Abstract submitted...

Here's the abstract that I submitted to the Evangelical Philosophical Society, hopefully they accept it and I can present the full version at the conference in November.

In this paper I will argue that Christian worship entails intentionality and casually efficacious mental content. I will define worship as directing one’s affections towards God. There have not been any plausible materialist (excluding non-reductive materialism) theories of intentionality or mental content. Eliminativism denies intentionality and mental content altogether. The Christian philosopher/theologian must have a plausible theory with respect to how the Christian worship’s God – worship is a necessary element in the believer’s relationship with God. Since mind/body dualism can explain intentionality and causally efficacious mental content, a form of mind/body dualism (not necessarily Cartesian substance dualism) seems to be required by the Christian in order to have a plausible explanation for how worship takes place. Thus mind/body dualism is the default position for the Christian. This places the burden of proof on the Christian materialist to give a Christian explanation of worship without a plausible theory of intentionality and causally efficacious mental content.

God's Will

I had a conversation with a friend today concerning God's will. Both of referenced a book that I can't remember nor can I remember the name of the author. The premise of the book is that God is not concerned with you doing His will, but He is concerned with the type of person that you are. Contemporary Christians often construe God's will in a pagan matter when they think that they have to seek and pray for God's will. God has already revealed His will to us - we already know the type of person that God wants us to be. So when we make decisions, we can ask ourselves if a person of God would do this, but we don't have to pray for God's will. This is similar to the story of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke, the rich man wants to go back and share the gospel with his family and God asks him, why will they listen to you if they have already ignored the prophets and Moses. This is similar to us with God's will, why will God tell us what His will is - or, to put it differently, why does God NEED to tell us His will - when He has already revealed it to us in the Bible. We know the kind of people that God's wants us to be, why do we need to ask Him again. We need to get busy living lives that bring glory to God, and when decisions arise we will make decisions based upon what brings glory to God

We know what we are supposed to do - sometimes we don't want to do what we are supposed to do so we avoid it with the pretense of seeking God's will.

Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics

I emailed my philosophy of language professor a similar question to the problem that I am going to propose in this post.

Speech-Act theory is a philosophy of language that attempts to describe how we use language. It consists of three main speech-acts:

(1) locution - the actually utterance itself (an utterance can be written or spoken)
(2) illocution - how the hearer understands the utterance
(3) perlocution - if the hearer performs the speech-act

Let me explain the differences between (1), (2), and (3). Take the utterance of:

Shut the door!

The locution will be the actual words of 'shut the door'. The Illocution is whether the hearer understands what the speaker wants her to do. Does the speaker actual intend the hearer to shut the door? The perlocution is if the speaker intends by uttering 'Shut the door!' for the hearer to shut the door, the the hearer will shut the door - to fulfill the perlocution.

Speech-act theory is now prevalent in evangelical theology. Kevin van Hoozer brought speech-act theory into vogue by using it as a means to refute Jacques Derrida, Stanley Fish, Paul Ricouer, and etc. Now, those guys don't deserve to be taken seriously becuase they don't obey the law of non-contradiction. Nor are they good philosophers of language - instead they obfuscate and confuse language. So, van Hoozer somewhat opened pandora's box in theology.

The problem with speech-act theory is that it is radical contextualism. In other words, by using speech-act theory to interpret the Bible may have some problems. Radical contextualism asserts that utterances have no meaning outside of context. So take the utterance used above, 'Shut the door!' We can only know what shut the door means in the context in which it is uttered, we cannot understand it in abstraction. So I don't know if this is bad for being able to worship God or not. Can we say that God is love, becuase we are removing what we know about God from context and placing it into another context. Hence, in every context an utterance means something different. Anyway, if there is something here, I thought that this might be something that I could attempt to get published in a journal. It seems to be a dangerous view for evangelicals to hold to, especially if upon uttering verses from the Bible in a different context, we are saying something different from what the Bible utters.

Definition of Orthodoxy

Something that I think about a lot is the definition of 'orthodoxy'. What does it mean for one to be an orthodox Christian? In many ways, I don't think that a person who isn't orthodox, with respect to Christian beliefs, is a Christian.

So what topics fall into the realm of orthodoxy? I think believing the Bible is the Word of God and adhering to the creeds that were accepted by the entire Church constitutes orthodoxy. I believe the creeds include, Nicene Creed, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and the Apostle's Creed. I don't believe that the creeds are inspired on the same level as the Word of God, but I do believe that the creeds were given to the Church by the Holy Spirit to aid the Church in correct biblical interpretation. The Incarnation, Trinity, return of Christ, bodily resurrection of Christ, virgin conception, salvation by grace, sinfulness of humanity are the main topics covered by the creeds. Almost all heresies in the Church have been a result of people neglecting the creeds and ignoring the whole of Scripture and paying attention to one or two passages, while neglecting others.

So orthodoxy is something that most evangelicals are, at least I hope that's true.

Definition of Evangelicalism

I was reading Millard Erikson's address to the Evangelical Theological Society titled "Evangelical Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century", you can read it here. Keeping in tune with what I said about Edward's being an evangelical, Erikson gives some guidelines on what an evangelical is, first of all saying that an evangelical can be a conservative biblical Christian. Next, he gives the following explanation of an evagelical:

four elements contributed to early twentieth-century American evangelicalism: orthodoxy, pietism, Puritanism,and revivalism.

Evangelicalism has several components. It has a doctrinal component, a web of convictions that constitute the context within which the life of the believer functions. It has a spiritual element, a form of piety that begins with an experience of regeneration and involves a continuing personal relationship with God. It has an ethical element, a commitment to a life of purity in accordance with God’s revealed will, and ultimately, of conformity to his very character. It has an evangelistic element, the fulfillment of Christ’s commission to tell others the good news of salvation and to win them to a decision to accept the savior. My point is this: evangelicalism, historically, has involved all four of these elements. If any of these elements is missing, a church may call itself evangelical, but it really is not, at least not in the sense that term has borne historically. While various streams of evangelicalism may emphasize more strongly one or two of these than does another stream, they are still members of the family, just as various members of a human family vary in certain respects, but have certain resemblances. It is these different blends of these elements that give evangelicalism its great variety.

It seems that evangelical is thrown around as a catch phrase. I like Erikson's explanation of what evagelical's are, and it makes me more likely and willing to identify myself as one.

Religious Emotions & Religious Logic

I'm reading the biography of Jonathan Edwards by George Marsden (Marsden is a professor of Church History at Notre Dame). One of the most interesting things in the book so far is the amount of emotion (religious emotion) that Edwards experienced. Everyone knows that he was a very good thinker, in fact, he might be a top-five theologian. I think the top four are pretty cemented regardless of what order you put them in, but for purposes here I list them in chronological order: St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Now the fifth is either Jonathan Edwards, Freidrich Schliermacher, or Karl Barth (Roman Catholics might even consider John Henry Newman). Regardless, in many ways Edwards was similar to a contemporary evangelical, but in other ways he was far from one. The amount of intellectual rigor that Edwards put into his everyday life and his theology is far greater than any pastor I've ever met - but the most interesting thing is that his dad was intellectually rigorous, as were the other pastors of his day. In other words, Edwards might have worked harder and been more of an ascetic than the typical pastor of his time, but by no means was Edwards a freak compared to the other pastors. In our time he would be a freak, because he takes intellectual faith seriously. The thing that has been made clear to me from reading Edward's biography is that intellectual rigor and emotional faith are compatible.

Valentine's Weekend

I left my apartment in Norman around 10:15 headed towards Will Rogers World Airport (OKC) to make an 11:40AM flight to STL, then a connecting flight to SPI where I would be picked up by my Valentine's weekend friend. I flew on the two smallest planes I've ever flown on in my life, and I've had more than 20 flights, so I'm not an advanced flier, but I'm not necessarily a novice either. The flight from STL to SPI was on a prop plane.

So my friend picked me up and we had coffee at Panera bread then dinner at Cafe Brio. Cafe Brio was in downtown Springfield, IL which is the first mexican restraurant where first wave 80's music was played instead of Tejano music. (First wave music includes The Smiths, The Cure, Depeche Mode, and etc.) The restraurant was an intriguing blend of Mexican food with a dash of caribbean spice.

On Saturday we had french toast for breakfast, made by my friend's neighbor, where I was staying. Dinner was at The Chateau which is one of the nicer restraurants in Bloomington/Normal IL. Then after dinner we went to the Palace to watch a movie - Phantom of the Opera (thumbs down) - nonetheless the movie watching experience was good. The Palace is a dinner movie theater with couches and a full service restraurant and bar.

Sunday was church and a day of rest - what else is Sunday for, right? Monday morning I was awaken by my friend to join her for a candlelight Valentine's day breakfast of waffles and sausage - my flight was leaving at 4:47PM so our Valentine's Day dinner was Saturday night. Breakfast was wonderful and we took a couple of pictures had lunch at Cheddar's and I missed my flight. WOO-HOO!!! That meant that I could have Valentine's Day Dinner with my friend, but only after I studied and did some homework for my Aristotle seminar which I stayed up until 3AM working on to email an attachment to my professor. Yet, we had dinner inbetween me working on my homework, dinner was at Applebees, not very romantic.

Tuesday I made my flight after having lunch at Fridays and I waited in the Springfield, IL airport once I passed through security, sitting, waiting, becoming more depressed and more dejected, wondering when the next time would be that I could see my friend...

I like to Fly!!!

Well, the joke among my fellow philosophy students was that I'll have to set my alarm to wake up early tomorrow. What time am I getting up - 9AM (as opposed to my typical 11AM which is earlier than it was last semester). Why am I getting up early - because I'm flying to Springfield. Why am I flying to Springfield, because I have a red-headed friend who lives in IL. ...and I am going to leave things at that.

I'm still thinking about the pragmatics/semantics distinction and 'what is said.' For those of you who dont' know, the main debate between the meaning of an utterance is over 'what is said' i.e. what does the speaker actually mean. The semantics side argues that while context is relevant, 'what is said' is primarily determined by linguistic meaning of the utterance. Whereas the pramatics side will argue that meaning of a linguistic utterance is exhaustive, the use of the utterance determines 'what is said'. I think that so far I come down on the semantics side, to paraphrase one article that I read today, regardless of how I use 'the cow's tongue' it cannot mean 'silk purse'.

So now, the challenge comes as to how I can use this to relate to biblical hermeneutics and religious language. I still don't know specific applications of the pragmatics/semantics distinction, but I'll figure something out.

I'll update everyone on Monday how things are in IL... it's going to be warm while I visit so that's a good thing =)

Sometimes

Sometimes you just don't know what to say...

I had a dream last night that my brother, Adam, somehow lived through his diabetes instead of dying and that he came back home to live with us in TX. Then upon moving back in with my mom in TX he died there. I remember blaming somebody in my dream and thinking that there was some way that Adam's death could have been prevented.

Whenever I think that I am starting to feel better with respect to my brother's death, I have a dream like this that opens up raw wounds and pain and hurt. I have often wondered if there was something that I could have done to prevent my brother's death, but I know that there isn't. (He died in MI alone in his apartment from a lack of insulin.) I've just felt out of sorts today, I don't know when I dreamed about my brother last night, but I just remember waking up and feeling exhausted. I almost wonder if I have been having dreams like this frequently and that these dreams have disrupted my sleep patterns. Who knows....

I still ponder the problem of evil, and the goodness of God. In the face of death all I can say is that God is good because He gives us hope for a life that is eternal. Although, sometimes it's hard to see the goodness of God when things like this happen. It's frustrating, I realize that God is in control and that God is perfectly good and all-powerful. I just wish I knew what God was thinking when He allows some things to happen.

Serious Christians

Several things that I wanted to talk about today, first of which is Christians who take their faith seriously. What do I mean by take their faith seriously? People who investigate their beliefs and the the historical tradition of the faith that they practice. Who is someone who doesn't take their faith seriously? One time at seminary I was talking with a guy from Miami who wanted to be a missionary to Spain and convert Spainish Catholics to SBC. Ok fair enough... but he made a very strange comment that Catholics worship Mary. This is true, in certain South American countries. In general, Catholics who take their faith seriously (emphasis on seriously), in the United States are very similar to evangelicals. The second and even more disappointing thing that this guy told me is that systematic theology is not practical, in fact, he believed it to be a waste of time. When he said that, I didn't want to talk with him anymore. How can you share the love of Christ with people when you don't know who Jesus is? How can you tell people about Jesus when you haven't studied the Trinity? How can you preach the gospel when you don't understand justification? We do many people a great disservice when we don't explain to them that ALL of the Bible is significant, not just passages that discuss salvation or make us feel good. Every Christian ought to be a theologian. One last point before I end this part of my musing. For the girls out there who read this blog: if you husband married you because you're hot and liked your hotness, but didn't know anything else about you, how would that make you feel? How do you think Jesus feels when we say we love Him and all we know about Him is that He loves us and "saved" us?

So, on Thursday night at a coffee house in Fort Worth (Artistic Blends) I saw Bill Mallonee play. Bill Mallonee is the lead singer for the underground Christian band, Vigilantes of Love, but on Thursday night, Bill played the acoustic guitar and harmonica (the harmonica was around his neck Bob Dylan style). It was a cool show. Bill is a conservative Christian - he used to be reformed and went to Reformed Theological Seminary, then converted to Catholicism. Why did he convert? He claimed that many evangelicals didn't have a high view of Christ and were searching for the real Jesus (many old SBC professors got sucked into this) and the Catholic Church always maintained an orthodox understanding and belief in Christ. I am very sympathetic to this line of argument. I get so beatdown by the baptist resort to the priesthood of the believer, which is often manipulated by baptists to be understood as "I can believe what I want to." My conclusion from speaking with Bill after the concert is that for the most part, people who examine their beliefs concerning their Christian faith have more in common with me than the every Sunday baptist Church goer who has no idea what he believes.

One more thing. Bill used a s-bomb in one song. In the context it was "you should pray to God one more time to get your s-bomb together." A girl from the seminary was very offended that a Christian artist would use a profane word. It didn't bother me for several reasons. One, he plays in clubs all over and is not a "youth group" band, i.e. Audio Adreneline. Second, sometimes profane words can emphasize a point. Third, it seemed to emphasize the point that he was making in his song. I don't know, I'd appreciate any and all random comments.

For the record, the number one reason why I am no longer a Catholic is due to the Catholic view of justification. Yet, not many baptists understand what the Catholic view of justification is, and so they frequently misrepresent what the Catholics actually believe.

Frustration...

Here's my biggest frustration - when I don't use my time wisely. Right now I am extremely frustrated, I wanted to read for 8 hours today, and when it's all said and done it will probably be more like 5. Here's the thing with grad school, it's all about work. Now I enjoy what I am doing because I view it as a Christian calling. Philosophy is the art of thinking well - simple definition of philosophy. (All other disciplines benefit from philosophy: law, science, biology, politics, language, math, art, and etc. There is a philosophy for anything you can think of. But to do philosophy well, requires much reading and pondering (or thinking) about what has been read.) I have not done this. The good news is that it is only the third week of the semester and papers are more than a month away. The bad news is that it is the beginning of the semester and I am already developing bad habits.

Since I view what I am doing as a calling, whenever I don't do my best I let God down. I also let myself down, as well as other people. I need to learn how to budget my time and be a good steward of the time that God has given to me.

Here's to more efficient use of my time tomorrow - just remember, tomorrow's a new day =)