Answers to Prayer

So, as Christians, we usually try to pray fairly often. Sadly, we don't pray as much as we probably should (but that's another topic for another time). When we do pray, though, what do we expect? Do we expect God to answer us? Recently, I've been convicted about this. It seems easy for me to pray for God to move in my life, but then get up and never give a second thought to that prayer during the day.

Now, of course, when we pray, God often acts in a way that we don't expect, but this does not mean that He is not responding. Indeed, Biblical stories seem to imply that when God's people cry to Him, He is faithful to give a response (whether it's what they wanted or not). So, in our prayer life, when we pray, do we expect a response? Or is our prayer life something that we just ritually go through to give us some comfort? If we ask God to move, to we keep our eyes open to the world around us to see where He does show up? Or do we treat these movements as distractions to our routine? It seems we need to take our prayer more seriously. After all, we are entering into dialogue with the God who created the universe. If we pray and don't act in a way that shows a readiness to hear/see a response, then we insult God's power and faithfulness to answer.

Lessons from Porn

Here is a really good post that I read at another blog. It takes a recent development within the porn industry and makes some intriguing (and I think appropriate) comments about our society as a whole. Here is the link to the blog:

http://qideas.org/blog/meet-roxxxy.aspx

To a Magic Foreign Land

"Christ is risen from the dead,
and he's standing on my bed
Come away, come away to a magic foreign land."

This chorus was made up by one of my friends before he was able to figure out the words to Matt Maher's song, "Christ is Risen." The actual words go as follows:

"Christ is risen from the dead,
trampling over death by death
Come awake, come awake,
come and rise up from the grave."

Just a little different from my friend's chorus. However, as I was thinking about it, the revised version seems to echo what many American Christians believe. I don't want to imply that this is necessarily what my friend believes (he was just putting forth nonsense words), but sadly many Christians do believe this way. Instead of realizing the implications of Jesus' resurrection as the first-fruits of out resurrection, many Christians prefer to believe in a gnostic view of the afterlife. They choose to believe that, after death, all that happens is we fly away to heaven and live with God forever. But this is not what the Bible teaches.

The Bible firmly teaches a life after life after death. That's the whole point of the resurrection. We will not exist as disembodied spirits. In the end, when God restores all things, our bodies will be physically raised. This is the hope of Easter--or do we not believe that Jesus was actually raised? As NT Wright puts it in his book, Surprised By Hope, to only hope for a spiritual existence in a world far from earth means that death is victorious. Death still reigns because it has defeated creation and our physical bodies. But the Resurrection of Christ promises that God will redeem His creation. The physical world that He created in the beginning will not be abandoned to death and decay while we rest in some "magic foreign land."

Instead, as Maher's song beautifully points out, the Christ's Resurrection was God's was of trampling over death. Death does not reign, so let us come awake to this fact and live appropriately while we await that glorious day of recreation.

Atheist Paradox

It's been a while since I've been on, but I'm currently waiting on a group member to send me some powerpoint slides for a group project (Intro to Computing...last Gen Ed of my SBU career). So, as I try to avoid falling asleep, maybe I can type something that at least makes a little sense.

Earlier this week I watched the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." Essentially, it is a film that tries to show how the Bible is contradictory and that Jesus is just a myth. Personally, I thought "Religulous" was better, but anyways...

While thinking about the topic of atheism, something struck me. I don't know if the following statements are a good argument, or if they've been discussed before, but it is just what has been going through my head.

Typically, atheists negate and attempt to refute religion on the basis of rationality and science. Basically, it makes no sense to believe in God because such faith is irrational and does not line up with "the facts." However, this seems ironic to me because, without any higher power or purpose, what basis do we have for rationality or truth?

Nietzsche understood this problem well. In his work, "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense," Nietzsche argues that truth is merely the invention of humans. He argues this from a linguistic perspective (words have no direct correlation to reality, and therefore are nothing more than constructed metaphors). In the end, he concludes that there is nothing amazing about a person who hides and object behind a bush, leaves, and then becomes excited when he "discovers" that object. Nietzsche argues the same for truth. There is nothing amazing about the quest for truth because we are simply discovering something that we invented in the first place.

Such is a world devoid of God. If there is no higher being or purpose, then things quickly lapse into nihilism and we must recognize that there is no such thing as truth or even reason. Such things are merely the inventions of humans.

An atheist uses facts and reason to deny God. However, by denying God, one also denies the possibility of truth/reason. Therefore, if there is no truth to be pursued rationally, then how can one deny God on the basis of these things?Thus exists the paradox for the atheist.

Again, these are just ideas that I am toying with, but if they work, then perhaps it is something to be considered when discussing the existence of God.

The Evils of Globalism?

I was just reading an article about the relationship between Obama and the Catholic Church. Although I ignored much of what the article had to say, one question did pop into my mind: why do many Christians so oppose globalism?

In reading authors, like the one who wrote this article, I see a common assumption that somehow, pursuing multilateral intervention, or seeking to increase support for the U.N. is "unchristian." For some reason people tend to think that any centralization of power in the world is unbiblical and evil. In fact, within many evangelical circles simply the word "global" carries negative connotations. While I will refrain from stating my ideas about globalism (that could become a very lengthy discussion), I do find this "conservative Christian" aversion to it fascinating.

In particular, I think this attitude is due to two main factors of evangelical Christianity in America today. First, the prominence of dispensationalism provides a major source of motivation. After all, if the Antichrist is going to come to power via a "world order," then any attempt to centralize power on the global level must be in direct opposition to God. It's the work of the Antichrist, right? However, as a side note, I find this quite confusing. Shouldn't we want this since it means we'll get "raptured" sooner? Why don't we pray for this global power to arise so we can get out of here? But anyways...

Second, I think this attitude is a byproduct of our worship of America. We're so nationalistic that we hate seeing power go to other authorities or countries besides our own. Yet, while I love America, I cannot find where in the Bible I'm to place her sovereignty above the purposes of God. Sadly, many Christians today believe that U.S. sovereignty should be protected at all costs. But, what if we could lessen violence by sacrificing some sovereignty? Isn't peace one of the characteristics of the Kingdom? Perhaps we love U.S. sovereignty because of the benefits it gives us. After all, if no one limits our power, then we can always go to war and crush by might any power that might oppose our way of life. Maybe we as Christians find comfort in that kind of power.

Whatever the exact reason(s), we need to examine our assumptions. Is globalism evil de facto? If we think it is, why do we feel that way? Regardless of our conclusions about the kingdoms of the world, it is imperative that we at least recognize that the Kingdom of God is global:

"After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes..." (Rev. 7:9)

Learning from Nietzsche

Nietzsche! Surely nothing good for a Christian can come from Nietzsche! After all, this is the man who boldly proclaimed that "God is dead." How can we learn anything from his nihilism?Whenever many people (especially Christians) hear Nietzsche's name, that is a typical response. The name itself carries connotations of evil and rebellion against the way things are. Yet, perhaps there is still something to be gleaned from what this German philosopher had to say.

Recently, I read Nietzsche's essay, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense. Indeed, the essay begins on quite a negative tone as Nietzsche laments "how miserable...and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks" given the fact that humanity must one day perish. After this, he goes on to discuss why "truth" is nothing more than a "social arrangement" perpetuated by the desire for power. In essence, what we call "truth" is only true because society defines that as "true."

Nietzsche's main reasoning is taken from the nature of language. Language, being a human invention, is arbitrary by nature. There is no direct correlation between words and the objects they represent. Thus, although I call my the thing I read a "book," there is absolutely no reason why I could not call it a "dog." The only reason I call it a "book" is because that is what society has decided is true. Nietzsche takes this idea further to argue that ALL of reality must be interpreted and described by words. Thus, because language has no direct tie to reality's essence, any description of truth is simply our version of reality. In the end, reality's essence can never be understood. Even if a transcendent truth exists, we can never grasp that truth.

So how does a Christian respond to this? Because, the fact is, I would agree with his observations on the nature of language. Must I accept that we can never understand or express a transcendent truth?

While I do not agree with Nietzsche's ultimate conclusions, I think that there is something important for us to glean from his work. Namely, we need an attitude of humility. Nietzsche has a good point when he argues that everyone filters reality through the lens of their own experiences and preconceptions. So, in one sense, none of us have a perfect objective view of the world. None of us have the same view of reality as the person next to us. We each have our own perspective that we work through.

I cannot help but think of Paul's words that "now we see in a mirror dimly...now I know in part" (1 Cor. 13:12). We must each recognize that, no matter how knowledgeable we are, we can never fully understand the reality before us. There will always be aspects that surpass our understanding. Therefore, this requires humility in all our interactions. If we are not all-knowing, then we must always be open to the possibility that we are wrong.

Nietzsche also railed against this assumption that our versions of truth were correct. While I disagree with his notion that truth is purely a social construct, I do agree with his frustration over people assuming they are correct. If a transcendent truth does exist, and if we can only ever see in part, then it is all the more important to make sure that we never sacrifice that truth for something that we have constructed for ourselves.

"Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse...but [they] exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." (Rom. 1)

What have we assumed is true that is only our own creation? Do we ever think that we could be wrong? May God help us maintain humility so that we can see more fully.