Fires in Greece

Four years ago this summer Steve received a Lily grant, and we spent nearly three weeks in Greece. The recent pictures of the devestation caused by wildfires makes my heart ache for the Greek people and their land. The flames reached even to the yard of the museum at Olympia. Olympia! May the Lord restore and renew Greece.

Lunar Eclipse

With Steve and the girls gone camping it was easy to watch the beautiful lunar eclipse last night. I had a perfect view from Susan's window; and the Oregon skies couldn't have been more cooperative. Not a single cloud, and that perfect full moon! I watched a YouTube clip but it was nothing near as breathtaking as what I was able to see. The only downside was that it didn't appear quite as red as I had been led to believe.

Sometimes you just have to seize the moment, and do these sorts of outrageous things. Besides, the house is cleaner for it!

The view from Sequoia

These are the three dearest people in my life, having the time of their lives.

The view from Moro Rock

A true Oregonian, Joanna comes by it naturally.

Can we Be Human Without the Humanities?

What will happen to a society that no longer asks the "why" and "what for?" questions? What is the place for the Gospel in a society for the only realities are those which can be measured, predicted, and assigned some market value? How does "grace" translate into Consumerese? Ultimately, is there any difference between communist China purging itself of its intellectuals, and capitalist America letting its intellectuals slowly starve?

Can we be human without the humanities?

Mark Regenerus writes:

"Universities' investment in the humanities—which are critical to the function of asking the "why" and "what for" questions—is giving way to market-based decisions, like rewarding income- and prestige-generating disciplines (like the sciences), professional schools (like law and engineering), graduate programs, restructuring core curricula, etc.

The result is that very many young adults are no longer even asked to wrestle with issues of faith, religion, values, and ultimate beliefs. They're just in college to get good grades (for graduate school) or to earn technical or professional certification in order to boost their career start. And universities seem okay with this because it pays. All the while, humanities professors are a shrinking share of the faculty, and they're increasingly rewarded not for becoming intellectuals but for specializing in narrow areas of interest and research. Be more like the hard sciences, we're told."


I see an analogy between deism and the Market. James Sire called deism the "isthmus between theism and naturalism," because it was parasitic on the premodern values and beliefs. But like any unstable element, it eventually shifted toward the more stable state. Eventually there came a time when the Jeffersons gave way to the Nietzsches.

What will the world look like when all that remains are the true values of the market--survival, greed, power--untamed and untempered by any "whys?" or "what fors?" Are we entering a new but more prosperous Dark Ages? Will there be postmodern monks who keep learning alive in a world-turned-market? If so, where will they come from? Who will they be?

How do they know E.T. is an INFP?

Just wondering....









see
http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/infp/
at
http://www.mypersonality.info/

QUOTES: On hope

Here are two thoughts from two very different but very great Christians.


Thomas Merton:

Do not depend on the hope of results. You may have to face the fact that your work will be apparently worthless and even achieve no result at all, if not perhaps results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you start more and more to concentrate not on the results, but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself. You gradually struggle less and less for an idea and more and more for specific people. In the end, it is the reality of personal relationship that saves everything.

Reinhold Niebuhr:

Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime,
Therefore, we are saved by hope.
Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history;
Therefore, we are saved by faith.
Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.
Therefore, we are saved by love.
No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own;
Therefore, we are saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness.

And so this is what I conclude:

Death feeds on despair. Even if it kills you, always choose hope, because without it, resurrection is impossible.

Prayer for the Church

Let your continual mercy, O Lord, cleanse and defend your Church; and, because it cannot continue in safety without your help, protect and govern it always by your goodness; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

This is the prayer appointed for the week, from the Divine Hours.

It is appropriate not just for VCC but for our entire denomination in light of Glenn Palmberg's retirement.

QUOTE: C.S. Lewis on Progress

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

--C. S. Lewis

Stoning in Nigeria: You can't have it both ways

Two gay men in Nigeria may face death by stoning if they are convicted under Sharia law..

How to respond to this?

1) Those who are moral relativists will say every person/culture creates his/its own values. But then

a) culturally, we may allow homosexual behavior, but we can't condemn other cultures that don't. Thus we can't condemn the stoning of these Nigerian men.

b) if we do condemn this stoning, we are not simply moral relativists, but epistemological and metaphysical relativists. Contradiction rules! But as Al Plantinga so often says, anything can follow from a contradiction. So stoning these men is simultaneously "appropriate" and not "appropriate." We must both approve and dissaprove, and so we are hamstrung in responding.

2) Those who are not moral relativists will either say:

--stoning these men is right, because
a) homosexual behavior is morally incorrect and stoning is right

--stoning these men is wrong because
a) homosexual behavior is morally correct and and stoning is wrong
b) homosexual behavior is morally incorrect but stoning wrong.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. As C.S. Lewis has written, "He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Obedience, the scandalous virtue

[Second in a series of three articles reflecting on Benedictine spirituality. For the first, look here.]

The second Benedictine vow is obedience. This is probably the most outrageous virtue of all three, at best conjuring up images of dogs at obedience school and at worst, Nazis "just obeying orders."
But I wonder why those are the images that first pop to mind?

Fr. Longnecker writes:

"Obedience!!?? we howl. But we're grown ups. We're supposed to take responsibility for ourselves. We're supposed to be pro active. We're supposed to make our own moral decisions. Yadda yadda yadda.

Yes, no doubt true up to a point. We don't want a church made up of doormats and robots. However, the vices of any age are best corrected by the virtues we find most repellent. Our age is the age of the dictatorship of relativism. It is the age of individualism run rampant, the age of personal freedom (code for personal pleasure as the sole guiding principle) and tolerance (code for "leave me alone willya?")"

If Longnecker is right in his assessment of our age, then it is no wonder that obedience should be a scandal to us. But once again we are faced with the delicate matter of finding the mean, and avoiding the extremes. There is both the extreme of deficiency (postmodern antinomianism) and the extreme of excess (the Nazi nightmare mentioned above.) Obedience can become a sin when we fail to recognize and act according to that which is the real/true authority in our lives.

The False Authority of the World

In previous ages the greatest temptations to miss the mark came from from worldly and pagan sources outside the self: Astartes of sexual desire; Molechs of power, Baals of prosperity; kings, emperors, feudal lords and clergy who abused their offices.

Whenever we elevate outside authorities over the place of the Lord in our lives, we miss the mark, and end up obeying idols. There is nothing greater outside of us than our Creator; anything else is mere creature. God operates through his creation, and has established certain relationships in that creation to image the divine relationships of love and mutual submission within the life of the Trinity. (cf. Ephesians 5-6 and Colossians 3). We try to live peacefully with spouses, parents, children, employers and employees, but there may come occasions like that in Acts 5:29, when, like Peter, we have to say, "We must obey God rather than men!" In these instances we must be careful that our obedience is a response to God's authority, and not our own, or some other lesser authority.

The people of Le Chambon refused to obey men rather than God. The Cictercian Martyrs of Atlas in 1996 refused to obey men rather than God. In the niches above the west gate of Westminster Abbey stand statues of 10 contemporary Christian martyrs . They include Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. These people chose to lose their lives rather than submit to forces contrary to Christ their King; people for whom faithfulness meant obedience unto death.


The False Authority of Self

We miss the mark when we substitute other authorities for the Lord. Sometimes those authorities are within us.Just as there is nothing greater outside of us than our Creator, so there cannot be anything greater within us than our Saviour. In an age when subjectivity reigns, we will be tempted to miss the mark by mistaking self for Saviour as the true authority in our lives.

Ever since Eden, our default authority has been Self.Like Pharoah in Exodus 5:2, we declare, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go." Like the Israelites in Judges 21, we have no king; everyone does as he sees fit. It will be difficult not to heed the culture's siren song,"Follow your heart." Odysseus had himself lashed to his ships's mast to avoid succumbing, but we lash ourselves to the cross.

Discerning Genuine Authority

Okay, so there are false authorities out there and even within us aiming to rule our hearts, minds, souls and strength. So, how do we know when an authority is genuine (true) and when it is not?

1) When that authority is the very Word of God:

I can quickly end up begging the question here, but if the authority is established to be God Himself, and not something lesser, it seems to follow that it should be worthy of our respect and service.

Psalm 119 repeatedly celebrates God's law/word as our trustworthy authority, demanding our obedience.

In Matt. 22:29, Jesus chides the Sadducees, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." Knowing the Bible--hearing what God is saying to us-- is necessary if we are to be obedient. What kind of honor can we give to that we do not know? How can we be faithful if we don't know what we should be like?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 affirms that God's word is our reliable authority: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

But I admit it is not always that simple for everyone. Some of us need more epistemological reassurance, if we are to trust and obey a given authority. (Others of us, like Saul, need to fall off our mules and be blinded for a while! But that's another story.) Thus, I offer a few more ways to discern genuine authority, which are by no means exhaustive of all possible ways.

2) When that authority doesn't contradict itself.

This is a coherence criterion. How can we obey any authority that says to do A and not do A, at the same time, in the same respect? Contradictions are the basis of all lies. Satan is called the father of all lies; but God does not lie. We may find mystery, we may find paradox, but we will never find contradictions in God. He is the only perfect authority.

Titus 1: 1-2: "God, who does not lie"
Hebrews 6:18: "God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged."

3) When that authority doesn't cause us to be involved in contradictions.

This is a correspondence criterion. How can we respect, muchless obey, anything or anyone that violates our integrity? A contradiction pits something against itself. Any genuine authority will lead to more virtue/righteousness/unity/perfection/life rather than less.

1 John 5 assures us that "This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world."

4) When that authority is able to "walk its talk."



This is a pragmatic criterion. Genuine authority reveals itself not only through words, but actions. How can we possibly obey an authority that cannot itself do what it is requiring us to do? A genuine authority will model attitudes, ideas, and behaviors it wishes us to embody.

Isaiah 53:9 says "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." Jesus was the Prince of Peace, and he showed us how to be peaceful people. We can obey Him knowing that He has not preached anything that He hasn't already practiced. This is a mark of genuine authority.

Mouw, McMullen, Bourke and Augustine

Today Brad refers to Richard Mouw's blog entry, "The Lesson of 'Ancient Seas.'" Mouw writes about evolution, and along the way makes me reflect on the way my own thought has been formed.

How do you get believers to get excited spiritually about the fact that the earth is millions of years old, and that human beings have evolved from lower forms of life?

On this challenge, I was immensely pleased to come across a wonderful paragraph in a scholarly essay, published in the early 1990s in Christian Scholars Review, by Ernan McMullen, who taught in the Notre Dame philosophy department for several decades. Father McMullen affirms that over a period of millions of years, there have been “uncountable species that flourished and vanished [and] have left a trace of themselves in us.” The Bible, he says, sees God as preparing the world for “the coming of Christ back through Abraham to Adam”; but is it too much of a stretch, he asks, “to suggest that natural science now allows us to extend the story indefinitely further back?” And then this wonderful passage: “When Christ took on human nature, the DNA that made him the son of Mary may have linked him to a more ancient heritage stretching far beyond Adam to the shallows of unimaginably ancient seas. And so, in the Incarnation, it would not have been just human nature that was joined to the Divine, but in a less direct but no less real sense all those myriad organisms that had unknowingly over the eons shaped the way for the coming of the human.”

I find that to be an inspiring theme to add to our understanding of the Incarnation. That long process, beginning in “the shallows of unimaginably ancient seas,” was not wasted time. It was preparation for the One who would come with healing in his wings, a healing that will only be complete when the Savior returns and announces, “Behold, I make all things new.” And what he will renew in that act of cosmic transformation is all the stuff that he had carried–in his own DNA!– to the Cross of Calvary.

Wonderful! I love how tightly this binds the story of creation, incarnation, atonement and re-creation. And now I am drawn to consider how the story can move forward; how various teachers leave traces of themselves in us. In particular, I think of my own situation, and I remember Ernan McMullen and Vernon Bourke.

Vernon Bourke looked somewhat like Santa Claus in a glen-plaid suit. Back in the 70's professors dressed up; but Bourke always matched sturdy toffee-colored, hightop work boots with his ensembles. He taught the Medieval Philosophy course, and he was the first person I ever met who could read and write Arabic. It was in his class that I first caught on to the magic of the ontological argument. Gentle, but tough. He lived to be 91.

Father Ernan McMullen is a complex fellow. I remember when we were at Notre Dame, he took aside all the new entering graduate students and told them in in his rich Irish brogue that if they valued their marriages, they would leave immediately. He had seen several divorces in the philosophy department and didn't want to see any more.

Both McMullen and Bourke pointed to St. Augustine as probably the earliest Christian evolutionist, as a result of his theory of rationes seminales. Victor P. Warkulwiz explains why

...St. Augustine’s theory of rationes seminales... develops the idea of trans-species development of organic beings in a way quite different from Darwin or the Neo-Darwinians. Augustine may have believed in far-reaching cross-species development and so proposed an "evolutionist" theory for the origin of species. But he developed a profound metaphysical theory of the causes of such an evolution that is wholly opposed to the atheistic spirit of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. Seifert says that the Church too has to separate the "evolutionary" idea of the transformation of species from the idea that Darwinian principles are sufficient to explain the origin of species.

Augustine employs many different terms when speaking of the so-called rationes seminales. He mentions it in at least seven places in three different works, chiefly in his Genesis ad litteram. It is not easy to discern what he means by rationes seminales, but one meaning seems to imply a sophisticated and profound theory of the origin of new species from existing ones. It is clear that Augustine rejects the first two forms of the theory of evolution described above. But he seems to say that God inserted into matter at creation rationes seminales (seminating/germinating ideas or plans) for different forms to be possibly developed in matter. This seems to leave room for the transformation of one species into another. But Augustine replaces the Darwinian principles of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" with a principle similar to Aristotle’s entelechy. That is an inner active principle that contains in potency an elaborate form and potentially dynamically unfolding teleological plan that could originate only in a supreme intellect. Thus not mindless "natural selection" but an ingenious creative plan of God "inserted into matter" is the cause of evolutionary development. Augustine did not believe that all living things could spring from any matter. Rather, he held a more restricted view that allowed for the transformation of species subject to limitation by some nature. Augustine also held that living beings are distinct from non-living beings. In living beings the rationes seminales involve a soul that is not reducible to properties of matter. Finally, Augustine sounds as if he meant that the rationes seminales are not principles immanent in matter, but that they are divine creative ideas that exist in God long before the things exist that correspond to them. This is a sign of the influence of Platonic philosophy on the thinking of Augustine.

Three Thoughts:

1) Could it be that the reason evangelicals have had such a troubled time with evolution is that we lack the metaphysical language with which to discuss it, and so make the distinctions necessary that would help us preserve both the faith and the science it involves? Did some babies get thrown out with the Greek bathwater somewhere about 500 years ago?

2) Darwinian evolution assumes that progress is inevitable in evolution, as simpler, lower forms evolve into higher, more complex ones. This principle may be true for the physical world, but does it necessarily apply to the intellectual/spiritual world?

3) Rather than "progress," I believe entelechy/design operates not only in the physical world but also in the intellectual and spiritual world. (cf.Psalm 139). In my own case, God has been preparing for Christ to come to me through the lives of men like Richard Mouw, Ernan McMullan, Vernon Bourke, Augustine and the Apostles. This leads to the unavoidable question: Who He will be coming to through me?
It is an exciting, sobering, humbling thought.

Bringing Church to A.

This past Sunday after the potluck, about 15 people accepted my invitation to come bring church to A., who was still recovering from her exploratory surgery. We all piled into A's living room, and she made her way down the stairs, sat between Steve and me on the couch and gripped my hand with all her strength, beaming.

The coffee table before us became the altar, as Steve spread out the bread and communion cups and I placed a fragrant basket of stargazers, pink roses and red and white dahlias next to them. A. has promised Jesus to bring Him flowers each Sunday; but Saturday, when she realized she would not be able to do so, I assured her I would take care of it.

It was all very upper-room. We sang some simple praise songs, had communion, prayed, and annointed A. with oil. A. was excited to be able to choose whatever song she wanted, and decided on this one:

"I love you, Lord, and I lift my voice
To worship You
Oh, my soul rejoice
Take joy, my King in what You hear
Let it be a sweet, sweet sound in Your ear."

H. came home just as we were praying, and was there to witness A's annointing. I laid my hand on A., and held H's, in a sort of human chain, and several of us prayed for A. Paul speaks of unbelieving husbands being sanctified through their believing wives, in 1 Cor. 7:14. I'm not exactly sure what that means but I think that H. could see that God has given A. great faith, and that some of that hope and love is streaming out to him. Her soul was clearly rejoicing in the Lord, even in the midst of terminal illness. H. lacks the Christian framework to articulate what he was experiencing, but he was visibly moved, and kept thanking us for "surrounding A. with so much positive energy."

Soon it was time to depart. Despite our protests, A. insisted on standing, as is customary in her culture, to say goodbye to her guests. Swaying, she kissed each one's hand as they left . "She's so stubborn!" H. and another friend moaned, but A. was the happiest I have seen her, and the most peaceful.

Thank you, Lord, for coming to A. and reassuring her of your love and care, so that she is not afraid to die. Please help H. to see this and wonder more about how it is possible. Please give H. and A. occasion to be truthful with each other, so that their final times together are not about pretending and false hope, but about facing reality with genuine hope. Please give H. the courage to hear things that A. needs to say, and please give A. the courage to be able to say them. Spare A. from pain, especially in her shoulder and back. Please provide for M., and help A. to be reassured that H. will raise him well. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Nearing the Finish Line: A. continues the fight, August 2

Yesterday A. had exploratory surgery that showed the cancer has spread beyond the reach of a surgeon's knife. She will be having further chemo in an attempt to buy her more time, but it will be extremely powerful and will leave her nauseated and bedridden. She is so tired of fighting! Her husband, H., is having difficulty accepting her prognosis. He believes that positive thinking will bring healing, so he does not want others around her to "be negative" or speak about death.

A hospice nurse once told me that there are two ways he has seen people die: they either resign themselves to their mortality, and choose to spend their energy saying goodbye and enjoying the time that remains; or they "rage against the dying of the light." I suppose having a son who is not yet two years old would tend to cause one to fight. May the Lord strengthen A. for this final battle.

We are also praying:

1. That H's love for A might find its ultimate expression, in allowing her the freedom to choose not to fight anymore, if that is what she wants.

2. for H's own health.

H. has not slept for days. His blood pressure is alarming, and he is having numbness and tingling sensations in his left arm. He has not been able to attend to his business much at all because he has made caring for A. his #1 priority. It's ironic. H. is not a believer, but he could well be the poster boy for Ephesians 5:28. I can think of some Christian husbands who would do well to take lessons from H. regarding what it means to be like Christ to their wives!

3. that A. might be able to see her mother.

Last week A's mother traveled from Teheran to the American consulate in Dubai, in order to request a visa to enter the U.S. to visit her dying daughter. She brought all the forms, proof of property ownership in Iran, a letter from A's doctor here in the U.S., and the $110 fee for the privilege of an appointment at the consulate.

Once in the office, the official glanced at the stack of papers, then at her, and shoved them back at her, saying the U.S. will not allow Iranians to enter. A's mother was frantic and outraged--if this was the policy, why did they string her along, and take her money? Why didn't they say so from the start? She returned home in despair, and when A. heard the news, she too was plunged into even deeper depression.

We have requested VCC members to contact our Congressman Peter de Fazio and Senator Smith regarding her mother's visa problems, but I am not sure if there is anything they can do, and even if they can, if there is enough time.

H. is desperately entertaining every alternative. He is considering having his mother-in-law fly to Cancun, and then flying there with A. for a few days; but again, I cannot see how A. can fly anywhere. She is so weak, and the chances of infection are so great...

4. for their little son M., who is now 22 months old.

When I came this afternoon, A. was on the phone with her brother in Iran. He and her mother are insisting that if she dies, she be buried in Iran, and that M. be raised by his grandmother. A. was in tears. "M. is as much H's son as he is mine," she wept. "I cannot do this. But do you think I should go back to Iran to be buried?"

I reassured her that I thought her intuitions were good, that H. loved M. and would know best how to take care of him; that M. was probably safer here than in Iran; and that she should be wherever her husband is, because according to the Bible, she and H. are one flesh, and that that relationship takes precedence over other family relations.

A. worries that M. will not remember her. That would be another reason for her to be buried in the U.S., so M. could at least see her grave. (I worry that M. will remember her, but will not be able to express and work through his grief the way an older child might so do.) M. plays happily outside with his nanny...while his mother has made his bedroom her own, so that she might be near him. At least he is unaware of her pain...

5. For A, that her pain might continue to be controlled, and that she might be at peace and surrounded with the love of her family, friends, and heavenly Father.

2 Corinthians 4:16-18
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is te mporary, but what is unseen is eternal

"Let's Think Outside the Box of Bad Cliches"

Gregory Pence, professor of bioethics at the University of Alabama, has written a fine essay for the August 6, 2007 Newsweek "My Turn" Column. "Sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking, which is why I have a 'bone of contention' with trite phrases." Read it here

Keepers:

"When I grade written work by students, one of the phrases I hate most is "It goes without saying," in response to which I scribble on their essays, "Then why write it?" Another favorite of undergraduates is "It's not for me to say," to which I jot in their blue books, "Then why continue writing?"

I also despise the phrase "Who can say?" to which I reply, "You! That's who! That's the point of writing an essay!"

"...Spare me jargon from sports, such as being "on the bubble" for something. I'd also rather do without other jargon, such as "pushing the [edge of the] envelope." And has writing that we should "think outside the box" become such a cliché that it's now in-side the box?"


Yes, that one bothers me as well. See my June 12, 2007 post. "Just Wondering (#2)"

Let us now praise God for good editors!