No Matter Your Views On Hell,

I'm pretty sure we can all agree with this.

A friend posted this on Facebook.

Evolving

That's a loaded term in some circles, I know. For many years, evolution, along with creation and the origins of things was something that concerned me greatly. My first thoughts regarding such things came about in second grade. I'd obviously, either in school or television, learned about dinosaur fossils and couldn't reconcile that knowledge with the creation stories in Genesis. I searched in earnest in my teens and twenties, then came children and other theological issues, so I gave it a rest, not believing in a strict six day creation, but still trying to figure out what place scripture held and how to interpret them.

The faith tradition I grew up in basically revolved around the Bible and the doctrines that tradition had developed around it. It became a law book and proof text, so that is how I understood the Bible. I'm very grateful for the teaching I received, particularly in my Sunday school classes at the Blue Starr Church of Christ. Unfortunately, regarding the Bible as a law book meant missing really important things, such as Jesus and all he means. It's not that Jesus wasn't important, but he wasn't as important as having the right doctrines and understanding. That makes for a weak saviour, not an all powerful one. I realize now that the faith translated to me was a form of gnosticism. Certainly this wasn't intentional, but as with all things, we humans skew what is meant for good.

So now, at the older age I am, I have experienced the Christian life in communities of the Church of Christ, Episcopalian, Anglican, Lutheran, and now Church of the Brethren, and I've learned good things from them all. One might think I'm simply fickle, and there may be a bit to that, though in fact there have been times I've probably stayed too long in a faith community to ensure that wasn't part of my motivation. I actually have to experience a lot of pain to make so significant a move.

As is probably obvious, my views of both scripture and the church have changed, or to use the loaded term, evolved. It's been an incredible process and I imagine it will continue to be, though at times it has been quite painful and frightening. What I hope is to fiercely hold to what is true without belittling what I have reached past and without fearing what may come.  Peter Enns posted a meditation by Richard Rohr not long ago. In it he says:

You have to learn from each stage, and yet you can’t completely throw out previous stages, as most people unfortunately do. In fact, a fully mature person appropriately draws upon all earlier stages. “Transcend and include” is Ken Wilber’s clever aphorism here. Most people immensely overreact against their earlier stages of development, and earlier stages of history, instead of still honoring them and making use of them (e.g. liberal, educated Christians who would be humiliated to join in an enthusiastic “Jesus song” with their Evangelical brothers and sisters even though they would intellectually claim to believe in Jesus, or adults who can no longer play, or rational people who completely dismiss the good of the non-rational).

 The journey is continuing. In fact, my Sunday school class will be reading Scot McKnight's book, The Blue Parakeet, and a theological reading group I'm part of will be reading Peter Enn's new book, The Bible Tells Me So. It will be interesting to see where this may lead, especially now that I'm no longer afraid, (at least not much), because my faith is in the one faithful one, and not my own understanding of him.

Fat Head Is On YouTube

Here's a great comedy documentary which mixes science, diet and libertarian thought. Tom Naughton produced this jewel a couple of years back and it led me to research much of what's been learned in the world of nutrition, and to be on the look out for propaganda in the way of so called research funded by big pharma and big ag.

An Effort For Truth

If a man says of what is that it is, or what is not that it is not, he speaks the truth.  But if he says of what is not that it is, or of what is that it is not, he does not speak the truth.  -Aristotle

In essence, truth corresponds to reality. That is at least what the ancients believed and it is the best definition I have found to describe this transcendental. With so simple an explanation, why then is truth so difficult to reach? Why do we seem to stumble over it, bypass it, ignore it, or find a substitute for it?

In the video below, comedian Tom Naughton, maker of the documentary, Fat Head, presents before an audience the problems with science, scientific studies, and scientific reporting in our culture and gives basic but needful information to help filter out the fact from fiction when it comes to scientific claims in a lighthearted, funny way. Best of all, it presents what questions we should be asking and why. When I first watched this last year, I couldn't help but think of the late Neil Postman's first description of  loving resistance fighters (those who resist reflexively accepting any and all technology with which we are presented) in his book, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. He says loving resistance fighters are: 

(Those) who pay no attention to a poll unless they know what questions were asked and why.

Isn't that a great quote? The same sort of inquiries are needed every time we read of some scientific study.

In our culture it takes a lot of effort to discover the truth. The media, whether through journalism, talk shows, reality t.v., etc. will not present the truth, either because of their ignorance or because they are agenda driven. The video below, at least when it comes to scientific reporting, helps make discerning the truth just a bit easier, plus it's fun.

Have You Been Shocked?

Here is a lecture by one of my favourite living philosophers and authors, Peter Kreeft, given at Saddleback Church.  His lecture is taken mostly from his book, Jesus Shock, though he leaves out the most Roman Catholic elements of the book, he engages the ideas that both Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics can agree upon, namely, that meeting Jesus will change you and your world.  He is not neutral, he is not safe, but he is good, true and beautiful.

There's a great deal of  'housekeeping' at the start of the video, so if you just want the lecture, begin at minute 16:00.

H/T Scot McKnight.

Evolution, Devolution, Revolution Part 1

It is amazing to me what significance the book of Genesis has on our understanding of God, life and how we view the world.  With all the debates among Christians about whether evolution can be accepted, too often other questions and meanings get lost in the debate.  A couple of weeks ago, I read two articles; one by Rachel Held Evans and the other by Lisa Dye.  Both are about Genesis and both are about truth, but from very different angles.

Evolution is an enormous object of interest to many American Christians.  One facet totally refutes evolution, seeing it as contrary to scripture, while another holds a more nuanced view and works at reconciling both biblical and scientific truth.  I hold to the second view.  From the time I was in second grade and asked my dad how there could be real dinosaur bones buried in the ground, (I assume up until that point I believed dinosaurs to be a myth, but my memory is unclear on this point.), and he answered that they must have really been here, I have worked at figuring out how this could be.

When I was in college, the church my parents began attending had a wonderful video series in their library, titled, Does God Exist ?, which held multiple lessons by John Clayton, a scientist and high school science teacher.  Through these, he taught some of the fallacies evolutionists have taught along the way, but he didn't dismiss everything that they taught.  The point of the series was of course a defense of the Christian faith, but there were so many answers, or potential answers to my questions, that I poured over the series multiple times.

After I left college and become more well read, I discovered that a majority of the Christian authors I loved and respected had no problem with this reconciliation.  I was also encountering more Christians personally that were of this same mind.  Granted, the majority that I knew were still anti evolution, but as  my horizons were broadening and I learned more, there was a real burden that was lightening.  This is the kind of stuff that can keep me up at night, so as Evans explains in her article, I didn't have to choose between the two.  They didn't cancel each other out, and as I studied more, I found just how complimentary they could be.

There are still areas that are unclear, which I will write about soon, but I wanted to get this series started with a bit of my background and understanding, then move onto some of the theological challenges in understanding scripture and the universe God created.

Christianity And Culture: Living In The Image Of God Part 1

This is from a series on Christianity and culture which I developed and taught last summer.

What is culture?

Culture is all around us. It’s the books we read, the type of food we eat and how we produce it, the songs we sing and listen to, the clothes we wear, the entertainment in which we partake, educational institutions, the technology we use, governing systems, the economy, the philosophies we believe, religion and faith, the words we speak, not to mention art and architecture. None of these exist in a vacuum from the other, nor can we exist in a vacuum from culture.

Here are a few definitions of culture:

1. The totality of socially transmitted behaviour patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought.

2. The act of, or any labor or means employed for, training, disciplining, or refining the moral and intellectual nature of man; as, the culture of the mind.

3. Comes from the word cultivate. (Think of the garden in Genesis 2)

4. James Davison Hunter defines it as; “The power to name reality”. The idea behind this is that when we name something, it defines that something and determines how we think about that something.

Culture is important for it is the nature of our humanity to create and participate in culture because God creates and we are made in His image. It helps shape our thoughts, attractions, morals and behaviours, even as we help to shape it.  As Dorothy Day said, A good society is one that makes it easy to be good.

We can evaluate culture by asking if it corresponds to what is true, good and beautiful and whether it is being made or used to the glory of God or as a substitute for God.

Before we look any closer at culture, lets look at what it means to be human, and why it is important?  Let's begin at the beginning.

Genesis 1

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse  in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made  the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.  And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,  and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants  yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,  and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds  fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make man  in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

In Genesis 1: 1, 21, 27, the Hebrew word bara is used for create. It means to create something totally new, something which does not flow out of what came before and is only attributable to God. Bara is used three times in reference to man, underscoring his uniqueness.

In Genesis 1:26 we have the first hint of the Trinity. The complete Godhead was involved in the creation of man, adam (male and female).

We are made in the image and likeness of God. Imago Dei.  This is what it means to be human.

An image is a  material representation, as in a statue or on a coin, or a likeness or similarity, pattern, picture, semblance.  Humans are commanded to have no graven images because we are the icons/eikons.  To worship anything else leads us to become less than what we were made to be.

Note also, in Genesis 1:10,18,21and 25, God describes creation as good. In vs 31, after man has been created, God describes His creation as very good. 
As Augustine noted, whatever is, must be good. (God is the ultimate being, The Great I Am.) Thus, whatever loses it’s goodness loses it’s being. Whenever we fail to conform to the image of Christ we fail to become fully human.  We lose our I am-ness.

The significance of being made in the image of God is:

1. We are made to be in personal, obedient relationship with God.
2. We are made to be in personal, cooperative relationship with man.
3. We are given moral freedom
4. We have the ability to think, reason, communicate through language
5. We are given dominion over the earth, plants and animals.
6. We are to be fruitful and to recreate.

The consequences of the fall on our humanity are:

1. We are alienated from God, man being inclined toward idolatry.
2. Our relationships with fellow man is strained and inclined toward brokenness.
3. We no longer use our moral freedom rightly being inclined to sin.
4. We lose integrity. Reason, thought, communication are broken.
5. Ineffective dominion, often resorting to domination and misuse.
6. View children as burdens, sometimes less than human.

Adam and Eve turned from God, fearing Him and no longer trusting in His love for them. They then turned their focus and trust on themselves.  While still made in the image of God, now we are twisted, distorted and broken. Once created good, we now through the sin of adam, choose death over life, fear over love as explained in the epistle to the Romans.

Romans 1:21-25

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Here is a passage from, True Heroism in a World of Celebrity Counterfeits,  by Dick Keyes.  It helps to explain the true extent of not living in the image of God.

Sin is not only violating moral rules. It is described by the apostle Paul as falling “short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Note that he does not say falling short of the “law” of God but of the “glory” of God–that is, short of the excellence of God in every area of his existence. It is certainly moral failure, but God’s moral excellence does not exhaust his nature. The seriousness of our sin is that we use our God-imaging capabilities to think, say and do things that oppose, defy and misrepresent God himself. As we misrepresent God’s image, we also misrepresent the selves we were created to be.

In Christ, however, the image is restored.  Christ emptied himself, kenosis, to make us like him.

Philippians 2:5-11

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,  6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,  being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

See also, Romans 8:3-4

He is the true image of God.

Colossians 1:15-23

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by  him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation  under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

See also, II Corinthians 4:3-6

Christ transforms us into his image and restores creation.

Romans 8:12-30

¹²So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. ¹³For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. ¹⁴For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. ¹⁵For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" ¹⁶ The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, ¹⁷and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
 ¹⁸For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. ¹⁹For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. ²⁰For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²²For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. ²³And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? ²⁵But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. ²⁶Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. ²⁷And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. ²⁸And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. ²⁹For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. ³⁰And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

It is in Christ that we become truly human.

True Myth

In Letters of C.S. Lewis, Lewis writing to Arthur Greeves recounts his discussion of Christianity with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson as they strolled along Addison's Walk.

Now what Tolkien and Dyson showed me was this: that if I met the idea of sacrifice in a Pagan story I didn't mind it at all: again, if I met the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself...I liked it very much and was strangely moved by it: again, that the idea of a dying and reviving god (Balder, Adonis, Bacchus)similarly moved me provided I met it anywhere except in the Gospels. The reason was that in Pagan stories I was prepared to feel the myth as profound and suggestive of meanings beyond my grasp even tho' I could not say in cold prose "what it meant".

Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i.e., the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call "real things".

One of the difficulties or stumbling blocks in modern day Christianity is that we have failed to see God's story as true myth. We have been so "enlightened" that we look only for facts or laws and lose the sense of awe and deeper meaning. What seems to be left is either a shallow belief now being coined as 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deism", or else a system of rules to be followed in order to obtain God's approval. With MTD, God becomes our buddy and sidekick and with a rules system God ironically becomes someone we can manipulate with our behaviour.

In the following video, N.T. Wright gives the example of how this plays out in the first three chapters of Genesis. The arguments between strict six day creationists and evolutionary atheists are in many ways the different sides of the same coin. They are missing the forest for the trees, or in other words, the truth for the possible facts.



To get the story, to see the truth, including the facts but also taking in their meaning will bring us closer to God, because he is of course the author. We yearn for the story. Why else fairy tales, or Valhalla, or even Harry Potter? They are pointers to what really is and what shall be.

Here's another Lewis quote from his sermon, The Weight of Glory.

We do not want merely to see beauty, though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else which can hardly be put into words — to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it. That is why we have peopled air and earth and water with gods and goddesses and nymphs and elves — that, though we cannot, yet these projections can, enjoy in themselves that beauty, grace, and power of which Nature is the image. That is why the poets tell us such lovely falsehoods. They talk as if the west wind could really sweep into a human soul; but it can't. They tell us that "beauty born of murmuring sound" will pass into human face; but it won't. Or not yet.

For if we take the imagery of Scripture seriously, if we believe that God will one day give us the Morning Star and cause us to put on the splendour of the sun, then we may surmise that both the ancient myths and the modern poetry, so false as history, may be very near the truth as prophecy. At present we are on the outside of the world, the wrong side of the door. We discern the freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure. We cannot mingle with the splendours we see. But all the leaves of the New Testament are rustling with the rumour that it will not always be so. Some day, God willing, we shall get in.

If we do not have this sense, maybe we should go back to the scriptures and read them afresh, anticipating and looking for the God who surprises, who creates and who has written us into the greatest story.

H/T to Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed for the N.T. Wright video.

Truth At Any Price

In today's Wall Street Journal opinion page, Shelby Steele has an insightful article on both President Obama and the result of political correctness in our society. I've been following Steele's writngs and thoughts for a while now, having bought his book, The Content of Our Character in the early ninety's. Ironically, his most recent book is titled, A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win.

The point of the article is that the President has rejected any firm principles in order to maintain his bargaining position. Unlike Ronald Reagan who throughout his life made choices that put his popularity at risk and grew a core set of beliefs that in the end made him a decisive and overall beloved leader, President Obama has cultivated a politically correct core which leaves it empty in order to maintain popularity. This in turn has led him to be a weak leader because he has no core principles. Steele's criticism is aimed at our society as much as it is aimed toward our President. We, in our desire to be seen as politically correct, never demanded any explanations from this man when he was a candidate.

We are left with a rudderless leader, because we would not face any inconvenient truths about him. C.S. Lewis wrote of his wife, Joy Davidman, that she wanted "Truth at any price". I am in complete sympathy with her desire. When we will not face up to truth for whatever reason, to seem sophisticated, to avoid conflict, or simply to take the easier path, we end up with more problems and pain than can usually be imagined. As painful as it may be, it is at truth where real love, forgiveness and good will must begin. Otherwise, our personal relationships and our society are based on a sham and cannot continue in any healthy functional way.

Into The Wardrobe

Tomorrow, we'll begin a new school year. As I had mentioned in an earlier post, we will take the next several months to focus on The Chronicles of Narnia and use these books as a jumping off point for other literature, history, theology and philosophy. We will begin with, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, while also focusing on Norse myths, The Gospel of Luke, the Blitz and Aesop's Fables. If you've read LWW, you'll see how these fit in.

I'll post more of what we're reading and of our discoveries as we progress.

Emma will continue to study Latin, math, Greek, writing, art, logic, classical astronomy, and ballet.

Olivia will study English, nature studies, math, Latin, basic astronomy, art, piano, and horseback riding.

In all of this, setting before us, the good, the true and the beautiful in order to cultivate wisdom and virtue.

The Illusions Of Technology

In The Abolition of Man Lewis states,

There is something that unites magic and applied science (technology) while separating both from the "wisdom" of earlier ages. For the ancients, the cardinal problem of human life had been how to conform the human soul to objective reality; and the means were knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the cardinal problem is how to conform reality to the wishes of the soul; and the solution is a technique.

Peter Kreeft in his lecture, Lost in the Cosmos, points out that if we were to categorize these four things; technology, science, magic and religion, into two groups, that a quite proper grouping would be magic and technology in one group and religion and science in another. The reason being, as he gains from Lewis, is that science and religion are about conforming one's will to reality and technology and magic are about bending reality or nature to our will.

So, where does that leave our society, which Neil Postman branded a technopoly? We have become so enamored with technology that an optimistic pragmatism, where whatever "works" is what is deemed true, has become the spirit of the age. The appeal to reason, truth,natural law, religion or ethics seems passe, whether in matters of education, farming, family life, civic life, commerce, etc.. Instead what is appealed to is efficiency, convenience, entertainment and a sense of control. It is ironic that technologies which are often presented as increasing one's control, (not of ourselves of course, but of nature or other people), are most likely what one will forfeit one's control to. It is indeed a Faustian bargain.

Just Thinking

I didn't sleep well last night, so it may not be a good idea to write having so little rest, but here I go anyway.

What would life be like if we stopped concerning ourselves with what is practical, pragmatic or utilitarian, but rather concerned ourselves with what was true, good and beautiful? What would our lives look like? What would our relationships be like?

As I prepare the curriculum for my children this year, I find myself asking this question more and more. While homeschooling is wonderful, particularly in the choices and freedom it gives, there are limits - limits of time and resources. It is so easy to think too practically if the focus is on the limits, so I have to keep reminding myself to take the long view, and the ultimate goal, which is to help develop in my children a deep love and attraction for what is good and true and beautiful. In other words, a deep love for God, for after all, these are his attributes.

More thoughts later.

Why Balance?

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, Mary Ann Glendon, who was to be awarded the Laetare Medal, wrote a letter to Father John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame University, declining the honour. She writes that she did this in part for the fact that the university decided to go against the request of the bishops to not honour those whose views are antithetical to the church's beliefs, she doesn't want to see Notre Dame's decision influence other schools, but also to not be used as a pawn to assuage the conscience of those attending. She writes:

Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

• “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

• “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Why does an institution whose foundation is based on faith need to "balance" the speakers at the commencement? Shouldn't all the speakers uphold the fundamental values and faith of the school?

Plantinga vs. Dennett

Here is a blow by blow account of a quasi-philosophical debate on February 21, between Plantinga and Dennett over at The Prosblogion. Plantinga basically argues that naturalism and evolution are incompatible, and that theism and evolution are not. Dennett doesn't really disagree, but takes the opportunity to insult Christians. There's a surprise.

What struck me even more than Plantinga's argument, (which was well reasoned, by the way), was the anonymous writer's take on one of Plantinga's points. (Emphasis mine.)

2:55 pm - The really good possible worlds all involve divine incarnation and atonement and so all the best worlds have sin and suffering - an old view that many Christian philosophers resist today. He even mentions that outrageous (to the naturalist) idea that the demons are part of the errors in human development. Dennett is clearly stunned and amused. He probably thinks Plantinga's claims are insane or at least silly. Plantinga's orthodoxy is completely unabashed. It is commendable that he is wholly without embarrassment, something rare for a modern Christian. Perhaps it signals an attitude to come.

If you read the whole post, you will see that Plantinga was always gracious, always logical and thoughtful, yet he didn't apologize for his beliefs and understanding. I think too many times in an effort to not offend or to ingratiate ourselves to those with whom we disagree, we Christians cede our beliefs, or at least couch them in such terms as to render them null and void. I thank God for true intellects in the academy and in the world of ideas who will take a stand for truth in all graciousness, and I hope the anonymous writer is correct, that, "Perhaps it signals an attitude to come.".

H/T Jonah Goldberg

Is All Beauty Objective? Continued...

These posts on beauty began with me wondering why some are repelled by beauty and hypothesizing that it may be because it exposes the dreariness in some lives. (Dreariness that I believe could be relieved if one looked to where the beauty is pointing.) They have since focused on the question of whether beauty is objective, with Janine holding the view that some beauty is objective and other beauty is subjective. I maintain that beauty is objective because its source is God. I will try to explain better my thoughts, borrowing heavily from Edwards, Kreeft, and of course, Lewis.

Truth, goodness and beauty are the attributes of God, and therefore are objective. Truth is defined by being. God is. He is the great I AM. Goodness is defined by truth and right relation to truth. Beauty is defined by goodness, we recognize goodness by it's beauty.

When we are tempted to say that beauty is subjective, it is not really beauty that is subjective, but we ourselves that are subjective. We recognize beauty by our desires, or heart, we recognize goodness with our will and we recognize truth with our minds. We who are Christians understand that sin has corrupted our minds, wills and hearts, so when we are tempted to say that all or any of these attributes are relative or subjective, we know this cannot be true as these are attributes of God. We continue to see through a glass darkly because we are still being conformed to the likeness of Christ.

Jonathan Edwards speaks of beauty as the consent of being to being. He sees the beauty in the goodness of actively looking out for an other's welfare. He also sees this beauty reflected in what we understand as aesthetics - harmony, proportion, symmetry, et cetera.

I think Janine's discourse comes from the question of why we are attracted to different things. I think there are a few different reasons. One could simply be how our aesthetic sensibilities have been shaped. Someone raised on pop music and television may have different sensibilities than someone raised being taken to the symphony and theatre, or even of someone raised with fairy tales and simple folk music. Another may be sin. When one is attracted to pornography or drugs, it is a substitute for real beauty. As Anonymous wrote in the comments, it is a lie. The only way to break such an addiction is to exchange it for real beauty. There may also be some who experience different facets of beauty, differently. I recognize in myself this limitation when it comes to cheesecake. I understand that for most people it is a luxurious dessert, but I do not care for it. I see this as a flaw of my palate, not a flaw in the dessert itself. I can recognize the harmony and balance of the ingredients, yet I don't like it.

In his article , A Holy Longing, published in Christianity Today, David Taylor says,(referring to a list of beautiful things),

All these works are beautiful, though never merely subjectively. For in every case they reveal the objective pattern of unity, complexity, and richness, which collectively evoke longing. Differently for each of us, they stir an ache in our hearts. The longing for what? For starters, the longing for joy, for order, and for more beauty.

When we encounter beauty, it points to the All Beautiful, All Desirous. One day we will be united in beauty. As Lewis says in his sermon, The Weight of Glory,

At present we are on the outside of the world, the wrong side of the door. We discern the freshness and purity of morning, but they do not make us fresh and pure. We cannot mingle with the splendours we see. But all the leaves of the New Testament are rustling with the rumour that it will not always be so. Some day, God willing, we shall get in. When human souls have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather that greater glory of which Nature is only the first sketch.....

Truth, Goodness and Beauty

Peter Kreeft on Goodness, Truth and Beauty, with a good dose of Lewis.