I saw a thing on Yahoo News that said Italian researchers have found that when you fall in love a chemical is released into your blood stream. After a year that chemical returns to normal levels. Scary thought huh? Something to keep in mind for us single or dating folk.
It also makes me wonder something else. Have you ever seen people who have been married for 20 years and you can still tell they are in love? What sort of love do you have when the chemicals wear off?
No, I'm not talking about determined in the sense of being focused on something, I mean has some outside force determined who you are and the choices you make? Consider these two definitions of the word determined
1. To limit in scope or extent
2. To cause (someone) to come to a conclusion or resolution
There are more definitions, but these two are enough to go on. Are we limited in scope or extent by outside forces? By God? By material things or our economic situation as Marx thought? By the knowledge and reason of our age as Hegel thought? By ourselves as the existentialists think? Christians tend to overlook philosophical sources of determinism. Philosophers overlook metaphysical sources of determinism. I think to some extent we are limited in scope and extent by all these things. To some extent I am limited by the abilities God has given me, by the amount of money I have and am able to earn, by the philosophy and attitude of my age and culture, and also by my own will and choices. All of these things are limiting factors. They are negative. They do not produce or spur on, they hold back.
What forces cause me to come to a conclusion or resolution? All the same forces. The postmodern or modern attitude I adopt causes me to draw different conclusions and to interpret my world differently. Faith in God or disbelief also alters my views. Here is where personal choice comes in. If I know both the postmodern and modern attitude I can choose which to adopt. I can choose between faith and unbelief. My list of choices is limited only by my knowledge of possible choices. The more choices I see the less narrow-minded I will be.
As for the nature of God and the predeterminism vs. free choice argument, I don’t claim to know the answers. I would challenge you to think about this: Is predeterminism God limiting the scope or extent of people to choose or is it God foreknowingly causing someone to come to a conclusion? The first case would be like God saying, “I will let Bob into heaven, but I will not allow Gary in. I will limit him to life and death.” The second case is more like God saying, “I will let Bob and Gary both choose to believe or not, but I will convince Gary to believe.”
To keep the post shorter I will stop there. Please, do not be narrow-minded in your life, either in Christianity or normal life. To acknowledge the limits of your knowledge and understanding is far more wise than to foolishly advocate a view held without knowledge or understanding. I will probably post on this subject again soon.
My sister and her husband had their first baby today! The baby’s name is Emily Grace and she weighs 8 pounds 2 ounces. Congratulations Kirstin and Marc!
In Hebrews Chapter 5 it says that God heard Christ's prayers and petitions because of his reverent submission. I was thinking about my own prayers and wondering if I prayed reverently and in submission. Often I still pray selfishly or without really being reverent.
I was also thinking about the way power corrupts. We are reading Marx in one of my classes and he saw the room for corruption and injustice in capitalism. What he didn’t see was the way power tends to twist people the more they have it. Very few people who hold a lot of power seem to serve only the interests of others (including the ones they may have been elected to represent). When your power tends to give you an avenue to help your own interests it is tempting to use your power for your own interests. Then I thought about Jesus. More powerful than anyone else. After fasting for forty days Satan tempted him to use his power to turn stones to bread. Satan whispered (I imagine), “Serve yourself for once. You are so hungry and there are so many stones. No one will miss these. Use your power to abate your hunger.” Yet Jesus, even though hungry, still kept his focus on God. His reply (from scriptures) was, “Man does not live by bread alone.” He was reverently submitted to God.
His power was not his for his own sake. Even though he had power to conquer, he submitted. Even though he had the power to exalt himself on earth, he humbled himself to death on a human cross. Even though he had the power to establish himself an earthly kingdom, he reverently obeyed God and was established over an eternal kingdom. In all things he humbled himself, submitted himself, and obeyed. In return God conquered his enemies, exalted his name above all names, and established his kingdom. Everything he could have done for himself he did not do and in return God did even greater things for and through him.
Are you reverently submitted?
A couple friends and I had a discussion about postmodernism. One point of discussion was how postmoderns point out problems but don’t offer any solutions. I probably advocate change without giving an idea of what to change to. To remedy that I offer this simple thought.
When I think of the word church I think of establishment. I think of things like democracy, government, or some sort of social hierarchy. I don’t think people right away. I don’t think Jesus right away. I think of buildings. I think of arbitrary divisions of people. The two things I don’t think about are what church should make me think about and the two things I do think about are meaningless.
The Bible gives to illustrations of church: marriage and a body. The church is compared to a body made up of many parts in several passages. The image is used to show a whole made up of many interdependent parts. If instead of calling the gathering of believers church, we called it The Body we might think more about the relationship and purpose of people within the group more. We might also remember who is the Head. The second illustration is that of the bride. This illustration is one of a woman preparing herself for her bridegroom who is on his way to come marry her. Every bride I have ever heard of makes herself beautiful for her husband. Every bride looks forward to her wedding day. Her friends are excited for her. If we called the gathering of believers The Bride of Christ, maybe we would remember who it is that is coming for us and would prepare for him. Changing how we talk about our gathering together might help us to change the form of our gatherings.
You’re probably saying “Nate, its all semantics.” I disagree. Any public speaker or writer knows how to use word choice to change the impact of his or her speech. Most speakers realize that you can manipulate listeners by the choice of words. I don’t think changing terms will manipulate us. It will hopefully begin to change the very way we understand what God instituted The Church to be. Not just a Church, but a Church to be the Body and Bride of his son Christ. I mentioned earlier that I think of church as buildings and arbitrary divisions of people. I think of sedentary things. No sedentary body will remain healthy and strong. No sedentary bride will be prepared when her bridegroom arrives. The two images God gave us of the church involve unity and action. If we change the way we speak about the gathering of believers (which is itself a more descriptive term than church) will we change the focus of our gathering? Maybe. Maybe not. I happen to think that this change would at least be a first small step towards greater things. This step would only begin to change the way we think, but once we start thinking differently we will be able to think outside of the limited terms of today’s church. Once that happens, who knows what Christ might be able to accomplish in his church to unite and beautify his beloved church? How would the world see us then? As archiac or as alluring?
I journal sporadically and I was rereading my journal from the past year and a half. Sometimes I’m surprised by what I wrote. I tend to write a lot and then write one really good (in my opinion) sentence. This is one sentence from my journal that I have been thinking about a lot the past week.
“I would rather suffer with purpose than rejoice without direction.”
Here is a poem I wrote this week. It isn't very good so I'll also post Holy Sonnet X by John Donne after it.
Oh God, grant me death
that my sin would also die.
Death will not kill me
but heal and free my
soul which part loves
you and in part defies.
Death will not end me
but end the little deaths
I die every day;
I die in every breath
apart from you in lust,
in greed, in wrath.
Death is not my doom,
it is my liberty.
Holy Sonnet X
Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so ;
For those, whom thou think'st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy picture[s] be,
Much pleasure, then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery.
Thou'rt slave to Fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy, or charms can make us sleep as well,
And better than thy stroke ; why swell'st thou then ?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And Death shall be no more ; Death, thou shalt die.
-John Donne
Galatians says that it is for freedom that Christ has set us free, but if we are free why does sin still seem like such a powerful fetter? The bible says we are free from the law of sin and death. In another place it says that we are free from the fear of death. Death is not the end for a follower of Christ, it is the final emancipation of the believer. Through Jesus God stole away the power of Satan's greatest tool. How awesome is our God!
Do you know what religion means in latin? One of my professors told us that it comes from the two latin words re and legare. Re means again and legare means ligament. Webster’s offers this etymology:
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at RELY
From the way the professor described the root of the term religion, I came to understand another meaning. Ligaments bind bones together. To re bind could mean to restrain or to rebind what was a broken bond. Religion is about being re-bound to God. This made the whole “relationship vs. religion” argument seem stupid. Religion is about right relationship. Religion has always been about the status of man in the eyes of the various gods and what man must do to be right with those gods or to please those gods. In a sense it is the things a person does to put him or herself in right relation to a god as a god defines right relation. As a Christian it goes a bit further. Religion not only puts us in right relation to God but opens the door for us to have a relationship with Him. First it puts us where we belong, shows us how God sees us, then through faith, we can approach God and know God. I think we are wrong to emphasize relationship with God through Christ outside of religion because I believe that relationship can only develop through religion. Relationship is not separate from, but should follow from religion.
This is only a thought. I could be wrong. Feel free to comment and either support or refute my argument. If any of my thoughts make you think, please return the favor!
|
