I have come to realize that my inconsistency in writing here was mainly due to the fact that I am not much interested in politics, the news, or much else that invigorates the popular sphere. I am not gifted, as was Chesteron, I think, to have an opinion about everything. When I debate, it is usually about theology or grammar (and sometimes both).
As I have mentioned in the past, my background is basically Reformed, though I think I have been taught to emphasize the faithfulness of Jesus Christ substantially more than others. My theological coming of age coincided, not surprisingly, with the mental development that accompanies being a teenager, mainly with a series of sermons that went through Galatians verse by verse. This, incidentally, was also a healthy introduction to grammar.
My understanding of salvation, formed during this time, is usually somewhat different from those whom I have encountered online and at church. Salvation is pictured as a process in the New Testament, yet redemption a one-time occurrence. Most people use the word "saved" to mean "going to heaven," though I think this is probably not a precise use of the term (see, for example, 1Ti 2.15, 2Ti 4.16). I use the word "redeemed" instead.
Redemption—forgiveness purchased by the blood of Christ—has nothing to do with man's will or faith in Christ. It is, instead, purely a function of the faithfulness of Christ.
For a long time, my perspective of "free will" was basically the same as what is popularly espoused in the post-Enlightenment world—that is, that free will is the power of contrary choice. That free will so defined doesn't exist is patently obvious, something Edwards pointed out verbosely in Freedom of the Will. (Edwards, as far as I can tell, accepted that definition of free will.)
The Scriptures, I think, present the free will as a will capable of doing what is right; hence, prior to God working in us, we were "slaves of unrighteousness" (Ro 5). This is consistent with the Scriptures' representation of man dead in sin (Ga 5 and others) and resolves a surprising number of problems (in my head, anyway; YMMV).
I think these two points serve as a relatively quick introduction to ways in which my theology is probably different than is typically expressed. Should I write more, the entries will considerably less introspective and probably not as nice.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Sunday, September 3, 2006
Hiatus
It has been some time since I have written here. Not necessarily for lack of content or motivation, but mainly for writer's block. And I do not think that the problem is solved today, though I think I'm overdue for writing.
My sources of input these days are mostly bits and pieces about the news, and occasionally I will watch the Fox News production Fox News Watch, which is a panel of four commentators and the emcee who directs the show. Dubbed as a show that "covers the coverage," I find it somewhat less introspective than necessary.
Nonetheless, the show does often provide interesting insights about what these particular folks, at least, feel the purpose of the media is. In particular, it seems that they find the purpose of media is almost a moral one—that the news that deserves national attention should get it, to the end that some change would be implemented. I suppose good examples of this kind of coverage are Hurricaine Katrina and Iraq, both of which have cost the administration dearly in P.R. points.
For what it's worth, I think that Freedom of the Press was envisioned in the same way. Press was seen as a safeguard against tyrannical government and a means for mobilizing the population. In this sense, it is not surprising to find that news has an anti-government slant; that's basically why it's there.
It's interesting to find, however, that while the press originally was envisioned as a tool for keeping the government out of the affairs of the governed (e.g., stop taxing your people), it has transformed into an entity that invites the government to expand. While it is often on moral grounds—e.g., universal health care—I find the change profound (and unfortunate).
First because the moral grounds often aren't. Second, because the solutions undermine the moral fabric of society. Community—not government—should be the first responder in crisis. The press would do well to shame the citizenry into action.
My sources of input these days are mostly bits and pieces about the news, and occasionally I will watch the Fox News production Fox News Watch, which is a panel of four commentators and the emcee who directs the show. Dubbed as a show that "covers the coverage," I find it somewhat less introspective than necessary.
Nonetheless, the show does often provide interesting insights about what these particular folks, at least, feel the purpose of the media is. In particular, it seems that they find the purpose of media is almost a moral one—that the news that deserves national attention should get it, to the end that some change would be implemented. I suppose good examples of this kind of coverage are Hurricaine Katrina and Iraq, both of which have cost the administration dearly in P.R. points.
For what it's worth, I think that Freedom of the Press was envisioned in the same way. Press was seen as a safeguard against tyrannical government and a means for mobilizing the population. In this sense, it is not surprising to find that news has an anti-government slant; that's basically why it's there.
It's interesting to find, however, that while the press originally was envisioned as a tool for keeping the government out of the affairs of the governed (e.g., stop taxing your people), it has transformed into an entity that invites the government to expand. While it is often on moral grounds—e.g., universal health care—I find the change profound (and unfortunate).
First because the moral grounds often aren't. Second, because the solutions undermine the moral fabric of society. Community—not government—should be the first responder in crisis. The press would do well to shame the citizenry into action.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Sovereignty
My karate studio is having a black belt test next month, and so I have had some time to think about rank and related topics a bit more lately. There is a certain authority associated with the achievement that students often abuse.
While it is easy for people to understand that a black belt symbolizes a certain dedication to the art and understanding of it, it is considerably more difficult for them to regard it as a symbol of service. This is because the pursuit of rank is usually motivated by the desire to rule, not to serve.
But the pursuit is made objectively worthy by those who contributed an objective good to it. If all black belts were rapists, it is unlikely that anyone worth knowing would aspire to the rank. (It's not like anyone really wanted Cobra Kai to win.) Fortunately, most black belts aren't rapists, and many really and truly do serve those around them.
It is authority used in service that makes rank effective. Were I able to communicate more effectively the notion that rank is to be served, not to serve, perhaps the world could be a better place. Examples of the perversion of sovereignty litter the news daily.
While it is easy for people to understand that a black belt symbolizes a certain dedication to the art and understanding of it, it is considerably more difficult for them to regard it as a symbol of service. This is because the pursuit of rank is usually motivated by the desire to rule, not to serve.
But the pursuit is made objectively worthy by those who contributed an objective good to it. If all black belts were rapists, it is unlikely that anyone worth knowing would aspire to the rank. (It's not like anyone really wanted Cobra Kai to win.) Fortunately, most black belts aren't rapists, and many really and truly do serve those around them.
It is authority used in service that makes rank effective. Were I able to communicate more effectively the notion that rank is to be served, not to serve, perhaps the world could be a better place. Examples of the perversion of sovereignty litter the news daily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)