IC XC

Calc Test wasn't too bad. I totally need work on my integration. the inegration section of the test (3/10 problems) were giving me some serious trouble. my differentiation and limit evaluation seem up to par. A lot of people came out of the test bemoaning, "I just failed that test." or "what was the answer to [some problem that I knew]?". My Recon tells me that this class isn't curved, so my satisfaction might have to be that I scored in the upper 50% of the bell curve

I saw the movie "Luther" this week. I had heard about it first when I was at Biola. After reading works by Luther the pull question might be assigned to go and watch the movie and compare and contrast etc. To my surprise it was a very good movie. Joseph Fiennes delivered a convincing and relatable performance. The attractive young man on the silver screen stands in contrast to rather unattractive anti-semite that you might see in paintings. The movie portrayed Luther as bold, yet uncertain freedom fighter. I think one of the most powerful lines in the film occurs when Luther is being groomed to go before an eccumenical trial. His (spiritual) father is shaving the appropriate parts of his head to create the classic "monk" hair cut (crown and base of the head from ear to ear shaved). Luther says to him as he faces a jury that is inlcined to sentence him to death, "When you sent me out to change the world, Father, did you really think there wouldn't be a cost?"

That line I think, demonstrates one key in the minor chord of Christianity. Martin Luther it seems to me did two thing that forever changed Christianity. I'm no theologian and i'm not even that good of a Christian and as such (and not such) I could be totally wrong. But these are the two things that I've perceived him to have done.

1- He, heroically, boldly, and in the name of God stood up for the authority of the Bible, and defied the hypocracy and heresy of the Roman Church. He tried to restore that which the Church should never have been bereft of: the word of God, In the face of death and excommunication/anathama. He seriously loved the Church and wanted to reestablish a more holy faith.

The second, it seems was an unforseen and undesired consequence.
2- It seems he set a precedent of division. It was clearly not Luther's desire to create a schism within the Chruch. And from what Jim has told me about Luther's writings, Luther was grieved that there was a schism. Nevertheless, Protestantism (if it can be considered one body or branch of Christianity) remains mournfully ununified.

Baptists (aside from being internally divided between North, South, Race, and confession) don't get along with Methodists over the method of baptism. Methodists don't get along so well with the high church episkpols over liturgy. Prebyterians and other similarly minded Calvinists hold so tightly to one spec of theology that they go so far to say it is true "Biblical" Christianity. The Anglicans (with their noble yet still schismatic attempt at via media) are condescended by Roman Catholics as bastards of the true Church, while protestants tend to group them into "basically Catholics". The Orthodox are very quick to say that they do not claim to know or judge those who are not Orthodox (and even many who are). They say that their eternal verdict judgment of their souls is not known. That it is very possibly the case that many non-Orthodox will arrive in heaven. Yet in the same breath they affirm that those who are not Orthodox are not apart of The Church and therefore not apart of the Body of Christ. I don't know how one can arrive in heaven to salvation and perfection of their souls without being The Bride, The Church of Christ. Or we end up worrying about terms like "priests" and "pastors" and "presbyters" "bishops" and the "episkopate" and "deacons" and wether or not it's ok to call your [insert clerical heirarchal title here] "father".

Now, (almost exclusively in protestantism), whenever there is more than one interpretation of any given passage you can find at least on rival church that has based their entire theology around their singular interpreation.

I can't claim to know a solution or cure, but it breaks my heart to be a spectator and a participant in Christianity and see us in such a state as this.

There is a local church in Albuquerque (Southern Baptist Affiliates) who have just announced their plans to have a campus of their church within 15 minutes from anywhere in Albuquerque and surrounding areas. They plan on training up worship leaders and "facilitators" who will perform the "necessary" tasks. After those "necessary" tasks are completed, citizens of Albuqueruque will be invited every Sunday watch high definition DVD's of the pastor's Saturday night service. And the first of the this plethora of campuses will be erected in Rio Rancho which has more churches than I care to count

It's absolutely heart-breaking for so many reasons. 1) there already is a church fifteen minutes from anywhere in Albuquerque. Instead of spending 15 million dollars on satellite campuses, why can't you partner with all of the other churches in town? what is it about the Jesus of the Catholics or the Anlgicans, or the Methodists, or the Non-Demoninationals that you just can't cope with? that you feel like setting up church across from theirs so they can hear your sermons? does this just reveal a belief that this pastor might have that his chruch is about his teaching and not about serving the community both believers and non?

I don't know why the body has to be this way. This was not Luther's intent. Luther wanted to restore the Church not divide it! and now we face the greatest number of denominations and schism we have ever seen, and every time. I really have trouble believing that one church is more Holy, more Catholic, more Apostolic, (in accordance with The Creed) than the others. And maybe for a while I thought that mass conversion would be the answer, but it's not. God is clearly working in all sects of Christianity. Hear the stories of miracles happening at the Sacraments. Of The Virgin appearing and presenting clergy with clerical garments. Of confused Baptist Preacher's sons, in obedience, evangelizing whole native tribes to the glory of God. Of monks making the sign of the cross over the ill and making them well. Surely no one denomination can say to the other's, "you are not the body of Christ" We can use Sola Scriptura or Ecumenism or Apostolic Succession or whatever we want but it just seems to me like it ends up in the same place. We ought to be one, for Christ is one. I don't know how to solve it? I don't know if a solution is even possible. All I really know is to follow hard after Christ and to show people the God with whom I have at least some level of communion.

(Ritual Disclaimer: My statements apply only to divisions over "ambiguities" within Christianity. Schismatic groups such as JW and LDS are schismatic over issues that are unambiguous to normative christianity e.g. the diety of Christ,)

It’s been such a paradigm shift these past few months.  God has seriously wrecked my life in (relatively with respect to my life previously) serious ways.  Some times there seems to be know recovery because no matter how hard I try, my own fallen condition seeps into my very desires to be Christ like. The only thing I can really do is to continue to try and pray that the Lord would do to me as he sees fit.

I’ve mentioned in the past that I’ve had a serious jones in my soul about marriage since I was young. I know it sounds silly, but ever since I was a young I’ve had a strong desire to be married. I don’t know if it’s the thrill of romance, the idealistic notions of commitment, or some combination of other things. It’s odd because I don’t truly know anything about marriage. I don’t know what it’s like to share both emotional and physical intimacy with another human being on that level. And even now my perception of marriage is changing. Mark asked me a question that was begged of a book that he is reading with a small Christian group he is leading. He looked at me and said, “What if marriage is about making us more holy and not more happy?”

He perfectly expressed the question that begs my paradigm shift about human relations in a Christian world view. (I’m not making a denominational statement when I say) It reminded me of something I had learned in a sacramental church once. Marriage to many of the brothers is held in the same class of acts as the eucharist, baptism, confession, etc. That may or may not be a “correct” way to think about it. But regardless of our denominational differences, we are taught by scripture that marriage is something that is sacred and holy.  And, at least for me, I was never explicitly taught the implications of that notion. Perhaps is was a message I was (and perhaps still am) unable to hear. Or perhaps it just wasn’t appropriate for because I was (and definitely am) nowhere near a place where marriage will be apart of life.  But I’ve begun to wonder at how that influences that long held desire.Even in the midst such paradigm shifts I wonder how I can long for something I’ve never known such as marriage.  This leads then to further questions like, how can I long for someone I’ve never known, immediately a spouse, but ultimately God. There seems to be paradox in belief that was outlined by Vanauken, i.e. that it takes belief to have faith, but it takes faith to have belief. He ultimately received no certainty about this paradox but rather stated in a letter to C.S. Lewis, “I choose to believe in the Father and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” and thus began his conversion.

I can hardly say I’ve been a Christian save the last half hour, for my faith is something that needs constant renewal and my word, thought, and deed constant death.  And only the Lamb’s Book, should it keep a record of such a needless thing as time in its log, will truly be able to tell.  My faith isn’t something that protects me, rather it makes me bear and vulnerable. And it’s that vulnerability that gives me the strength (or lack of pride, I can’t tell which) to accept my shame and take another step towards the even greater paradox of the cross. Every hour is another grueling step. Perhaps, as C.S. Lewis analogized in The Great Divorce my solidity will come the nearer I draw towards that which is solid.  While that inspiring book describes a way of thinking about heaven it is equally apt to show what Christianity is like. In either case, Heaven or Christianity (if they are that different) comes at the cost of the substance and the I know not what.  So, without certainty of what lies ahead, but, even more frightful, certain of what lies behind I’ll step once more. Marriage, or should I say again “I know not what”, then, is some mystic act in which two people obtain a surer footing. So, even if I never am so blessed as to emulate Christ through the act of marriage I should still be thankful that I’ve even got feet.

About a week ago I was sitting in front of my computer trying to think of something to blog about, when out of nowhere I hear God telling me to do something. I wasn't thrilled at all. What he was asking me to do was something that was really painful . . . again, and I felt like God had asked me to do enough painful things in recent days and that I shouldn't be forced to keep doing things that hurt so badly. so like the obstinate bastard that I am, I spent the next several days kinda depressed while I super glued my fingers to my ears and sang "la la la" to the tune of Nothing is Real. Try as I may I couldn't quite convince myself that I didn't hear from God. But I also know the reality of talking with God, i.e. if you ignore him long enough you'll become desensitized. so I tried . . . I failed. As it turns out the person with whom God wanted me to act did the acting for me. And said verbatim what I was told to do and didn't.

Later that evening I read how Jeraboam, the first king of Isreal after Solomon, had ignored the word of the Lord, how a much worse fate befell him. He spent the rest of his life at war with Judah, his child died, and his life ended in disarray. God let me know via making an example of Jeraboam that he takes disobedience seriously, and that there are consequences for our actions. And I'm pretty guilty.

I had a conversation with Shawn Weeks today about a related topic. We were both discussing the array of females in our lives and how to cope with having many female friends, having the "just friends" talk with them (and us), as well as particular personality types. We both exchanged stories about how recently we had both met girls who have the "I'm a good christian girl but I'm also in college and am allowed to find innuendoes funny now because I'm breaking out of my southern baptist roots" complex and how both Shawn and I feed off of that kind of thing. Both Shawn and I are fond of innuendo (c'mon you know you are too!) and when those type are girls are around they laugh at our jokes, and what can we say? It strokes our egos to have pretty girls cover their mouth with that "I can't believe you just said that but I have the aforementioned complex to I'm going to laugh really hard" laugh . Shawn said, "She's just a good Christian girl, and I'm . . ." "not a good Christian girl." I finished. He responded with a sentence that describes me very well. "I'm just not a good Christian" he said.I was mulling this over in the car while I was driving home late one night, and the question dusked on me, "I wonder what my life would be like if I just obeyed?" This question has roused in me the strongest distaste for God and the strongest obedience to Him I think I've experienced in my life. And I know which one I prefer.

this last semester at Biola taught me something very important. That most Biolans (including very many Torrey Students) are idiots. Please be aware that this is not a "i'm so much smarter than them" speech because i'm not God's gift to anything, but there are some serious problems in the contemporary christian thought that are just moronic. there are three people that i have in mind that are on the forefront of an effort to end the "stupid christian" motif and who are failing miserably. i agree with them that the main pull for christian academia is going to come from math and science.

The world has moved towards paradigm in which empiricism reigns. we can trace this back to the Modern era; the conintental rationalists, the British empiricists, the crisis in authority, the church, God, science BAM it's the close of the year 2007 and Science has become the iconic road block to belief in Christ. Three professors at Biola recognize this and are attempting to shift the sway, and for this i respect them. But Dr. John Mark Reynolds, Dr. J.P. Moreland, and Dr. William Lane Craig, distinguished though they are, seem laughable to secualr scholars. Their Degree speciallites are in Plato, Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophy of Religion respectively. Reynolds and Craig have absolutely no scientific background and at all. Moreland has a B.S. in Chemistry. The major thrusts of his arguments is simply this, "intelligent design is science". I'm sorry Dr. Moreland "Magic Man done it" is not science. I believe that the universe has an intelligent (a large understatement) designer. But i'm not so foolish as to claim it's science. when i look out on something beautiful and think "gee, that looks hard to make" it's still not science.

More than once i've heard Christians claim that Contemporary academia is moving away from the evolutionary standpoint because it becomes increasingly untennable, but this is simply a lie. with the publication of Stephen J. Gould's Structure of Evolutionary Theory the theory of evolution will be sustained for at least the next 50 years. These same christians believe that Reynolds, Moreland, and Craig are on the cutting edge of paradigm shifting.

Not only has Reynolds contributed nothing to the scientific paradigm (asside from his book Three Views on Creation and Evoltion co-written with Moreland which is hardly a contribution and is rather a restatement of a religiously driven agenda) he can't. His training makes him a Plato scholar (and a damn good one mind you), he's just not a scientist. He feels that he is capable of contributing to a conversation about science, but can't do the math problems that support the theories he's against. He makes the claim that, "Christianity provides a necessary catalyst to the development of science" and the modern science has its roots in the Christian west. Ask an academission with a background in math or science if that claim is true and see if they don't start wheezing from laughter. Reynolds also claims that, "Progress in Religion is precisely what produces progress in science" One need only look at the last 150 years of scientific progress to see that that's not true either. Religious progress has hit some of it's all time lows in the last 150 years. Yes, there were many more converts, many more martyrs, and genuine revivals but one can hardly observe the causality that he claims exists. there have been times of great religious progress in the Medeivel ages, but very little scientific work being done, at least not by the christian west. To Reynolds, "Ultimately religion isn't only necessary to science, but is the only way to do science." i'm not sure how i feel about this. i'm inclined to agree but probably not in the same way.

One of Reynolds main points is to show that (as is popularly thought) there exists a hostility between religiocity and the scientific method. I can think of very few people, either christian or not, who would agree with his premise. But he seems to think that this is an operating assumption in the secularization thesis (i.e. that as religious knowledge increases, scientific knowledge decreases and vice versa) and that this "myth" needs to be done away with. but the assumption Reynolds has explicated is not why the ST has weight. there is not hostility between religiocity and the scientific method at all. there is however, a hostility between religiocity and the operating assumptions of science in general. Stephen Hawking admits that, "the basic assumption of science is scientific determinism" that the events in the universe happen one way and one way only and that they could not have happened any other way given the laws that govern the our universe. so if God exists he created the laws and has no power to undue them or tweek them in any way thus limiting his freedom and thus he ceases to be God. it's not that the scientific paradigm rejects God. Good scientists know that science can't speak to the existence of God and they don't claim that it does. To many scientists, the existence of God seems unreasonable or unlikely but this is not what Reynolds understands to be the problem. He is a platonist, where his Scientific authority comes in is ambiguous to me (if not non-existent). to my knowledge he has not done one day's course study in non-linear mathematics, astrophysics, advanced biology. Please note i'm not claiming to have this knowledge either, i'm only trying show that there seems to be a problem when philosophers try to talk to the scietific paradigm. philosophers find intuitive problems and reject them when the math, whose intutitions are so basic as 1+1 shows the philosopher's conculsions to be false. Reynolds is at least a mild rationalist and holds human reason to be a type of grandiose broad stroke to which the rest of the topics of academia should adhere. He says that that is not what he is doing but with statements like, "I would rather be reasonable than religious". It's hard to see the coherence.

One note on Moreland: i don't know that much about him accept he claims to be a philosopher of science advocating intelligent design. he also also has that undergrad chemistry degree. maybe he has more meaningful things to say than other intelligent design advocates but that "i-think-i-can" B.S. doesn't appear very intimidating on a C.V.

Similarly with Craig. The man has no training in math or science yet is cited as a "Philosopher of Science" in young-earth-agenda'd DVD sereies "A priveleged Planet". Craig's B.A. was in communications from Wheaton. and he has two Ph.D.'s. one from the University of Birmingham in England (philosophy) and on from the University of Munich in Germany (religion). similarly to Reynolds, i am not aware of any official course work done in the topics he attempts to speak to. Consider this quote, "If the universe never had a beginning [as is the assumption of the scientific paradigm], then that means that the number of past events is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self- contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that actually exists in reality." the mathematician he is citing is David Hilbert whose famous thought project called "Hilbert's Hotel". the object of this example was to show that, what has been called, an "actual infinite" (i.e. a physical example of something that is infinite) is absurd. Craig conveniently leaves out that Hilbert recanted that position after Benoît B. Mandelbrot demonstrated that the coastline of Great Britain is an actual infinite. The empirical evidence suggests a rule which, if extrapolated, shows that the measured length of Britain's coast increases without limit as the measurement scale decreases towards zero. Cantor also showed in his work on the non-denumerability of the continuum that infinities come in sizes. There are denermerable and non-denumerable sets of infinites. The cardinal number of any given set defines the "size" of its infinite. all this to say that infinity minues infinite does not lead to self contradictory answers. mathematicians have at very least been aware of this since Cantor died in 1918. Craig is either lying or is too uninformed on a topic that is not in his field to be speaking on the subject. maybe this is why he has almost never debated major figure in the field of science or math in his entire career. He constantly debates a bunch of nobody's from mediocre universities. He has also not returned to few serious univiersites that he has debated at because he (i) plays semantics games, (ii) asks more questions than are capable of being answered in the time frame and then claims that his oppoonents avoid his question. One question to you Dr. Craig (from my friend Jim), if infinite doesn't exist in "reality" then what is God? and actual finite?

Final Note: I don't genuinely dislike any of the above mention persons, only their tactics for defending the Christian Faith. Reynolds, Moreland, and Craig are all very interesting and intelligent fellows if i ever met any. I hope to worship with them one day in heaven when none of this matters any more.

So everyone should listen to dj_jonny_flash's podcast. it's called the supercandid podcast and you can read their blog by clicking here. download their podcast if you like making fun of christian movies, music news, and good christian movie review

I need to sleep and pray way more than i do. Hands down