![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
one, two, three . . . and where is the fourth?
such a conglomeration of feelings . . . both hungry and apathetic. i really don't want to study for my modern philosophy midterm. it's tomorrow and i'm not looking forward to it. it seems like the modern philosophers were just trying to be as good as the medeival philosophers and were failing. i understand that they were going through an epistemic crisis with the fall of the authority in the catholic church in the west, but come on. anyway, it's looking like i'm going to have a 50% chance of getting an A depending on which essay Dr. Ten Elshof decides to assign. i'll study some more tonight and tomorrow.
So as much as i respect Dr. John Mark Reynolds, i think his aim in torrey is slightly misguided. one the one hand he's an advocate for classical education, christ centered academia (insofar as we understand that christ truly is the source of knowledge) as well as genuine mentorship and intellectualism. on the other hand he's very pro "claiming the culture for christ". i have two qualms with this. firstly, the verbiage and secondly the meaning.
i think christians really need to get away from this war-language that we've gotten ourselves into. it bothers me how often we feel like we need to be violent against the powers that be. now i agree that we should not be conformed to "the world" (if we could nail down an actual definition of whatever that means) but if god truly workd across all time like i believe paul says he does then we don't really have anything to fear from the culture. let me qualify that by saying that there are aspects of the culture that we shouldn't be apart of but besides the ones that are blatant sins how can we pick and choose? using war language like "reclaim the culture" makes it sound like we had the culture in the first place. so many christians here at biola think we should go back the sexually deprived days of the fifties because they had it right (except we have no criteria by which to judge how right they had it except for contemporary opinions). ok so they were having less sex than our modern culture is. is that good? maybe. who knows. but obviously they weren't in tune with god as much as we want to think they were. look at how the minority was treated. the list goes on.
as for what the phrase "reclaiming" the culture means: it means he wants the political right in control of the government so that he can stop abortions. i don't agree with abortion either. i really don't think anyone should have one, but putting the evangelicals in control of the government won't solve anything. there are no political solutions to social injustice, poverty, right's for the unborn. those are just symptoms. even if the world was like reynolds wanted it, it would only serve as catalyst for an even more potent anti christian movement then the one that is already here. i really think we need to just role with the culture and stay away from the extremes. so our culture says you need to buy things in order to be happy . . . you don't . . . we all know its a lie so don't. or you need have lots of promiscuous sex . . . we're christians . . . we don't (at least we're not supposed to) do that any way. and the ones that do do those things aren't any less christians. they just sin like everyone else. can we show christendom a little tolerance please. isn't that the right buzz word?
hungrySo as much as i respect Dr. John Mark Reynolds, i think his aim in torrey is slightly misguided. one the one hand he's an advocate for classical education, christ centered academia (insofar as we understand that christ truly is the source of knowledge) as well as genuine mentorship and intellectualism. on the other hand he's very pro "claiming the culture for christ". i have two qualms with this. firstly, the verbiage and secondly the meaning.
i think christians really need to get away from this war-language that we've gotten ourselves into. it bothers me how often we feel like we need to be violent against the powers that be. now i agree that we should not be conformed to "the world" (if we could nail down an actual definition of whatever that means) but if god truly workd across all time like i believe paul says he does then we don't really have anything to fear from the culture. let me qualify that by saying that there are aspects of the culture that we shouldn't be apart of but besides the ones that are blatant sins how can we pick and choose? using war language like "reclaim the culture" makes it sound like we had the culture in the first place. so many christians here at biola think we should go back the sexually deprived days of the fifties because they had it right (except we have no criteria by which to judge how right they had it except for contemporary opinions). ok so they were having less sex than our modern culture is. is that good? maybe. who knows. but obviously they weren't in tune with god as much as we want to think they were. look at how the minority was treated. the list goes on.
as for what the phrase "reclaiming" the culture means: it means he wants the political right in control of the government so that he can stop abortions. i don't agree with abortion either. i really don't think anyone should have one, but putting the evangelicals in control of the government won't solve anything. there are no political solutions to social injustice, poverty, right's for the unborn. those are just symptoms. even if the world was like reynolds wanted it, it would only serve as catalyst for an even more potent anti christian movement then the one that is already here. i really think we need to just role with the culture and stay away from the extremes. so our culture says you need to buy things in order to be happy . . . you don't . . . we all know its a lie so don't. or you need have lots of promiscuous sex . . . we're christians . . . we don't (at least we're not supposed to) do that any way. and the ones that do do those things aren't any less christians. they just sin like everyone else. can we show christendom a little tolerance please. isn't that the right buzz word?