This afternoon I finished working on the next school year's plans for Cru. I've also been officially made part of the evangelism team. It is both an exciting experiences - and also a little scary.
"Shawn the Evangelist"
For almost as long as I've been a Christian, I've had a desire to spread the Gospel to the unsaved. Strike up spiritual conversations, see where others stand. I was fairly outspoken for the first couple of years, then I got some hostile resistance. I suppose you could say I became rather timid about it. If someone brings up the topic first I have no issue discussing it. But being the one who instigates talk about it, that is difficult for me. There are so many things I would feel more comfortable discussing rather than my faith.
My fear is being treated harshly by the people I'm attempting to reach out to. Getting yelled at, being at the receiving end of coarse language and hatred. I see it all the time on the Internet. Christians are utterly loathed online and I don't doubt some of these strong emotions extend into real life as well. Most of my evangelism has been on the Internet, but now I have an impetus to take part of it in real life. Face to face conversation is more likely to cause change in others than text on a screen.
Nonetheless, evangelism has always been part of my calling. Despite the fear, it's something I want to do. I find it exciting to engage someone in talk about Jesus and where they stand spiritually. Cru has instilled a curiosity in me to find what others believe about God, Jesus, religion, and so on. Being part of the evangelism team, and having an evangelistic lifestyle personally, will let me act upon this desire.
"Culture of Evangelism"
As a member of the evangelism team, my only role isn't just to reach out to the lost. There are students in Cru who want to learn the art of evangelism. One of the roles of myself and my teammates is to train others to be effective evangelist. Teaching is another thing I enjoy doing. There is a lot I know and I want to share it with others. What good is knowledge if it isn't passed on to others?
It excites me that I now have a role in the ministry. I think it's a good organization and the Holy Spirit is using it powerfully. Cru has helped me a lot personally, so it's only natural for me to want to be part of it and benefit others. Giving back to a ministry that has given so much to me. We are mainly going to do this by offering training events a few times for the school year, and also one-on-one training. I look forward to it.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Working for God
"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men" (Colossians 3:23)
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
At the meeting for the campus ministry I attend (Cru), we talked about work. You know, having a job. The message was about how... wait for it... work is something given to us by God. In a way, it is our calling on a practical level. Some people have callings as ministers or evangelists. We all have another calling - as a programmer or builder or dish washer or nanny. This puts what I would otherwise consider quite tedious in a more divine perspective.
"Web Devs 4 Jesus"
I know that God gives us gifts in order to do certain things. I am gifted with a knack for computer programming, writing, and ministry. So I've long thought "alright, I will be a Web developer for my day job and a Bible teacher secondarily, with writing as a hobby." In order to spread the Gospel one of the things I ought to do is display a Christ-like character, and try to open venues to discussion about the faith. What didn't occur to me is that, like being called to ministry, one could also be called to a certain vocation!
In Genesis 1:28, God gives Adam and Eve the command to subdue the Earth. Theologians call this the cultural mandate. We are called to cultivate (hence the word "cultural") the raw resources of the world and make something great out of it. Keep in mind, this is before sin entered the world. That means work is not the result of sin. Perhaps it was made more difficult due to sin, but it existed before Satan tempted Adam and Eve. "Work" - the act of devoting one's time to a particular activity - is divinely instituted.
This is new to me. My understanding of work and religion has always been this: my primary goal on this Earth is to reach out to the unsaved and make disciples. Work was just one of the venues created by a money-based society for me to do that. In his foreknowledge, God gave me certain skills so I could provide for myself and whatever family I might eventually have, while somehow evangelizing to my co-workers. I considered it a "necessary evil."
"Called to Work"
But work is more than just something done to provide money to do actual "important" stuff for Jesus. This is what is currently blowing my mind: if I am understanding this right, work is every bit a calling as being called to ministry is. Work's not just a side-effect of society, it's part of God's plan for humanity. Its origin and reason for existence is literally divine. In my mind this makes work, whatever it may be, much more important and respectable than I originally thought.
God could have chosen to routinely make food miraculously appear in front of us at the dinner table. He could have made it so that, at the first prayer, relief shelters would appear in impoverished African nations. But he doesn't do that. Instead he works "behind a mask," as some would say. Through the work of people God provides the needs of the world.
I'm intending to be a Web developer for my career. With what I've said above in mind, I've realized how, even though it is work, it is also part of God's calling for my life. On the Internet there's an often-stated phrase, "You're doing God's work, son." As a computer programmer, my calling, I'm doing God's work. That is intensely profound and motivating.
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:10)
At the meeting for the campus ministry I attend (Cru), we talked about work. You know, having a job. The message was about how... wait for it... work is something given to us by God. In a way, it is our calling on a practical level. Some people have callings as ministers or evangelists. We all have another calling - as a programmer or builder or dish washer or nanny. This puts what I would otherwise consider quite tedious in a more divine perspective.
"Web Devs 4 Jesus"
I know that God gives us gifts in order to do certain things. I am gifted with a knack for computer programming, writing, and ministry. So I've long thought "alright, I will be a Web developer for my day job and a Bible teacher secondarily, with writing as a hobby." In order to spread the Gospel one of the things I ought to do is display a Christ-like character, and try to open venues to discussion about the faith. What didn't occur to me is that, like being called to ministry, one could also be called to a certain vocation!
In Genesis 1:28, God gives Adam and Eve the command to subdue the Earth. Theologians call this the cultural mandate. We are called to cultivate (hence the word "cultural") the raw resources of the world and make something great out of it. Keep in mind, this is before sin entered the world. That means work is not the result of sin. Perhaps it was made more difficult due to sin, but it existed before Satan tempted Adam and Eve. "Work" - the act of devoting one's time to a particular activity - is divinely instituted.
This is new to me. My understanding of work and religion has always been this: my primary goal on this Earth is to reach out to the unsaved and make disciples. Work was just one of the venues created by a money-based society for me to do that. In his foreknowledge, God gave me certain skills so I could provide for myself and whatever family I might eventually have, while somehow evangelizing to my co-workers. I considered it a "necessary evil."
"Called to Work"
But work is more than just something done to provide money to do actual "important" stuff for Jesus. This is what is currently blowing my mind: if I am understanding this right, work is every bit a calling as being called to ministry is. Work's not just a side-effect of society, it's part of God's plan for humanity. Its origin and reason for existence is literally divine. In my mind this makes work, whatever it may be, much more important and respectable than I originally thought.
God could have chosen to routinely make food miraculously appear in front of us at the dinner table. He could have made it so that, at the first prayer, relief shelters would appear in impoverished African nations. But he doesn't do that. Instead he works "behind a mask," as some would say. Through the work of people God provides the needs of the world.
I'm intending to be a Web developer for my career. With what I've said above in mind, I've realized how, even though it is work, it is also part of God's calling for my life. On the Internet there's an often-stated phrase, "You're doing God's work, son." As a computer programmer, my calling, I'm doing God's work. That is intensely profound and motivating.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Intelligence, Academia, and Idolatry
Recently in my community group, we talked about idolatry. Even though I don't bow down to wooden figurines, it made me think about something that may have been an idol of sorts in my own life: my smarts.
"Brainiac"
One question that was brought up was, how do we know when school has become an idol? I'm pretty sure we've all worried and been anxious about taking tests and seeing what kinds of grades you get. When you're in college, these things are rather important. They, in some way, influence how you advance in the future. Nobody wants to fail a test. It looks bad on the GPA and might deter possible employers. Failing a course is costly in terms of time and money.
I think school might be an idol if we worry too much about it. An idol is something that we give over control of our lives to. We look to our idol for security and fulfillment. The problem is, grades aren't very good at that. God has already established himself to be faithful in giving us security and hope, but grades can't offer that same hope. They're fickle. We might go into a course expecting bad grades, and come out well. Or we could go into the exam room thinking we have it all figured out, only to discover ourselves woefully lacking in the needed knowledge.
When we give control to grades and academia, making it our idol, we give ourselves to an unfaithful master. So we worry whether we will do well. It really feels like a roll of the dice. If it seems like the outcome is pure chance, where can we get hope from that? The proper response, from a Christian perspective, is to realize that our hope should not come from getting good grades, but rather from God. If we are faithful to him, God will see to it that things work out for our best, and his will be done. Even if it means - gasp - getting a few bad grades. It's one thing to be anxious before seeing the numbers. It's another thing to hinge our entire lives on them.
"I am so Smart, S-M-R-T"
From about fifth grade through high school, I was the star student. In high school I was usually near the top of the class, was in the honor society, took college-level courses in junior year, and so on. Even in community college I was rocking the 4.0 GPA four out of five semesters.
As you might imagine, something I've always valued is my intelligence. I was praised for being smart for my age, being ahead of the curve. And I wonder if that's not been an idol in my life at some point. If something is an idol, you put great value into it, especially emotional value. It means a lot to me that I am smart. In fact, it was quite a humbling experience to find out that I really wasn't so smart after all. Oh sure I could handle high school, but what about the real life stuff? Filing taxes, driving a car, those things. Let's not even mention college, where my average test score is simply "passing" - not above average, not stellar, just passing.
I feel like I could handle physical disease better than I could mental ones. I could probably handle going bald or losing motor skills. But things like dementia, amnesia and Alzheimer's - those are the things that really bother me. I've build up a warehouse of knowledge in my brain that is continually being improved upon. The notion of it wasting away, becoming inaccessible to me is the worst kind of punishment. In a way, I would be losing who I am.
Maybe I'm putting my intelligence on an undeserved pedestal. I think maybe it's time I acknowledge it for what is is - a gift from God. Because that's really what it is. I'm smart because God needed someone smart to carry out his plans, and he just happened to decide upon me. Yeah I'm the one who studied and built up that intelligence, but it's God who gave me the ability to learn so readily and keep knowledge for so long. Instead of valuing the intellect, I should value the giver of the intellect. If I am to boast about my smarts, I can only boast about God giving me the smarts. It's his workmanship, after all. Instead of being haughty that I know so much, I could remember that I am just a servant of God's, and the intellect is just one of the tools I've been given to act as that servant. The credit doesn't go to me, it goes to Someone higher than me.
"Brainiac"
One question that was brought up was, how do we know when school has become an idol? I'm pretty sure we've all worried and been anxious about taking tests and seeing what kinds of grades you get. When you're in college, these things are rather important. They, in some way, influence how you advance in the future. Nobody wants to fail a test. It looks bad on the GPA and might deter possible employers. Failing a course is costly in terms of time and money.
I think school might be an idol if we worry too much about it. An idol is something that we give over control of our lives to. We look to our idol for security and fulfillment. The problem is, grades aren't very good at that. God has already established himself to be faithful in giving us security and hope, but grades can't offer that same hope. They're fickle. We might go into a course expecting bad grades, and come out well. Or we could go into the exam room thinking we have it all figured out, only to discover ourselves woefully lacking in the needed knowledge.
When we give control to grades and academia, making it our idol, we give ourselves to an unfaithful master. So we worry whether we will do well. It really feels like a roll of the dice. If it seems like the outcome is pure chance, where can we get hope from that? The proper response, from a Christian perspective, is to realize that our hope should not come from getting good grades, but rather from God. If we are faithful to him, God will see to it that things work out for our best, and his will be done. Even if it means - gasp - getting a few bad grades. It's one thing to be anxious before seeing the numbers. It's another thing to hinge our entire lives on them.
"I am so Smart, S-M-R-T"
From about fifth grade through high school, I was the star student. In high school I was usually near the top of the class, was in the honor society, took college-level courses in junior year, and so on. Even in community college I was rocking the 4.0 GPA four out of five semesters.
As you might imagine, something I've always valued is my intelligence. I was praised for being smart for my age, being ahead of the curve. And I wonder if that's not been an idol in my life at some point. If something is an idol, you put great value into it, especially emotional value. It means a lot to me that I am smart. In fact, it was quite a humbling experience to find out that I really wasn't so smart after all. Oh sure I could handle high school, but what about the real life stuff? Filing taxes, driving a car, those things. Let's not even mention college, where my average test score is simply "passing" - not above average, not stellar, just passing.
I feel like I could handle physical disease better than I could mental ones. I could probably handle going bald or losing motor skills. But things like dementia, amnesia and Alzheimer's - those are the things that really bother me. I've build up a warehouse of knowledge in my brain that is continually being improved upon. The notion of it wasting away, becoming inaccessible to me is the worst kind of punishment. In a way, I would be losing who I am.
Maybe I'm putting my intelligence on an undeserved pedestal. I think maybe it's time I acknowledge it for what is is - a gift from God. Because that's really what it is. I'm smart because God needed someone smart to carry out his plans, and he just happened to decide upon me. Yeah I'm the one who studied and built up that intelligence, but it's God who gave me the ability to learn so readily and keep knowledge for so long. Instead of valuing the intellect, I should value the giver of the intellect. If I am to boast about my smarts, I can only boast about God giving me the smarts. It's his workmanship, after all. Instead of being haughty that I know so much, I could remember that I am just a servant of God's, and the intellect is just one of the tools I've been given to act as that servant. The credit doesn't go to me, it goes to Someone higher than me.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Why I Can't Oppose Gay Marriage
With things like Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act being weighed upon in the Supreme Court of the US, the idea of gay marriage and its legality is coming to a forefront once again. A friend of mine posted his stance about it on his blog, and I think I should do the same on mine.
As some may know, I am formerly conservative, now libertarian. Part of the libertarian ethos is that people should have the right to do as they please. When it comes to whether gays should be allowed to marry, it is my belief that it is a matter of personal liberty. The government was not intended to legislate morality; rather, it was made to be something that could protect and provide as need be.
This may sound weird coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. After all, aren't conservative Christians (of which I am only kind of one) supposed to be against it? To be fair, most are. But here's the thing. I don't believe that we believers should be forcing our beliefs on the unbelieving world. Force has never, ever, been an effective way of truly leading people to come to Christ. Also, keep in mind that following the commands of God is essentially a Spiritual thing. A person cannot expected to resist sin and serve God unless they have the Holy Spirit in them. People who do not believe do not have the Holy Spirit in them, and as such they cannot be expected to observe spiritual guidelines. So trying to tell people that gay marriage is wrong because it violates God's standards is pointless. They don't have the Holy Spirit, so it means nothing to them!
Some may say, "Well what about things like murder and theft? Those are deemed sins in the Bible, yet those are illegal. Isn't that legislating morality?" To that I respond, perhaps. But the only reason those are made illegal is because Christians and non-Christians alike see them as wrong. The unbelieving population agrees that murder and theft are wrong. The same cannot be said of gay marriage.
Do I believe that a homosexual lifestyle, including gay marriage, is morally correct? No, the Bible is clear about that. Do I hate gays? Of course not! It's very plain to me that they are humans as well, and bearers of the image of God. To hate them would be downright un-Christian! I don't believe the lifestyle is proper, but outlawing it goes outside the bounds of what a Christian can do. We are called to evangelize to the world, not legislate it.
As some may know, I am formerly conservative, now libertarian. Part of the libertarian ethos is that people should have the right to do as they please. When it comes to whether gays should be allowed to marry, it is my belief that it is a matter of personal liberty. The government was not intended to legislate morality; rather, it was made to be something that could protect and provide as need be.
This may sound weird coming from someone who claims to be a Christian. After all, aren't conservative Christians (of which I am only kind of one) supposed to be against it? To be fair, most are. But here's the thing. I don't believe that we believers should be forcing our beliefs on the unbelieving world. Force has never, ever, been an effective way of truly leading people to come to Christ. Also, keep in mind that following the commands of God is essentially a Spiritual thing. A person cannot expected to resist sin and serve God unless they have the Holy Spirit in them. People who do not believe do not have the Holy Spirit in them, and as such they cannot be expected to observe spiritual guidelines. So trying to tell people that gay marriage is wrong because it violates God's standards is pointless. They don't have the Holy Spirit, so it means nothing to them!
Some may say, "Well what about things like murder and theft? Those are deemed sins in the Bible, yet those are illegal. Isn't that legislating morality?" To that I respond, perhaps. But the only reason those are made illegal is because Christians and non-Christians alike see them as wrong. The unbelieving population agrees that murder and theft are wrong. The same cannot be said of gay marriage.
Do I believe that a homosexual lifestyle, including gay marriage, is morally correct? No, the Bible is clear about that. Do I hate gays? Of course not! It's very plain to me that they are humans as well, and bearers of the image of God. To hate them would be downright un-Christian! I don't believe the lifestyle is proper, but outlawing it goes outside the bounds of what a Christian can do. We are called to evangelize to the world, not legislate it.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Reflection on Dropping a Class
I don't consider myself someone who often gives up on things. Often I'll want to quit something because it's difficult or tedious, but due to my goal-oriented personality I'll stick through things until the end. Even if it's kind of stupid to keep going with something, I'll muster the strength to push through.
Yesterday I dropped one of my college classes, engineering physics. I've had bad grades in classes before. Once I failed a semester of gym (I've never been the athletic type). In high school I got a 72 on my physics exam, something that completely blindsided me. I've failed my share of tests, including a Spanish test where I perfectly did something in a particular form of the past tense, but it was the wrong form of past tense. Even in those classes I kept going and ended up doing better.
But, in a way, I gave up with EP. My first test grade was a 58. The second was a 31. Don't get me wrong, I've overcome academic mountains in my time. Last semester I had a class, Data and Program Structures, which was ridiculously hard for me to understand. Failed at least one of the tests. The information was abstract and the professor's teaching method didn't resound well for me. But I ended up rocking the final exam and graduated with a high B. It seems as though EP was just too much. It was my Everest, something I couldn't overcome.
I admit part of the reason I had to drop the class was due to my own laziness. I could have studied more, asked more questions, gotten more help. Then again, there's always more I could have done. The other part of why I dropped was the class itself. I would routinely spend three hours a day, four days a week, just doing the homework for the class itself. That didn't leave much time to study for other classes. And so much information was pushed on us in a single class that you really needed to "hurry up and learn." Even if a chapter's worth of material was taught in the 50-minute class (which actually happened before), there would be an assignment due at 4:30 PM that same day. That only gives me three hours to complete homework on a chapter's worth of stuff I had been hurriedly taught in less than an hour!
Plus we had studios, basically lab classes, that were hands-on. Honestly, I'm not the hands-on sort of guy. I don't like to experiment; I prefer to calculate. I'm a logician, or perhaps a number cruncher. There were interpersonal issues that hampered my experience in the studio and in any case the people I worked with knew the stuff better than I.
I feel a little bad for dropping the class. Now I'm down to being a part time student (I was full time at 12 credit hours, and EP accounted for 5 of those). I feel like I'm not really using my time wisely anymore. Like I could be more productive by having more than just two classes. Tuesdays and Thursday only have classes at 12:30 PM now, and on other days I'm done by 11:30 AM. What am I even doing here if I'm not a full time student? There's also the fact that my graduation has possibly been delayed another semester, depending on how things ultimately turn out.
At the same time, it was good for me to withdraw from the class. I wasn't understanding the material. Perhaps that 72 back in high school should have been a warning. Even though it's just a matter of remembering equations and how they relate, the course is surprisingly hard for me. I guess it's partially because it deals with how objects move and interact. Imagining that kind of stuff is a bit beyond my understanding. Also, the class was a huge time sink. That's to be expected from a 5 credit class, but dang. Maybe I could have used my weekends more effectively but nonetheless, it ate up so much time I couldn't do much of anything else. By dropping the class, I'm sparing my GPA from horrible damage, at the expense of getting a W on my transcript. There's no reason to believe employers will be bothered by this. Instead I'll probably take a chemistry class to fulfill the requirements EP was supposed to satisfy.
I can use the free time from having one less class to focus more energy on the other ones, and perhaps enjoy my time a little more. I don't want to start goofing off all day because that is inefficient use of time and contradicts the entire point of being at university. Still a chance to relax is really nice. The impetus on me now is to utilize the opened time slots available and work harder on the other two classes I have.
Yesterday I dropped one of my college classes, engineering physics. I've had bad grades in classes before. Once I failed a semester of gym (I've never been the athletic type). In high school I got a 72 on my physics exam, something that completely blindsided me. I've failed my share of tests, including a Spanish test where I perfectly did something in a particular form of the past tense, but it was the wrong form of past tense. Even in those classes I kept going and ended up doing better.
But, in a way, I gave up with EP. My first test grade was a 58. The second was a 31. Don't get me wrong, I've overcome academic mountains in my time. Last semester I had a class, Data and Program Structures, which was ridiculously hard for me to understand. Failed at least one of the tests. The information was abstract and the professor's teaching method didn't resound well for me. But I ended up rocking the final exam and graduated with a high B. It seems as though EP was just too much. It was my Everest, something I couldn't overcome.
I admit part of the reason I had to drop the class was due to my own laziness. I could have studied more, asked more questions, gotten more help. Then again, there's always more I could have done. The other part of why I dropped was the class itself. I would routinely spend three hours a day, four days a week, just doing the homework for the class itself. That didn't leave much time to study for other classes. And so much information was pushed on us in a single class that you really needed to "hurry up and learn." Even if a chapter's worth of material was taught in the 50-minute class (which actually happened before), there would be an assignment due at 4:30 PM that same day. That only gives me three hours to complete homework on a chapter's worth of stuff I had been hurriedly taught in less than an hour!
Plus we had studios, basically lab classes, that were hands-on. Honestly, I'm not the hands-on sort of guy. I don't like to experiment; I prefer to calculate. I'm a logician, or perhaps a number cruncher. There were interpersonal issues that hampered my experience in the studio and in any case the people I worked with knew the stuff better than I.
I feel a little bad for dropping the class. Now I'm down to being a part time student (I was full time at 12 credit hours, and EP accounted for 5 of those). I feel like I'm not really using my time wisely anymore. Like I could be more productive by having more than just two classes. Tuesdays and Thursday only have classes at 12:30 PM now, and on other days I'm done by 11:30 AM. What am I even doing here if I'm not a full time student? There's also the fact that my graduation has possibly been delayed another semester, depending on how things ultimately turn out.
At the same time, it was good for me to withdraw from the class. I wasn't understanding the material. Perhaps that 72 back in high school should have been a warning. Even though it's just a matter of remembering equations and how they relate, the course is surprisingly hard for me. I guess it's partially because it deals with how objects move and interact. Imagining that kind of stuff is a bit beyond my understanding. Also, the class was a huge time sink. That's to be expected from a 5 credit class, but dang. Maybe I could have used my weekends more effectively but nonetheless, it ate up so much time I couldn't do much of anything else. By dropping the class, I'm sparing my GPA from horrible damage, at the expense of getting a W on my transcript. There's no reason to believe employers will be bothered by this. Instead I'll probably take a chemistry class to fulfill the requirements EP was supposed to satisfy.
I can use the free time from having one less class to focus more energy on the other ones, and perhaps enjoy my time a little more. I don't want to start goofing off all day because that is inefficient use of time and contradicts the entire point of being at university. Still a chance to relax is really nice. The impetus on me now is to utilize the opened time slots available and work harder on the other two classes I have.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Babylon 5
In an effort to get more into my space sci-fi nerd roots, I've begun watching online episodes of the show Babylon 5. Apparently it's something like a soap opera set in outer space, on a huge station named, what else, Babylon 5. That's kind of different from what I had thought it was, but honestly I'm enjoying it.
The show does something I like: it dares to ask and explore deeply philosophical questions. I'm on about episode seven right now and it's touched on things like religion and the ethics of telepathy already. It seems like xenophobia toward aliens is going to be a prevalent part of the series later on.
Episode two of the series, "Soul Hunter," is particularly mind-screwey. There is an old wives' tale among the alien race called the Minbari that if you're bad, someone from a race called the Soul Hunters will snatch your soul and prevent you from entering the Minbari afterlife. In this episode, a person from the Soul Hunter species arrives on the station, much to the fright of the Minbari ambassador there. But things are hardly as black-and-white as it seems. Soul Hunters are drawn by death. They can sense it. They believe themselves to be doing a noble duty, where they absorb the souls of dying people who are gifted in some way - intelligent, creative, crafty, and so on - and store them in little round capsules, where they can interact with the soul and preserve what made them special.
However, the Soul Hunter that comes to Babylon 5 is somewhat insane. Instead of letting the death happen by itself, he's trying to cause the death - in this case, of the Minbari ambassador herself. But his insanity ends up being his own doom, as the souls seemingly turn on him in a moment of weakness.
What makes this episode so intriguing is that there are big questions raised, but never answered. Were those really souls in the capsules, or some other form of energy? Maybe they are not really souls, just electro-chemical signals and patterns. Are the Soul Hunters really bad for wanting to preserve those who were special during their lifetime? Do the souls of the Minbari really go to some kind of afterlife, or do they just cease to exist in the absence of a body? Did the encapsuled souls turn on their possessor because he was a madman who needed to be stopped, or because they were experiencing some kind of emotional anguish by being denied passage to their afterlives? There is no clear right and wrong here.
The ending of this episode is the clincher. After the madman is neutralized, the Minbari lady gets possession of the capsules. She is shown euphorically breaking open the capsules, releasing what appeared to be actual souls. Yet as we've already established, there is no concrete answer to whether there is any kind of afterlife. So as she releases the souls, she could very well be killing the greatest minds in history, under the mistaken belief she is giving them eternal peace!
I'm watching the show at a rate of about one episode a day. The first few episodes had cheesy acting, but it's starting to pull itself together. With five seasons of storyline and seven movies, I think I'm going to like this. I know the series itself will be a pleasure to watch, I hope I can say the same about the movies.
The show does something I like: it dares to ask and explore deeply philosophical questions. I'm on about episode seven right now and it's touched on things like religion and the ethics of telepathy already. It seems like xenophobia toward aliens is going to be a prevalent part of the series later on.
Episode two of the series, "Soul Hunter," is particularly mind-screwey. There is an old wives' tale among the alien race called the Minbari that if you're bad, someone from a race called the Soul Hunters will snatch your soul and prevent you from entering the Minbari afterlife. In this episode, a person from the Soul Hunter species arrives on the station, much to the fright of the Minbari ambassador there. But things are hardly as black-and-white as it seems. Soul Hunters are drawn by death. They can sense it. They believe themselves to be doing a noble duty, where they absorb the souls of dying people who are gifted in some way - intelligent, creative, crafty, and so on - and store them in little round capsules, where they can interact with the soul and preserve what made them special.
However, the Soul Hunter that comes to Babylon 5 is somewhat insane. Instead of letting the death happen by itself, he's trying to cause the death - in this case, of the Minbari ambassador herself. But his insanity ends up being his own doom, as the souls seemingly turn on him in a moment of weakness.
What makes this episode so intriguing is that there are big questions raised, but never answered. Were those really souls in the capsules, or some other form of energy? Maybe they are not really souls, just electro-chemical signals and patterns. Are the Soul Hunters really bad for wanting to preserve those who were special during their lifetime? Do the souls of the Minbari really go to some kind of afterlife, or do they just cease to exist in the absence of a body? Did the encapsuled souls turn on their possessor because he was a madman who needed to be stopped, or because they were experiencing some kind of emotional anguish by being denied passage to their afterlives? There is no clear right and wrong here.
The ending of this episode is the clincher. After the madman is neutralized, the Minbari lady gets possession of the capsules. She is shown euphorically breaking open the capsules, releasing what appeared to be actual souls. Yet as we've already established, there is no concrete answer to whether there is any kind of afterlife. So as she releases the souls, she could very well be killing the greatest minds in history, under the mistaken belief she is giving them eternal peace!
I'm watching the show at a rate of about one episode a day. The first few episodes had cheesy acting, but it's starting to pull itself together. With five seasons of storyline and seven movies, I think I'm going to like this. I know the series itself will be a pleasure to watch, I hope I can say the same about the movies.
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Lutheran, Three Months Later
This is a follow up to my previous post, concerning my experiences attending a Lutheran church.
What can I say? I loved the church I attended while at college. I seem to have a liking for the "high church" style, which has elements reaching far back into the centuries. The intense symbolism, the ancient doctrines, just the general feel of it was something that was great for me. One Saturday night, after having not been to the church in a couple weeks, I actually looked forward to arriving there in the morning.
One of the hardest things for me insofar as embracing Lutheranism has been the doctrines. Keep in mind that I've spent the last four years in a type of church that has existed a scant century, although much of its doctrines have been around a lot longer. I've been approaching this from a rational perspective, because that's how my personality works. I want to understand things. Some of the hardest things for me to understand or accept thus far include things like this:
Absolution: one part of the things a Lutheran pastor says during a church service is, "As a called and ordained minister, I forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Wait, a human is forgiving me of my sins? That's not even Biblical! (Unless you are Catholic.) In any case, I've already had my sins forgiven at the cross! I did a little research on this and found that the pastor isn't actually attempting to forgive my sins in this statement. Rather he is acting as a mouthpiece for Christ. When he says this, what he is doing is reiterating that we have been forgiven. He is saying "Your sins are forgiven" on behalf of Jesus, which I think is acceptable for a pastor. This issue is resolved for me.
Baptism: this is the one that has given me the most pause, and it's only recently that I've come to terms with it. At first, there seems to be an irreconcilable contradiction in Lutheran theology. In works such as the Large Catechism and Book of Concord, Martin Luther writes that baptism is necessary for salvation. But hold on a second, wasn't the entire point of Luther's desire for reformation an attempt to change the "faith plus works" salvation preached by the Catholic Church? How could he then say that without baptism, a person can't be saved?
I spent a good few weeks trying to sort this out. I talked with several people about it, pastors and laymen alike, to try and get an understanding. At first it seemed like they were simply playing word games, hiding a works-based salvation behind semantics. At one point I felt like I was being BS'ed and wanted them to just spit it out plain and simple. Subsequently, however, I've come to a greater understanding of the Lutheran perspective of salvation and the role baptism plays in it.
According to the LCMS, the branch of Lutheranism I'm interested in, baptism is not absolutely required for salvation. Whether or not that means a person can knowingly forego it, I'm not sure. That said, they do believe that baptism is the way you receive salvation. Now, if you're skeptical like I was (and still am a little) you may say that they're preaching a "faith plus works" salvation, which runs counter to the thrust of the Reformation. Martin Luther once wrote something about us needing something to cling to for our faith, or something along the lines of that, but honestly unless I'm missing out on context that is an incoherent argument. Anyway, let us consider what the word "work" means in regards to salvation. It's something you do to gain salvation. Catholics, to the best of my knowledge, hold that things like baptism, the Eucharist, confession, penance, and so forth are things you do to get and maintain salvation. A work is an action done by man toward God, to get divine acceptance.
In Lutheran theology, baptism is not a work because in it we are not doing something to earn God's grace and forgiveness. It is the other way around. In the sacrament of baptism, the human is submitting to and receiving God's grace and mercy. It is an action done by God toward man, giving salvation and the other gifts with it. In a way, it's actually the opposite of a work. Now to some that may come off as a bizarre explanation. I myself am not completely sold on it either, but there is logic to it.
One of the results of me digging so hard on this topic is that I've come to have a greater appreciation for baptism. It has been, I think, unfairly downplayed in the last 400 or so years by those who would say it's merely symbolic. There are many verses that connect baptism with salvation. Two passages show Jesus telling his apostles that we are saved by faith and baptism, and in Acts, on the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter also says "Repent and be baptized" for salvation. With how heavily emphasized it is, more so than Communion or hearing the Word it seems, treating it so lightly is amiss. Thus to a believe who reads this, if you are not baptized and have the opportunity to do so, I ask - indeed implore - that you be baptized. There is no reason a follower of Christ would forego something commanded by Jesus himself and strongly emphasized by those who worked under his authority.
I also wish to add this. I believe in the concept of baptism of desire. This is where a person has faith and wishes to be baptized, but for some reason dies before they get the opportunity. Consider the thief on the cross that asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus essentially declared the man saved, even though we have no reason to think the thief was baptized.
Lastly, baptism is ineffectual if the person does not already have faith. I'm talking about people who are able to make decisions for themselves. That doesn't include infants.
What can I say? I loved the church I attended while at college. I seem to have a liking for the "high church" style, which has elements reaching far back into the centuries. The intense symbolism, the ancient doctrines, just the general feel of it was something that was great for me. One Saturday night, after having not been to the church in a couple weeks, I actually looked forward to arriving there in the morning.
One of the hardest things for me insofar as embracing Lutheranism has been the doctrines. Keep in mind that I've spent the last four years in a type of church that has existed a scant century, although much of its doctrines have been around a lot longer. I've been approaching this from a rational perspective, because that's how my personality works. I want to understand things. Some of the hardest things for me to understand or accept thus far include things like this:
Absolution: one part of the things a Lutheran pastor says during a church service is, "As a called and ordained minister, I forgive you of your sins in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Wait, a human is forgiving me of my sins? That's not even Biblical! (Unless you are Catholic.) In any case, I've already had my sins forgiven at the cross! I did a little research on this and found that the pastor isn't actually attempting to forgive my sins in this statement. Rather he is acting as a mouthpiece for Christ. When he says this, what he is doing is reiterating that we have been forgiven. He is saying "Your sins are forgiven" on behalf of Jesus, which I think is acceptable for a pastor. This issue is resolved for me.
Baptism: this is the one that has given me the most pause, and it's only recently that I've come to terms with it. At first, there seems to be an irreconcilable contradiction in Lutheran theology. In works such as the Large Catechism and Book of Concord, Martin Luther writes that baptism is necessary for salvation. But hold on a second, wasn't the entire point of Luther's desire for reformation an attempt to change the "faith plus works" salvation preached by the Catholic Church? How could he then say that without baptism, a person can't be saved?
I spent a good few weeks trying to sort this out. I talked with several people about it, pastors and laymen alike, to try and get an understanding. At first it seemed like they were simply playing word games, hiding a works-based salvation behind semantics. At one point I felt like I was being BS'ed and wanted them to just spit it out plain and simple. Subsequently, however, I've come to a greater understanding of the Lutheran perspective of salvation and the role baptism plays in it.
According to the LCMS, the branch of Lutheranism I'm interested in, baptism is not absolutely required for salvation. Whether or not that means a person can knowingly forego it, I'm not sure. That said, they do believe that baptism is the way you receive salvation. Now, if you're skeptical like I was (and still am a little) you may say that they're preaching a "faith plus works" salvation, which runs counter to the thrust of the Reformation. Martin Luther once wrote something about us needing something to cling to for our faith, or something along the lines of that, but honestly unless I'm missing out on context that is an incoherent argument. Anyway, let us consider what the word "work" means in regards to salvation. It's something you do to gain salvation. Catholics, to the best of my knowledge, hold that things like baptism, the Eucharist, confession, penance, and so forth are things you do to get and maintain salvation. A work is an action done by man toward God, to get divine acceptance.
In Lutheran theology, baptism is not a work because in it we are not doing something to earn God's grace and forgiveness. It is the other way around. In the sacrament of baptism, the human is submitting to and receiving God's grace and mercy. It is an action done by God toward man, giving salvation and the other gifts with it. In a way, it's actually the opposite of a work. Now to some that may come off as a bizarre explanation. I myself am not completely sold on it either, but there is logic to it.
One of the results of me digging so hard on this topic is that I've come to have a greater appreciation for baptism. It has been, I think, unfairly downplayed in the last 400 or so years by those who would say it's merely symbolic. There are many verses that connect baptism with salvation. Two passages show Jesus telling his apostles that we are saved by faith and baptism, and in Acts, on the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter also says "Repent and be baptized" for salvation. With how heavily emphasized it is, more so than Communion or hearing the Word it seems, treating it so lightly is amiss. Thus to a believe who reads this, if you are not baptized and have the opportunity to do so, I ask - indeed implore - that you be baptized. There is no reason a follower of Christ would forego something commanded by Jesus himself and strongly emphasized by those who worked under his authority.
I also wish to add this. I believe in the concept of baptism of desire. This is where a person has faith and wishes to be baptized, but for some reason dies before they get the opportunity. Consider the thief on the cross that asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus essentially declared the man saved, even though we have no reason to think the thief was baptized.
Lastly, baptism is ineffectual if the person does not already have faith. I'm talking about people who are able to make decisions for themselves. That doesn't include infants.
Infant baptism: Surprisingly, this practice was performed in the early church. I say "surprisingly" because it's often maligned. There is some weak but credible Biblical support, although I can't say I fully agree with the action or its reasoning. Nonetheless I consider it a minor issue, nothing to part ways over.
Jesus's presence in Communion: I was first taught that Communion was a symbolic act re-enacting the Last Supper and encouraging us to examine ourselves to see what sin still lie in us. Per Lutheran doctrine, it's another act that empowers us spiritually. I can understand and accept that proposition. What's bothered me is the idea that in the bread and wine used for the service, it's believed that the actual body and blood of Christ, more specifically its essence, is present in the food and drink. Physically it is not there, but in essence it is. The Lutheran theology differs slightly from the Catholic theology concerning this.
Now this sounds like blatant cannibalism. Being told to eat the flesh and blood of someone. I did some studying on this and the lines of reasoning used to defend why this is not cannibalism is a little wacky, but I suppose it does hold. It is a little disturbing, however. What surprised me was when I discovered that even the early church thought the body and blood was present in the bread and wine of Eucharist. It's not some mystical concept contrived by the Catholic church centuries after the fact - as best as we can tell, this was believed basically from the start of Christianity.
One of the many carry-overs from Catholicism that the Lutheran church keeps is the concept of closed communion. In the three months that I have attended Lutheran churches, I haven't been able to be part of the Communion service, because I'm not a member. The Bible says only people who are Christian should take Communion. I guess that in the first couple centuries of Christianity, only the people who were part of the church were the ones who could take communion. As the church grew and more formal administration was developed, some sort of records were kept to see who was and wasn't part of the Christian church. Not being a committed member of a church probably meant you weren't Christian, thus taking Communion would, as the Bible says, drinks judgment upon yourself. This evolved and became such that only a person registered as a member could take Communion, and the method was carried over into Lutheranism.
I don't necessarily begrudge the fact that, as a non-Lutheran, I'm not entitled to join their Communion. It's not like I'd lose my salvation. It may come off as a bit stringent but I don't have a quarrel with it.
Jesus's descent into Hell: My understanding has long been that Jesus went from the cross right into heaven. But one of the lines in the Apostles' Creed, which has existed in some form since the time of the early church, states that Jesus spent some period of time in Hell. I'm a bit iffy about this. At one point I would have agreed with it, but now I'm not really sure. There is some Scriptural credibility for it. And since the early church seemed to have believed this, it's even more compelling. Now normally I would just consider this a minor issue and move on. However, this isn't just any old piece of doctrine. This is something that, apparently, had been believed from the earliest days of Christian faith. I'm undecided on it, personally.
If I were to go through Confirmation in the Lutheran church, one of the things I'd be asked is if I believed what the Apostles' Creed said, including the part about Jesus descending into Hell. I want to be sure that it's true before attempting such a thing. (Edit: Ephesians 4:8-10 seem to say Jesus did indeed descend into Sheol, also called Hades, which was translated somewhat incorrectly as Hell in the Creed. This along with the verse talking about Jesus preaching to the dead seems to indicate Jesus went into the part of Hades where the righteous were awaiting redemption, spoke of what had happened, and led them into Heaven.)
To finish things off, I'd just like to say that I'll probably never agree completely with Lutheran theology. Or the theology of any denomination, for that matter. There's little details and nuances which I see differently, for example the age of the Earth (I'm an Old Earth Creationist). Nonetheless I like the beliefs of the LCMS and feel that it's pretty close to what the first followers of Christ were taught. An absolute copy? Probably not, but one of the better things we got.
To finish things off, I'd just like to say that I'll probably never agree completely with Lutheran theology. Or the theology of any denomination, for that matter. There's little details and nuances which I see differently, for example the age of the Earth (I'm an Old Earth Creationist). Nonetheless I like the beliefs of the LCMS and feel that it's pretty close to what the first followers of Christ were taught. An absolute copy? Probably not, but one of the better things we got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
