"Sometimes, Lord, one is tempted to say that if you wanted us to behave like the lilies of the field you might have given us an organization more like theirs."
- C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Saturday, August 6, 2011
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
-Jeremiah 29:13
The problem of course lies with "with all your heart". Is it really possible in our fallen nature to seek God with our full heart? The common saying is that the mind is willing but the flesh is weak. Yet this is not completely true. The flesh is obviously weak, but how can we be completely certain that the mind is willing?
Even when I think "God reveal yourself to me!", I also know that somewhere deep within the recesses of my mind there is a part of me that desires to have things my own way. Like St Augustine said in his confessions:
As a youth I prayed, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Thus it is not only in God's grace that we are accepted as children, but also in his grace that we are able to seek him in the first place. The calvinists therefore do have a point I think.
However, if the answer is simply to place our faith in God, how can we know for certain that our faith is genuine. Or I suppose, how much faith should we have in our own faith?
-Jeremiah 29:13
The problem of course lies with "with all your heart". Is it really possible in our fallen nature to seek God with our full heart? The common saying is that the mind is willing but the flesh is weak. Yet this is not completely true. The flesh is obviously weak, but how can we be completely certain that the mind is willing?
Even when I think "God reveal yourself to me!", I also know that somewhere deep within the recesses of my mind there is a part of me that desires to have things my own way. Like St Augustine said in his confessions:
As a youth I prayed, "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Thus it is not only in God's grace that we are accepted as children, but also in his grace that we are able to seek him in the first place. The calvinists therefore do have a point I think.
However, if the answer is simply to place our faith in God, how can we know for certain that our faith is genuine. Or I suppose, how much faith should we have in our own faith?
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Prayer of St Francis
- Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
- Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
- Where there is injury, pardon.
- Where there is doubt, faith.
- Where there is despair, hope.
- Where there is darkness, light.
- Where there is sadness, joy.
- O Divine Master,
- grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
- to be understood, as to understand;
- to be loved, as to love.
- For it is in giving that we receive.
- It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
- and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
- Amen.
Now - here is my secret:
I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God - that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.
Douglas Coupland, Life After God
I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt I shall ever achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God - that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond being able to love.
Douglas Coupland, Life After God
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Proof vs Experience in Christianity
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. -C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
Of course even before Lewis, G. K. Chesterton already acknowledged that concept when he said:
God is like the sun; you cannot look at it, but without it, you cannot look at anything else.
This would imply that the value of Christianity lies not in its irrefutable proof, but the lens it provides us to view our own existence. You do not try to prove Christianity, you accept it as true and see how through that everything else fits into place. "Taste and see that the Lord is Good" says the Psalmist. This is why we do not bring people to Christ by elaborate arguments, but testify how through Christ our lives have changed. It requires not just convincing, but a total change in mindset of the person.
Of course logically speaking, Christianity works because it is true. It is not true because it works. It is unfortunate that due to our own limits, it seems that Christ can only be known through the latter.
Of course even before Lewis, G. K. Chesterton already acknowledged that concept when he said:
God is like the sun; you cannot look at it, but without it, you cannot look at anything else.
This would imply that the value of Christianity lies not in its irrefutable proof, but the lens it provides us to view our own existence. You do not try to prove Christianity, you accept it as true and see how through that everything else fits into place. "Taste and see that the Lord is Good" says the Psalmist. This is why we do not bring people to Christ by elaborate arguments, but testify how through Christ our lives have changed. It requires not just convincing, but a total change in mindset of the person.
Of course logically speaking, Christianity works because it is true. It is not true because it works. It is unfortunate that due to our own limits, it seems that Christ can only be known through the latter.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
"Nonsense! " said Gregory, who was very rational when anyone else attempted paradox. "Why do all the clerks and navvies in the railway trains look so sad and tired, so very sad and tired? I will tell you. It is because they know that the train is going right. It is because they know that whatever place they have taken a ticket for, that place they will reach. It is because after they have passed Sloane Square they know that the next station must be Victoria, and nothing but Victoria. Oh, their wild rapture! oh, their eyes like stars and their souls again in Eden, if the next station were unaccountably Baker Street!"
"It is you who are unpoetical," replied the poet Syme. "If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street, or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!"
"Must you go?" inquired Gregory sarcastically.
"I tell you," went on Syme with passion, "that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hair-breadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word 'Victoria', it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed 'Victoria'; it is the victory of Adam."
- G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday
Wish I could feel that way every time I took the MRT. Einstein might have been right when he postulated that there were only two ways to live life. "One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is." Rather compelling, yet I do not think it is that easy to seperate the two.
"It is you who are unpoetical," replied the poet Syme. "If what you say of clerks is true, they can only be as prosaic as your poetry. The rare, strange thing is to hit the mark; the gross, obvious thing is to miss it. We feel it is epical when man with one wild arrow strikes a distant bird. Is it not also epical when man with one wild engine strikes a distant station? Chaos is dull; because in chaos the train might indeed go anywhere, to Baker Street, or to Bagdad. But man is a magician, and his whole magic is in this, that he does say Victoria, and lo! it is Victoria. No, take your books of mere poetry and prose; let me read a time table, with tears of pride. Take your Byron, who commemorates the defeats of man; give me Bradshaw, who commemorates his victories. Give me Bradshaw, I say!"
"Must you go?" inquired Gregory sarcastically.
"I tell you," went on Syme with passion, "that every time a train comes in I feel that it has broken past batteries of besiegers, and that man has won a battle against chaos. You say contemptuously that when one has left Sloane Square one must come to Victoria. I say that one might do a thousand things instead, and that whenever I really come there I have the sense of hair-breadth escape. And when I hear the guard shout out the word 'Victoria', it is not an unmeaning word. It is to me the cry of a herald announcing conquest. It is to me indeed 'Victoria'; it is the victory of Adam."
- G. K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday
Wish I could feel that way every time I took the MRT. Einstein might have been right when he postulated that there were only two ways to live life. "One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is." Rather compelling, yet I do not think it is that easy to seperate the two.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Some Reflections on Worship
While attending the Maundy Thursday service at church I ended up reading the "Directions For Singing" in the United Methodist Hymnal, which then became a distraction throughout the rest of the service. Just so I won't feel so bad about my lack of attention and reverence during the service I guess I'd better put down some thoughts on hymn singing and worship in general. Some of the things John Wesley said about hymn singing that I found especially meaningful:
III. Sing all. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
IV. Sing lustfully and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
V. Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
And most importantly:
VII. Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away by the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.
There are a few words that are translated as "worship" in the bible. First is the hebrew word "Shachah" which means "to bow down, make obeisance, reverence, to beseech humbly". Next are three Greek words "Proskuneo", "Latreuno" and "Sebomai" which mean basically "to kiss towards", "to serve or to render religious service" and "to fear or hold in awe" respectively. Thus I guess a general definition of worship would be to express love and ascribe glory to God.
With such a general definition it becomes apparent that worship can occur in many (and I guess almost any) forms. This I suppose is one of the main reasons why currently there are so many different forms of "worship services" in churches. Now in contrast to the typical orthodox style of worship involving hymn singing and scripted prayer we have Christian rock music, people bursting into tongues, dancing and jumping about in more charismatic services. After all we are all free to glorify God in any way we choose right?
While I do agree that personal worship can occur in almost an infinite number of possibilities, I still do believe that personal worship and worship in a "worship service" at church are completely different. In the above quotations it is seen that Wesley called people to "join with the congregation" and "strive to unite your voices together". This is something that I strongly believe. That a church service is not so much about a personal time of worship with God but more of a communal time of worship where the church joins in unity to worship God as the Body of Christ. Therefore it is not so much how I choose to worship God, but how we can all praise God together "so as to make one clear melodious sound". This is why it always disturbs me slightly when in the middle of a worship service random people start jumping or dancing or shouting or blurting out in tongues. While I do not deny that these are valid expressions of worship, it becomes unedifying when it begins to cause the person to stick out from the crowd and perhaps distract other worshipers. Such things might "destroy the harmony" of the worship service. I am not against personal worship. I simply believe that personal worship can be expressed more outside of the church service in every other aspect of our lives.
I also believe that we should all be cautious of the idea that we can worship God any way we want. While any form of worship might be acceptable to God, the attitude in which we deliver the worship is important. It always troubles me slightly that when we say we prefer this form of worship over that form, it somehow makes the worship more about us. In the end are we seeking to glorify God or enjoy singing the songs that we like? While I can appreciate both the hymns sung in more orthodox services and the songs sung in more charismatic "youthful" services, I still find myself drawn more towards hymns. This is because I find the words in hymns to have so much more meaning than most (but not all) contemporary songs. If we are to "Have an eye to God in every word we sing", then it helps that the words in the songs are strongly rooted in doctrine and theology which shine forth when we sing them. Yet I realise that after awhile I am so enthralled by the beauty of the hymns that sometimes the beautiful words and meaning of the hymns actually distract me from truly worshiping God. Which is why I believe Wesley was wise when he told people to "aim at pleasing him more than yourself" and "attend strictly to the sense of what you sing".
This however provides an interesting dilemma. Is it wrong for us to choose methods of worship that we are more comfortable with since in it lies the possibility of our hearts being "carried away by the sound"?
O worship the King, all glorious above,
O gratefully sing God's power and God's love;
our shield and defender, the Ancient of Days,
pavilioned in splendor, and girded with praise.
-UMH 73
III. Sing all. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
IV. Sing lustfully and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
V. Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
And most importantly:
VII. Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away by the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.
There are a few words that are translated as "worship" in the bible. First is the hebrew word "Shachah" which means "to bow down, make obeisance, reverence, to beseech humbly". Next are three Greek words "Proskuneo", "Latreuno" and "Sebomai" which mean basically "to kiss towards", "to serve or to render religious service" and "to fear or hold in awe" respectively. Thus I guess a general definition of worship would be to express love and ascribe glory to God.
With such a general definition it becomes apparent that worship can occur in many (and I guess almost any) forms. This I suppose is one of the main reasons why currently there are so many different forms of "worship services" in churches. Now in contrast to the typical orthodox style of worship involving hymn singing and scripted prayer we have Christian rock music, people bursting into tongues, dancing and jumping about in more charismatic services. After all we are all free to glorify God in any way we choose right?
While I do agree that personal worship can occur in almost an infinite number of possibilities, I still do believe that personal worship and worship in a "worship service" at church are completely different. In the above quotations it is seen that Wesley called people to "join with the congregation" and "strive to unite your voices together". This is something that I strongly believe. That a church service is not so much about a personal time of worship with God but more of a communal time of worship where the church joins in unity to worship God as the Body of Christ. Therefore it is not so much how I choose to worship God, but how we can all praise God together "so as to make one clear melodious sound". This is why it always disturbs me slightly when in the middle of a worship service random people start jumping or dancing or shouting or blurting out in tongues. While I do not deny that these are valid expressions of worship, it becomes unedifying when it begins to cause the person to stick out from the crowd and perhaps distract other worshipers. Such things might "destroy the harmony" of the worship service. I am not against personal worship. I simply believe that personal worship can be expressed more outside of the church service in every other aspect of our lives.
I also believe that we should all be cautious of the idea that we can worship God any way we want. While any form of worship might be acceptable to God, the attitude in which we deliver the worship is important. It always troubles me slightly that when we say we prefer this form of worship over that form, it somehow makes the worship more about us. In the end are we seeking to glorify God or enjoy singing the songs that we like? While I can appreciate both the hymns sung in more orthodox services and the songs sung in more charismatic "youthful" services, I still find myself drawn more towards hymns. This is because I find the words in hymns to have so much more meaning than most (but not all) contemporary songs. If we are to "Have an eye to God in every word we sing", then it helps that the words in the songs are strongly rooted in doctrine and theology which shine forth when we sing them. Yet I realise that after awhile I am so enthralled by the beauty of the hymns that sometimes the beautiful words and meaning of the hymns actually distract me from truly worshiping God. Which is why I believe Wesley was wise when he told people to "aim at pleasing him more than yourself" and "attend strictly to the sense of what you sing".
This however provides an interesting dilemma. Is it wrong for us to choose methods of worship that we are more comfortable with since in it lies the possibility of our hearts being "carried away by the sound"?
O worship the King, all glorious above,
O gratefully sing God's power and God's love;
our shield and defender, the Ancient of Days,
pavilioned in splendor, and girded with praise.
-UMH 73
Monday, April 4, 2011
On The Merits of Post-Modernism And The Limits of Christian Apologetics
18For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
-1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Recently, postmodernism has been drawing a fair amount of flak from Christian circles. It is not uncommon to hear in talks by preachers and apologists alike something along the lines of "In this postmodern day and age..", followed by some way in which the propagation of the gospel is impeded. However does postmodernism in itself really oppose Christianity? This is something that I wish to examine further in this post.
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernism is often held to be a "mood" that emerged after the modern era (Post + Modern). After the enlightenment which celebrated the use of science and reason to probe the mysteries of the cosmos, it became apparent that reason and science were inadequate to provide a full unified understanding of the universe and the meaning of life. It was from this realisation that postmodernism gradually emerged, advocating skepticism, relativism and the absence of objective truth.
Postmodernism vs Christian Apologetics?
Christianity's aversion to postmodernism is not altogether unexpected. Many who hold postmodern ideals of skepticism and relativism scoff at Christianity, believing its assertion of God as an objective reference for truth, meaning and morality to be dogmatic and arrogant. Therefore now many Christian apologists and theologians have taken it upon themselves to prove Christianity right and postmodernism wrong.
One of the most popular arguments against postmodernism goes something along the line of this:
If you make a statement "everything is relative", you must ask yourself whether that statement you just made is relative too. If it is relative then that statement is not always true to begin with implying that some things are not relative. If that statement is false, it also means that not everything is relative. The statement kind of self destructs on itself. Thus objective truth must exist because it is impossible to deny it.
The argument is rather compelling, yet to me it has also always seemed to be a bit of a cop out or a cheap shot. However on further analysis, I do not think the argument really damages the postmodernist view. Once you establish that some form of objective truth must exist, there still remains the problem of deciding exactly what that objective truth is. Christianity says "aha!" that objective truth is God and his will for mankind. Yet what merits Christianity to be chosen as that objective truth as compared to other ideologies and religions? In the end it appears that even if somehow objective truth does exist, it cannot be known. Doesn't that sound rather postmodernist?
Christian apologists have come up with various elaborate and elegant arguments for the existence of God. However, in the end all proofs eventually lead to propositions that themselves cannot be proven. The postmodernist does have a point when he asserts that everything is known because we want to know. Now I acknowledge the that writing this post would be pointless if reason and meaning are invalid. Thus it is my view that everything is known not just because we want to know but also because we need to. In the end choosing an ontic, a point of reference, and taking it as axiomatic is something everyone has to do. Apologetics has only served to present Christianity as a reasonable option out of many.
Validity of Apologetics?
However is the current practice of justifying the Christian faith using reason and logic truly in line with what Christianity teaches? The most common justifications usually comes in the form of 1 Peter 3:15 where we are told to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have". Apologetics has done so by taking on skeptics and intellectuals with their own weapons, debating them with reasoned arguments and logical frameworks. Yet one must question whether this is effective or even necessary.
Turning to the piece of scripture at the start of this post, it is apparent that Paul is questioning the wisdom of man as compared to that of God. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" says the Lord in Isaiah 55:9. The Jews looked to signs and wonders for proof of God's existence while the Greeks looked for wisdom. Both with their respective criteria for proof were unable to comprehend the Gospel which to them was "foolishness".
Christianity does not work because it is the most logically consistent or because it can be proven without a doubt. All the most intricate reasoning and well crafted arguments are useless if God himself does not act. Notice that in Acts 16:14 it is the lord that "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message".
Conclusion
When Job went through his period of intense suffering, all the reasons that his friends gave him for his plight did not satisfy him. Even when God himself appeared before Job, God did not give Job a reason for his suffering even though we as readers know about the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book. Instead of providing answers he proceeds to question Job:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
-Job 38:3-4
This is followed by a long list of questions which we as humans obviously have no answer. In the end Job is forced to admit that many things are obscured from him, yet he is still satisfied by God's presence.
This is why i do think postmodernism has its merits. The truth is that there are many things we do not, and will never comprehend. "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men". Whatever logics are reasoning we apply in hope of achieving objective truth fall short. In a way postmodernism does cause people to doubt the objectivity of Christianity. Yet confronted with the realisation of one's limitations and fallibility in this strange universe, it also creates the room for one to turn to God by FAITH. Afterall " faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".
19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
-1 Corinthians 1:18-25
Recently, postmodernism has been drawing a fair amount of flak from Christian circles. It is not uncommon to hear in talks by preachers and apologists alike something along the lines of "In this postmodern day and age..", followed by some way in which the propagation of the gospel is impeded. However does postmodernism in itself really oppose Christianity? This is something that I wish to examine further in this post.
What is Postmodernism?
Postmodernism is often held to be a "mood" that emerged after the modern era (Post + Modern). After the enlightenment which celebrated the use of science and reason to probe the mysteries of the cosmos, it became apparent that reason and science were inadequate to provide a full unified understanding of the universe and the meaning of life. It was from this realisation that postmodernism gradually emerged, advocating skepticism, relativism and the absence of objective truth.
Postmodernism vs Christian Apologetics?
Christianity's aversion to postmodernism is not altogether unexpected. Many who hold postmodern ideals of skepticism and relativism scoff at Christianity, believing its assertion of God as an objective reference for truth, meaning and morality to be dogmatic and arrogant. Therefore now many Christian apologists and theologians have taken it upon themselves to prove Christianity right and postmodernism wrong.
One of the most popular arguments against postmodernism goes something along the line of this:
If you make a statement "everything is relative", you must ask yourself whether that statement you just made is relative too. If it is relative then that statement is not always true to begin with implying that some things are not relative. If that statement is false, it also means that not everything is relative. The statement kind of self destructs on itself. Thus objective truth must exist because it is impossible to deny it.
The argument is rather compelling, yet to me it has also always seemed to be a bit of a cop out or a cheap shot. However on further analysis, I do not think the argument really damages the postmodernist view. Once you establish that some form of objective truth must exist, there still remains the problem of deciding exactly what that objective truth is. Christianity says "aha!" that objective truth is God and his will for mankind. Yet what merits Christianity to be chosen as that objective truth as compared to other ideologies and religions? In the end it appears that even if somehow objective truth does exist, it cannot be known. Doesn't that sound rather postmodernist?
Christian apologists have come up with various elaborate and elegant arguments for the existence of God. However, in the end all proofs eventually lead to propositions that themselves cannot be proven. The postmodernist does have a point when he asserts that everything is known because we want to know. Now I acknowledge the that writing this post would be pointless if reason and meaning are invalid. Thus it is my view that everything is known not just because we want to know but also because we need to. In the end choosing an ontic, a point of reference, and taking it as axiomatic is something everyone has to do. Apologetics has only served to present Christianity as a reasonable option out of many.
Validity of Apologetics?
However is the current practice of justifying the Christian faith using reason and logic truly in line with what Christianity teaches? The most common justifications usually comes in the form of 1 Peter 3:15 where we are told to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have". Apologetics has done so by taking on skeptics and intellectuals with their own weapons, debating them with reasoned arguments and logical frameworks. Yet one must question whether this is effective or even necessary.
Turning to the piece of scripture at the start of this post, it is apparent that Paul is questioning the wisdom of man as compared to that of God. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" says the Lord in Isaiah 55:9. The Jews looked to signs and wonders for proof of God's existence while the Greeks looked for wisdom. Both with their respective criteria for proof were unable to comprehend the Gospel which to them was "foolishness".
Christianity does not work because it is the most logically consistent or because it can be proven without a doubt. All the most intricate reasoning and well crafted arguments are useless if God himself does not act. Notice that in Acts 16:14 it is the lord that "opened her heart to respond to Paul's message".
Conclusion
When Job went through his period of intense suffering, all the reasons that his friends gave him for his plight did not satisfy him. Even when God himself appeared before Job, God did not give Job a reason for his suffering even though we as readers know about the conversation between God and Satan at the beginning of the book. Instead of providing answers he proceeds to question Job:
1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?
3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
-Job 38:3-4
This is followed by a long list of questions which we as humans obviously have no answer. In the end Job is forced to admit that many things are obscured from him, yet he is still satisfied by God's presence.
This is why i do think postmodernism has its merits. The truth is that there are many things we do not, and will never comprehend. "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men". Whatever logics are reasoning we apply in hope of achieving objective truth fall short. In a way postmodernism does cause people to doubt the objectivity of Christianity. Yet confronted with the realisation of one's limitations and fallibility in this strange universe, it also creates the room for one to turn to God by FAITH. Afterall " faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Anything outside yourself, this you can see and apply your logic to it. But it’s a human trait that when we encounter personal problems, these things most deeply personal are the most difficult to bring out for our logic to scan. We tend to flounder around, blaming everything but the actual, deep-seated thing that’s really chewing on us.
- Frank Herbert, Dune
- Frank Herbert, Dune
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Red, Blue and Gold
Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made:
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, "A whole I planned,
Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!"
- Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra
I think I will always be proud to have come from ACS.
Looking back I cant believe that in P5 I actually entertained thoughts of going to Raffles. Thankfully I succumbed to the ACS indoctrination that Rafflesians were geeky, disgusting and altogether queer creatures. Of course now I know that is not completely true. But the colours Green, Black and White just aren't as regal as Red, Blue and Gold.
Also, it riles me slightly that Justin Bieber shares the same birthday as ACS. Almost as much as him sharing the same first name as me, but not quite...
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made:
Our times are in his hand
Who saith, "A whole I planned,
Youth shows but half; trust God: see all, nor be afraid!"
- Robert Browning, Rabbi Ben Ezra
I think I will always be proud to have come from ACS.
Looking back I cant believe that in P5 I actually entertained thoughts of going to Raffles. Thankfully I succumbed to the ACS indoctrination that Rafflesians were geeky, disgusting and altogether queer creatures. Of course now I know that is not completely true. But the colours Green, Black and White just aren't as regal as Red, Blue and Gold.
Also, it riles me slightly that Justin Bieber shares the same birthday as ACS. Almost as much as him sharing the same first name as me, but not quite...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)