|
| Christian Heritage has a doctrinal statement of faith and the views expressed in articles are personal and not necessarily those which are upheld by the organisation |
|
|
|
| | | | 23/11/2013 7:00pm | | |
Round Church, Bridge Street | |
|
|
|
| | | Viewed
444
times | | | Peter Greyling | | | |
|
|
|
|
What is Man? - Jürgen Moltmann
"'Who am I?' Only man asks such questions, and indeed clearly has to ask them about himself and his being. This is his question."
Mensch, Jürgen Moltmann
The question here is regarding the meaning of 'Man'. Why is this important? It is important because everyone asks it "in hundreds of forms". Some asks it philosophically, concerning the possibility of an universal meaning to the word. Some asks it personally concerning the meaning of their life, or in the form of an identity crisis. Either way, it all amounts to the same truth as Moltmann described: this is our question.
For the Christian, this question is of uttermost importance. The Christian proclaimed the message of the gospel being one of saving grace. What he means is that he has received and experienced the good news regarding not only the problem of life, but his problem of life. This problem of his is called sin in the biblical language, but in our current discussion, it is called the paradox of man's own questioning.
Thus it is a prerequisite for the Christian to understand this question. Without reflecting on this question, his usage of the word 'sin' is almost empty and content-less. It is through his realisation of his own self-questioning, that he discovers his sinful nature, and it is through this reflective process that he discovers the presence of God, who was never absent.
What about for the non-believer, and he who is skeptical about religion? What about for the agnostic and the philosopher who finds the religious viewpoint naive or uncertain? I hope Moltmann will offer some light in general, regarding the identity crisis of man.
First, let me draw out Moltmann's presuppositions.
I) He fundamentally assumes that there is such thing as the meaning of 'man'. Therefore, he did not question the validity of the question. He attempts to engage existentially with the question without suspicion. This attitude underlies his investigation of man.
II) He is undertaking a dialogue between man's experience, and his abstract thought. Thus the philosophical statements he asserts are sometimes lenses through which he looked at experience; while sometimes they are conclusion drawn from experience. There is no definite primacy assigned to experience or his a priori thoughts.
III) He sees a complementary role between religious and humanistic inquiry on the question: "Christian anthropology does not make biological, cultural, and religious anthropology superfluous, but nor can it be reduced to them."
IV) He assumes that the dilemma of man, namely, his lack of understanding of himself, is a real dilemma and that a real solution is required:
"However this difference which man experiences in himself is described, it is just as important for him to come to reliable answers, and to make himself trustworthy for others, as it is for him to remain conscious of the mystery that he is to other people, and that others are to him, and to respect this mysetry."
In other words, one does not simply 'dissolve' the dilemma, but must attempt to seek a concrete solution to the dilemma. However, as shown in the above quote, for Moltmann this does not mean that the solution will do away with the problem. There appear a degree of practical concern in his consideration. Although the solution cannot do away with the mystery, i.e. it is important for man to continue to be aware of the mystery, the solution allows him to make himself trustworthy for others and to the world. There is a huge practical concern regarding the implication of man's inner dilemma in Moltmann's thinking.
Thus his methodology is basically that he wishes to construct a broad overview of anthropology, what it informs us about the meaning of man, and consequently shed light on how these knowledge connects with the religious understanding, or more specifically, the Christian understanding of man.
What are the existential motivation for this inquiry? Why do we care about investigating carefully this question? Why is it important even? At the heart is this motivation: "He (i.e. man)...discovers a difference between himself and the objects in the world around him with which he deals." The existential motivation for the question of man, is that man inherently find himself to be different from everything around him. He finds himself different from the animals, plants, and nature. He also finds himself different from other men. He looks different, he thinks differently and have a different view on things.
"So the question who man is lies in wait for man in quite ordinary experiencs, in particular situations of good fortune and of distress, and in the deepest reflection of his conscious self."
This awareness of this question is at the same time curious and troubling to the modern man. As Moltmann pointed out, the question of man is a dilemma for him. "He is himself the questioner and at the same time the one questioned; he questions himself." Now this observation encompasses the whole modern western philosophical framework, where we must pay attention. Without understanding this, we are to be hopelessly out of context in our evaluation of our own thinking, and the thinking of our whole generation. So a brief remark is necessray to elaborate on this point.
Notice that the question can only arise if one thinks in subject-object relation terms. By this I mean if the content of one's thinking is primarily described by making the distinctions between the subject and object in the thought. Thus for example, "I believe that David Cameron is the prime minister of the UK", the subject is represented by the symbol 'I', and 'David Cameron', 'Prime minister' and 'UK' are all objects in the thought. The sentence essentially is then a construction of a specific relationship between these objects, and how the subject has perceived this particular relationship.
Now, what about if man is observing himself as an object? This question arises naturally, if one is curious about the possibility of constructing a sentence where the subject is also the object. Thus the dilemma of man naturally arises in the modern western thought system., where subject-object relation plays the primary role. In order to elucidate the identity crisis among many people, we must be aware that one needs to see his default thinking framework, before one can be properly positioned to address the identity crisis.
Returning to Moltmann's main argument, he brought out further the nature of this dilemma:
|
|
|
"Evening on Karl Johan Street", Edvard Munch, 1892
|
"As he tries to get behind ithings in order to understand them and to make use of them, he finally wants to get behind himself too, in order to understand himself. But because it is himself behind whom he want to get, he keeps on slipping out of his own grasp, and becomes more of a puzzle to himself..."
At the heart of the problem, is that we can never get behind ourselves to understand ourselves, the same way we can get behind nature and understand her laws and behaviour. Nor can we understand ourselves, the same way we can get behind others and understand them as a human person. The fundamental problem is that we are stuck, in the subject-object framework, to conceive what it means to have knowledge of oneself, and how to obtain it.
Now I am going to suspend the discussion about the validity of the subject-obejct framework of thinking. An eastern approach to philosophy will regard this as the fundamental flaw, and therefore propose that we must abandon such framework of thinking (i.e. subject-object distinction). For now, I wish to persist to say that this framework is a fairly natural one for most people. And even if we do not see this consciously, this is often the case when one discovers the structure of his or her own thoughts.
But what seems to be important to note here, is the inevitable necessity of an external source of knowledge, whereby man can discover knowledge of oneself.
Pui Him Ip, 2011-12 Apprentice
Pui loves....Glenn Gould..
|
Pui Him Ip, Apprentice Blog, 27/05/2012 |
Permalink
|
OUR WORLD
Our generation is one where we are used to living with instability. In the area of politics, economics, education, and the ever changing state of technology, we are shaped by the sense of contingency in our thinking. Absolutes, seem to be an absurd concept for us. We do not even expect stability in the relational arenas where it is traditionally thought of as necessary: marriage, inter-personal friendship, fellowship in church...etc.
This is reflected in the intellectual expressions of our generation. While we continue to engage with questions with our mind, we engage with them at a particular way, with a particular attitude. Our culture teaches us that all absolute truth claims about reality are either suspicious, or is only one among many false gods that as modern man we learnt, is devoid of any real significance. Further, it teaches us that intellectual foundationalism: the idea that if thoughts flow out of a solid a priori rational ground - à la René Descartes' clear and distinct thoughts, then they must be reliable, trustworthy and true - is fundamentally a suspicious argument. Our generation questions and doubts the very presupposition that ground of meaning, or foundation, is possible at all. And if possible, and such a ground developed, we doubt that such ground is of any unique significant interest to us: it is just one among many possible ground.
Why is this analysis important? It is because it shows that the tendency to live a pluralistic life with instability is deeply rooted in our culture, and the world that we interact with daily. The modern West is characterised by the rediscovery of the importance of the human mind: rationality, if applied correctly, can lead to human flourishing in his existence - the motto of Enlightenment. Our generation, however, is characterised by the rediscovery of the corruption of man: since there is no trustworthy man at all, not even one, we doubt even the most basic feature in our thoughts - the ground from which one can have meaning, purpose and sense in our thoughts. Absolute pluralism, if one follows through all its consequences, is essentially equivalent to absolute skepticism. By definition, if one commits to the claim that there is no unique, absolute ground that is common to human thought, intuitive enough to avoid any further doubt, the logical consequence is that every ground that claims to be a ground, must have equal legitimacy (equally true or equally false in this case does not matter at all - since we cannot know).
In theological language, if modernism is founded on the rediscovery of man as imago dei, the image of God, communicated through the accessible divine revelation in scripture understood by rational reason, then our generation is founded on the rediscovery of the fallen man, communicated through the divine revelation in experience. For the moderns, the reformation has laid down a ground that enables the Enlightenment to proceed - a principle which justifies our claims that knowledge is actually possible by asserting that knowledge of the divine God is possible through scriptures using our rational minds. For our generation, the two world wars and the power struggle between man and his innovation - the machine - through the industrial and technological revolution, have served as the source of our return to absolute pluralism. Grounded on a collective existential, historic experience, our generation is born.
The key point of this analysis, is that while in the modernist generation, rationality is on the forefront of our existential agenda as man, in our generation it is out of sight, and replaced by our personal and collective experience. By this I mean, what man identifies as a person in life, has moved from the realm of truth in the form of idea and reason, to the realm of truth in existential experience. This is a seismic shift that has occurred as a historical event - we can argue about the precise historical origin of the shift, but we cannot deny the relevance of the shift to our generation.
Pui Him Ip, 2011-12 Apprentice
Pui likes....painting pictures with thoughts.
|
Pui Him Ip, Apprentice Blog, 21/05/2012 |
Permalink
|
A Theology of Florence & The Machine
The setting for the video of 'No Light No Light', the second single from 2011's Ceremonials, is a traditional church building complete with boys’ choir and numerous, thick pillar candles, preparing the stage upon which the theology of this album is played out. A suffocating sense of old religion and an exploration of the extra-material world is interwoven with the ever-present graveyards + angels + drowning imagery that one is used to encountering on a Florence & The Machine record.
Album opener ‘Only If For A Night’ is reminiscent of ‘Rabbit Heart’ from the previous album, with its talk of ghosts and ceremonials sitting comfortably with the pagan-esque sacrifice language of the latter. Moving swiftly on, ‘Shake It Out’ tells of the burden of having the Devil upon one’s back: ‘it’s hard to dance with the devil on your back/so shake him off’. The concern here seems to be with the way that knowledge of sin can compromise one’s ability to dance, but a serious recognition of the weight of guilt is also present as ‘regrets collect like old friends/here to relive your darkest moments/I can see no way/and all of the ghouls come out to play/and every demon wants his pound of flesh’. Not only do these lines point to a world outside of what we can touch and see, they also subtly recognise that regret and remorse are consequences of sin. We can skip around the bush or we can just name these ‘ghouls’ and ‘demons’ as the devil and admit that he indulges us in our introspective shame and delights when we are burdened by our unholiness. The antidote to this is, of course, turning our eyes away from ourselves and back to Christ, in whom we are accepted by God. Florence has no such hope to look to: ‘I’ve been a fool and I’ve been blind/I can never leave the past behind/I can see no way’. Aware of her wrongdoing and distressed with the root of it, she strikingly declares that ‘I am done with my graceless heart/so tonight I’m gonna cut it out and then restart’. Our gracelessness points directly to our capacity for graciousness, hindered as it is at the present time by our sin, but intended as it is for restoration and renewal. This is not how we were intended to be and it rightly frustrates us, our lack of grace thus pointing to God’s abundant grace. These lines identify exactly the need for a change of heart, ‘for the mouth speaks what the heart is full of’ (Matthew 12:34). Towards the conclusion, the lyrics juxtapose a desire to hope with a flippant abandon to whatever the world might throw at her: ‘and I’m ready to suffer and I’m ready to hope/cause looking for heaven/find the devil in me/but what the hell/I’m gonna let it happen to me’.
This succumbing to a personal fall gathers pace in ‘Lover to Lover’, where she hopelessly sings ‘I believe there’s no salvation for me now/no space among the clouds/and I’ve seen that I’m heading down/but that’s alright’. The road that she sees herself ‘heading down’ is played out in the central motif that takes on a circular form and offers no release: ’road to road/bed to bed/lover to lover/and black to red‘. Roads, beds and lovers are presented as equal in insignificance. There is no life in these lines, only repetition and meaninglessness.
'Never Let Me Go’ not only bears the same name as an excellent Kazuo Ishiguro novel, it also reverts the imagery back to the familiar drowning scenes Florence is so fond of, depicting a peculiar kind of salvation: ‘and the arms of the ocean are carrying me/and all this devotion was rushing out of me/and the crashes are heaven/for a sinner like me/but the arms of the ocean delivered me’. How ironic that the ocean, such a symbol of chaos and fear for the Hebrews, in this instance is made out to offer deliverance for the sinner. In reality, of course, it is only a temporary escape from reality and will quickly lead to disillusionment (even if it does make for poignant lyricism). This sinner would rather be delivered into a loving relationship with the living God by his own work, than delivered to a Watery Unknown.
Angeline Liles, 2011-12 Apprentice
Angeline likes....playing Settlers of Catan. A lot.
|
Angeline Liles, Apprentice Blog, 09/05/2012 |
Permalink
|
TWO WAYS TO VIEW
|
For Protestants, especially those who would call themselves Evangelicals (including myself), it is especially difficult for us to see the sense of Christianity, as proclaimed by the Eastern Orthodox Christians. A common stereotype that is used to characterise their standpoint, is that they subscribe supreme authority to tradition, which for Protestants have the most negative connotations possible. ("Whatever tradition could mean, however it is implemented, for whatever reasons, it cannot be a correct view of the truth.") For the Protestants, what they protest, is the assertion that scripture alone is the sole supreme authority on divine truth.
Here is a question, and a remark that will hopefully be helpful for those who wish to see Eastern Orthodoxy more clearly.
The question is this: How do one (you and me) view and conceptualise (i.e. how do you articulate your beliefs) Christianity, and based on what grounds do you justify your viewpoint?
The presupposition behind the question, is that everyone conceptualise, to a certain extend, in order to make any sense for the facts we know, and beliefs we subscribe to. In other words, speaking about facts and truths without being aware of a scheme of conceptualisation is meaningless. Thus, it does not make any sense to assert the proposition: Jesus is the Christ, without conceptualising this truth in the context where all the Old Testament connotations for the expectation and the anticipation of the anointed one is meant by the word Christ.
Now one confronts a problem: how should one decide between different schemes of conceptualising?
This is the point of my remark. I wish to illustrate this problem, using the example of the conflict between Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant Evangelical view. As noted above, everyone has, and needs a viewpoint in life. The viewpoint is shaped by various things, but this is not important here. Moreover, everyone's viewpoint functions as the contact point with the world around them. Thus all our experiences, thoughts, and beliefs, are largely influenced by the shape and form of this viewpoint. This viewpoint is precisely the scheme through which we conceptualise all elements of life, and enables sense to arise.
Now the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox conception of Christianity are precisely two viewpoints. (Notice, I have not commit myself to the question whether all viewpoints are neutral, when it comes to the question of truth, i.e. whether all viewpoints are equally valid to approach truth.) My remark is simply this: for one to make clear statements about which viewpoint is correct, one is (consciously or unconsciously) setting up a clear criteria to assess different viewpoints, with an a priori preference to a particular standard for conceptualisation. Thus if one says: "Protestant's view of scripture is the only Biblical viewpoint on the matter", then he has already an a priori standard for how one should conceptualise Christianity. Equally, if one says: "Eastern Orthodox's view of the church is the only Apostolic viewpoint on the matter". In order to make exclusive claims about viewpoints, one must also make exclusive claims about standard of conceptualising.
Having put aside the preliminary remark, let us return to the question. How do Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant Evangelicalism decide what critera to use in order to favour one scheme over the other? Here I suggest that the decisive difference is much more subtle than the typical distinction between 'sola scriptura' and 'tradition'. (Although Protestants often misunderstood, or have a naive caricature of what the Orthodox meant by 'Apostolic Tradition'.) The important difference lies in the question regarding the means of expressive communication of the Divine Truth by the Spirit.
The Protestant Evangelical doctrine of sola scriptura can be seen as an expression of placing supreme emphasis on identifying the difference in authority between different sources of the Spirit's communication. Thus, scripture is the normative form of the witness of the Holy Spirit. And when there is a conflict in doctrinal matter, sola scriptura provides a criteria for discerning which sources are more trustworthy than the other. This emphasis is obvious from a historical point of view, given that the Protestant reformation started by Luther raising objections on certain doctrinal teaching of the Catholic church. He identified correctly that the matter can only be settled, when a criteria for deciding which sources of doctrine, scripture or Rome, is more trustworthy and authoritative. We can see that this lays the foundation for the Protestant Evangelical emphasis - the necessity and urgency to discern true doctrine from false ones.
However, Eastern Orthodoxy continues to emphasis the fact that the 'Holy Tradition', tradition with a big 'T', is the primary form of the witness of the Holy Spirit. They refuse to reduce 'Holy Tradition', to any specific or particular source of communication (e.g. scripture, icons...etc). The criteria for faithfulness therefore, is to maintain the holistic expression of the Holy Spirit, through the totality of the Apotolic witness. This totality, they claimed, includes scripture (the canon), oral-traditions, Apostolic Fathers' writings, iconography, sacred music and art...etc. The fundamental concern of Eastern Orthodoxy is decidedly different from the Protestants: they wish to faithfully allow the Spirit to communicates Divine Truth through the holistic expressions He wishes to use - that is, cannot be reduced to some exhaustive set of particular expressions. With this attitude, one would be horrified to confront the question: is scripture alone sufficient to know God?
We can see, while the Protestant Evangelical view place emphasis on the minimum sources of expressions that we can truly identify as the true expression of the Holy Spirit, the Eastern Orthodox view place emphasis on the maximum sources of expressions that we can truly identify as the true expression of the Holy Spirit. This, I suggest, is the deepest difference between the two view point.
Pui Him Ip, Apprentice 2011-2012, from Cambridge (originally Hong Kong)
Pui loves... Hermeneutics
|
|
|
Pui Him Ip, Apprentice Blog, 08/05/2012 |
Permalink
|
A Religion for atheists? (Part ii)
|
I find myself ambivalent to the strategy and content of de Botton’s foray into “religion.” On the one hand, I very much appreciate his treatment of religion as a residual force for good. However, I worry that his particular way of writing is too shallow, in that it does not deal with the opposite conclusions of many atheistic thinkers (the Stoics, Nihilists, and Existentialists). All these groups of atheists argued that there was indeed no ultimate meaning in a universe without God. However, I believe there is something for us to learn from de Botton.
What Should Be Affirmed:
1. Christianity is (actually) good.I am thankful that there is an atheist who can honestly admit the substantial good that has been produced by religion—particularly Christianity. He even admits in his book that religions are “the most successful educational and intellectual movements the planet has ever witnessed.” Incidentally, de Botton dismisses people like Richard Dawkins, calling him “The Wind from North Oxford.”
2. Reductionism is ugly, wherever you find it. Alain de Botton is so popular precisely because he is not guilty of the reductionism of the New Atheists. And, perhaps the evangelical church can learn something here, too. Reductionism in the church makes us both unattractive to the culture and unfaithful to the biblical view of reality—the view that God created a good and beautiful and rational world. This was the unmissable assumption of artists like Rembrandt in The Stone Bridge.
What Should Be Challenged:
1. Secularism is (just as) good. de Botton seems convinced that there is a way to achieve all the benefits of religion without any of the actual content of any religion. To do so is not only impossible (due to the inherent link between faith and practice), but it is also inconsistent. Additionally, though de Botton gave examples of things that should be stolen from religion, he gave almost no explanation of how secularism could produce better education, art, or community.
2. Reductionism is not inherent in secularism. de Botton is, it seems, a naturalist, but he endeavors to disbelieve reductionism (the belief that all things—including human beings—can be reduced to molecules and chance). de Botton is right to admire the beauty of Bach’s sonatas, the transcendence of St. Giles Cathedral, and brightness of Jesus’ moral teaching. But naturalism—the view that there’s only material stuff—is not an intellectual framework which allows de Botton to hold as high a view of these things. If he were consistent, I believe he would be forced to abandon his high view of human beings, creativity, and morality.
A Lesson Learned:
To add a sad layer of irony, the queue into de Botton’s talk actually wrapped around the 900-year-old Church of the Holy Sepulchre—a beautiful display of Christian architecture and the place where I work. People were lining up and walking just past an ancient symbol of Christianity in order to hear an atheist speak on religious values—beauty, humanity, and meaning. This is a physical sign of the fact that the church has in many ways lost its relevance to our culture. And if we have lost our relevance, we have lost our voice to speak into it. The only way to regain our prophetic voice is to begin engaging intellectually, artistically, and personally—to show that Christianity is the only rational and consistent humanism on the market.
Jon Thompson, Apprentice 2011-2012, from Alabama, USA
Jon loves... philosophy
|
|
|
Jon Thompson, Apprentice Blog, 25/04/2012 |
Permalink
|
A Religion for atheists? (Part i)
|
Imagine with me.
It is a beautiful, busy Saturday afternoon in Cambridge, and I stand in a massive queue. It begins at the door of the Cambridge Union, meanders through an alley, and takes at right angle down the street. It is full of scores of people from all walks of life, all age ranges, and all levels of education.
These people are eagerly awaiting entrance to hear the philosopher Alain de Botton. While it is striking in itself to have a philosopher draw such a large crowd of non-academics (try to imagine 12 year-old kids showing up to a lecture on Epistemic Warrant and Error), the content of the lecture is even more surprising: “Religion for Atheists.”
As a huge fan of de Botton’s earlier writings (you must read The Art of Travel), I was very interested in seeing what he had to say about religion. de Botton is known as a “popularizer of philosophy,” and it is easy to see why his work has drawn such wide appreciation. In an age when academic philosophy has waxed esoteric and disconnected from most people’s real lives, de Botton offers a ray of hope. He writes both accessibly and beautifully, and yet his writings often offer substantial explorations of self and society, travel and beauty.
And today, de Botton was scheduled to give a talk on his latest book, Religion for Atheists: a non-believers guide to the uses of religion. He summarized his book by focusing on three areas: Education, Art, and Community. He used these three as examples of places where secularism can learn from religion.
Education, he claimed, should be aimed at training up “full human beings.” de Botton insinuated that religious education has traditionally aimed at doing just this, and our secular education system should follow suit. Particularly entertaining was his contention that Cambridge professors could learn something about rhetoric from Tennessee Pentecostal preachers.
In the realm of Art, he claimed that religious art is better than secular art because it actually takes a stand and tries to convince us to act in a certain way. He called art ‘good propaganda’ and said that modern art is bad because of its extreme vagueness.
Finally, de Botton cited Community as a concept that secularism had particularly failed at generating. This is no controversial stance, with the rampant breakdown of family and community in the modern era. The ability to make strangers into friends, he contended, has been a unique and admirable capability of religion. After the talk, I had the opportunity to meet de Botton and have him sign a copy of the book. I plan on developing a full analysis in the coming weeks.
But, to read my initial assessment of de Botton’s ideas, look for my next post, due tomorrow.
Jon Thompson, Apprentice 2011-2012, from Alabama, USA
Jon loves... Travel
|
|
|
Jon Thompson, Apprentice Blog, 24/04/2012 |
Permalink
|
The Scandal of joy
Today, I met a student who was a self-declared “Apathy-ist.” Apparently, the appellation belongs to a person who has an intentional stance of apathy toward questions about the meaning and significance of life. This is to be distinguished from someone who is “Agnostic”–one who simply believes there is no sufficient reason to take a stance on these questions. An apathy-ist, however, is characterized by raw and deliberate reticence to the questions that really matter. I was, to say the least, most thoroughly shocked by the announcement of this anti-philosophy of life.
However, I do not find fault with this particular student. Indeed, we had a very fruitful dialogue: he asked some tough questions and seemed incredibly honest. There were some ways in which our conversation was more productive than those I regularly have with other students. What I did find deeply, profoundly disturbing was the realisation that Apathyism is one of the dominant thought streams of my generation–I finally have an insight into the thinking of a great mass of students with whom I interact. But the question quickly arises: why is this way of seeing the world so appealing to my peers? I would like to point to one key assumption that has poisoned our thinking and caused it to wax dull and nihilistic. It is this:
Joy is impossible.
While this doesn’t immediately seem to be connected to the disposition of apathy described above, I believe the two are inextricably linked. Thanks to the ethics of utilitarianism and our hyper-capitalist culture, the concept of pleasure saturates every aspect of Western life and thought: moral and civic duty are reduced to pleasing ourselves by boosting the economy and 'getting ours'. But what if the vital pleasures of our culture have rotted out and replaced one of the most significant fruits of the Spirit–Joy? I do not know many people who possess real joy. And, more remarkably, I know very few who think it is even something that is attainable.
But, thanks be to God, there is yet a place for joy in our lives.
Jesus’ life and ministry is focused on Joy–not a fleeting pleasure, but a settled and unflinching sense of total fulfillment in the person and plan of God. His birth announces joy (Luke 1.14), His Kingdom causes unforeseen joy (Matt. 13.44), His miracles instigate intense joy (John 2), and His resurrection reaffirms well-founded joy (John 16.22).
The Christian view of the world contains the possibility of real, genuine joy and thus could not be any more different from the atheistic picture. Indeed, joy is at the very centre of the good news. And if joy is really possible at all, then apathy is not only an improper disposition–it is downright foolish.
Jon Thompson, 2011-2012 Apprentice
Jon loves...road trips
|
Jon Thompson, Apprentice Blog, 30/03/2012 |
Permalink
|
The Winter of Our Disconnect
I recently finished reading this excellent analytical memoir after having my interest sparked on the subject of how Christians should use technology and social media just over a year ago. The book doesn’t have anything of a Christian focus, but it does thoroughly explore the motivations and effects of our techno-usage in a way that is useful to any human who has to deal with screens on a daily basis.
It’s helped me to think through my relative thoughtlessness and adjust some of my practices for the better. Maushart’s domestic campaign seems to be in search of a fuller life, recognising that our misuse of technology – or Biblically, our blending in with the world – has watered down real, face-to-face life and has robbed us of concentration and extra-technological skills, among other things.
She refers to Henry David Thoreau’s Walden as her manual for Real Life (so I’m obviously reading this myself now). While Thoreau sets a noble example of dedication to living deliberately, using every hour and opportunity with good intention, he does this without reference to a community or Creator, and therefore can only scratch at the surface of reality. Humans might offer one another good advice, perhaps even wisdom – but that’s where the influence should stop for Christians. We look instead to the very source of all wisdom, and the Transcendentalist got nothin’ on Jesus.
A guide to using ‘winter disconnect’ as a verb
Here are some examples of acceptable usage.
1. “Do you mind if I just winter disconnect you for a second? I need to reply to this text/e-mail/facebook message/tweet/whatsapp/bbm”. – This is an excellent way to politely request permission from your present company to attend to urgent, or mildly important, communications. Everyone in possession of a smartphone will understand the necessity for this usage, although self-control must be exercised in order to actually communicate with the person whose face you are in front of, as this is essentially declaring that whatever has dropped into your inbox is more important than the human(s) you’re with.
2. “Oh wow, you’re completely winter disconnecting me right now.” - This might be shot at you by a friend close enough to say it in humour while acknowledging the truth of the situation. You can avoid being accused of this by simply employing suggested use no.1.
3. “[Observing] Flip, those guys are so winter disconnected. I feel bad for them.” - Often said in passing by the author of this blog, fully aware of the irony that 10 minutes later I myself might winter disconnect from whoever I’m with. (I could probably do with being challenged on this more often than currently happens, please).
Angeline Liles, 2011-2012 Apprentice
Angeline loves... bad-mouthing Bruce Springsteen's music. Just because.
|
Angeline Liles, Apprentice Blog, 14/03/2012 |
Permalink
|
Toward a Christian Mind
|
An Update from an Apprentice
Anyone can memorise the standard theological answers to sceptics’ questions. Similarly, any Christian can expound his own best guesses on why God allows suffering or commands the things he does. But it seems that to give sound and genuine answers to tough objections to Christianity, one should do more than memorisation or speculation. One must develop a Christian mind. I have been pleased to find out just how formative a programme like the one at Christian Heritage can be in developing a Christian mind.
Over the past six months, we apprentices have explored many questions in the realms of apologetics and Christian thought: Why does God allow suffering? Can we trust the Bible? What is a Christian’s proper attitude toward culture? However, we have not approached these from a cold, sterile, and merely academic perspective. Rather, under the leadership of our tutors, we have looked into these questions as an intellectual and spiritual community, sharing our research and sharing our lives. This synthesis of the theoretical and the practical, the humanities and the human, the academic and the every-day, is the defining characteristic of the Christian Heritage Apprenticeship. As a consequence of this approach, we have been equipped to connect what we have learned in apologetics to regular conversations with students in the Cambridge community. For the apprentices, this is only the first fruits of an always-forming Christian mind.
Jon Thompson, Apprentice 2011-2012, from Gasden, Alabama, USA (Third from left)
Jon loves... Bruce Springsteen's music
|
|
|
Jon Thompson, Apprentice Blog, 13/03/2012 |
Permalink
|
|
|
