I will first begin by explaining what pluralism is - pluralism is the idea that all religions worship a manifestation of the ultimate reality (or being). I am writing a paper in response to John Hick's pluralism. First of all, when everybody is right, nobody is right: if the buddhists are correct and there isn't a deity, then how can those who are followers of the Triune God be right? How can Christians rightly be said to worship the true living God? Second, Hick claims that most religions are the result of cultural perspectives, yet, Christianity began as an Eastern religion. Has anybody heard of the Eastern Orthodox Church? However, Christianity is often considered a Western religion. So I really think that religions are too diverse to use cultural diversity to explain their differences. Hick believes that every major religion teaches compassion for their fellow man. Once again I think that this is incorrect, Christianity would claim that we have compassion for our fellow man because of the Grace of the Holy Spirit in our lives. Also, I would ask if Islam really teaches compassion for one's fellow man. Is Jihad an Islamic notion? What is the meaning of Jihad, are the terrorists true muslims or a part of the rebel fringe of Islam? If terrorists are true Muslims, then Islam doesn't seem to teach compassion for one's fellow man.
This is about it, my arguments will be a bit more complex, but this is just a simple summary critique of John Hick.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Communitarian Hermeneutics
Post-Modern Theology - by popular demand
One of the main tenets of post-modern theology is a community hermeneutic. (So none of you have to look this up, a hermeneutic is an interpretation, and this can be an interpretation of anything, but in this instance it's the interpretation of the Bible.) What is a community hermeneutic? The community decides what they believe. Take the example of the feminist community, I don't have any specific non-biblical examples, but they would understand some parts of the Bible where it teaches wives to submit to their husbands, as no longer applicable, because this is patriarchal, and Jesus taught that everyone was equal. The concerns of the feminist community would guide the manner in which they read the Bible. A liberation hermeneutic reads the Bible in a revolutionary manner, if a liberation community is being oppressed, they would understand Exodus and 'The Exodus' of Moses and the Israelites to apply to them. Hence those in the oppressed community would then use whatever means necessary to overthrow their oppressors. If this means they get out the AK-47 and kill their oppressors, then this is what they do.
Many post-modern theologians encourage this type of hermeneutic. Why? Because there is no God's-eye perspective. The only person that has a God's-eye perspective is God, but even then we can't be sure what God is telling us. Therefore, we really can't know what is true, so truth is determined by the community that we live in. (Not to get the GA Dem riled up, but there might be a 'Republican' hermeneutic - not to say that Christians ought to be democrats though, just making a value-neutral statement.)
Obviously this is very problematic for the Christian community. We need to have some standard or criterion for a true biblical hermeneutic and truth. I suggest that we have a community hermeneutic, but among the church as a whole. This includes the entire community of the Church, from Adam to John the Apostle, from Clement of Rome to Kevin Vanhoozer. This would include, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, and etc. Hopefully you get the picture. Not that an individual shouldn't read the Bible by herself, but that she ought to read the Bible with the entire church in mind. If an individual interprets the Bible in such a manner that no one else agrees with that person's interpretation. Then that individual ought to re-examine the Scripture. Throughout the entire history of the Church, including St. Augustine and John Calvin, famous theologians have made mistakes interpreting Scripture. Why can we as individuals expect to do any better? We need to interpret Scripture in light of the entire community of the Church. There is an absolute truth and God uses the Holy Spirit acting and present among the Body of Christ to reveal His truth to us.
One of the main tenets of post-modern theology is a community hermeneutic. (So none of you have to look this up, a hermeneutic is an interpretation, and this can be an interpretation of anything, but in this instance it's the interpretation of the Bible.) What is a community hermeneutic? The community decides what they believe. Take the example of the feminist community, I don't have any specific non-biblical examples, but they would understand some parts of the Bible where it teaches wives to submit to their husbands, as no longer applicable, because this is patriarchal, and Jesus taught that everyone was equal. The concerns of the feminist community would guide the manner in which they read the Bible. A liberation hermeneutic reads the Bible in a revolutionary manner, if a liberation community is being oppressed, they would understand Exodus and 'The Exodus' of Moses and the Israelites to apply to them. Hence those in the oppressed community would then use whatever means necessary to overthrow their oppressors. If this means they get out the AK-47 and kill their oppressors, then this is what they do.
Many post-modern theologians encourage this type of hermeneutic. Why? Because there is no God's-eye perspective. The only person that has a God's-eye perspective is God, but even then we can't be sure what God is telling us. Therefore, we really can't know what is true, so truth is determined by the community that we live in. (Not to get the GA Dem riled up, but there might be a 'Republican' hermeneutic - not to say that Christians ought to be democrats though, just making a value-neutral statement.)
Obviously this is very problematic for the Christian community. We need to have some standard or criterion for a true biblical hermeneutic and truth. I suggest that we have a community hermeneutic, but among the church as a whole. This includes the entire community of the Church, from Adam to John the Apostle, from Clement of Rome to Kevin Vanhoozer. This would include, St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, and etc. Hopefully you get the picture. Not that an individual shouldn't read the Bible by herself, but that she ought to read the Bible with the entire church in mind. If an individual interprets the Bible in such a manner that no one else agrees with that person's interpretation. Then that individual ought to re-examine the Scripture. Throughout the entire history of the Church, including St. Augustine and John Calvin, famous theologians have made mistakes interpreting Scripture. Why can we as individuals expect to do any better? We need to interpret Scripture in light of the entire community of the Church. There is an absolute truth and God uses the Holy Spirit acting and present among the Body of Christ to reveal His truth to us.
Reformed Missionaries
When I was at seminary every year, all the time, they had missions focus. The first thing that everyone would tell you is that the country they were a missionary in was beautiful. The people were beautiful, they were serving God, God was moving. They would always show you how exotic their country was and how much cool stuff you could do there. It always seemed to me that it was an emotional appeal, kinda like the Navy used to advertise, "See the world. Join the Navy." One of my friends was a missions recruiter and I called him out about this one time. I asked him, "how come we are made to feel guilty if we don't go to the mission field?" My friend was very apologetic about this approach but he would also say, what do you expect? This is true, almost every missionary I've known (except for one if you count internet friends) have been extremely emotional about missions. In fact, these people haven't known their theology, all they want to tell people is that, "Jesus loves you." I'll get back to this later, but first I want to mention another point of contention I raised with my friend. I asked him, how come most people treat mission trips, or being a missionary as an extended vacation. It also seemed like a lot of people that did missions, did so because they didn't know what else to do. My friend also responded to this, very gracefully I might add, that they did have counseling sessions with people before they left and told them about the hardships that they would face in the field. Yet, many people go overseas without truly being called by God - my friend was upfront about this. This is why I suppose it's difficult to become a full-time missionary.
Back to theology. It's great to tell people that Jesus loves them, people need to know that, but there's a slight problem with this. Why is it important for people to know that Jesus loves them? Who is Jesus? He's the Son of God, what does this mean? Why did God send Jesus to die on the cross - Jesus died for my sins. Well if God is all-powerful, why couldn't He forgive us without sending His son to die on the cross? God had to punish somebody so He put Jesus in your place? Yeah, but just because I lie doesn't mean that I should be put to death - right? Even then, God can forgive me for lying, so what kind of God would kill His own Son? God must not be very powerful if He couldn't forgive us without killing His own Son. Now I realize that many people don't follow this line of thinking, though when I was in Vancouver for a intership as a church planter, this is the attitude that I was met with. Canada is different from many places that missionaries visit, yet, missionaries need to know their theology. How can you tell people about God if you don't know who God is? I realize that none of us will ever fully understand who God is - that's besides the point - we need to do the best we can to explain who God is if we are to present the gospel to people. If we tell someone in England to come down and get saved she would have no idea what we are talking about. It's difficult to speak another language than Christianese if you don't understand the gospel yourself.
I have more to say about how the Southern Baptist Convention does missions but I'll save it for later...
What I really wanted to say is that I praise God for reformed missionaries who have an idea about what they believe and have a biblical theology. I truly sleep better at night because of this - honestly.
Back to theology. It's great to tell people that Jesus loves them, people need to know that, but there's a slight problem with this. Why is it important for people to know that Jesus loves them? Who is Jesus? He's the Son of God, what does this mean? Why did God send Jesus to die on the cross - Jesus died for my sins. Well if God is all-powerful, why couldn't He forgive us without sending His son to die on the cross? God had to punish somebody so He put Jesus in your place? Yeah, but just because I lie doesn't mean that I should be put to death - right? Even then, God can forgive me for lying, so what kind of God would kill His own Son? God must not be very powerful if He couldn't forgive us without killing His own Son. Now I realize that many people don't follow this line of thinking, though when I was in Vancouver for a intership as a church planter, this is the attitude that I was met with. Canada is different from many places that missionaries visit, yet, missionaries need to know their theology. How can you tell people about God if you don't know who God is? I realize that none of us will ever fully understand who God is - that's besides the point - we need to do the best we can to explain who God is if we are to present the gospel to people. If we tell someone in England to come down and get saved she would have no idea what we are talking about. It's difficult to speak another language than Christianese if you don't understand the gospel yourself.
I have more to say about how the Southern Baptist Convention does missions but I'll save it for later...
What I really wanted to say is that I praise God for reformed missionaries who have an idea about what they believe and have a biblical theology. I truly sleep better at night because of this - honestly.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
God & Time: part 1
As promised I will present the view that God is atemporal, or without time in this post.
In classical theism (classical theism means that God is simple, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and exists outside of time - in other words, God is the greatest possible being) the view that God exists outside of time is widely accepted. However, in contemporary philosophy and theology the idea that God is outside of time is a minority view. I think part of this is due to the fact that most people reject classical theism, and also like the idea of a more anthropomorphic God (more humanlike), but I don't - I like to worship a God who is wholly transcendent and not humanlike.
How do things work if God is outside of time? For starters, there aren't any moments for God if He exists outside of time. There is one eternal now, in one moment every action that God performed was completed. This is why the atemporal view of God is difficult to understand. The first difficulty is that of the Incarnation, how could God become man and interact in time, without losing His atemporality? Well, this is a difficult question to understand, but I would suggest that we might understand it by holding to a robust Trinitarian view of God and hold to the idea that while God the Son was in time, God the Father remained outside of time. Also, it is difficult to hold to a notion of free-will, unless one wants to argue for middle-knowledge, but I don't think middle-knowledge works. Third, it's difficult to understand how God can interact with a world in time if He is outside of time, yet again I'll appeal to the Trinity. Throughout the Bible God has used messengers, e.g. the Angel of the Lord, and has been in time Himself, e.g. Holy Spirit, the Son. This is something that I'll have to work on some more, because I don't want to hold to tri-theism, which in actuality is polytheism.
Advantages to holding to the view that God is outside of time, God sees all of time as if it were present, so there is a reason to trust that prophecy is accurate. For those who hold that God is inside of time, God knows the probably outcomes of future events, but can't be sure. Yet, if we assert that God is outside of time, then we can see how prophecy is accurate. I think this view of God is also the more biblical view of God, it's less anthropomorphic. Also, heaven is where God dwells, yet none of us would claim that we can travel to heaven. Why is this? Is heaven located within time? Another question to ask is, is time a creation of God? If God created time, then He shouldn't be constrained or restricted by His creation, but the view of God in time restricts God. If God is contrained by time because time has always existed, then there is another entity that is equal to God because it exerts some form of control over Him. This is why I hold to a timeless view of God.
Obviously there are many difficult issues to deal with. I'm going to continue to read through the different positions. Perhaps I'll be swayed to another position, but I just don't like the idea of God being constrained by time or not knowing the future, it just doesn't seem biblical.
In classical theism (classical theism means that God is simple, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and exists outside of time - in other words, God is the greatest possible being) the view that God exists outside of time is widely accepted. However, in contemporary philosophy and theology the idea that God is outside of time is a minority view. I think part of this is due to the fact that most people reject classical theism, and also like the idea of a more anthropomorphic God (more humanlike), but I don't - I like to worship a God who is wholly transcendent and not humanlike.
How do things work if God is outside of time? For starters, there aren't any moments for God if He exists outside of time. There is one eternal now, in one moment every action that God performed was completed. This is why the atemporal view of God is difficult to understand. The first difficulty is that of the Incarnation, how could God become man and interact in time, without losing His atemporality? Well, this is a difficult question to understand, but I would suggest that we might understand it by holding to a robust Trinitarian view of God and hold to the idea that while God the Son was in time, God the Father remained outside of time. Also, it is difficult to hold to a notion of free-will, unless one wants to argue for middle-knowledge, but I don't think middle-knowledge works. Third, it's difficult to understand how God can interact with a world in time if He is outside of time, yet again I'll appeal to the Trinity. Throughout the Bible God has used messengers, e.g. the Angel of the Lord, and has been in time Himself, e.g. Holy Spirit, the Son. This is something that I'll have to work on some more, because I don't want to hold to tri-theism, which in actuality is polytheism.
Advantages to holding to the view that God is outside of time, God sees all of time as if it were present, so there is a reason to trust that prophecy is accurate. For those who hold that God is inside of time, God knows the probably outcomes of future events, but can't be sure. Yet, if we assert that God is outside of time, then we can see how prophecy is accurate. I think this view of God is also the more biblical view of God, it's less anthropomorphic. Also, heaven is where God dwells, yet none of us would claim that we can travel to heaven. Why is this? Is heaven located within time? Another question to ask is, is time a creation of God? If God created time, then He shouldn't be constrained or restricted by His creation, but the view of God in time restricts God. If God is contrained by time because time has always existed, then there is another entity that is equal to God because it exerts some form of control over Him. This is why I hold to a timeless view of God.
Obviously there are many difficult issues to deal with. I'm going to continue to read through the different positions. Perhaps I'll be swayed to another position, but I just don't like the idea of God being constrained by time or not knowing the future, it just doesn't seem biblical.
Bitter ol' man
I think I'm just a bitter old man (28) but I am going to rant about these things regardless.
What does it mean to say that God has a plan for your life? Do we say this to comfort ourselves that our lives have meaning? If someone told me that it's ok don't worry God has a plan for you life, I'd say of course God has a plan for my life, but I need to follow it. But do people who say that God has a plan for my life mean that regardless they will follow God's plan because it's God's plan? If so, then are these people hardcore Jonathan Edwards reformed and deterministic? Or do they believe in free-will? If they believe in free will then believing that God has a plan for them and that regardless of what happens they will be in God's plan is absolutely incoherent! How can it make sense to be in God's plan regardless of your actions if you have free will? (This is why I reject a libertarian concept of free-will, though I belong to the libertarian political party - I'll explain that later.) It seems that all too often to me Christians are more concerned with how God can help them, than with understanding who God is. It's almost as if (By the way Di your quote from Tozar, is completely opposite of what I'm ranting against.) we only care about God as long as He is relevant to us. Of course God is relevant, He is the transcendent being who created us. How could knowing about the being who created us not be relevant? I'm just baffled at the self-centered nature of American Christians, it's an epidemic. I know I struggle with it, but I think that I realize that God does not exist to make my life easier or to assist me, but I exist to serve God and to have the privilige of working alongside God to bring more glory to Him. This is God's plan for me - so I know what God's plan is for my life and that is to serve Him. Yet if I don't serve God, He will find someone else who will serve Him. God doesn't need me, and as soon as Christians realize this, they will begin to live differently - I hope, at least this is my prayer.
What does it mean to say that God has a plan for your life? Do we say this to comfort ourselves that our lives have meaning? If someone told me that it's ok don't worry God has a plan for you life, I'd say of course God has a plan for my life, but I need to follow it. But do people who say that God has a plan for my life mean that regardless they will follow God's plan because it's God's plan? If so, then are these people hardcore Jonathan Edwards reformed and deterministic? Or do they believe in free-will? If they believe in free will then believing that God has a plan for them and that regardless of what happens they will be in God's plan is absolutely incoherent! How can it make sense to be in God's plan regardless of your actions if you have free will? (This is why I reject a libertarian concept of free-will, though I belong to the libertarian political party - I'll explain that later.) It seems that all too often to me Christians are more concerned with how God can help them, than with understanding who God is. It's almost as if (By the way Di your quote from Tozar, is completely opposite of what I'm ranting against.) we only care about God as long as He is relevant to us. Of course God is relevant, He is the transcendent being who created us. How could knowing about the being who created us not be relevant? I'm just baffled at the self-centered nature of American Christians, it's an epidemic. I know I struggle with it, but I think that I realize that God does not exist to make my life easier or to assist me, but I exist to serve God and to have the privilige of working alongside God to bring more glory to Him. This is God's plan for me - so I know what God's plan is for my life and that is to serve Him. Yet if I don't serve God, He will find someone else who will serve Him. God doesn't need me, and as soon as Christians realize this, they will begin to live differently - I hope, at least this is my prayer.
ETS/EPS Report
I must admit that I really immensely enjoyed my mini-vacation in San Antonio. I really needed it - though I didn't get much sleep the two nights in San Antonio, since I've gotten back I've slept 9 hours and 10 hours. This is an unheard of amount of sleeping for me, I'm lucky if I get 7 hours let alone 8 hours.
There was an interesting tone being set at the meeting. Openness theology is definitely getting hammered on. But what really got hammered on is post-modern evangelical theologians. These are theologians that deny truth is foundational and claim that truth is only found in the community of believers. Stanley Grenz was hammered on the hardest. These theologians were referred to as "cowards" and their idea of truth being non-foundational as "not worthy of the martyrs' blood" - this is what J.P. Moreland said (a Christian apologist who has written popular level books).
I only bought six books while I was there: First Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer; Out of Egypt (vol. 5 in a hermeneutics series); God & Time, ed. Greg Ganssle; Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark; New Testament Theology, I. Howard Marshall; Problem of Evil, ed. Peter van Inwagen.
So, the book that I'm mostly reading now is God & Time. I just read a section on the atemporalist view of God by Paul Helm. I'm going to read it again then post a summary on my blog tomorrow. It will keep me accountable to reading if I post some interesting arguments from what I'm reading.
There was an interesting tone being set at the meeting. Openness theology is definitely getting hammered on. But what really got hammered on is post-modern evangelical theologians. These are theologians that deny truth is foundational and claim that truth is only found in the community of believers. Stanley Grenz was hammered on the hardest. These theologians were referred to as "cowards" and their idea of truth being non-foundational as "not worthy of the martyrs' blood" - this is what J.P. Moreland said (a Christian apologist who has written popular level books).
I only bought six books while I was there: First Theology by Kevin Vanhoozer; Out of Egypt (vol. 5 in a hermeneutics series); God & Time, ed. Greg Ganssle; Philosophers Who Believe, ed. Kelly James Clark; New Testament Theology, I. Howard Marshall; Problem of Evil, ed. Peter van Inwagen.
So, the book that I'm mostly reading now is God & Time. I just read a section on the atemporalist view of God by Paul Helm. I'm going to read it again then post a summary on my blog tomorrow. It will keep me accountable to reading if I post some interesting arguments from what I'm reading.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
A-Musing
As I was driving to Fort Worth to meet my friend Mike so we could drive down to San Antonio for the ETS/EPS conference I noticed a huge billboard. The billboard I noticed was for Tommie Nelson's Song of Solomon Conference. Now, I'm single, and I like hot chics as much as the next guy, and I'm not opposed to being married. I'm 28 and engrossed in philosophy/theology, but I have time for the ladies, but... I'm not obsessed with getting married - though I may be obsessed with other things. Why is it that all of the Christian books that sell the most are on sex? Are evangelicals that obsessed with sex and marriage? Why? Is everyone afraid of being alone? This doesn't seem to be a phenomenon among the secular crowd, why is it? I think it's because the church makes those who are single feel as if they are handicapped if they aren't married. It's almost as if, pastors say, "poor single person, don't worry, someday you'll be happy when you get married." First of all, I'm going to say, I love being single, I've done so much that I wouldn't have been able to do if I were married, I praise God that I have and will continue to take advantage of my singleness. Though, upon being in the right situation with the right person, I'm not opposed to being married. However, I'm not going to be one of those people who reads all of the books preparing myself for my future wife, because that is just a bunch of worldly wisdom preparing us for marriage.
Why is it worldly? Well, because there are two types of marriage that I can think of OT marriages which are arranged and NT, in which you have sex when you're engaged and then the husband builds a house and him and his fiance move out of their parents house. So, which type of marriage do the Christian marriage books prepare us for? Neither, because we don't follow either model of marriage. I'm not advocating either model. All that I am saying is that contemporary evangelical books on marriage and dating are a JOKE! I thought about much of this as I looked at some of the book titles at the ETS/EPS meeting. By the way, why is Josh Harris so famous? A little fact, Tommie Nelson's church wasn't big until he did his Bible teaching on the Song of Solomon, and that's when his church really grew. The sad fact of the matter is that in Song of Solomon, the book in the Bible, they do have sex before they are married. In many ways Tommie Nelson butchers the text to get it to say what he wants it to say so that he can support his notion of dating and courtship. I'm not opposed to courtship, just don't try to make a biblical argument for it to me, because courtship is not in the Bible and it certainly IS NOT in the Song of Solomon.
I just hope that the current evangelical obsession with marriage produces some better theology on this issue.
UPDATE (11/20): Perhaps what I should have said is that the cultural norm for the OT is arranged marriages and the cultural norm for the NT was sex while engaged, while the groom prepares a house for his bride. Jesus only condemmed the act of divorce and polygamy, He never criticized the cultural practices of marriage.
Why is it worldly? Well, because there are two types of marriage that I can think of OT marriages which are arranged and NT, in which you have sex when you're engaged and then the husband builds a house and him and his fiance move out of their parents house. So, which type of marriage do the Christian marriage books prepare us for? Neither, because we don't follow either model of marriage. I'm not advocating either model. All that I am saying is that contemporary evangelical books on marriage and dating are a JOKE! I thought about much of this as I looked at some of the book titles at the ETS/EPS meeting. By the way, why is Josh Harris so famous? A little fact, Tommie Nelson's church wasn't big until he did his Bible teaching on the Song of Solomon, and that's when his church really grew. The sad fact of the matter is that in Song of Solomon, the book in the Bible, they do have sex before they are married. In many ways Tommie Nelson butchers the text to get it to say what he wants it to say so that he can support his notion of dating and courtship. I'm not opposed to courtship, just don't try to make a biblical argument for it to me, because courtship is not in the Bible and it certainly IS NOT in the Song of Solomon.
I just hope that the current evangelical obsession with marriage produces some better theology on this issue.
UPDATE (11/20): Perhaps what I should have said is that the cultural norm for the OT is arranged marriages and the cultural norm for the NT was sex while engaged, while the groom prepares a house for his bride. Jesus only condemmed the act of divorce and polygamy, He never criticized the cultural practices of marriage.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Everyone should be proud of me!!!
Look at the time of this post - no I didn't alter it, this is how early I got up today... well not really, this is how late I stayed up working on a paper. Why did I stay up so late working on a paper? Well, I'm glad you asked that question, because it's a good question. I'm leaving to go to San Antonio today, after I little bit of sleep, for the the Evangelical Theological/Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting. Lots of people go there to present papers. This year a big thing will be a discussion between N.T. Wright and John Dominic Crossan (one of the founders of the [JOKE] Jesus Seminar). Some of the big philosophers will be William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, and the more technical, less pop philosophers will include Robert Koons and Michael Rea. (Not that anybody ever goes to the links that I put on my blog, but just in case anybody wants to go, I put the links there.)
So what is going to be the greatest thing about going to San Antonio - besides seeing all of my old seminary friends - THE BOOKS!! See, I absolutely lust after books, it's my biggest weakness, if someone told me that they would buy me a book if I didn't eat one day, I would do it, without thinking about it. At the ETS/EPS they will have books for 50%, a book whore's dream. I can't wait to look at the book display, of course, first, I need to get some sleep, only after I finish my paper...
So what is going to be the greatest thing about going to San Antonio - besides seeing all of my old seminary friends - THE BOOKS!! See, I absolutely lust after books, it's my biggest weakness, if someone told me that they would buy me a book if I didn't eat one day, I would do it, without thinking about it. At the ETS/EPS they will have books for 50%, a book whore's dream. I can't wait to look at the book display, of course, first, I need to get some sleep, only after I finish my paper...
Monday, November 15, 2004
It's early/late
Not much to say... been thinking about how I can refute Quine's extensionalism. Listening to Johnny Cash right now on launchcast... if any of you don't have it you should download it off of yahoo messenger.
"My name is Sue! How do you do? Now, you gonna die!"
"... cuz I'm the &%$* that named you Sue!"
--Johnny Cash
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
The Dude: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no reason why these two...
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?
Walter Sobchak: The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy adversary.
Donny: Who's in pajamas Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut up, Donny.
"My name is Sue! How do you do? Now, you gonna die!"
"... cuz I'm the &%$* that named you Sue!"
--Johnny Cash
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
The Dude: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no reason why these two...
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?
Walter Sobchak: The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy adversary.
Donny: Who's in pajamas Walter?
Walter Sobchak: Shut up, Donny.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Have you ever been....
Have you ever been so tired that you're sad? That's how I feel right now... I think I'm kinda delirious... maybe not... I don't know...
Anyway, I've been working on a paper that I need to turn in a day early on Tuesday, because I'm going to the national Evangelical Theological Society/Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in San Antonio. So, I need to get this paper done, and I have the rest of the weekend, I suppose, or at least what's left of the weekend.
Here are some more quotes, but they are to make me laugh.
Walter Sobchak: Those rich [punks]! This whole thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this strumpet...
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
The Dude: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no reason why these two...
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?
Anyway, I've been working on a paper that I need to turn in a day early on Tuesday, because I'm going to the national Evangelical Theological Society/Evangelical Philosophical Society meeting in San Antonio. So, I need to get this paper done, and I have the rest of the weekend, I suppose, or at least what's left of the weekend.
Here are some more quotes, but they are to make me laugh.
Walter Sobchak: Those rich [punks]! This whole thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this strumpet...
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story, Donny?
The Dude: Walter...
Donny: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to The Dude's story?
Donny: I was bowling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
The Dude: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no reason why these two...
Donny: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?
Friday, November 12, 2004
Back to Philosophy
Well, as much as I LOVE to read Francis Schaeffer, for the rest of this weekend, it's back to W.V.O. Quine's Word and Object. Quine's a physicalist - this is different from a materialist - because Quine claims that all that exists is what science claims exists. A materialist believes that all that exists is material objects. Hence, some Christians are materialists, they believe that God is a material object, but I haven't read them in depth so I really don't know how God could be a material object.
BTW, Maria and Brian are the only people that I know who have seen The Big Lebowski and haven't liked it. If you do see it though, be warned, it contains very colorful language. Here are some more pertinent quotes to my situation right now (all from different scenes):
Walter Sobchak: "Nihilists! me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
The Dude: Walter, what is the point? Look, we all know who is at fault here, what the are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: Huh? No, what the are you... I'm not... We're talking about unchecked aggression here, Dude.
Donny: What the is he talking about?
The Dude: My rug.
Walter Sobchak: Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!
The Dude: Walter, the chinaman who peed on my rug, I can't go give him a bill, so what the are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: What the are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
Walter Sobchak: You have got to buck up, man. You cannot drag this negative energy in to the tournament!
OK, now back to Quine
See, I hold to a realist intentionality, which says (loosely, non-technically), when I think about something that object has mental inexistence in my mind. Quine denies that there is any intentionality, for that matter he denies that there is a mind. So I'm reading through Quine's articles and his book, to lay out his argument so that I can then critique it. Right now, I'm reading about referential opacity. FUN!! FUN!! I know all my readers wish that they could be in grad school doing philosophy, walking around and thinking about problems with reference and intentionality, but alas, God only selects a few lucky people to do this type of glamorous service for Him. (Though I do consider what I'm doing to be worth doing for the glory of God.) So, anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
Just remember, if you're feeling blue, old skool punk cheers me up. I listened to some Rancid today. The other day I listened to some Dead Kennedys - Blow up the MTV
BTW, Maria and Brian are the only people that I know who have seen The Big Lebowski and haven't liked it. If you do see it though, be warned, it contains very colorful language. Here are some more pertinent quotes to my situation right now (all from different scenes):
Walter Sobchak: "Nihilists! me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
The Dude: Walter, what is the point? Look, we all know who is at fault here, what the are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: Huh? No, what the are you... I'm not... We're talking about unchecked aggression here, Dude.
Donny: What the is he talking about?
The Dude: My rug.
Walter Sobchak: Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!
The Dude: Walter, the chinaman who peed on my rug, I can't go give him a bill, so what the are you talking about?
Walter Sobchak: What the are you talking about? The chinaman is not the issue here, dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
Walter Sobchak: You have got to buck up, man. You cannot drag this negative energy in to the tournament!
OK, now back to Quine
See, I hold to a realist intentionality, which says (loosely, non-technically), when I think about something that object has mental inexistence in my mind. Quine denies that there is any intentionality, for that matter he denies that there is a mind. So I'm reading through Quine's articles and his book, to lay out his argument so that I can then critique it. Right now, I'm reading about referential opacity. FUN!! FUN!! I know all my readers wish that they could be in grad school doing philosophy, walking around and thinking about problems with reference and intentionality, but alas, God only selects a few lucky people to do this type of glamorous service for Him. (Though I do consider what I'm doing to be worth doing for the glory of God.) So, anyway, that's all I have to say about that.
Just remember, if you're feeling blue, old skool punk cheers me up. I listened to some Rancid today. The other day I listened to some Dead Kennedys - Blow up the MTV
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Church & State relations
(This post is not directed at any one individual but is a warning for believers in general.)
I like to read both liberal and conservative stories to gain my information, because I have found that if you read just conservative or just liberal sources, then you will only have partial information. So I read the The New Republic, which is slightly left of the center, but they did support Kerry in the election. On the cover of one of the most recent The New Republic was a girl who was crying and had a Kerry/Edwards sticker on her face with a Kerry/Edwards t-shirt on. All I could think for the next couple of hours is that she needs a relationship with God. How sorry I feel for this girl, because the candidate that she was supporting didn't get into office she was devastated. I realize that if Bush/Cheney would have lost the roles would have been reversed, and unfortunately I think that many so-called evangelicals would have been devastated also. I can't imagine the despair and lack of hope that these people have - how small is their world. To be so upset that one man doesn't take control over another - A MAN - and a fallen man at that, an imperfect man, a sinful man, a lying man, an egotistical man. You can put in all the adjectives that you want, but I really felt bad for this girl because it seems that her life is without true meaning. This leads me to my biggest concern, I'm afraid that at the end of the day, more evangelicals put their hope in George Bush than in God. I really think that this is true. For many people, God is getting a good job, having a moral family, and living a quiet life. We pay tribute to God to appease Him so that He'll leave us alone. I really think that this is how many evangelicals view God. Now I believe that we ought to vote our morals. I am decidedly against abortion, more so than any other issue, I'm glad that Bush won and I hope that Roe v. Wade gets overturned. If Kerry would have won my life would have gone on. I would still serve God, and possibly it would be easier to serve God because Christians would realize that they live in a post-Christian society. Now I'm worried that these so-called votes for values will confuse the Christians into equivocated between Christianity and values. Just because you're against homosexual marriage or against abortion doesn't mean that you're a Christian, for that matter, just because you're a Republican doesn't mean that you're a Christian. Sadly though, many evangelicals feel this way. I'm going to leave with a quote from Francis Schaeffer (He's reformed Di, so you need to read him.)
--Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century
I like to read both liberal and conservative stories to gain my information, because I have found that if you read just conservative or just liberal sources, then you will only have partial information. So I read the The New Republic, which is slightly left of the center, but they did support Kerry in the election. On the cover of one of the most recent The New Republic was a girl who was crying and had a Kerry/Edwards sticker on her face with a Kerry/Edwards t-shirt on. All I could think for the next couple of hours is that she needs a relationship with God. How sorry I feel for this girl, because the candidate that she was supporting didn't get into office she was devastated. I realize that if Bush/Cheney would have lost the roles would have been reversed, and unfortunately I think that many so-called evangelicals would have been devastated also. I can't imagine the despair and lack of hope that these people have - how small is their world. To be so upset that one man doesn't take control over another - A MAN - and a fallen man at that, an imperfect man, a sinful man, a lying man, an egotistical man. You can put in all the adjectives that you want, but I really felt bad for this girl because it seems that her life is without true meaning. This leads me to my biggest concern, I'm afraid that at the end of the day, more evangelicals put their hope in George Bush than in God. I really think that this is true. For many people, God is getting a good job, having a moral family, and living a quiet life. We pay tribute to God to appease Him so that He'll leave us alone. I really think that this is how many evangelicals view God. Now I believe that we ought to vote our morals. I am decidedly against abortion, more so than any other issue, I'm glad that Bush won and I hope that Roe v. Wade gets overturned. If Kerry would have won my life would have gone on. I would still serve God, and possibly it would be easier to serve God because Christians would realize that they live in a post-Christian society. Now I'm worried that these so-called votes for values will confuse the Christians into equivocated between Christianity and values. Just because you're against homosexual marriage or against abortion doesn't mean that you're a Christian, for that matter, just because you're a Republican doesn't mean that you're a Christian. Sadly though, many evangelicals feel this way. I'm going to leave with a quote from Francis Schaeffer (He's reformed Di, so you need to read him.)
In the United States many churches display the American flag. The Christian flag is usually put on one side and the American flag on the other. Does having the two flags in your church mean that Christianity and the American establishment are equal? If it does, you are really in trouble. These are not two equal loyalties. The state is also under the norm of thw Word of God. So if by having the American flag in your church you are indicating to you young people that there are two equal loyalties or two intertwined loyalties, you had better find some way out of it. The establishment may easily become the church's enemy. Before the pressure comes, you young people (from kindergarten on), our older people, and our officers must understand this well: there are not two equal loyalties; Caesar is second to God. This must be preached and taught in sermons, Sunday school classes, and young people's groups.
It must be taught that patriotic loyalty must not be identified with Christianity. As Christians we are responsible, under the Lordship of Christ in all of life, to carry the Christian principles into our relationship to the state. But we must not make oure country and Christianity be synonymous.
This has always been important, but should certainly be so today. If a pastor stands in the pulpit and preaches this way, and the people come in and hear him making plain that he is not confusing the two loyalties, then even if they differ on certian specific questions, at least the pastor has maintained credibility with them. But the really important thing is not our credibility with other men, but our rightness with God. Equating any other loyalty with our loyalty to God is sin. An we had better get our priorities straight now before the pressures in our society overwhelms both us and society as we have known it. If the pressures are great now, there is every reason to be sure they will get greater.
--Francis Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century
Monday, November 08, 2004
The Big Lebowski
I've decided to begin a new tradition on my blog, everytime I put up a new post, I will include a quote from the greatest comedy ever... THE BIG LEBOWSKI. So to start off this tradition right, I'm beginning with the introduction from THE BIG LEBOWSKI. Hopefully sometime later this week, I can put up some random thoughts on church/state relations. I definitely think that Christians have an obligation to vote for candidates that represent Christian values, but I'll get into that later... here's a quote from the greatest comedy ever.
The Stranger :
The Stranger :
[opening narrations] Way out west there was this fella I wanna tell ya' about. Goes by the name of Jeff Lebowski. At least that was the handle his loving parents gave him, but he never had much use for himself. See, this Lebowski, he called himself "The Dude". Now, Dude, there's a name no man would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about the Dude that didn't make a whole lot of sense. And a lot about where he lived, like-wise. But then again, maybe that's why I found the place so darned' interestin'. See, they call Los Angeles the "City Of Angels", but I didn't find it to be that, exactly. But I'll allow it as there are some nice folks there. 'Course I aint never been to London, and I aint never seen France. And I aint never seen no queen in her damned undies, so the fella says. But I'll tell you what, after seeing Los Angeles, and this here story I'm about to unfold, well, I guess I seen somethin' every bit as stupefyin' as you'd seen in any of them other places. And in English, too. So I can with a smile on my face. Without feelin' like the good lord gipped me. Now this here story I'm about to unfold took place in the early nineties - just about the time of our conflict with Sad'm and the eye-rackies. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man, I wont say a hero, cause, what's a hero? Sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the Dude here - The dude from Los Angeles. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Dude. The Dude, from Los Angeles. And even if he's a lazy man, and the Dude was most certainly that. Quite possibly the laziest in all of Los Angeles County. Which would place him high in the runnin' for laziest worldwide. Sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here. But... aw, hell. I've done introduced it enough.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Comments Jacked Up!!
My comments link seems to be on the fritz right now... I don't know what's up with it.
NBA has started
Lost in all the hype and hoopla of the presidential election is the start of the NBA season. Since the NHL has cancelled their season (or they will shortly) the NBA is a huge deal. In fact we have switched our fantasy hockey league, to a fantasy hoops league. I was reading a NBA preview here an thought that this quote about Mark Cuban (the owner of the Dallas Mavericks) was hilarious. It's extremely likely that no one else who reads my blog will find it funny. Regardless, I'm posting this quote.
Any time you construct a free agent offer that's so insane, Mark Cuban studies it for a few minutes, then throws up his hands and says, "You know what, I can't match that thing" ... I mean, that's a pretty good sign you went overboard. Which is exactly what the Suns did by guaranteeing Steve Nash and his bad back $60 million. Crazy contract. Just crazy. ...I'm not going to attempt to understand Mark Cuban, since this was the same man that just inflicted "The Benefactor" on us. But something doesn't add up from last summer ... and no, I'm not talking about how the Mavs failed to pursue Shaq, which only would have meant two or three titles. Whatever.
Dangers for Evangelicals
As I said in an earlier post, the real winners of this election were the so-called evangelicals. There have been many statements made by leaders in the Democratic party that the Democrats have to re-position themselves and get back to traditional values. The Republicans pretty much destroyed the Democrats in the south and the plains of the U.S. The evangelicals are being held responsible for getting Bush re-elected. The Democrats don't want to be known as the party of the Northeast, that's pro-gay, for singles, and without morals. The Democratic leaders have vowed to gain more evangelical and religious votes. This mean that the moral balance of the country will shift towards the evangelical side. Specifically banning gay marriage, and repealing the Roe v. Wade decision. In my opinion there is no greater injustice in the world than abortion. I don't want to neglect other issues of social justice, I just think those issues ought to be handled by the church and not the government, and the fact that the church doesn't handle these issues... well, shame on the church.
Why do I think that this situation is dangerous for the evangelicals? Now it seems that they (we) are going to get everything that we want. Now, it's not necessarily a bad thing to legislate morality, but my concern is that of Soren Kierkegaard. (A very loose paraphrase of Kierkegaard is about to follow.) Kierkegaard said that when there is a state church and everyone is a Christian, there is no church and no one is a Christian. What this means is that when things are easy for the Christians, we take things for granted. I'm concerned that we might develop into a quasi-state church in the U.S. with an evangelical morality instilled among the U.S. citizens. I'm concerned that the church will reduce itself to a moral agent, no longer concerned with biblical standards of morality, but the morality that the evangelicals want to choose to follow. The theology of the American Church is nothing short of atrocious right now, we are semi-gnostic in our theology and don't even realize it. The danger for evangelicals is that we have the possibility of creating a quasi-state church, where all the evangelicals are believers and holy, without having to worship God. I'm concerned that evangelicals will commit idolatry.
Why do I think that this situation is dangerous for the evangelicals? Now it seems that they (we) are going to get everything that we want. Now, it's not necessarily a bad thing to legislate morality, but my concern is that of Soren Kierkegaard. (A very loose paraphrase of Kierkegaard is about to follow.) Kierkegaard said that when there is a state church and everyone is a Christian, there is no church and no one is a Christian. What this means is that when things are easy for the Christians, we take things for granted. I'm concerned that we might develop into a quasi-state church in the U.S. with an evangelical morality instilled among the U.S. citizens. I'm concerned that the church will reduce itself to a moral agent, no longer concerned with biblical standards of morality, but the morality that the evangelicals want to choose to follow. The theology of the American Church is nothing short of atrocious right now, we are semi-gnostic in our theology and don't even realize it. The danger for evangelicals is that we have the possibility of creating a quasi-state church, where all the evangelicals are believers and holy, without having to worship God. I'm concerned that evangelicals will commit idolatry.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Francis Schaeffer's Warning to the Real Winners
Who are the real winners, well in this election it appears that the real winners are the so-callled evangelicals. (I refer to them as 'so-called' because who knows what kind of doctrine these evangelicals believe.) As I've said before that the Republicans pander to the evangelicals, now more than ever the Republicans owe the evangelicals. The exit polls early in the day showed the Kerry was going to win, the exit polls were so decidedly in Kerry's favor that Bush had begun to lose hope that he would win the election, but as the results began to return Bush began to gain a lead over Kerry. Almost all of the political anaylysts attribute Bush's victory to the record turnout from the evangelicals. Why do I think the evangelicals are the real winners of this election? Because now the Democrats will have to begin to pander to the evangelicals - there are many states where the Democrates don't even compete with the Republicans. In fact some people claim that the Democrats are no longer a national party. The Republicans have a governor in California, New York, and Massachusets, three of the so-called liberal states. I don't believe that there are any Democrat governors in the most conservative states. So in order for the Democrats to better compete with the Republicans, the Democrats will have to begin to take the evangelicals more seriously, this is just a fact. If the evangelicals will be the most powerful force in every election, which it appears to have been the case, then Democrats will only win the presidential office by pandering to the evangelicals just as the Republicans have. Eventually, if the Democrats do pander to the evangelicals, a third party will be formed, probably to the left of the Democrats.
What have the evangelicals won? In 11 states same-sex marriage was banned. The Republican lead in the House and Senate was increased over the Democrats. Now in the Senate the Republicans hold 55 seats. When it comes time to appoint supreme court justices, the more moderate pro-life democrats may take the side of Republicans. This is why many liberals are concerned, there is a greater than 50% chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned in the future. (Abortion in my opinion is the greatest injustice in the world.) So the evangelicals have come out of this election as a major political force. (BTW, I'm a libertarian, with a pro-life argument.)
What is Francis Schaeffer's warning to the evangelicals. Well, first let me say a little bit about Schaeffer, his is a reformed apologist who studied under Cornelius van Til. Schaeffer has much to say about the post-Christian culture in the U.S. That's right POST-CHRISTIAN CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. This is not a Christian nation, regardless of what the evangelicals think. One of the things that Schaeffer says is imagine the power to transform our culture that we would have if just 20% of the United States citizens were orthodox evangelical Christians who knew their doctrine and acted out on what they believed. I think Schaeffer has a good point, supposedly there is double or triple of 20% of the people in this country who claim to be evangelical. All I'll point to is the divorce rate among evangelicals - does that look like they act out on orthodox biblical beliefs? Now Schaeffer has a warning to today's evangelicals, don't get caught up in your alliances. What does this mean? Evangelicals who have partnered with Republicans to make moral gains, banning same-sex marriage, seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, should not forget who their first allegience is to - God. Sometimes or a lot of times, evangelicals get the Republican Party confused with Christianity. The Republican Party is not ordained by God, I don't care what the evangelicals say. This is what Schaeffer is warning evangelicals about, it's good to ban abortion, but just remember, the Republican Party doesn't care about orthodox theology, the Republican party cares about staying in political power. If the Democrats come with a better deal, join a new alliance.
What have the evangelicals won? In 11 states same-sex marriage was banned. The Republican lead in the House and Senate was increased over the Democrats. Now in the Senate the Republicans hold 55 seats. When it comes time to appoint supreme court justices, the more moderate pro-life democrats may take the side of Republicans. This is why many liberals are concerned, there is a greater than 50% chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned in the future. (Abortion in my opinion is the greatest injustice in the world.) So the evangelicals have come out of this election as a major political force. (BTW, I'm a libertarian, with a pro-life argument.)
What is Francis Schaeffer's warning to the evangelicals. Well, first let me say a little bit about Schaeffer, his is a reformed apologist who studied under Cornelius van Til. Schaeffer has much to say about the post-Christian culture in the U.S. That's right POST-CHRISTIAN CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. This is not a Christian nation, regardless of what the evangelicals think. One of the things that Schaeffer says is imagine the power to transform our culture that we would have if just 20% of the United States citizens were orthodox evangelical Christians who knew their doctrine and acted out on what they believed. I think Schaeffer has a good point, supposedly there is double or triple of 20% of the people in this country who claim to be evangelical. All I'll point to is the divorce rate among evangelicals - does that look like they act out on orthodox biblical beliefs? Now Schaeffer has a warning to today's evangelicals, don't get caught up in your alliances. What does this mean? Evangelicals who have partnered with Republicans to make moral gains, banning same-sex marriage, seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade, should not forget who their first allegience is to - God. Sometimes or a lot of times, evangelicals get the Republican Party confused with Christianity. The Republican Party is not ordained by God, I don't care what the evangelicals say. This is what Schaeffer is warning evangelicals about, it's good to ban abortion, but just remember, the Republican Party doesn't care about orthodox theology, the Republican party cares about staying in political power. If the Democrats come with a better deal, join a new alliance.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Suicide
I got an email this morning from St. Anselm of Canterbury, the Episcopal church that I was planning on going to, this email informed me that the chaplain of the church was dead - it appeared to be from suicide. They found him in a field, he had a wife and children. I'm still planning on going to this church, obviously it will be full of pain, but I believe that God has put me in this situation for a reason... not that I'm going to go there and heal everybody, I'll probably wait to go there for a couple of weeks while people can mourn for their pastor, but I don't know, it just seems to me to be someplace that God is leading me to.
My dad died April 16, 2003, 6 days after my 27 birthday. About 4 to 5 weeks after that one of my best friends from high school, Chris, called me up and left a message, in the message it said that it was very important that I call Chris back. Now I hadn't talked to Chris for about 2 1/2 years, and we had only talked about 4 or 5 times since I had gone off to college. Chris got married when he was 18 and his wife was 17 - they eloped. So when I got Chris' message I thought that he was in some type of legal trouble, because he was a gun dealer. I came to find out that Chris' wife had left him, so I drove over to his house right away to talk to him. He shared with me many of the details of his marriage. Chris was wearing the tuxedo that he had been married in. We prayed together and talked for a while, discussing many matters of faith. Chris wanted to know that things would be fine in a short while, and I couldn't promise him that. Many other preachers or ministers might have done so, but I knew that I didn't want to give him false hope and I told him that things would get better, but it would take time. I told Chris that I would call him and we would hang out more. I called Chris that weekend, I never got a hold of him but he left a message on my machine that he was "ok." I shortly thereafter went out of town, when I returned my mom told me that Chris had committed suicide. When he was served with his divorce papers, he went to his house knowing that his soon to be ex-wife would soon be there and shot himself in the head. My mom told me that the day after I had talked to him he attempted to commit suicide by turning on the ignition in his car while he was in the garage, but his sister had come over to check on him, and found him in the garage passed out.
All I could remember thinking that night that my mom told me that Chris committed suicide is that: "Chris lied to me, he wasn't ok."
There is nothing more selfish that anyone can do than to commit suicide. I realize that people fall into despair so deep that they think they will never recover, but the people that suffer are the friends and family members of the person who commits suicide.
This last year and a half 4 people that I've been close to have died, my dad, Chris, my brother, and someone whom I considered a second mom. Although, I'll always regret that my brother died, and his death caused me the most pain - and always will - Chris' death was the worst, because I've always wondered what I could have said differently to prevent it. In the end I realize that there is nothing I could have said differently to stop him, but I still second guess myself - I always will. Getting that email from St. Anselm of Canterbury Church, brought many of the same emotions to the surface I had after Chris died. Mostly emotions of feeling cheated and robbed of a good friend, realizing that the world would be a darker and lonlier place without Chris in it.
My dad died April 16, 2003, 6 days after my 27 birthday. About 4 to 5 weeks after that one of my best friends from high school, Chris, called me up and left a message, in the message it said that it was very important that I call Chris back. Now I hadn't talked to Chris for about 2 1/2 years, and we had only talked about 4 or 5 times since I had gone off to college. Chris got married when he was 18 and his wife was 17 - they eloped. So when I got Chris' message I thought that he was in some type of legal trouble, because he was a gun dealer. I came to find out that Chris' wife had left him, so I drove over to his house right away to talk to him. He shared with me many of the details of his marriage. Chris was wearing the tuxedo that he had been married in. We prayed together and talked for a while, discussing many matters of faith. Chris wanted to know that things would be fine in a short while, and I couldn't promise him that. Many other preachers or ministers might have done so, but I knew that I didn't want to give him false hope and I told him that things would get better, but it would take time. I told Chris that I would call him and we would hang out more. I called Chris that weekend, I never got a hold of him but he left a message on my machine that he was "ok." I shortly thereafter went out of town, when I returned my mom told me that Chris had committed suicide. When he was served with his divorce papers, he went to his house knowing that his soon to be ex-wife would soon be there and shot himself in the head. My mom told me that the day after I had talked to him he attempted to commit suicide by turning on the ignition in his car while he was in the garage, but his sister had come over to check on him, and found him in the garage passed out.
All I could remember thinking that night that my mom told me that Chris committed suicide is that: "Chris lied to me, he wasn't ok."
There is nothing more selfish that anyone can do than to commit suicide. I realize that people fall into despair so deep that they think they will never recover, but the people that suffer are the friends and family members of the person who commits suicide.
This last year and a half 4 people that I've been close to have died, my dad, Chris, my brother, and someone whom I considered a second mom. Although, I'll always regret that my brother died, and his death caused me the most pain - and always will - Chris' death was the worst, because I've always wondered what I could have said differently to prevent it. In the end I realize that there is nothing I could have said differently to stop him, but I still second guess myself - I always will. Getting that email from St. Anselm of Canterbury Church, brought many of the same emotions to the surface I had after Chris died. Mostly emotions of feeling cheated and robbed of a good friend, realizing that the world would be a darker and lonlier place without Chris in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)