Tuesday 20 December 2011

Evidence that speaks for itself. . . . . .

I really don't like that phrase. Evidence doesn't speak for itself. Evidence requires interpretation. I spent this past semester doing ethnography. Towards the beginning we were asked to remove ourselves from the situation, so to speak, and be a completely objective observer. We should assume we know nothing about the situation. That we are a complete outsider and simply describe what we see. We were asked to do this so we could see the complete ridiculous nature of that assumption, that we can take ourselves out of the picture. Part of human existence is interpretation, and we can not live without it. Simply the manner in which evidence is presented is involved in interpretation. What do you show people? Simply choosing what is relevant information and what isn't relevant is interpreting it. Deciding what angle to look at something as opposed to another angle is interpreting it. I understand that its an idiom and they almost never mean what the sentence blatantly seems to. When someone says, "the evidence speaks for itself" they mean that the conclusion they have drawn from interpreting the evidence is what they think everyone will interpret it as. Sometimes people are right, most times they're wrong. Evidence without interpretation is meaningless. Evidence without meaning is purposeless. I wouldn't want to live life without purpose, so I choose to not "let the evidence speak for itself."

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Monday 12 December 2011

Marriage is not commitment.

Whoa, what a statement right? How can I say such a thing? That sounds very postmodern, liberal, and, well. . . . wrong, right? Marriage is something that people are supposed to be devoted to. They don't give up on it. They see it through. Isn't that the definition of commitment? Yes. . . and no. I think the word commitment is too weak.

I was listening to a conversation at CanIL where some friends were talking about marriage and dating. One didn't like the idea of dating because it didn't fit well with marriage in his mind and isn't enough of a commitment. The other made the point that commitment has variable definitions depending on context such as being committed to the downfall of some communist government. When that commitment is fulfilled, then its over. And many people have a similar view of marriage. Marriage is a commitment to love and cherish one another, but what happens when we don't "love" each other anymore? The commitment is not longer valid in many peoples' minds. Thats why I think commitment is too weak, we can throw it away like used trash.

So then what do I say marriage is if it isn't commitment? Well, lets consider what the Bible has to say about it shall we? It calls marriage a covenant. Covenants are much deeper and permanent than commitments. You can't throw a covenant out. It is still there even if we ignore it. When God made a covenant with Abraham he made an arrangement that neither could back out of. God made promises that he upheld regardless of how Abraham acted on his side of the arrangement. In a covenantal marriage, regardless of what your spouse does you honor your side of the agreement, to love, cherish, and be devoted to your spouse. It makes those vows on wedding day more sobering but also more wonderful. They actual mean something. So I seek to be like Christ, like God, who has made covenants and followed through regardless of the transgressions and failures of those he made a covenant with. He has been faithful to his promises and to those he loves, and I am eternally grateful.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason