In continuation my last post, I'd like to spend a bit more time thinking about the analogy for describing God's relationship to us, humankind. First, I'd like to say that for all benefits of systematic theology, & the are quite significant, nowhere has God ever stated that his ways are understandable to men, or claimed to specify the technical details of life, death, & spirituality that people split hairs on endlessly. It seems that 1) they are incomprehensible to our understanding & 2) what's important for us to know is far simpler to grasp. So on with the analogies!
I said that God allows us to choose him or reject him. The best example of this comes from Hosea. Hosea was the prophet whose wife was relentlessly unfaithful to him. Hosea married her, knowing that she was a prostitute and would have illegitimate children. Despite Gomer's rampant adultery & whoring, Hosea buys her out of slavery to redeem her. God shows that Hosea's life is an illustration of how God relates to his people.
Maybe Hosea's story is too extreme to relate to. Instead, just think that Gomer is no longer "in love" with Hosea. Notice that while he goes through incredible lengths to show his wife love, and though he has shown her more grace than she could ever pay back in her life, he still does not control her. He did not take her back by force, or abusively control her. He acted in self-sacrificial love. And Hosea, like God, says what should be the response to such incredible patience & sacrifice; complete faithfulness.
This is one of the most fleshed out, relatable analogies of God's relationship to mankind in Scripture. We know heartbreak & humiliation because we see it around us every day. The essential ingredient is the choice to obey or forsake Him. Either seek or ignore. God does not create puppets to humiliate him or reject him, he takes the risk that allows for a real reciprocal (if infinitely lopsided) relationship to occur. The twists and turns of this are, admittedly, messy. But it's the best foundation we've got.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Power & Pressure of Choice
There's a couple topics I've wanted to tackle in a post-an almost paralyzing decision between equally interesting choices. Then it occurred to me that both those topics were essentially related to choice; my first chance to relate theology & technology in a somewhat meaningful way.
First, some thoughts on choice in technology. As a life-long Apple fan, I appreciate most of their decisions about their products and the direction of their progress. For years I have heard their critics denounce the lack of choice offered their customers. There's no option to run their software on different (read: cheaper, commodity) hardware. There's no option for native iPhone apps that Apple does not approve. Users don't have the "choice" to run flash if they prefer to kill their battery. There are no choices of different iPhone models with keyboards. And on and on. Some see this as Orwellian control; a sign of dictatorship. Some honestly believe Steve Jobs wants to control the whole world. But I tend to take Jobs at his word when he says he does not care about being number 1, just making the best products. Everything in his career validates that statement. His pursuit of perfection has led to his highest highs & lowest lows. Apple offers an oft overlooked insight into human nature: people prefer choosing from fewer options. And while sometimes consumers have specialized needs that require specific consideration, non-experts prefer highly curated, well-designed experiences. It is indeed a bad thing when one company can force decisions on all customers, which was very nearly the case for Microsoft in the 90's, but Apple would prefer to be the smaller, upscale option that appeals to quality & genuine usefulness. Watch this video to see how Apple appeals to human emotion. It also invites you to choose the (from their perspective) best choice.
Now, where does choice come into theology? St. John says "God is love." Love cannot work consistently with control. If God created humans as perfectly happy & perfectly compliant drones, it could not be said to be love. Or if you could say that God makes us do exactly what he wants and that the act is still love, then at the very least you could not say that we love God. We would be a robotic shell, merely acting as we are programmed. As we know from human experience, love is risky. You can love someone and risk that they will not love you back, or even hurt you greatly whether they reciprocate or not. Sometimes the imperfections of love are more painful than blank indifference.
Therefore if God does not allow us the choice of whether to love him or not, it would be an act of power, not of love. In fact, this is where accountability for our sinful behavior makes sense as well. We accept innately that we should be responsible for our actions. If all our actions are scripted, it would be morally wrong for God to punish or judge someone for performing an action he caused the person to perform. This is also why universalism is so tempting; most of us are pretty sure that God is loving, and it seems that for people to be "lost" or to harm themselves isn't loving. The problem of evil, i.e. "why do bad things happen to good people?" in misleadingly simple terms, is a reaction to negative events and God's apparently permissive attitude toward our pain & suffering.
I believe that the answer to this is that God gives us choice. He does force us to love him, or to do as he likes. He winsomely compels us to him, he has paid the price for us in Christ, but he does not make us accept him or believe in him. The allows for the possibility of real love. But that also means that there can not be a universal safety net. He cannot freely allow us to reject him, then force us to be reconciled to him. The choice results in the possibility that we reject God. And life apart from God's presence is a very dark thing. He often lament that we cannot see or experience God well in this waking life. But so much of humanity and the world reflect God and his love. When we reject God, all of those things will also fade away. We all rebel in little ways, each one of us has sinned. But the essential thing is that we chose to do so. Or perhaps even more essentially, God hands us over the the consequences of our rebellion, and yet also lived and died to pay the price and conquer those consequences.
Choice is the essential ingredient to true love. For the Christian, God has done all the work; carried us the entire way so we cannot claim we did anything to earn salvation, yet he cannot choose for us. And we, likewise, cannot choose for others out of our good intentions to love God. They may be confident that we are mistaken. They may have experiences that make God a very confusing & conflicting topic. But we cannot convince them through pressure or persuasion. We must choose to do as God does, and lovingly accept them as they are, in their imperfections, and winsomely compel them to the strength & beauty of the truth. Among a thousand false choices, I believe everything ultimately comes down to rejecting the true God, or on his terms accepting him.
This anonymousMonk endeavor, bridging the gap between technology & theology, is very messy. But I think there's something to it.
First, some thoughts on choice in technology. As a life-long Apple fan, I appreciate most of their decisions about their products and the direction of their progress. For years I have heard their critics denounce the lack of choice offered their customers. There's no option to run their software on different (read: cheaper, commodity) hardware. There's no option for native iPhone apps that Apple does not approve. Users don't have the "choice" to run flash if they prefer to kill their battery. There are no choices of different iPhone models with keyboards. And on and on. Some see this as Orwellian control; a sign of dictatorship. Some honestly believe Steve Jobs wants to control the whole world. But I tend to take Jobs at his word when he says he does not care about being number 1, just making the best products. Everything in his career validates that statement. His pursuit of perfection has led to his highest highs & lowest lows. Apple offers an oft overlooked insight into human nature: people prefer choosing from fewer options. And while sometimes consumers have specialized needs that require specific consideration, non-experts prefer highly curated, well-designed experiences. It is indeed a bad thing when one company can force decisions on all customers, which was very nearly the case for Microsoft in the 90's, but Apple would prefer to be the smaller, upscale option that appeals to quality & genuine usefulness. Watch this video to see how Apple appeals to human emotion. It also invites you to choose the (from their perspective) best choice.
Now, where does choice come into theology? St. John says "God is love." Love cannot work consistently with control. If God created humans as perfectly happy & perfectly compliant drones, it could not be said to be love. Or if you could say that God makes us do exactly what he wants and that the act is still love, then at the very least you could not say that we love God. We would be a robotic shell, merely acting as we are programmed. As we know from human experience, love is risky. You can love someone and risk that they will not love you back, or even hurt you greatly whether they reciprocate or not. Sometimes the imperfections of love are more painful than blank indifference.
Therefore if God does not allow us the choice of whether to love him or not, it would be an act of power, not of love. In fact, this is where accountability for our sinful behavior makes sense as well. We accept innately that we should be responsible for our actions. If all our actions are scripted, it would be morally wrong for God to punish or judge someone for performing an action he caused the person to perform. This is also why universalism is so tempting; most of us are pretty sure that God is loving, and it seems that for people to be "lost" or to harm themselves isn't loving. The problem of evil, i.e. "why do bad things happen to good people?" in misleadingly simple terms, is a reaction to negative events and God's apparently permissive attitude toward our pain & suffering.
I believe that the answer to this is that God gives us choice. He does force us to love him, or to do as he likes. He winsomely compels us to him, he has paid the price for us in Christ, but he does not make us accept him or believe in him. The allows for the possibility of real love. But that also means that there can not be a universal safety net. He cannot freely allow us to reject him, then force us to be reconciled to him. The choice results in the possibility that we reject God. And life apart from God's presence is a very dark thing. He often lament that we cannot see or experience God well in this waking life. But so much of humanity and the world reflect God and his love. When we reject God, all of those things will also fade away. We all rebel in little ways, each one of us has sinned. But the essential thing is that we chose to do so. Or perhaps even more essentially, God hands us over the the consequences of our rebellion, and yet also lived and died to pay the price and conquer those consequences.
Choice is the essential ingredient to true love. For the Christian, God has done all the work; carried us the entire way so we cannot claim we did anything to earn salvation, yet he cannot choose for us. And we, likewise, cannot choose for others out of our good intentions to love God. They may be confident that we are mistaken. They may have experiences that make God a very confusing & conflicting topic. But we cannot convince them through pressure or persuasion. We must choose to do as God does, and lovingly accept them as they are, in their imperfections, and winsomely compel them to the strength & beauty of the truth. Among a thousand false choices, I believe everything ultimately comes down to rejecting the true God, or on his terms accepting him.
This anonymousMonk endeavor, bridging the gap between technology & theology, is very messy. But I think there's something to it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Openness (in tech, not theology)
Lately there's been a war of words. Well, more like a war over the definition of one word: open.
Part technical, part ideological, supporters of Open technologies go back to Unix/Linux, where people rebelled against the slow machinations of Microsoft and hoped to pool the talents of nerds across the globe to write software that benefited everyone rather than a single corporate interest.
The current etymological battle is between Apple & Adobe. Apple is famous for being the more closed, experience-controlling company in the industry (which also results in the easy, seamless experiences that attract so many customers). Adobe is known for selling bloated, expensive software to developers, and the slow, resource-hogging Flash plugin that we associate with laptop fans going to full blast and annoying pop-up advertisements. Adobe is acting like Apple has shunned it by not allowing Flash on the iPhone or iPad, however there is still not even a solid beta of flash for ANY phone, even Google's Nexus One. Apple also recently banned Flash & other 3rd party tools from the AppStore. Knowing that this is one of their last great cash cows, Adobe has responded that Apple has closed off an "open" technology and limited developer choice. Jim Whimpey responds here.
Clearly I am on the same side. For all the whining that goes on about Apple controlling the iPhone, the killer app has always been Safari. Apple doesn't act as toll-keeper for the internet. If you're ideologically aligned towards Open software, 1) don't hitch your wagon to Adobe, which doesn't support linux and wants to be the middleman getting rich off of the internet, & 2) you should make your work free as a web app rather than insisting on opening up the AppStore. The heavy hand of Apple has made the AppStore so simple that 80 year olds are excited about trying new software. What it does not need is buggy, me-too apps crowding the store.
Apple makes software and hardware, a unique place in this industry. They've bet their company on highly controlling the hardware and what has access to it, and tried to help make the web as open and interoperable as possible. With Webkit and the many other technologies that Apple gives away, I'd say do more work for free than Adobe does as an entire company. The battle of who's more open is irrelevant when Apple never claims to be open, but when Adobe is on the offensive, the proof should be in the open source pudding.
Update: John Gruber has weighed in on this same topic today, with far more insight & technical know-how than I can offer. Perhaps it is best summed up by his tweet, "If you buy Adobe's argument is that Flash is open because they've published a file format spec, then Microsoft Office is open too, right?" Also, Adobe has responded to Microsoft and Apple's claims that Flash Player is buggy and insecure by saying that is "old news." They don't mention that it contains the second-most attacked vulnerability on the web.
Part technical, part ideological, supporters of Open technologies go back to Unix/Linux, where people rebelled against the slow machinations of Microsoft and hoped to pool the talents of nerds across the globe to write software that benefited everyone rather than a single corporate interest.
The current etymological battle is between Apple & Adobe. Apple is famous for being the more closed, experience-controlling company in the industry (which also results in the easy, seamless experiences that attract so many customers). Adobe is known for selling bloated, expensive software to developers, and the slow, resource-hogging Flash plugin that we associate with laptop fans going to full blast and annoying pop-up advertisements. Adobe is acting like Apple has shunned it by not allowing Flash on the iPhone or iPad, however there is still not even a solid beta of flash for ANY phone, even Google's Nexus One. Apple also recently banned Flash & other 3rd party tools from the AppStore. Knowing that this is one of their last great cash cows, Adobe has responded that Apple has closed off an "open" technology and limited developer choice. Jim Whimpey responds here.
Clearly I am on the same side. For all the whining that goes on about Apple controlling the iPhone, the killer app has always been Safari. Apple doesn't act as toll-keeper for the internet. If you're ideologically aligned towards Open software, 1) don't hitch your wagon to Adobe, which doesn't support linux and wants to be the middleman getting rich off of the internet, & 2) you should make your work free as a web app rather than insisting on opening up the AppStore. The heavy hand of Apple has made the AppStore so simple that 80 year olds are excited about trying new software. What it does not need is buggy, me-too apps crowding the store.
Apple makes software and hardware, a unique place in this industry. They've bet their company on highly controlling the hardware and what has access to it, and tried to help make the web as open and interoperable as possible. With Webkit and the many other technologies that Apple gives away, I'd say do more work for free than Adobe does as an entire company. The battle of who's more open is irrelevant when Apple never claims to be open, but when Adobe is on the offensive, the proof should be in the open source pudding.
Update: John Gruber has weighed in on this same topic today, with far more insight & technical know-how than I can offer. Perhaps it is best summed up by his tweet, "If you buy Adobe's argument is that Flash is open because they've published a file format spec, then Microsoft Office is open too, right?" Also, Adobe has responded to Microsoft and Apple's claims that Flash Player is buggy and insecure by saying that is "old news." They don't mention that it contains the second-most attacked vulnerability on the web.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Assessing the Faith
To start off this endeavor, I'd like to share a post by a blogger new to me, John Shore. He writes this confrontational piece called "Ten Ways Christians Tend to Fail at Being Christian." While not a wholesale endorsement, there are some very pressing talking points here. One that's sure to stir the pot a bit:
"Christians need to more readily admit that the religious experience -- no matter how riveting and real it is to the person experiencing it -- remains a subjective phenomenon, and talk about it that way"
This could really rile up some feathers. When one starts using the word subjective, many Christians are up in arms. And not without good reason; today we hear a lot of "What's true for me may not be true for you," and other generic pleasantries. But if we believe that God is the quintessential Truth, creator of all reality and a verifiable person in history in Christ, it seems like a slap in the face to say that God could be subjective.
That's not necessarily the intention, however. Consider Søren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher & theological writer. He often wrote on the theme of subjectivity in faith, by which he meant the interaction that goes on in the individual. That does not mean that a person is making God up, or that God only exists in one's imagination. The workings of a person's heart do not change the external realities of the world. But Jesus was not concerned primarily with the external signs of religion-like ritually clean hands. He cared about the heart; the individual, & subjective, faith of individual people. Anyone who's been a Christian for even a short time knows that you cannot make that same decision for others. Invariably we experience the peace & purpose of faith and wish to share if with those we love when we see others looking for a similar fulfillment. When we are convinced that Jesus is in fact Lord, it's only right to want to reconcile others to him. There are plenty of ways to show Christ to others, but there's no way to highjack someone's heart.
"Christians need to more readily admit that the religious experience -- no matter how riveting and real it is to the person experiencing it -- remains a subjective phenomenon, and talk about it that way"
This could really rile up some feathers. When one starts using the word subjective, many Christians are up in arms. And not without good reason; today we hear a lot of "What's true for me may not be true for you," and other generic pleasantries. But if we believe that God is the quintessential Truth, creator of all reality and a verifiable person in history in Christ, it seems like a slap in the face to say that God could be subjective.
That's not necessarily the intention, however. Consider Søren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher & theological writer. He often wrote on the theme of subjectivity in faith, by which he meant the interaction that goes on in the individual. That does not mean that a person is making God up, or that God only exists in one's imagination. The workings of a person's heart do not change the external realities of the world. But Jesus was not concerned primarily with the external signs of religion-like ritually clean hands. He cared about the heart; the individual, & subjective, faith of individual people. Anyone who's been a Christian for even a short time knows that you cannot make that same decision for others. Invariably we experience the peace & purpose of faith and wish to share if with those we love when we see others looking for a similar fulfillment. When we are convinced that Jesus is in fact Lord, it's only right to want to reconcile others to him. There are plenty of ways to show Christ to others, but there's no way to highjack someone's heart.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Not the. An.: anonymousMonk
In my sleepless mind-churning, I've decided that I am going to commit to blogging on a regular basis. The topics will gravitate toward my two main passions, as evidenced in my usual moniker (anonymousMonk); theology & technology. Those seemingly disparate fields that take up the majority of my time, & in a way characterize me as a person. This explanation serves as a preview of what is to come.
What is an anonymous monk? Where do they come from? Are they dangerous? What started as no more than a riff off of Jazz musician Thelonious Monk with a wry attempt to turn something soulful into the mundane has taken on greater & greater significance. I've come to see myself as somewhat monk-like. My quiet nature could easily be mistaken for a vow of silence. I've come to cherish my introversion as the gift that it is; the ability to deeply meditate on questions (no matter how inconvenient the hour) is one I can finally appreciate as significant.
The anonymity of the web is usually viewed in the negative. It does allow for people to air their childish behavior & escape consequences. But there are many positives as well. While I have never believed that the majority determines the truth, I think "crowd-sourced Christianity" is part of the tradition of the church-a body made of every tribe. In anonymity I speak as one without authority, as many do. When they match God's words, they have weight, & thus everyone's anonymous voice must be weighed constantly. To ignore words that match God's truth is to ignore God himself. So we listen, no matter how foolish the lips, for the breath behind the words. I am not the anonymousMonk. I am an anonymous monk among many. A man in love with aliteration, thoughts, information, & controversy.
How does the organic, living truth in theology meet the alternating alienation and connection of technology? Stay tuned.
What is an anonymous monk? Where do they come from? Are they dangerous? What started as no more than a riff off of Jazz musician Thelonious Monk with a wry attempt to turn something soulful into the mundane has taken on greater & greater significance. I've come to see myself as somewhat monk-like. My quiet nature could easily be mistaken for a vow of silence. I've come to cherish my introversion as the gift that it is; the ability to deeply meditate on questions (no matter how inconvenient the hour) is one I can finally appreciate as significant.
The anonymity of the web is usually viewed in the negative. It does allow for people to air their childish behavior & escape consequences. But there are many positives as well. While I have never believed that the majority determines the truth, I think "crowd-sourced Christianity" is part of the tradition of the church-a body made of every tribe. In anonymity I speak as one without authority, as many do. When they match God's words, they have weight, & thus everyone's anonymous voice must be weighed constantly. To ignore words that match God's truth is to ignore God himself. So we listen, no matter how foolish the lips, for the breath behind the words. I am not the anonymousMonk. I am an anonymous monk among many. A man in love with aliteration, thoughts, information, & controversy.
How does the organic, living truth in theology meet the alternating alienation and connection of technology? Stay tuned.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
long time blogger, first time caller...
I have blogged sporadically in some form or another for several years, but I've been thinking of starting anew once again, and beginning to write here. Since I am preaching tomorrow, and Eric has begun posting follow-up questions on his new blog, I though this would be a good opportunity to get started here and post some questions of my own.
Reread Ephesians 4:1-16.
How have leaders (pastors, volunteers, any one!) built you up? How have they equipped you for your ministry?
What does a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6) look like to you? Do you ever feel like a "priest"/mediator?
How have you better understood God by getting to know other believers?
What would you most like to show others about who God is through your actions?
Reread Ephesians 4:1-16.
How have leaders (pastors, volunteers, any one!) built you up? How have they equipped you for your ministry?
What does a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6) look like to you? Do you ever feel like a "priest"/mediator?
How have you better understood God by getting to know other believers?
What would you most like to show others about who God is through your actions?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
