’s commentary to Aristotle’s Physics, 173.
[3] Hussey, 173.
[4] W. D. Ross, Aristotle: A complete Exposition of His Works and Thought, (New York: Meridian Books, 1959), 92.
[5] Conen, 457.
[6] Hussey, 173.
[7] Aquinas, 307.
[8] Aquinas, 306-07.
[9] This idea, of course, is a discussion that could entail a paper in and of itself. See Aquinas commentary to the Physics as well as Commentary on Sentences.

Time as Mind Dependent

2007-06-20T12:40:00.000-05:00

Aristotle, at 223a 16-27, seems to quite clearly communicate that without a counter (i.e. a soul) there cannot be anything that can be counted. Moreover, if there cannot be anything that can be counted, there can be no time. Quoted directly Aristotle declares, “for if there cannot be some one to count there cannot be anything that can be counted either, so that evidently there cannot be number; for number is either what has been, or what can be, counted. But if nothing but soul, or in soul reason, is qualified to count, it is impossible for there to be time unless there is soul.”[1] Thus, time is dependent upon a counter (or soul).

Aquinas comments on these passages by declaring,

If it is impossible for there to be something which can be numbered, then it is impossible for there to be something numerable, that is, able to be numbered. But if the numerable is not, number is not. For number exists only in that which is actually numbered or in that which is potentially numerable. Therefore, it follows that, if something which is able to number does not exist, then number does not exist. But nothing can number except the soul, and among the parts of the soul nothing except the intellect. For to number is to relate numbered things to one first measure, and this is done by reason [ratio]. Therefore, if no intellective soul exists, there is no number. But time is a number, as was said. Therefore, if no intellective soul exists, there is no time. [2]

This account of time and number seem to clearly indicate that Aristotle is an idealist in reference to his views on time. However, before a definite conclusion can be drawn a closer look at these passages is needed.

Regarding Aristotle’s definition of time as number, time is not only a measure but it has some type of relation to the soul. This is so because Aristotle declares that only a mind can count. Conen points out, “Since time is number, and only soul can number, it would follow that the relation of time to the soul is one of dependence.”[3] On the other hand, Callahan declares, “Asking what time would be if there could be no soul to number motion is somewhat irrelevant to the present analysis, and Aristotle passes over it lightly.”[4] Perhaps Callahan is correct. Perhaps, this issue is irrelevant. However, it seems quite erroneous on the part of Callahan to dismiss this issue on the basis that “Aristotle passes it over lightly.”

It would seem more advantageous to Aristotle’s whole treatise on time, if this particular issue were indeed irrelevant, to ignore it altogether. The fact that Aristotle discusses it warrants a closer examination. Moreover, Conen seems to think is very important because “For Aristotle introduces the soul only in so far as it is necessary to a fuller and more exact understanding of time as it exists in nature itself.”[5] Therefore, to what extent does time depend upon the soul? Can there be time without a soul? Is, in fact, Aristotle an idealist with regard to time? All these questions must be examined in turn in order to draw a viable conclusion to the final question.

[1] 223a 23-26.
[2] Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 306.
[3] Conen, 451.
[4] Callahan, 76.
[5] Conen, 452.

When Christian's Attack

2007-06-18T08:45:00.000-05:00

Over at Chris Tilling's blog, he posted an ad hominem attack against his views on inerrancy (or as the case is here against him). Wow, what a rude and hateful response! The responder (who's name is Steve), in his profile claims that he is an RTS (Reformed Theological Seminary) T.A.. Refroemd Theological Seminary is a PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) seminary, and one that I considered attending about twelve or more years ago.

Having read the response several times, I wonder what they are now teaching their students at RTS. When I was considering the school (the campus in Orlando), R.C. Sproul was on faculty there. The school itself, then and now, is a fundamentalist seminary. Not the King James only everyone is damned to hell for reading any other translation type of fundamentalism, but a very conservative, inerrancy only, faith alone, imputation alone, is the actual gospel type of fundamentalism (with a strong hint of anti-Roman Catholic-ness). I say all this to say I'm not suprised that Steve responded the way he did to Chris's post because of this type of education at RTS being instilled in their students.

However, I am quite saddened by the fact that this sort of thing goes on between Christians. What amazes me is that instead of Steve simply trying to carry on meaningful dialogue with Chris to discover why Chris holds to a particular view of inerrancy, rather, Steve attacks Chris's character and his person, while there is precious little attack against Chris's position. Why? What does that ever accomplish?

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. James 3:17-18.

What Happened to Pontifications?

2007-06-17T12:05:00.000-05:00

Does anyone out there know what happen to the blog Pontifications? It has recently vanished from the blogsphere.

Get Your "Weener" Moving!

2007-06-16T08:50:00.000-05:00

This Dachshund is Pretty Cool

Goings On

2007-06-15T20:25:00.000-05:00

Here are a few things going on right now in the "blogsphere." Over at Chrisendom, Chris Tilling has two very intersting posts on the Innerrancy of Scripture, in one he creates a new statement on biblical innerancy which is worth a read. Those can be seen here and here.

Over at Faith and Theology Ben Myers has several posts of interest. The first is a list of Dogmatic texts which contains some great "must-reads." Also, Kim Fabricius, who is a regular guest writer at Faith and Theology has a nice post titled Ten Propositions on Heresy. This is the 25th "proposition" post he has written for Ben's blog, and this one has stirred up some great exchange, go check it out.

Other blogs ssuch as Just Musing and Adversaria have various posts ranging from topics like the morality of knowing, the doctrine of the atonement in the early Greek Fathers, etc. All worth taking a look at. These are the best features out there that I have run across, if you know of any others please feel free to let us all know in the comments of this post. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Movement, Change and Number: Aristotle’s View of Time

2007-06-15T08:35:00.000-05:00

Number, Potentiality and Actuality as they Relate to Time (Part 2)

For Aristotle motions (or change) have countability in that they can actually be counted as they occur and they have the potential to be counted. Aristotle declares that we “apprehend time only when we have marked motion, marking it by before and after, and it is only when we perceive before and after in motion that we say that time has elapsed. Now we mark them by judging that one thing is different from another, and that some third thing is intermediate to them.” [1] This third thing which is intermediate to before and after is the now. Thus, there is an asymmetry of potentiality and actuality in enumerable motion.

If the two ‘nows’ were perceived, which occurred before and after the unnoticed interval, then according to Aristotle the two ‘nows’ have been marked and a connection has been made between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the unnoticed interval. This is best illustrated by the train once again. The perceiver marked a connection between the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of the unnoticed interval (the train passing while the perceiver was asleep) in that the train was no longer there when the perceiver awoke. The perceiver would surmise that time had passed (based on change between moments of ‘before’ sleep with the train in motion and ‘after’ sleep with the realization that the train had passed—changed had occurred) because of the absence of the train which was there when the perceiver fell asleep. Hussey elaborates on this by declaring, “We think that some time has elapsed, between the two ‘nows’, if and only if we have some means of distinguishing the two ‘nows’, and this we have if and only if we perceive that a change has taken place between them. To perceive this is to mark off the change by means of the ‘nows’ which bound it (elaborated at 219 a 22-30).” [2] All this complication of enumeration of motion, the nonexistence of the past, and the now seems to raise several problems for which Aristotle has been criticized in the past.

First, time is viewed as a continuum and Aristotle’s view of the ‘now’ seems to be discrete. [3] Von Leyden hints that in terms of number Aristotle’s view is discrete. Von Leyden points out that “Aristotle himself was aware [due to a passage from De Anima I. 3, 407 a 6-10] of the fact that thoughts, being like integers, do not correspond to the organization of undivided continua such as time or motion.” Von Leyden continues by declaring, “The reason why he [Aristotle] nevertheless defined time as a number was that, if the before and after in movement are counted by successive nows, sections of a continuum are counted, of which time is the number counted, not that by which it is counted.” [4]

Secondly, if Aristotle in fact affirms that the parts of time (past and future) are non-existent, [5] then he must account for the tensed predication which is used in languages (including his own—Greek) which indicate past and future. In other words, there must be some sense in which the past and future are existent, if by no other means than logical abstraction through tensed predication. This criticism is not too weighty due to the aporetic nature of Aristotle’s views on the parts of time. Moreover, Richard Sorabji suggests that this apparent problem is easily solved. Sorabji declares,

I want to suggest two ways of solving this paradox, although only the first, I believe, gets to the heart of the matter. It does so by asking what is meant when we say that there is a past and a future, or that they exist. The author of the paradox may not have thought out what is meant, but the truth behind his paradox depends on the fact that ‘exist’ sometimes means ‘be present’, and that neither past nor future exists in this sense. Of course, when the point is spelt out in this way, the non-existence, the non-existence of past and future appears quite unremarkable, but, until it is spelt, the author of the paradox may well feel that his claim of non-existence is more significant. He is in any case still entitled to ask whether there is some other sense in which the past and future do exist, and this question puts an onus on us.

. . . Instead of merely saying ‘there was no universe in the past’, or ‘there will be no universe in the future’, he could ‘there is no past’, or ‘there is no future’. It is in contrast to this denial that we can see a sense for the claim that there is a future and a past; and not only does this claim turn out to have a sense, but it is, furthermore, a claim that any rational person ought to endorse. I believe, therefore, that this constitutes a solution to the paradox: it is only in the irrelevant sense being present that the past and future do not exist. In the sense that matters, there is a past and there is a future, and so there is time. [6]

Sorabji points out that since there is no one English equivalent of Aristotle’s ‘to be’ verb, it is more natural to say there is no past in English. Moreover, Sorabji points out that Aristotle moves in the right direction in Physics 3. 6, 206a 21-3, by recognizing “that a different sense of the verb ‘exist’ applies to temporal entities.” [7]

[1] 219a 22-26.
[2] Aristotle, Physics, trans. with commentary Edward Hussey, 142.
[3] This is a criticism pointed out in Von Leyden’s article “Time, Number, and Eternity, in Plato and Aristotle.” This criticism seems to be valid only if there is an absence of a perceiver between the two apparently disconnected ‘nows.’ Von Leyden is not forthcoming in his article about how Aristotle’s view is discrete.
[4] Von Leyden, 50.
[5] This criticism is conditional since Aristotle seems to be aporetic (a point which was brought to my attention by Dr. Owen Goldin via correspondence on November 9th, 2001) regarding the issue of the parts of time.
[6] Sorabji, 12.
[7] Ibid., 13.

Movement, Change and Number: Aristotle’s View of Time

2007-06-12T20:15:00.000-05:00

Number, Potentiality and Actuality as they Relate to Time

In Physics book 4, chapter 11, it seems that Aristotle has yet to commit to any exact theory of time. Nonetheless, Aristotle asserts that time does not exist without change. Edward Hussey in his translation and commentary to Aristotle’s Physics points out that “Aristotle uses two claims about the perception of change and time: (a) when we do not perceive any change to have taken place, we do not think any time has elapsed; (b) when we do perceive change to have taken place, we do think some time has elapsed.”[1] Using an illustration of sleep (‘those who are fabled to sleep among the heroes in Sardinia’) Aristotle points out that the interval between the time ‘before’ sleep and the time ‘after’ is a type of connection between the prior ‘now’ and the posterior ‘now’ and the two are made one. The two are ‘made one’ in the sense that those who slept failed to consciously notice the interval between the two ‘nows.’

W. Von Leyden comments on this difficult passage by concluding, “The argument [of Aristotle’s that time is closely related to change] is significant in that the sufficient as well as necessary condition of any time-lapse is found to lie in the distinction of two ‘nows’ and a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in motion.”[2] Adding to Von Leyden’s comments, it seems this passage (218b 21-28) is at best an attempt by Aristotle to make sense of how time cannot exist without change and some perceiver of change. To illustrate this point, if a person were by a railroad track sitting on a bench and a very long train proceeded to pass by, the perceiver would be conscious of time’s passing via the movement of the train and the counting of the cars which pass. However, let us assume this is a very long train, and as it passes the perceiver falls asleep. Now let us assume that the train has completely passed the person who is asleep. Knowing the train was there ‘before’ the perceiver fell asleep, the perceiver would realize time had elapsed upon waking up from slumber since the train is no longer there ‘after’ the perceiver awakes. This is the connection Aristotle makes between the now of the ‘before’ and the now of the ‘after’ which is essentially perceived and counted by the perceiver upon awakening. And this is accomplished in that the perceiver understands change has occurred due to the train’s absence. In all this a perceiver is needed in order for the realization of motion and change to have occurred. Thus, time, in terms of ‘before’ and ‘after’ and Aristotle’s concept of the now needs a perceiver to be real.

Aristotle’s notion of the ‘now’ is quite intricate and complicated. Paul F. Conen describes Aristotle’s now as “The plurality of before and after in motion which time is, is a plurality of ‘nows.’ As a line is pluralized by the points actually numbered or numerable on it, so motion is pluralized by the ‘nows’ counted or countable in it.”[3] Thus, Conen understands Aristotle’s ‘now’ in time and motion as that which is numbered. This is in fact how Aristotle defines the ‘now.’[4] However, in relation to Aristotle’s puzzle of the parts of time, he concludes that time “is not held to be made up of ‘nows.’”[5] Therefore, if time is a kind of number, in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after,’ and motion is a perpetual succession (as Aristotle declares of both motion and time, 219b 5-13), and time is not independent of motion but is apart of motion in that it admits of enumeration, and the ‘now’ is a given present moment, then how is it that time is not held to be made up of ‘nows?’ Prima Facie this seems to be a strong discrepancy in Aristotle’s philosophy of time, albeit the possible aporetic nature of the assertions. However, even if this section is aporetic discrepancies are still evident and need to be accounted for in one way or another. Moreover, giving Aristotle the benefit of the doubt regarding these discrepancies, a more focused examination of the ‘now’ is needed.

In discussing the ‘now’ Aristotle claims that since motion is always different, time too is always different. The ‘before’ (prior) and ‘after’ (posterior) in time comes about because the same occurs in motion. There is a ‘before’ and ‘after’ in motion, and thus time follows suit. John Callahan helps elaborate on the concept of Aristotle’s ‘now’ by declaring, “Motion, which is the actualization of the potential, takes place in various stages that correspond to the magnitude which is traversed by the motion.” Callahan continues by declaring, “The motion does not exist with all its parts together; there is an order in the parts, and this order, insofar as it is made numerable by the now, is time.”[6] These comments are helpful in understanding the ‘now’ in several ways.

First, it helps us understand and consider time in terms of number through the ‘prior’ and ‘posterior.’ For example, going back to the train illustration. Considering the train itself, the cars are linked together as parts which make up a whole. The train is in motion and is thus countable when there is a perceiver to count the cars as they pass. Thus numbering is occurring in that the cars can be counted as they pass and in all this motion there is a ‘prior’ car which passes and becomes ‘posterior.’ The different events occurring in the train’s motion are the series of cars which pass at given points in the count.

Time may be “defined differently by the different events that are taking place in it.”[7] This is true even though Aristotle declares time, more specifically all of time that is simultaneous, is the same (219b 10-12). Second, when we consider the ‘now’ in the flow of time we discover that Aristotle thinks that in one sense it is the same, and in another sense it is different (219b 10-12). Here we see motion as the actualization of the potential, as Callahan described above.

Moreover, for Aristotle the number (or count) in motion is, in reality, fluid. Unlike Zeno’s paradox where a given two points, A to B, has a series of divisions which are infinite (i.e. A1, A2, A3 . . . ad infinitum), Aristotle denies that this can be the case. Thus, time is not composed of a series of ‘nows’ between the motion of something from point A to B. The motion would be fluid unless interrupted, but there would never be an infinite amount (or even a series) of ‘nows’ between point A and B. In other words, if an individual were to walk from one point to another (regardless of the distance), the act of the walker would be fluid and could not, in reality, be broken into divisible points from A to B. As a logical construct there are an infinite amount of points from A to B, but not in reality. In relation to time, Aristotle believes that the motion between time T1 and T2 is fluid, unless interrupted, and can never be divided into an infinite amount of points, or ‘nows.’ In Physics IV (219a 4-14) Aristotle argues the fluidity of magnitude, movement, and thus time in this way:

1) All Magnitude is continuous.
2) Movement goes with magnitude (thus movement is continuous).
3) Time is a part of movement.
4) Therefore, time is continuous.[8]

In making sense of the above complications regarding Aristotle’s ‘now,’ Conen uses Simplicius’ explanation to sort out the difficulties and provide a fair answer. Describing Simplicius’ solutions, Conen states,

There are three elements to Simplicius’ explanation: (1) He decides in precisely what sense the “now” is a unit of number. The “now” is a unit of number, he says, because a unit is that which makes an indivisible thing correspond to another indivisible, and the “now” is that which makes the indivisible subject of motion correspond to the indivisible phase of motion. (2) He decides in just what sense there is a similarity between the generation of number from a unit, and the generation of motion from the subject of motion and time from the “now.” The similarity lies in this, that just as a unit, taken again and again, results in number, so the subject of motion and the “now” taken again and again, result in motion and time. But (3) he immediately qualifies the last statement—and here is the heart of the explanation. He says that the “being taken again and again” as applied to the subject of change and to the “now”: the former is a discrete again and again, the latter is a continuous succession; the former results in a discrete number, the later in a continuum.[9]

Thus, we can see once again, how the ‘now’ in one sense is the same and in another sense it is different.

[1] Aristotle, Physics, trans. with commentary Edward Hussey (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 141.
[2] W. Von Leyden, “Time, Number, and Eternity in Plato and Aristotle,” The Philosophical Quarterly, 14 (January 1964), 48-49.
[3] Paul F. Conen, “Aristotle’s Definition of Time,” The New Scholasticism, XXVI (October 1952), 445.
[4] 219b 1-17, 372.
[5] 218a 7-8, 370.
[6] John F. Callahan, Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), 53.
[7] Ibid.
[8] The original text is not in syllogistic form. I put this argument in syllogistic form to highlight Aristotle’s contention that time is fluid and not broken up into ‘nows.’. See also 220a 1- 24.
[9] Conen, 448.

Aristotle’s Definition of Time

2007-06-10T11:15:00.000-05:00

In his attempt to make sense of the nature of time, Aristotle turns to several observable factors, namely, movement (or motion), change, and number. By number, Aristotle means observable sequence in terms of ‘before’ and ‘after.’ Of course, for Aristotle number is count which means that one could have a sequence without a measure or count. For example, there could be a sequence of things, which are static (without motion) and a count could be performed when considering this sequence. Moreover, the ‘before’ and ‘after’ in this type of sequence would be in the counting of the sequence and not the sequence itself. Thus, number and movement in Aristotle’s definition of time are, in a sense, similar, or have closely related functions[1]. As Aristotle himself declares, “for time is just this—number of motion in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after.’ Hence time is not movement, but only movement in so far as it admits of enumeration.”[2] Moreover, number is that which is counted or that which is countable and is also that which we count.[3]

Regarding movement Aristotle details that time itself is not movement (motion). However, time is not independent of movement.[4] Here, as J. T. Fraser points out, Aristotle is suggesting “that time is either identical with motion or it is something closely related to it.”[5] Additionally, Aristotle restricts motion to three kinds: qualitative, quantitative, and local.[6]
Aristotle describes qualitative motion as a change from black to white, or a change from cold to hot. Quantitative motion is a change in size. For example, an increase in measurement—one’s getting taller as they grow from childhood to adulthood. Local motion is change in place. This would be the most basic form of motion for Aristotle.

With regard to changes occurring between black and white, this is “ a process of whitening and change from cold to hot is a process of heating, and these can readily be understood quantitatively as rates of whitening and rates of heating. Now time is a quantifiable change from ‘before’ to ‘after.’[7] Thus, the conclusion is Aristotle’s famous definition of time as the number of motion in respect of ‘before’ and ‘after.’ Aristotle’s definition of time not only involves motion but change as well. Moreover, Aristotle’s use of kinesis (motion) is quite broad and encompasses all changes except substantial generation. In fact, Aristotle sees time as an aspect of not only motion but change. Philip Turetzky elaborates on this by declaring,

Aristotle thinks of time as an aspect of change, and things change from something to something else. Before and after are thus formal elements of change distinct from change, rather than part of its definition. The before and after of change comprise the initial and final states of a modification of some magnitude, not just spatial magnitudes. Since change can occur between qualitites, between places, as growth and diminution, and as creation and destruction, it advances from a prior state, before the change, to a posterior state, after the change. So Aristotle thinks that because “before” and “after” apply to magnitude they apply to change, and because they apply to change they apply to time. [8]

Moreover, Aristotle details that “we perceive movement [change] and time together.”[9] The operative term in this assertion is perceive. We perceive movement and time together in that time is dependent upon the mind. Aristotle illustrates this idea by declaring that if a person is in darkness and is thwarted from perceiving motion, the mind will still have motion in it via thought. This thought is movement in the mind and thus time has elapsed based on this internal movement. Here, Aristotle is clearly declaring that if movement is not perceived by the mind in physical things (due to darkness or some other thing thwarting a mind’s perception), time continues to lapse since there is movement which takes place in some mind by the enumeration of thought.

The fact that some time is thought to have passed denotes that some movement has occurred in the mind. Thus, our inability to perceive movement in physical things does not necessarily negate time’s persistence to elapse due to movement in our mind. Therefore, for Aristotle, time is not independent of movement. Aristotle supports this idea by declaring, “ time is either movement or something that belongs to movement. Since then it is not movement, it must be the other.”[10]

There is in this definition a sense in which time is dependent on motion or movement. This movement is either in the mind (as when vision is thwarted by darkness) or in things which we perceive as moving. This sense of time dependency upon movement is delineated by Michael J. White in his article “Aristotle on ‘Time’ and ‘A Time.’ White declares, “Aristotle sees a very close connection between ‘process’ or motion (primarily locomotion, it seems) and time. Since time is not to be identified with motion, it must be some feature of motion (219a 9-10). It is clear that a conception of time as an ontologically independent ‘container’ of process is quite foreign to Aristotle’s thought; rather, time, or times, are in some way ontologically dependent on things in process.”[11] White’s commentary of Aristotle’s definition of time and motion is quite helpful in placing our finger on what Aristotle is asserting about their connection. However, several questions seem to arise.

If what Aristotle declares is correct, that time is some feature of motion and time is dependent upon some mind, then how can Aristotle account for instances in the sensible world where there is no motion and no minds to perceive? For instance, let us say we have a group of students in a given classroom for one hour participating in a philosophy class. Movement in the room between students, the professor, and the thoughts of the minds of the students, for Aristotle, would constitute that time is elapsing. However, once the class session has ended, the lights have been turned out and the room is now completely motionless (granting that there is not a clock on the wall for there to be motion in the room) and there are no minds in the room, does time elapse in the room? Aristotle would initially say no, there is no time in the room. In this sense (or situation), Aristotle is very much an idealist with his notion of time. It should be pointed out here that Aristotle would probably declare that there is the potential for one to check in with the room in the beginning and walk around (thus providing the needed motion) and at any point in this process, return to the room. So essentially there could still be time in the sense that there is potential countability in the room.

Summing up this section, Aristotle’s view of time, simply put, can be defined as a nonsubsistence (nonbeing) thing which inheres in quantifiable change (‘before’ and ‘after’) and is that which is numbered. For instance, using Aristotle’s exact definition, it can be elaborated upon as such—time is the number (in that it is countable) of movement (in that it inheres in motion) in respect of before and after (in that it is quantifiable change). However, perhaps Aristotle believes that time might be too basic to admit of definition and this is why he begins his discussion of time in an aporetic fashion.

[1] In fact, movement (or motion), change and number are in a sense all closely related in that they serve similar functions. In other words, there is a close and perhaps inseparable connection between these. This will be fleshed out as we examine each.
[2] 219a 22-25, 372.
[3] Ibid., 219b 5-10. This notion will be examined in greater detail a little later.
[4] 219a 1.
[5] J. T. Fraser, The Voices of Time, 2nd ed. (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1981), 13.
[6] 226a
[7] Fraser., 13-14.
[8] Philip Turetzky, Time (New York: Routledge, 1998), 20.
[9] 219a 4-5.
[10] 219a 8-9.
[11] Michael J. White, “Aristotle on ‘Time’ and ‘A Time.’” Apeiron XXII, 3 (September 1989), 208-09.

Movement, Change and Number: Aristotle’s View of Time (Part 2)

2007-06-09T10:15:00.000-05:00

Aristotle’s Definition of Time

In Physics book 4 section 10 Aristotle begins by questioning the nature of time in terms of being and/or nonbeing. Hippocrates G. Apostle points out that “Aristotle’s usual procedure is to show the existence of a thing before proceeding to its nature or definition, for a nonbeing has neither a nature nor a definition (it may have a formula, like the formula of a circle with two centers, which circle cannot exist). Besides it is easier to observe the existence of a thing than to state its definition, as in the case of a man or a tree.”[1] Apostle’s comments are helpful. In fact Aristotle does attempt to determine, in the beginning of his discussion on time, whether time is being or nonbeing.

Aristotle begins by asking, “does it [time] belong to a class of things that exist or to that of things that do not exist?”[2] From this question Aristotle attempts to determine if time “either does not exist at all or barely, and in some obscure way.”[3] The reason Aristotle asserts that time is suspect, with reference to it having ‘being’ is that time might be divisible. In other words, in aporetic fashion Aristotle plays with the idea that part of time has been and is not and part of time is going to be and is not yet (218a 1-4). However, Aristotle asserts, “if a divisible thing is to exist, it is necessary that, when it exists all or some of its parts must exist. But of time some parts have been, while others are going to be, and no part of it is, though it is divisible.” Aristotle continues this line of thinking by declaring, “For the ‘now’ is not a part: a part is a measure of the whole, which must be made up of parts. Time, on the other hand, is not held to be made up of ‘nows.’”[4] This portion of Aristotle’s text has left centuries of scholars speculating about what Aristotle is attempting not only to communicate, but what he is trying to solve about time as well.

In this difficult passage it seems that Aristotle is at least concluding that time is nonbeing. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary to Aristotle’s Physics concludes this very thing. Aquinas, commenting on this particular text, writes, “Anything that is composed of things which do not exist cannot itself exist or have any substance. But time is composed of things which do not exist. For one part of time is the past which does not now exist, and the other part is the future which does not yet exist.” Aquinas then concludes, “And from these two things the whole of time, given as infinite and perpetual, is composed. Therefore, it is impossible that time is something.”[5] Moreover, Apostle comments on this same passage by declaring, “If time is considered as composed of parts which do not exist, then time itself does not exist and so it has no nature or substance.”[6] This leads us to the question that if time is not a substance and has no being, then what is it? Following Aristotle’s pursuit of time as being or nonbeing is Aristotle’s question what is time’s nature?

[1] Aristotle, Physics, trans. with commentary Hippocrates G. Apostle (Grinnell, Iowa: The Peripatetic Press, 1980), 259.
[2] Jonathan Barnes, ed., The Complete Works of Aristotle (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984), 217a 31, 369. All references from this point will be from this version of the Physics and will be marked with the corresponding numbering in the text unless otherwise noted.
[3] 218a 1-2, 370.
[4] 218a 1-8, 370.
[5] Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, translated by Richard Balckwell, et. al. (Notre Dame, Indiana: Dumb Ox Books, 1999), 273.
[6] Apostle, Aristotle’s Physics, 259. (Emphasis in the original).

Movement, Change and Number: Aristotle’s View of Time

2007-06-07T21:20:00.000-05:00

I've been wanting to start a philosophical series for some time now. That being the case, I have decided to post a few excerps from some research I did at Marquette University on Aristotle's view of time. This will be the first of several posts to that end. I hope you enjoy the series as much as I did researching the topic.

Introduction

It seems undeniable that time exists, but in what sense does time take on existence? Is time subsistence, logical construct of the mind, or something else? Literally for thousands of years these important questions have not only been asked, but attempts have been made at finding some sort of satisfying answer. Noted philosopher Richard Sorabji comments on these types of questions by declaring, “of course we know that time exists. For one thing, there is something self-defeating about denying its existence; for that very denial requires time in which it takes place. The denial of time is self-defeating in the same way as the denial that one exists or thinks, a denial whose self-defeating character was exploited by Descartes.”[1] It seems that in some sense every sentient purposive being has some rudimentary awareness of time. In other words, fundamentally, distinctions of past and present events and an awareness of these distinctions can be made by purposive agents. And, as Sorabji points out, “any being capable of considering the existence of time is likely to be a purposive agent.”[2]

With this in mind, let’s look back in time at an ancient philosopher who had some very interesting things to say about time. Aristotle, in the Physics (book 4, section 10), delineates certain paradoxes[3] which seem to arise, for Aristotle, when time is considered. The intent of this paper is to examine Aristotle’s view of time. What does Aristotle mean when he declares time to be a number? Is time dependent or independent for Aristotle? Is time a logical construct of the mind or does it actually subsist? Since, as we shall see, Aristotle starts his approach to time from that which is observable, does time then depend upon some mind? Does Aristotle have an idealist conception of time? These questions, and other similar ones will be the focus of this research in an attempt to glean, from Aristotle’s writings, his notion of time.

[1] Richard Sorabji, Time, Creation, and the Continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Ithica, New York: Cornell University Press, 1983), 7.
[2] Ibid.
[3] For example, time is not movement but is not independent of movement. Also, time is the number of motion pluralized by individual ‘nows’ which are countable, etc.

A Protestant View of Tradition (Retold)

2007-06-05T19:00:00.000-05:00

Having been raised a Protestant, in a Southern Baptist Church, I can safely say that the issue of Tradition, in my life anyway, has been either greatly misrepresented, or greatly misunderstood by many Protestants. Moreover, tradition has, for the most part, simply been ignored altogether. In fact, the issue of tradition, in the Southern Baptist Church of my youth, was not even an issue. It was never mentioned nor ever talked about as far as I can recall.

I was never introduced to this thing called tradition as it relates to the Church until I became a Presbyterian. In fact, it was actually through fundamentalist Presbyterian scholars and theologians that I was introduced to tradition. The first time I ever met R.C. Sproul (in 1995) he wrote a list of theologians from the past whom he recommended I read. Three of these men on R.C.’s list were St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. Thomas Aquinas. It was through this list and these famous theologians/philosophers that I was introduced to the Church doctrine of tradition.

But at that time, having read a few of the works on R.C.’s recommended list, I was still confused about tradition. Was it necessary? What was its purpose? What did it mean? Could it possibly be infallible contrary to so many well known conservative pastors and theologians in certain Protestant “evangelical” circles who declared that the Catholic Church placed tradition on par with the Scriptures? This is a big ‘no, no’ in certain Protestant circles. But what does it mean? These were the questions I was asking myself as I was growing in my knowledge of Christianity and Christian Church history.

Therefore, having been influenced by certain Protestant thinkers, I concluded, quite dishonestly I must add since I really never did the research and merely took what certain men said at face value, that tradition, in my meager understanding of it, was simply something that Protestants rejected altogether. At the time I thought rejecting tradition was the correct thing to do, since we as Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura, and anything beyond the written authority of the Bible is simply the ‘words of man’ and suspect. So tradition certainly was suspect.

But then I would read certain passages from the Bible which seem to declare, contrary to my position of tradition at the time, that perhaps there is something here of larger weight and importance than I had first concluded. The apostle Paul, for instance, certainly places a very high degree of importance on the tradition of the apostles. In Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians he declares, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15; RSV) In this passage Paul declares several important things.

First, we as Christians are to “stand firm and hold to.” But what are we to stand firm and hold to? The answer is, ‘the traditions that you were taught by us [the apostles].” Second, how were these traditions taught by the apostles? Well, the text says these traditions were taught in two ways. First, “by us [the apostles] via word of mouth,” and second, “by our [the apostles] letter.” Of course, “by our letter” would be the written word.

This one passage certainly raised several questions in my mind. For instance, what is the tradition of the apostles? What does Paul mean when he uses the word tradition?
The Greek word Paul uses here is paradoseis. In this context the word is plural and in the accusative case which means that paradoseis is a transmission of a doctrine or doctrines (since the use is plural), or depending on the context, it can mean the doctrine itself. However, we see in Mark’s gospel, chapter 7 verses 8-9 Jesus holds a certain contention with the notion of the Pharisees' idea of tradition.

In these verses, Jesus states, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to human tradition. Then he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!” (Mark 7:8-9 RSV) Prima Facie this verse seems to declare that Jesus is rejecting the notion of tradition altogether. But this certainly cannot be the case for it were then Paul would be contradicting Jesus. However, Jesus is certainly using the same word as Paul, only in Mark’s gospel, the word is now singular instead of plural, but it is certainly the same word. But we must take into consideration the most basic rule of hermeneutics—context, context, context!

In Mark, Jesus is certainly rejecting the “tradition” of the Pharisees. But according to the context of Mark, the tradition that the Pharisees held to is quite different from the tradition of the apostles (as Paul describes). The tradition of the Pharisees was a tradition that was established by man, this is indicated in verse 9 when Jesus plainly declares the tradition of the Pharisees was one that is of man. How do we know this? Well, two ways; first Jesus contrasts the Commandment of God and the tradition of men (this is seen in both verses). Second, Jesus states that the commandment of God is rejected for the tradition of men. This certainly means that the Pharisees have elevated their doctrine or tradition over and against God’s commands. This is clearly sinful and would indicate that what God established is rejected for what man established.

Moreover, this demonstrates there is a difference between the two, and one is certainly established by God, while the other can only be established by man, otherwise, it need not be scorned in this passage. Jesus would certainly not scorn or warn against anything that was established by God. So the Pharisees’ “tradition” was outside of the scope or realm of the divine. By this I mean that is was not established by God. This being the case, we know it runs contrary to God’s word or commands. However, in Paul’s passage he tells his reader to hold fast to the traditions of the apostles. The big question here is what are these traditions?

If the tradition Paul is speaking of in 2 Thessalonians was a tradition established by man then Protestants, as well as Roman Catholics would certainly be warranted in rejecting it. However, as Protestant’s AND Catholic's believe, Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and Paul tells his reader to hold to the traditions of the apostles. Therefore, for us to hold to this ‘tradition’ it must have been one that was established by God in the new covenant of Christ and transmitted to the apostles and thus passed on to us, the Church. Otherwise, Paul would not tell us to ‘hold to' it.

I have heard this passage from Mark used by Protestants to declare that Church tradition should be rejected because it is a tradition of man, and not a commandment of God. I purport that this conclusion drawn from these verses in Mark is simply poorly performed hermeneutics, and to hold to such a view seems to ultimately lead to big trouble when dealing with other passages such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or I Corinthians 11:2.

So what are we as Protestants to think about Church tradition? What are we to think about holding fast to the traditions of the apostles? What, in fact, does this mean? And can Roman Catholics and Protestants ever see eye to eye on this issue? These are but a few questions I hope to answer in a few upcoming posts. How should we, as Protestants, view tradition? These are but a few questions that sometimes keep me up at night, and I have often times posted my answers to these questions in various articles on this blog (see the left hand margin of this blog for several posts on the issue of Church Tradition).

A Generous Slave

2007-06-04T21:05:00.000-05:00

"The words, 'I want to be holy' mean: I will divest myself of everything that is not of God; I will divest myself and empty my heart of material things. I will renounce my own will, my inclininations, my whims, my fickleness; and I will become a generous slave to God's will."

- Mother Teresa

Trinity Sunday

2007-06-03T16:40:00.000-05:00

In the liturgical calendar, today is Trinity Sunday. Today is the first Sunday after Pentecost and is called Trinity Sunday in the Western Christian liturgical tradition. This day is a designated day to celebrate the theological doctrine of the Holy Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While the term "Trinity" is not found in the Scriptures per se, the theology of the Trinity certainly is.

The doctrine was fully developed by the 4th century and put forth in the third ecumenical creed agreed upon by the Church. This creed is called the Athansian Creed. This creed takes its name from the influential Egyptian bishop and theologian of the 4th century, Athanasius, who was once thought to be its author. Because of its length, it is not recited in most churches on a regular basis. However, this creed is a pivotal creed in the Church in that it delineates the Holy Trinity in such a succint fashion that the theology surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity has traditionally stemmed from this creed. Here is the Creed, may it constantly remind us of who we worship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

ATHANASIAN CREED

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else, hold the catholic faith [catholic being universal]. Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled, without doubt he will perish eternally. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal.

As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet they are not three lords but one Lord. For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself to be both God and Lord, so we cannot by the catholic faith say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three persons are coeternal together and coequal, so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; Who, although he is God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God;. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies and will give an account of their own works. And they that have done good will go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Quote of the Week

2007-05-29T18:48:00.000-05:00

“Strange as it may seem, it is still true, that those who fail to understand other churches than their own are not the people who care intensely about theology, but the theological dilettantes, eclectics, and historians of all sorts; while those very men who have found themselves forced to confront a clear, thoroughgoing, logical sic et non find themselves allied to each other inspite of all contradictions, by an underlying fellowship and understanding, even in the cause which they handle so differently and approach from such painfully different angles. But the cause, it may be, is nothing less than Jesus Christ and the unity of the Church.”

—Karl Barth

"Alone" or not?

2007-05-28T15:10:00.000-05:00

I had the day off due to a holiday today, so I did something I have not done in a very long time, I browsed the internet blog world. I played catch up on some blogs I usually read more regularly but have not been able to do so lately, and I went to a few blogs that I have not visited in many months (almost years).

One such blog that I had not visited in almost a year (maybe more) had a post that really set me off. Now, I should preface all this by declaring that this particular blog is a very staunch fundamentalist blog, and one that thinks the Roman Catholic Church is false from start to finish. That being said, this particular post was, of course, about the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding salvation/justification.

While I will not detail the entire post, you can go to the link provided and read the post if you like, I did want to comment on the first few sentences of the post; these sentences read as follows,

“Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word alone. By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture.”

Hmmm. What I can't help but notice is how this author makes a declaration about Scripture that simply does not exist. While I agree that the Roman Catholic Church does not put forth a doctrine of justification that matches the Reformers (well, certain Reformers anyway), what I find quite strange is the idea that the word alone, as used by this author, is elevated to a definitive "keyword" from Scripture that seems to hinge any and every doctrine of salvation/justification as being the "proof" of whether that doctrine is correct.

This is simply not the case. In fact, the term alone is never used in the same context with salvation or justification anywhere in Scripture except one place, and that is James 2:24; "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is the only time the term alone is used in the context of "justification." It comes across in the text so strongly that Martin Luther wanted the Epistle of James removed from the canon of Scripture. And yet, time and again, I read later Reformers (new Reformers is what I tend to call them), from the 17th century to the present, who make comments that salvation or justification pivots on one term, alone, or else the doctrine is false.

While I am not Roman Catholic, and for other reasons besides the solas of the Reformation, I can't help but chuckle whenever I read something like this post. And what I find more intersting is the fact that the author of this post actually agrees that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, "that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ." What other kind of justification is there? This is where the Scriptures are the most replete with regard to justification or salvation. That being the case, to add the term alone would seem to run more contrary to Scripture than simply declaring "we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ" would it not?

Bibliomania continued

2007-05-28T10:05:00.000-05:00

To follow up my earlier post titled Bibliomania, I wanted to include some quotes from fellow bibliomaniacs throughout the centuries. Enjoy!

Here are some famous quotes about books:

“Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.”
—Francis Bacon

“Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life.”
—Mark Twain

“I find television to be very educating. Every time somebody turns of the set, I go in the other room and read a book.”
—Groucho Marx

“It is from books that wise people derive consolation in the troubles of life.”
—Victor Hugo

“Books are the legacies that a great genius leaves to mankind, which are delivered down from generation to generation as presents to the posterity of those who are yet unborn.”
—Joseph Addison

“The things I want to know are in books; my best friend is the man who'll get me a book I ain't read.”
—Abraham Lincoln

“All my good reading, you might say, was done in the toilet. There are passages in Ulysses which can be read only in the toilet -- if one wants to extract the full flavor of their content.”
—Henry Miller

“It is far better to be silent than merely to increase the quantity of bad books.”
—Voltaire

“Some books are undeservedly forgotten; none are undeservedly remembered.”
—W. H. Auden

“Buy good books, and read them; the best books are the commonest, and the last editions are always the best, if the editors are not blockheads.”
—Lord Chesterfield

"I cannot live without books"
- Thomas Jefferson

“A good novel tells us the truth about it's hero; but a bad novel tells us the truth about its author.”
—G. K. Chesterton

“Read, read, read. Read everything - trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You'll absorb it.”
—William Faulkner

Bibliomania

2007-05-23T21:35:00.000-05:00

Do you love books? I know I do! Yes, I must admit, I am a bibliophile. I love to buy books, I love to collect books, and I love to be around books. In fact, I love to be in my study, where most of my books are, and just sit there and stare at my books. Perhaps you think me strange. But, I love books.

However, my love for books does not stop at merely collecting them, buying them, wanting to be around them or simply staring at them. I do love reading them as well. I have been reading books since I was 9 years old, and this is due mainly to the influence my step-father (who was a grade school teacher for over 45 years) had on me when I was very young. He instilled in me a desire to read books. He gave me my first set of books when I was in the third grade, The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. Moreover, my step-father influenced the way I think about books and their importance in my education outside of the classroom. Along this line of thought, I think Thomas Carlyle said it best in The Hero as Man of Letters when he declared,

If we think of it, all that a University, or final highest School can do for us, is still but what the first school began doing,—teach us to read. We learn to read, in various languages, in various sciences; we learn the alphabet and letters of all manner of Books. But the place we are to get knowledge, is the Books themselves! It depends on what we read, after all the manner of Professors have done their best for us. The true University of these days is a Collection of Books.

This is so true. I've had classes with several talented and well known professors who would constantly say that nothing can substitute for a good library in one’s home. I cannot think of any scholar I have ever read who did not in one way or the other write something about the importance of books and learning from books. Most of my favorite fiction authors such as C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Victor Hugo, Mark Twain, Herman Melville, and others, all have written about the influence that books have had upon their lives. The importance books had on them at a young age, or at some point in their lives is always stressed to one degree or another. So if you too love books, know that you are in good company.

My love for books and my desire to purchase books is so strong that sometimes I will actually forego buying the things I need, such as new shirts, or shoes, etc. to buy books. Of course, this drives my wife up the wall, but to me, clothes are far less important than books. I reason that I can get much more out of several books than I can out several shirts and a pair of shoes. What is more, those shirts and shoes will soon wear out, but my books I’ll have, God willing, until I die. I actually feel the same way Edward Gibbon (author of The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire) did when he stated in his work Memoirs of My Life,

From this slender beginning I have gradually formed a numerous and Select library, the foundation of my works and the best comfort of my life both at home and abroad. On the receipt of the first quarter a large share of my allowance was appropriated to my literary wants: I cannot forget the joy with which I exchanged a bank-note of twenty pounds for the twenty volumes of the Memoirs of the Academy of Inscriptions; nor would it have been easy by any other expenditure of the same sum to have procured so large and lasting a fund of rational amusement.

Some of my favorite memories are similar in the finding and purchasing of certain volumes which I could hardly wait to buy after I got a paycheck. However, there is nothing like the hunt. Some of the most enjoyable moments in my life are finding out about a certain book and its contents, knowing that this book will be very beneficial and then beginning the hunt. There is a certain amount of pleasure in the actual act of tracking down books, especially those which have been out of print for ages and are very difficult to find. The excitement of such activities is only highlighted by time. What I mean by this is the fact that certain books have taken me months to find, and during that time frame there was an enormous amount of pleasure in attempting to call, visit, and search online or on the street, for that one particular book. Perhaps, this is strange to you, but I am certainly not alone is this odd world of bibliomania: Refer to the book Patience and Fortitude.

There are but a few things that I can think of that give me joy as much as buying and reading a great book. Call me ‘old school’ but the notion of buying an author’s or scholar’s work on CD-Rom is quite unappealing. I am of the mind that actually having the book there in front of me, feeling the grain of the paper pages as I turn them, seeing the print on the actual page, and being able to mark, if I so desire, in the margin of the book is much more enjoyable than staring at a computer screen in order to read what was put on the disc. I would much rather have the actual book.

So, if you are a bibliomaniac like me, then know that you are in very good company with a whole host of other well known and not so well know bibliomaniacs throughout history. Even God had His words put into book form! So here’s to the booklovers, may you forever find enjoyment and happiness in your reading and collecting of various books.

Crossing the Tiber

2007-05-07T20:25:00.000-05:00

I was told some very interesting news over the weekend. My seminary ethics professor, Frank Beckwith, has apparently converted back to Roman Catholicism. I say "back" because he was apparently raised Roman Catholic. While this news does surprise me to a certain degree, I can't help but think, based on the little bit of time I have spent with Dr. Beckwith, that he has spent years thoroughly thinking through this decision.

Dr. Beckwith posted his decision on his blog on May 5th, 2007. I am somewhat saddened by some of the comments that certain evangelicals have made regarding Beckwith's conversion back to the Roman Church. Some of these comments are downright rude and unnecessary, shame on you who call yourself Christian but yet can slander a fellow believer.

Because of his popularity in Evangelical circles, I am certain that this news is going to rattle a few and severely upset many in those same circles. I for one pray that God be with Dr. Beckwith and his family as he makes this transition.

The Joy of God

2007-04-14T08:40:00.000-05:00

“People who have come to know the joy of God do not deny the darkness, but they choose not to live in it. They claim that the light that shines in the darkness can be trusted more than the darkness itself and that a little bit of light can dispel a lot of darkness. They point each other to flashes of light here and there, and remind each other that they reveal the hidden but real presence of God. They discover that there are people who heal each other’s wounds, forgive each other’s offenses, share their possessions, foster the spirit of community, celebrate the gifts they have received, and live in constant anticipation of the full manifestation of God’s glory.

Every moment of each day I have the chance to choose between cynicism and joy. Every thought I have can be cynical or joyful. Every word I speak can be cynical or joyful. Every action can be cynical or joyful.

Joy never denies the sadness, but transforms it to a fertile soil for more joy.”

- Henri Nouwen, The Return of the Prodigal Son

Pope Benedict XVI on the Resurrection

2007-04-09T18:22:00.000-05:00

"The Resurrection is not a thing of the past, the Resurrection has reached us and seized us. We grasp hold of it, we grasp hold of the risen Lord, and we know that he holds us firmly even when our hands grow weak. We grasp hold of his hand, and thus we also hold on to one another's hands, and we become one single subject, not just one thing. I, but no longer I: This is the formula of Christian life rooted in baptism, the formula of the Resurrection within time. I, but no longer I: If we live in this way, we transform the world. It is a formula contrary to all ideologies of violence, it is a program opposed to corruption and to the desire for power and possession."

- From a homily delivered by Pope Benedict XVI at the Easter Vigil Mass at St. Peter's Basilica in 2006.

He Is Risen!

2007-04-08T09:25:00.000-05:00

He is Risen Indeed!

Good Friday

2007-04-06T21:30:00.000-05:00

Cross of Jesus

(by John Stainer)

Cross of Jesus, cross of sorrow, where the blood of Christ was shed.

Perfect man on thee was tortured, perfect man on thee was bled.

From the "Holy, Holy, Holy, we adore thee, O most high."

Down to earth's blaspeming voices and the shout of "Crucify."

Hilarious

2007-04-02T20:45:00.000-05:00

A friend sent me this and it was too funny not too post. Enjoy!!

No Time to Post

2007-03-19T19:23:00.000-05:00

Please excuse my absence from this blog, between work and trying to spend enough time with my wife and family, I have had no time to blog. While I do not want to quit blogging, I also do not want to neglect my family. This being the case, my posting here will be much less frequent. Please keep visiting if and when you can and I'll try to post as often as I can. Hope everyone has a wonderful Lent Season and Easter. Peace be with you.

Third Sunday of Lent

2007-03-11T13:35:00.000-05:00

The Collect:

Almighty God, you know that we have no power in ourselves to help ourselves: Keep us both outwardly in our bodies and inwardly in our souls, that we may be defended from all adversities which may happen to the body, and from all evil thoughts which may assault and hurt the soul; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

"I have enough; I have taken the Saviour, the hope of the Gentiles; into my yearning arms. I have seen him, my faith has clasped Jesus to my heart; now I desire only even today to depart with joy from here. I have enough!"

- Johann Sebastian Bach

The Power of the Emptied and Weak is the Story of the Church

2007-03-10T15:35:00.000-06:00

“Christians today often think that the Church needs to be powerful and well-ordered to attract notice. This is nothing less than unbelief. Think of Ruth the Moabitess, who attaches herself to Naomi when Noami has nothing (Ruth 1:15-18). Naomi went out of Israel full—with husband, two sons, everything she needed. While in Moab, she loses everything.

The Lord has made her life bitter. But precisely at that moment, when Naomi has nothing and can produce nothing, when she’s reminding Ruth that she can’t possibly produce another husband—just at that moment of utter emptiness, Ruth commits herself to Naomi, and to Israel. Naomi says, God has dealt harshly with me. He’s emptied me of everything. And Ruth says, I want your God to be my God. Somehow, mysteriously, uncannily, miraculously, Ruth finds something in a woman who has nothing. Somehow she knows the God of empty Naomi is the God of salvation.

By attaching herself to the empty widow, Ruth finds a place in the family tree of David and of David’s greater Son. Clinging to the widow with nothing, she becomes an agent for the restoration of everything.

Paul was thinking not only of Jesus and the early Church when he said, ‘God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong” (1 Cor. 1:27). That is the story of Israel, and the story of the Church.”

- Peter J. Leithart

The Majesty and Glory

2007-03-05T20:55:00.000-06:00

I finally found a link to one of my favorite recent hymns. The song was written by Tom Fettke and Billy Hearn in the 1970's (early 70's I think) and has become increasingly more popular in churches. While this link takes you to just a sample of the song, you can get the whole song on iTunes.

I heard this song performed some years ago with a chior of over 100 people and a small orchestra and it was absolutely amazing. Recently, our church chior performed this hymn with a small orchestra at the end of our liturgy just prior to the benediction and it brought tears to my eyes. IMHO this is one of the best hymns ever written, I wish I could provie a link which played the entire song, hope you enjoy.

Second Sunday in Lent

2007-03-04T21:10:00.000-06:00

Collect:

"God our Father, help us to hear your Son. Enlighten us with your word, that we may find a way to your glory. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever."

Prayer:

"We have stumbled in our sinful ways, as if we could not be healed.Let us return to the Lord, our God. Though our sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow. Though they are red as crimson, they shall be made like wool. God of mercy, uncover your face and be gracious to us. Heal us and out of your own bounty give us new life, through Christ our Lord."

Ten Propositions on Ecumenism & Scripture and Tradition

2007-03-03T08:30:00.000-06:00

I have not been able to read too many blogs this week simply because my work has demandedd more of my time and energy. However, several days ago I ran into this article over at Faith and Theology and really enjoyed it. Granted, there are not too many posts by Kim Fabricius that I dislike, or that at least make me think deeper, of that I am grateful to Kim for his posts, but this article is one of his better ones, so obviously I would recommend it to anyone.

Thanks for the post Kim, and thanks go to Ben for allowing Kim to guest post. Kim should get his own blog so we can read his work on a more regular basis (hint, hint).

Another blog I now read as regular as possible belongs to a good friend of mine named Josh. His blog is called Just Musing and he recently posted an article on Scripture and Tradition. Of course this is an issue I have tackled on several occasions here at "Shadows", just look to the left hand side of my blog under the "Favorites" section. While Josh does not take a hard and fast stance in his article, it is still well worth the read. If you have a chance, go check it out.

A Bit Disgruntled

2007-02-25T19:55:00.000-06:00

This morning, I went to Sunday service in hopes of recieving, in the homily, a message that would prepare me for the Lent Season. Instead, we had a guest speaker who ended up preaching a political agenda. This, of course, disgruntled me and I'm posting this in hopes to become "gruntled" once again.

The title of the sermon was "Power in the Desert," and the text for the sermon was based upon Luke 4:1-13; Jesus' wilderness temptations. As the sermon began, the guest minster was following the text quite nicely (for about 10 minutes), and then suddenly took a turn into left field. In this turn, we heard about several experiences in foriegn countries (one of which was Iraq), where this minister had spent a certain amount of time. Most of these experiences involved abused children who either had to beg for food, or were injured by land mines, wars, etc. These things were communicated in such a way that the audience was "encouraged" to be a part of the solution to bring hope. This was actually the last thirty or forty minutes of the sermon. While no organizations were mentioned in the sermon, it was quite obvious that many groups were refered to without being named and many organizations were meant to come to mind in the description of several actual events.

Granted I think it is a tragedy that these things occur in the world, and the Christian community should certainly participate in the solution of such things, but what does all this have to do with Jesus being tempted in the wilderness? What does all this have to do with Luke 4:1-13? I was very put off by this sermon, and to be frank, let down. While this may be selfish on my part, I went to this Sunday service in hopes of preparing my mind and heart for the Lent season and instead I was informed of an agenda that I, as a Christian, should participate in. I left the service angry and complained most of the way home. In some ways, I suppose this is perhaps a confession since I should have just let it go and not been angry, but on the other hand I think I was justified in my anger. While these things have a place in our Christian lives and churches, I do not think that a Sunday morning Lent service is the pace to push a political agenda. Am I wrong in thinking this? What do you think?

First Sunday in Lent

2007-02-25T18:05:00.001-06:00

Today was the first Sunday in the Lent season leading up to Good Friday and Easter Morning. This is a season where we as Christians should focus our attention on our Lord and search ourselves with a renewed humility toward repentence of sins and wordly things that we tend to elevate above God. In all humility here is a prayer of confession and an assurance of pardon for this first Sunday.

Prayer of Confession:
God of mercy, you sent Jesus Christ to seek and save the lost. We confess that we have strayed from you and turned aside from your way. We are misled by pride, for we see ourselves pure when we are stained, and great when we are small. We have failed in love, neglected justice, and ignored your truth. Have mercy, O God, and forgive our sin. Return us to the paths od righteousness through Jesus Christ, our Savior.

Assurance of Pardon:
Hear the good news! The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might be dead to sin, and alive to all that is good. I declare to you in the name of Jesus Christ, you are forgiven.

(Taken from this Sunday morning liturgy of our church)

Ash Wednesday

2007-02-21T19:55:00.001-06:00

Today is Ash Wednesday which means this is the first day of the Lent season. There are now 46 days until Easter Sunday. This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Ash Wednesday,

"The name dies cinerum (day of ashes) which it bears in the Roman Missal is found in the earliest existing copies of the Gregorian Sacramentary and probably dates from at least the eighth century. On this day all the faithful according to ancient custom are exhorted to approach the altar before the beginning of Mass, and there the priest, dipping his thumb into ashes previously blessed, marks the forehead -- or in case of clerics upon the place of the tonsure -- of each the sign of the cross, saying the words: "Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return." The ashes used in this ceremony are made by burning the remains of the palms blessed on the Palm Sunday of the previous year. In the blessing of the ashes four prayers are used, all of them ancient. The ashes are sprinkled with holy water and fumigated with incense. The celebrant himself, be he bishop or cardinal, receives, either standing or seated, the ashes from some other priest, usually the highest in dignity of those present. In earlier ages a penitential procession often followed the rite of the distribution of the ashes, but this is not now prescribed."

The Collect:

Almighty and everlasting God, you hate nothing you have made and forgive the sins of all who are penitent: Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of you, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Home Improvement

2007-02-14T17:56:00.000-06:00

Are you having trouble doing projects around the house? Maybe this will help!

Welcome

2007-02-11T08:00:00.000-06:00

One of my best friends has finally taken the plunge and started his own blog. So, like a good "blog" neighbor, I thought I would welcome him to the neighborhood. I look forward to reading his posts. Go check it out when you have a chance. Welcome Josh!

The Creeds (Revised Edition)

2007-02-10T08:45:00.000-06:00

A good friend of mine sent me these a week or so ago in an e-mail. These are interesting to say the least. My friend was not sure where they originated, so If I have infringed on any copyrights, I apologize now. ;-) This is, unfortunately, a fairly accurate depiction of the landscape of the contemporary Evangelical Reformed "movement."

The Apostles Creed (2007 Calvinist Evangelical Revised Edition)

I scholastically define, affirm and assent to God the Predestinating Father Almighty, Maker ex nihilo of heaven, earth and the law/gospel dichotomy. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Saviour and the one we ask to come into our hearts when we say the sinners prayer; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, who is in no way to be regarded highly, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified as a penal substitution, dead, and buried to accomplish double imputation and justification by faith alone; he maybe descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to declare who the elect are and to judge the quick and the dead yet with no regard to any works or lack thereof done by them. I believe in the Holy Spirit who does not grant the sign gifts any longer; the holy Calvinist, Non-Liturgical and Invisible Church; the communion of those of a sufficient age and cognitive development to understand the sacrament and give a credible profession of faith; the forgiveness of the sins of those who rightly understand justification by faith alone; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting for those who are elect and as yet unknown in this life. AMEN.

The Nicene Creed (2007 Calvinist Evangelical Revised Edition)

I scholastically define, affirm and assent to one God,
the Presdestinating Father Almighty,
maker ex nihilo of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Saviour Jesus Christ,
Who came into my heart when I prayed the sinners prayer,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made ex nihilo;
who for us heads of household and our families,
and for our salvation by faith alone,
through grace alone, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin Mary,
who is in no way to be regarded above other women,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered as a penal substitution and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
accomplishing double imputation and justification by faith alone
according to Sola Scriptura and John Calvin,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the living and the dead,
yet nevertheless with no regard to anything they have done,
whether good or ill;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life but not tongues,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son togetheris worshipped and glorified,
yet not in any way which would violate the Regulative Principle;
who spake by the Prophets, but does not ever operate through sign gifts anymore.
And I believe one holy Calvinist, Non-Liturgical and Invisible Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the dedication
of non-communicant church members,
and one for the membership of communicant members
who make a credible profession of faith;
yet certainly not for the forgiveness of sins,
and I look for the resurrection of the elect
who are wholly unknown in this life,
and the life of the heaven to come. AMEN.

Sick

2007-02-07T07:17:00.000-06:00

Well, normally I can fight off sickness during the winter, but this time it got the best of me. I feel like complete garbage, so when this goes away, Ill be back to posting on the blog. Hope everyone is well. God Bless!

Kirkin' of the Tartans

2007-02-04T13:35:00.000-06:00

A Scottish Prayer

In the morning light, O God,

May I glimpse again your image deep within me

The threads of eternal glory

Woven into the fabric of every man and woman.

Again may I catch sight of the mystery

of the human soul

Fashioned in your likeness

Deeper than knowing

More enduring than time.

And in glimpsing these threads of light

Amidst the weakness and distortions of my life

Let me be recalled

To the strength and beauty deep in my soul.

Let me be recalled

To the strength and beauty of your image in every living soul.

J. Philip Newell

Celtic Benediction

Recent Book Purchases

2007-02-03T11:05:00.000-06:00

Here is a list of the books I have purchased within the last month or so. Several of these works were recommended at other blogs, or recommended (or given to me) by friends. This is going to make for some great reading in 2007:

Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

Justification in Perspective: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges

Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification

Scripture Principle, The,: Reclaiming the Full Authority of the Bible

God's Being Is in Becoming: The Trinitarian Being of God in the Theology of Karl Barth

Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology

Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading

This list certainly should keep me busy for a few months, or perhaps longer. However, lately I have been reading through N.T. Wright's series called Christian Origins and the Question of God, so my reading time has been limited to this series. Nonetheless, I look forward to reading the above books soon.

Anti-Wright Bullshit

2007-01-31T21:41:00.000-06:00

This post is a must read!

Alastair has actually said the very things in the exact verbiage I have wanted to say at my blog but did not have the moxy to actually come out and say it. I’ve posted around it, sort of hinted at it, but have never just come out and laid it all on the table like Alastair did.

A Brief Pause

2007-01-29T18:13:00.000-06:00

I'm going to be taking a break from posting this week due to work and family. Of course lately I've been a little slack on posting anyway, so this will not be too big of a change. I should be able to resume this weekend or shortly thereafter. I hope everyone has a pleasant week.

Jürgen Moltmann: Today's Task of Theology

2007-01-27T12:55:00.000-06:00

"Christian theology must show how far the Christian confession of faith in Jesus is true as seen from outside, and must demonstrate that it is relevant to present-day understanding of reality and the present-day dispute about the truth of God and the righteousness of man and the world. For the title 'Christ' has never been used by faith only to say who Jesus was in his own person, but to express his dominion, future and significance with regard to God, men and the world."

- Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Harper and Row, 1974), 84.

War in Iraq

2007-01-23T17:55:00.000-06:00

Things are getting WAY out of hand in Iraq - see for yourself.

Best Contemporary Theology

2007-01-22T00:05:00.000-06:00

Throughout the blogsphere there has been a meme that has circulated requesting people/bloggers to name their three or so favorite (or "best") theological works that have been written in the last 25 years. Patrik has listed everyone's votes in a final vote list. Go check the list out when you have time, there are some great works on this list. Of course the list is missing what I think is the best theological work (or perhaps closer to best New Testament work) in the last 25 years and that is N.T. Wright's work titled The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology; the only exception to Wright's book is perhaps Robert Jenson's 2 volume Sytematic Theology, which did actually make the list.

When you have a chance go check the list out, you can also vote. To vote, when you get to the page simply scroll down and you will see the space Patrik provides called "Vote Form."

Dare We Hope: "That All Men Be Saved"?

2007-01-21T09:20:00.000-06:00

"[I]f someone thus sees mankind as a massa damnata from the outset, how can he still adhere to the effective truth of Christ's statement that, on the Cross, he will draw all men to himself?"

- Hans Urs Von Balthasar, "Dare We Hope, "That All Men Be Saved"? p. 26.

Worship: Regaining Our Theological Identity

2007-01-20T09:25:00.000-06:00

Worship is the great ecclesiological action. God is to be worshipped. But not just on Saturday or Sunday morning in our church services. Worshipping God is a lifestyle, if you will. Worship does not make God present, God is forever present, and therefore we worship Him, and should do so every minute of every day. Worship should in fact change us. Not change us in the sense that we learn in our worship what it means to be a better husband, or be a better mother, or get control of our lives, etc.. This is not worship, unless one is worshipping self. No, worship changes us in the sense that it turns our attention to God.

Worship changes us when we turn our attention to God in repentance. Repenting is not a self help formula it is recognizing our sin, it is turning from our sin, it is turning to God. Once we are penitent, we are prepared to worship God. We are prepared to praise God; we are prepared to please God when we have turned from our sin and placed our attention on God. This is why worship has both a communal and individual aspect.

Worship is communal in that we collectively participate in worship through our gathering together and through our participating in the body and blood of Christ, and through our confessing to one another our sins. We collectively turn our attention to God and recognize Him as what we solely need. It is individual in that in our daily lives we should focus our attention on Him, confess our sins to Him, and live our lives to please Him. This is worship in a service and worship in our lives.

As the great ecclesiological action, worship is a collective gathering of the body of Christ united in one purpose: To Glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Collectively we demonstrate this through the liturgy when we are gathered. Worship is dialogue, as Kim Fabricius has so eloquently stated. It is Word and Sacrament; it is confession and forgiveness, it is Eucharist. These are the central elements of worship when we gather as the body of Christ, if these are absent, then worship does not happen. To ask what we gain from worship is missing the point entirely, but this has been the focus of churches, at least in the U.S., for the last few decades. Regaining our theological identity in worship is, in my estimation, very much needed in the church’s landscape. Moreover, recognizing the centrality of worship when we gather as the body of Christ will be the focus of my final post on worship.

Quote of the Week

2007-01-16T21:36:00.000-06:00

On land, on sea, at home abroad I smoke my pipe and worship God.

- Johann Sebastian Bach

[A friend sent me this quote. I liked it so much I had to post it]

Are You "Open-Minded?"

2007-01-15T11:05:00.000-06:00

Hmmmm . . . some of the questions for this test were VERY interesting, to say the least . . . fun test though, try it out if you like! I am apparently 64% "open-minded." I was shooting for 65%, but hey what's one percent, huh? ;-)

You are 64% Open-Minded

You are a very open minded person, but you're also well grounded.

Tolerant and flexible, you appreciate most lifestyles and viewpoints.

But you also know where you stand firm, and you can draw that line.

You're open to considering every possibility - but in the end, you stand true to yourself.

How Open Minded Are You?

Worship: Have We Lost Our Theological Identity?

2007-01-13T10:31:00.000-06:00

In the last few years of church searching, too often I experienced worship services that seem to communicate a two-fold idea. First, several services we attended demonstrated that worship benefits us by giving us something. Perhaps the thinking in this type of service believed that worship puts God into motion to act on our behalf. Or maybe in this framework of worship was performed to make us feel closer to God, help us be encouraged for the upcoming week. Whatever the case may be, whenever we experienced this type of worship service it bothered me to the core. This is in fact is not worship at all, unless one is attempting to worship an idea or perhaps self – a type of unintentional narcissism. Whatever the case may be, too often we experienced this type of service.

The second idea of this two fold idea in church worship services is what I like to call the self-help worship. This is where the service is geared toward making those in the church and especially those unchurched more comfortable about themselves. In these worship services sermons were geared to communicate to the listener that we are not bad people. Sin is absent in their homilies. Rather we are to learn how we can live through adversity, or how we can improve our financial status, etc. The attention is on self and not God. In fact, there is actually no semblance of worshipping God in these services at all. These are the services that were so bad I would get up and leave in the middle of them.

Now, in writing these above things, I am not intentionally trying to be a pessimist, I simply believe these churches have lost touch with true worship and have turn, perhaps, to the world to set the tone for their church services. I say this because most, if not all, of these churches have campaigns to bring the unchurched into their services. In my humble opinion, this was never the intent of the church or the intent of worship. Therefore, when these things are performed, there is a loss of meaningful ecclesiological theology, the shape of liturgy is distorted, and the focus of the worship is not God. How can we possibly call this worship? Moreover, if the above things are becoming the norm, how do we redirect the landscape of the church back to a more sound theological worshipping community?

I think this at least begins with an ecclesiology that is grounded in good theology and a better understanding of what it means to be a worshipping community. This is, as Church History shows us, the underlying ordo of worship. Simon Chan confirms this in his work when he declares, “. . . a coherent theology of the church that pays particular attention to the liturgical practices that have constituted Christian worship throughout the centuries” is what is needed in churches today. Therefore, this will be the focus of the last few posts I present here on the issue of worship.

A Bit of a Break

2007-01-09T07:29:00.000-06:00

Just a note to let everyone know that I will not be blogging again until this weekend due to work related things. I'm still in the middle of my series on Worship and will pick that back up this weekend. Hope everyone has a great week. See you again this weekend.

The Church: A Simple Beginning (Part Two)

2007-01-06T08:35:00.000-06:00

The church is the body of Christ. As Simon Chan has pointed out in his work Liturgical Theology, “The church is the divine-humanity by virtue of its being the body of Christ.” Moreover, “body of Christ” is more than a mere metaphor. The church is the reality of Christ here now, post resurrection. Therefore, it can be said that those who witness the body of Christ, witness Christ, the Head. However, Christ is not the body nor is the body Christ, Christ is the Head, but Christ is demonstrated through the body, thus it can be said that Christ is seen in and through the body (i.e. the church). Moreover, Christ is presented to the church post-resurrection through Word and sacrament.

The church should never be confused with a single place or structure. Often we use the terms church building, church home, or place of worship, to indicate “the church.” These things are not the church as body of Christ. The church is not a building per se it is not a denomination either. The church as body is made up of individual Christians collectively gathered and united across the world in one body with Christ as its Head. The unity that we as the body of Christ have is demonstrated in the sacraments. This is especially seen in the Eucharist, where we collectively participate in the body and blood of Christ. This is ecclesial communion.

The church as body of Christ is more than merely a collected group of baptized people who are obedient to the Word of God, a very Western view of church. Rather, as Tillard points out in Flesh of the Church, the church is “communion united by the Eucharistic body.” Chan confirms this by declaring, “When the church is understood as essentially communion in and of the body of Christ, the primary focus of the ecclesial life is not church hierarchy but koinonia characterized by agape.” This ecclesial life is collectively demonstrated not only in our worship as we gather together, but extends to our lives as we live in the world demonstrating the love of Christ.

Ten propositions on worship

2007-01-04T07:25:00.000-06:00

Over at Faith and Theology, Kim Fabricius has a post titled Ten Propositions on Worship. How convenient for me to be able to refer to this post in the midst of a series on worship. While I do not necessarily agree with everything Kim has declared, the article is very much worth reading. Much of what Kim has mentioned briefly in his post will b covered in a litle more detail here as my series rolls along. I would recommend reading his post, you can see it here. Thanks a bunch Kim for such a great article.

Quote/s of the Week (In Honor of Former President Gerald R. Ford)

2007-01-03T20:10:00.000-06:00

"Our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here, the people rule."

"It's the quality of the ordinary, the straight, the square, that accounts for the great stability and success of our nation. It's a quality to be proud of. But it's a quality that many people seem to have neglected."

(Gerald R. Ford 1913-2006)

Happy New Year!

2007-01-01T09:50:00.000-06:00

There were so many things that happened in 2006, but here are a few highlights that stand out:

The biggest event: Getting a much needed job after several months of being unemployed.

The most enjoyable event: Getting to go to one of my best friend's wedding in Georgia.

The most exciting event: Getting to go to game one (1) of the NBA Finals of the Mavericks VS. The Heat, and sitting 2 rows from the floor near center court.

The most needed event: Finally finding a church home after a year of searching.

The saddest event: Losing our long time church home and having to begin a search for a new church home.

Best book I read: N.T. Wright's What Saint Paul Really Said. I read this for the second time in 2006 having already read it back in 1998. This, and few other titles by Wright, have been very thought changing for me.

Best non-fiction (and non-religious/theological) book I read: Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road by Neil Peart. This was a book by the drummer of the rock band Rush detailing events of the death of his daughter and wife which led him to travel over 55,000 miles from Canada through the U.S. to Central America and back to Canada in an attempt to heal the pain of his loss.

Best television show: Lost (no contest on this one).

Best Movie: We did not see too many movies in the theatre in 2006 so this film is chosen from our DVD selections that we saw during the year, but the movie was not a "2006" movie per se (at least I do not think it was released in 2006). The movie is Napoleon Dynamite.

These are a tiny handul of things that stand out from 2006. So, what are your "stand out events" from 2006? Leave some in the comments sections if you feel inclined to do so, and Happy New Year!!

The Church: A Simple Beginning (Part One)

2006-12-29T19:35:00.000-06:00

The kick off this series on worship I thought it was necessary to simplify matters. The basis of any complete understanding of worship begins with ecclesiology; better yet, the ontology of the Church. Rather than diving into deep theological waters I would like to focus on the basic ontology of the church; in other words, the basic identity of the church, not in terms of what it does, but what it is (and/or what it is not). By doing so, I think we can gain a better grasp of worship within the context of ecclesiology, which, in my estimation is the basis of understanding worship.

First, let’s look at what the church is. The church is a culture, as David Yeago has described it in his essay “Messiah’s People.” Without going into too much detail, simply put, this idea delineates that the church precedes creation rather than it coming from creation; as Simon Chan has declared, “The church does not exist in order to fix a broken creation; rather creation exists to realize the church.” (p. 23). Paul declares in Ephesians 1:4, the church was chosen in Christ before the creation of the world. Robert Jenson describes the world as a raw material from which God will use to perfect His church in Christ. Therefore, as a culture, the church is a divine-humanity, as a body, and with Christ as its Head.

Moreover, the church is “the people of God.” Simon Chan describes the church as the people of God in this way, “To call the church the people of God is to recognize that it exists in continuity with the ancient covenant people of God, the people of Israel.” (p. 24). I will be your God and you shall be my people is an oft repeated phrase from both the Old and New Testaments. The people of God in connection with the people of Israel within the identity of the church are described by Paul in Romans where we as gentiles are grafted into this body. We should never let this simple fact escape us, the church was established by a Jew (the Messiah), through a Jewish people, and we as Gentiles are included only by being engrafted. Therefore, the church was never intended to replace Israel. [To be continued]

A Worshipping Community

2006-12-27T20:20:00.000-06:00

Over the last few years I have been concerned about a particular issue. The issue is worship, and the concern stems from my wife and my search for a new church home. About two years ago my wife and I left our church home due to a series of issues (which I will not detail) arising within the leadership of the church. It took us about a year and three months to find a new church home. During this time we visited literally dozens upon dozens of various churches, some of these experiences I posted at this blog as they occurred; you can peruse through the archives over the last year and read about a few of these.

Having visited so many different churches in various denominations led me to my aforementioned concern—worship! While we have visited many different churches across the country, since we lived in three different states in the last seven years, and we have crossed denominational lines in our visitations, however, these past few years, my concern has really hit home with me. I firmly believe that most churches (in the U.S. at least) have lost a sense of true worship, not to mention a sense of sound ecclesiological theology. Worship has become an individually geared activity to serve a particular end, such as helping one to “feel better” about one’s self, or make one feel closer to God, etc.

Therefore, much of what is called “worship” is nothing of the sort. It is merely a group of people coming together to achieve “the end” which the group believes is best suited for those gathered. Or to formulate a style of what is called “worship” which in fact caters to those outside the church in an attempt to bring them in the church in hopes of “winning their souls to Christ.” What happens in these circumstances is that the style or the ends then becomes a trade off for sound theology. In other words, the method usurps the message, and all sound theological aspects of worship are lost.

What I experienced over these last few years of visiting various churches was gimmicks, methods, or styles, and very little genuine worship at all. This bothered me, and still bothers me to no end. Therefore, over the next few days (or weeks as the case may be) I’ll be posting a series on worship. This upcoming series was not only motivated by my church visitation experiences but also by a book I recently purchased (in my gathering of books on worship) in order to revisit an issue I had once researched when I was in seminary; namely worship. The book is titled Liturgical Theology: The Church as a Worshiping Community by Simon Chan.

This book, in my estimation, really hits the ball out of the park with regard to the issue of worship. I will draw from its pages and provide quotes when necessary. The underlining occurrence I experienced in all these visitations of various churches was the idea that those who gathered thought they actually had something to offer to God in “their worship experience.” This is, as Simon Chan declares, and I firmly agree, a distortion of the glory of God. And this is all too prevalent in U.S. churches today; thus, I begin this new series. Any feedback as the series moves along is greatly desired and appreciated.

The Worship of the Church

2006-12-26T14:57:00.000-06:00

"[If] the church is merely the result of a human decision to gather together in a certain way in order to advance some practical end, such as the salvation of souls, then worship is likely to be understood as a human construct to achieve that end. This pragmatic concept of worship underlies many of the so-called worship wars between traditionalists and innovators in today's church. Often the structure of worship is changed without much thought given to its theological consequence. What is foremost in the minds of innovators is whether the worship is "relevant" to modern people, whether it meets their needs, whether it will attract and retain a crowd."

- Liturgical Theology by Simon Chan, 41.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-25T00:01:00.000-06:00

And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins. (Matt. 1:21 NASB)

------------------------------------------------------------

Behold the Virgin shall be with Child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His Name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us." (Matt. 1:23 NASB)

------------------------------------------

I wish everyone a blessed Christmas. May the Mercy of God and the Love of Christ be with you this Christmas season.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

Fourth Sunday of Advent

2006-12-24T22:39:00.000-06:00

"Great God of power, we praise you for Jesus Christ, who came to save us from our sins. We thank you for the hope of the prophets, the song of the angels, and the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. We thank you that in Jesus you became flesh and dwelt among us, sharing human hurts and pleasures. Glory to you for your grace-filled love. Glory to you eternal God; through Jesus Christ, Lord of lords, and King of kings, now and forever. Amen"

- Take from the Christmas Eve liturgy, First Presbyterian Church.