kata Drew

“Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.”

“I disagree, but that’s just my opinion.”

I don’t really disagree, but isn’t the person who says “everyone’s entitled to their own opinion” asserting that this maxim is true for everyone, when based on their thinking, only they should be entitled to their own opinion because that’s their opinion.

How much easier it is to admit truth.

Google should cut off both sides’ access to all its services until they work it out.

Relativism is really only a good idea at most and untenable and contranatural at least. One can claim that another can believe whatever he likes, but the moment that freedom granted to another is used to impinge on what the one is comfortable with, feelings of what’s right and wrong come out. In other words, it can be claimed that another can believe what he likes but when those beliefs are acted out much to the claimant’s chagrin, a truly unrevelativistic this-is-right-and-that-is-wrong feeling pops up.

For example, a Christian attempts to pray for the food of everyone seated around a table at a restaurant, but not everyone is a Christian, nor is everyone comfortable with prayer. It is verbally proffered that the one offering to pray for everyone’s food simply pray to himself in place of having everyone stop to pray. Additionally, it is interjected, “Yeh, keep that shit to yourself.”

Fair enough, if you believe that one should not pray for other’s food at a restaurant, then say that you think that’s wrong and admit that there is such a thing as wrong. The contranatural inconsistency reveals itself in the interjection when the one objecting also holds to moral relativism. For, surely, if the Christian wants to pray for everyone’s food, his belief should be respected and not rejected in order to be consistent with moral relativism. Moral relativism is betrayed in the interjection.

photo credit: Mr.Tea

Why isn’t tin foil hot after it’s been in the oven? One can safely remove tin foil that has been in the oven baking for 30 minutes without fear of burning fingers. It’s not hot. Go on and try it. Amazing.

How does God constantly put up with our wrong-doing and breaking of his commandments? Surely it must be horrific to observe the kinds of behavior that the debase human mind conjures up for torture and malice. Taking the life of an innocent human being foremost in mind, both in the mind of the casual news observer and the good-natured person struggling with the problem of evil. How is this possible? How must this be for God who observes and sees not only the outward actions but the hidden motives and thoughts of the heart?

We see foremost in the ten commandments that we shall have no other god besides God. We also see that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord God with our whole beings. How much more are these commandments, the first and the greatest, broken than those which are perpetrated horizontally, human-to-human such as murder, rape, lying, deceit, and injustice. What of the family who raises their children to not bless the name of the Lord but to curse, blaspheme and disregard not only his name but his person?

The greater question, assuming priority according to the ordering of the Decalogue, is how must it be for God to observe this teaching and disregard for him even from youth?

[Though the above is stream-of-consciousness, I was careful to avoid using "passive" language, not wanting to imply that God is at all overwhelmed by, surprised with, or controlled by "feelings."]

There’s election and there’s election.

Hill and Walton in their A Survey of the Old Testament describe God’s election of Israel as making “the Israelites the people of God only in a revelatory way.” They further clarify by saying, “By this we mean that God chose them as his instrument of revelation.”

The difference between this use of election and the (modern) Christian usage is that “when we speak of the church as God’s people, we refer to those who have accepted salvation through faith, specifically faith in Jesus Christ.” The Christian concept of election is strictly soteriological while that of Israel as a people is understood as revelatory. This is not to deny that “many Israelites of the Old Testament could be identified as God’s people by virtue of their faith in Yahweh”; but that “God revealed himself to the world through Israel” through the law, their history, writings of the Bible and Jesus the Christ.

How does this square with Romans 11 where Paul seems to be speaking of the election of Israel in soteriological terms? In line with the understanding and differentiation of election given above, “a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:5) appears to differentiate those Israelites who are “identified as God’s people by their virtue of their faith in Yahweh” from ”the rest [who] were hardened” (Rom. 11:7) who were only God’s people in the sense of belonging to the people group God elected revelatorily. For if Israelite election were the same as Christian soteriological election, how could the Scripture speak of “Israel not find[ing] what it was looking for, but the elect did find it” (Rom. 11:7)? It could not. Therefore the distinction made by Hill and Walton appears to fit with the Pauline distinction made in Romans 11.

Ultimately, this distinction leaves soteriological room for Gentiles which is the vein in which Paul continues through to the end of the chapter leading to an eruption of praise to God:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Or who has ever first given to Him, and has to be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:33-36)

[All quotations from Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, Zondervan: 2000, 74. Scripture quotations from the HCSB.]

A family friend was asking my mom what her about-to-graduate-from-high-school boyfriend should study in college to prepare for seminary. Through a series of text messages, this is the advice I had my mom relay to the couple:

We need Christians/seminarians/ministers/pastors/missionaries of all backgrounds. If you’re interested in chemistry, by all means go hard after it. If you’re interested in psychology, get it. If you really click with languages, study linguistics. If you’re thinking of being super-practical, become a nurse or maybe an accountant. But what we don’t need is homogeneous Bible degree seminarians.

Will a Bible degree put you ahead in seminary? Sure. Will not having a Bible degree automatically put you behind? No. If you love philosophy and theology, you’ll study philosophy and theology, or philosophy with a special view to theology. College is equipping you to learn on your own. So what better way to put that into practice than by studying theology, the Bible, biblical languages, etc in addition to your studies on your own. We need theocentric and biblical microbiologists and P.E. teachers and businessmen.

At the same time, however, be focused: don’t study architecture just to get a degree so you can go to seminary. Study architecture because you’re interested in the Sagrada Familia and you love Jesus and want to help people build efficient and appropriate church buildings.

Even with that said, I would study classics, history, linguistics, English, philosophy, and/or nursing. Yep, nursing.

Lastly, keep an Amazon wishlist and every book you hear recommended, add it. Tell people that for your birthday, Christmas, Easter, Kwanzaa and Flag Day, you want something off that list. Go ahead and get all you can: you may not have time to read them now, but they may serve as references or your curiosity. You might just eventually have time to read them, but for the time being, your book shelf will look impressive.

You can’t read enough. But remember:

I’m convinced that one day, whether on heaven or on earth, we’ll find out that something we once thought outlandish is actually true. And if you think this statement is outlandish, reconsider. It just might turn out to be true.

Why do I close my left eye after I’ve been reading or looking at my computer screen for a while? That’s kind of awkward.