I have finally come fully into adulthood. That's what they tell me anyway. And they have told me quite a bit unto this point. They taught me to always brush my teeth, always pay my taxes, always work hard and follow your dreams. Through the years that once seemed endless, the infamous They has been consistently pouring its experience out onto my life. They told me to learn from their mistakes, and avoid my own. They told me to study hard, to get a good job. They supposedly told me everything I need to know.
And now, I'm sitting in an office doing a job with relatively little to do with my "formal training," making it up as I go. Luckily, They told me it would be like this. They told me so much that I didn't believe. I think the biggest fact I avoided was the hardest lesson They have tried to teach. They told me I would fail. They warned me that I would come flying out of college, fling my whole heart into an endeavor and fall flat on my face. They told me that it would take time to not only find, but to carve my way into the professional world. They told me it would be the farthest thing from easy. And They were right.
And now I am learning the one thing They can't teach: perseverance. I feel so much like giving up. I didn't think it would be this hard. I didn't think it would hurt this much. But it does. And the only way to learn perseverance is to endure. The only way to become strong and accomplished is to stand underneath the weight of the world.
And have faith.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Coffee Shops and Hippies.
One day, Bolivar will thrive.
For now, it stands stereotypically a small town in southwest Missouri. It has an old courthouse sitting as the center of an old square. Across the street is an antique shop with a used bookstore downstairs. It's run by a seamstress who fixes the holes, rips and tears while you wait. She's a quiet woman. She wears glasses, but only when she has to. The rest of the time, they dangle around her neck on a string of beads. Around the corner is everyone's favorite Mexican restaurant. The walls are painted to look like foam, bubbling out and lying about how soft they are.
The town is populated by fast food and a Wal-Mart. There is virtually nothing else. And though, the people walk the sidewalks and students crowd the streets, the people submit to the heavy silence. Every passing by wave is mundane, to say the least. Every smile is empty. "Bolivar is a ghost town," they say. I tend to believe that ghosts are more alive than these people.
There is no room for the poetic. The world of deep meaning and human relation strives to break through the deep, dark veils of superficial feelings and callous greetings. Metaphors are wasted, similes misunderstood.
And tonight, back on one corner of the old square, a small coffee shop hides an eclectic group of individuals from the engulfing vanity of this damned town. A girl with a face far too friendly for her environment sings happy songs about childhood and the simplicity of life's "Once upon a time"s.
I sit. And I listen. And I wonder. This town will soon be a memory. It will be the skyline in my rear-view mirror. The future will stand before me. Opportunity and uncertainty loom before me, both inviting and threatening. I realize now that I will miss this place. Though it is so fake and nearly dead, it is has made me. Who would I be without my time here? Without the dorms? Without the awkward encounters with townies? Who would I be without Bolivar?
And the Sovereignty of God is incredibly obvious. He is inescapable. He shines through even in the darkest places. Even if it is a small beam piercing the greatest darkness, God will be known. Tonight, he sings to me through a strange hippy girl who has nothing left but her songs.
For now, it stands stereotypically a small town in southwest Missouri. It has an old courthouse sitting as the center of an old square. Across the street is an antique shop with a used bookstore downstairs. It's run by a seamstress who fixes the holes, rips and tears while you wait. She's a quiet woman. She wears glasses, but only when she has to. The rest of the time, they dangle around her neck on a string of beads. Around the corner is everyone's favorite Mexican restaurant. The walls are painted to look like foam, bubbling out and lying about how soft they are.
The town is populated by fast food and a Wal-Mart. There is virtually nothing else. And though, the people walk the sidewalks and students crowd the streets, the people submit to the heavy silence. Every passing by wave is mundane, to say the least. Every smile is empty. "Bolivar is a ghost town," they say. I tend to believe that ghosts are more alive than these people.
There is no room for the poetic. The world of deep meaning and human relation strives to break through the deep, dark veils of superficial feelings and callous greetings. Metaphors are wasted, similes misunderstood.
And tonight, back on one corner of the old square, a small coffee shop hides an eclectic group of individuals from the engulfing vanity of this damned town. A girl with a face far too friendly for her environment sings happy songs about childhood and the simplicity of life's "Once upon a time"s.
I sit. And I listen. And I wonder. This town will soon be a memory. It will be the skyline in my rear-view mirror. The future will stand before me. Opportunity and uncertainty loom before me, both inviting and threatening. I realize now that I will miss this place. Though it is so fake and nearly dead, it is has made me. Who would I be without my time here? Without the dorms? Without the awkward encounters with townies? Who would I be without Bolivar?
And the Sovereignty of God is incredibly obvious. He is inescapable. He shines through even in the darkest places. Even if it is a small beam piercing the greatest darkness, God will be known. Tonight, he sings to me through a strange hippy girl who has nothing left but her songs.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
How to Survive in a World of Ad Hom
The world in which we live is full of issues that can be debated. This is the beauty of a democracy. Every person is given "certain inalienable rights;" one of which is the right to speak freely concerning whatever issue may weigh heavily on the conscience. And therefore, dear friends, I have decided that it is my responsibility as a scholar, as a Christian and as a concerned brother to train you in the right ways. So, without any further ado, I present to you the most effective forms of communication as revealed by the habits of my generation through its favored voice: Facebook.
The first rule of effective communication is to keep free from the pollution of your opponents' arguments. Those with whom you disagree will use any means necessary to convince you of untruth. You must, therefore, be sure to steer clear of their perverse speech. When they present their case, do not listen. Twiddle your thumbs. Evaluate their fashion sense. Determine their socio-economic class. Do whatever is necessary to keep yourself from allowing their lies to penetrate your clear mind and to muddle the truth of your opinion.
Secondly, and in a related category, make sure that, since you have been careful to avoid dignifying the enemy's speech with diligence, you do not agree with those vile ones on any point. If, on the rare occasion, your enemy is intellectually capable of producing a multi-faceted argument, you must necessarily present an antithetical point-by-point response. However, make sure that your response never even nears correcting the errors of her logic, but merely comment on the odor of her body or on the weakness of her logical faculties based solely on a grammatical analysis. An argument cannot be effective if one does not thoroughly discredit the opponent. Therefore, you must not waste words defeating an argument; it is your task to beat the individual.
Finally, and of the utmost importance, is to be confident in one's position. When one enters an argument, she must be entirely convinced of her viewpoint, so that no one will be capable of deterring her. The method for actually presenting the argument is as follows: 1) Calmly enter the arena, and state your case. 2) Sit quietly, making sure to employ the techniques described in the first rule, while your opponent speaks. 3) Stand up, and repeat your argument. Make sure to express yourself with more vigor and volume than your primary address. If your opponent's initial rebuttal seemed passionate (remember, you shouldn't have actually listened), be sure to include several curse words. After having repeated yourself with the necessary profanities added, turn your passionate vengeance towards the character of your opponent, never evaluating and addressing her claims. 4) Repeat steps 2 through 4 with increasing passion until you have won the day.
These three steps, dear friends, will save you much of the unnecessary inconvenience involved in critical thinking and logical discussion. Hold by my teachings, children, and you will become effective communicators. And so, I commission you. Go. Speak. Be heard. And change the world.
The first rule of effective communication is to keep free from the pollution of your opponents' arguments. Those with whom you disagree will use any means necessary to convince you of untruth. You must, therefore, be sure to steer clear of their perverse speech. When they present their case, do not listen. Twiddle your thumbs. Evaluate their fashion sense. Determine their socio-economic class. Do whatever is necessary to keep yourself from allowing their lies to penetrate your clear mind and to muddle the truth of your opinion.
Secondly, and in a related category, make sure that, since you have been careful to avoid dignifying the enemy's speech with diligence, you do not agree with those vile ones on any point. If, on the rare occasion, your enemy is intellectually capable of producing a multi-faceted argument, you must necessarily present an antithetical point-by-point response. However, make sure that your response never even nears correcting the errors of her logic, but merely comment on the odor of her body or on the weakness of her logical faculties based solely on a grammatical analysis. An argument cannot be effective if one does not thoroughly discredit the opponent. Therefore, you must not waste words defeating an argument; it is your task to beat the individual.
Finally, and of the utmost importance, is to be confident in one's position. When one enters an argument, she must be entirely convinced of her viewpoint, so that no one will be capable of deterring her. The method for actually presenting the argument is as follows: 1) Calmly enter the arena, and state your case. 2) Sit quietly, making sure to employ the techniques described in the first rule, while your opponent speaks. 3) Stand up, and repeat your argument. Make sure to express yourself with more vigor and volume than your primary address. If your opponent's initial rebuttal seemed passionate (remember, you shouldn't have actually listened), be sure to include several curse words. After having repeated yourself with the necessary profanities added, turn your passionate vengeance towards the character of your opponent, never evaluating and addressing her claims. 4) Repeat steps 2 through 4 with increasing passion until you have won the day.
These three steps, dear friends, will save you much of the unnecessary inconvenience involved in critical thinking and logical discussion. Hold by my teachings, children, and you will become effective communicators. And so, I commission you. Go. Speak. Be heard. And change the world.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
The Logos Receptus
What great risk do we run with our "love and acceptance"? I don't mean to sound like a "fundamentalist." But just the same, I am not a "liberal," so to speak. To be honest, these titles scare me. It seems like a label really only serves two purposes: to make it easier to judge another while hiding oneself. The problems seen in our culture can be seen and outlined by my personal new favorite field of study: textual criticism.
You see, when multiple manuscripts with variant readings were first discovered, many immediately lost their faith. It didn't appeal to many Christians to believe that what they understood as the Word of God might have problems. This caused some to cling more tightly to what they had been handed without considering the possibilities of the truth. They wrapped their pudgy fingers around the King James Version and condemned text critics as heretics. This was the system of faith they had received, and, of course, this was enough. It was true enough for them, anyway. The system has worked, so why change it? Even until today, there are those who cannot fathom the possibility of variation.
By now, there has become an adequate response to that view that simply tosses Scripture into the wind for failing to maintain its own integrity. These, led by Ehrman, have studied textual criticism in detail and have deemed the Bible as unknowable in truth, and therefore all copies now extant are unreliable. Ehrman and those in his camp have decided that the system which was handed down is flawed. It is full of errors. Therefore, the book and the religion are unreliable.
In my life, I see a great battle raging between the "conservative traditionalists" and the "liberal relativists." There are those who cling to the way things have always been, and they are opposed who feel lied to by such traditions. One loves to condemn the outsiders, while the other continually justifies the actions of the "sinful" (and therefore their own habits).
It only makes sense to me that both models fail to evaluate each situation as an individual phenomenon. My life lacks rational eclecticism. I have doctrines and policies that I force upon myself. Whether they are conservative tendencies of so-called "orthodoxy," or my liberal acceptance of all people. Instead, I should avoid what can only be called legalism, and evaluate every spiritual experience through the "supply of Jesus Christ's Spirit."
I do believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. I also believe that the Logos of God speaks to us today through it. We should never lack in diligence to critically evaluate the "variants" in our lives based on the Truth of God, revealed by his Spirit through his Book.
You see, when multiple manuscripts with variant readings were first discovered, many immediately lost their faith. It didn't appeal to many Christians to believe that what they understood as the Word of God might have problems. This caused some to cling more tightly to what they had been handed without considering the possibilities of the truth. They wrapped their pudgy fingers around the King James Version and condemned text critics as heretics. This was the system of faith they had received, and, of course, this was enough. It was true enough for them, anyway. The system has worked, so why change it? Even until today, there are those who cannot fathom the possibility of variation.
By now, there has become an adequate response to that view that simply tosses Scripture into the wind for failing to maintain its own integrity. These, led by Ehrman, have studied textual criticism in detail and have deemed the Bible as unknowable in truth, and therefore all copies now extant are unreliable. Ehrman and those in his camp have decided that the system which was handed down is flawed. It is full of errors. Therefore, the book and the religion are unreliable.
In my life, I see a great battle raging between the "conservative traditionalists" and the "liberal relativists." There are those who cling to the way things have always been, and they are opposed who feel lied to by such traditions. One loves to condemn the outsiders, while the other continually justifies the actions of the "sinful" (and therefore their own habits).
It only makes sense to me that both models fail to evaluate each situation as an individual phenomenon. My life lacks rational eclecticism. I have doctrines and policies that I force upon myself. Whether they are conservative tendencies of so-called "orthodoxy," or my liberal acceptance of all people. Instead, I should avoid what can only be called legalism, and evaluate every spiritual experience through the "supply of Jesus Christ's Spirit."
I do believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. I also believe that the Logos of God speaks to us today through it. We should never lack in diligence to critically evaluate the "variants" in our lives based on the Truth of God, revealed by his Spirit through his Book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)