The Power of a Name

As I drove today I was thinking about my own deficiency in remembering names. I remember people. I remember interaction and events. But I have a hard time remembering peoples names! If I'm not around you daily, it is likely I've forgotten your name, not you, but your name. Even roommates and people I've spent a lot of time with I have to take a few moments to remember their names.

I then moved on to why is that? I remember what I've done with them and what they mean to me and I realized its because in our culture we don't give people names based on events or interactions. Sometimes we give people nicknames, but not all that often. For example when Abram became Abraham, that was a meaningful name associated with who he had become. Likewise with Jacob becoming Israel again a new name with who he had become. There are cultures in this world that call you by who you are, not by what name you were given at birth.

And now I think about the names of God. That is ultimately the only way we can refer to him, and also why he has so many names. He is an awesome God so he has many names like Elohim, El Shaddai, El Adonai, El Elyon, Yahweh/Jehovah, Yeshua, and the list goes on. And each of those names describes a part of who he is. There is no one name that can capture his whole nature and so we can't call him by only one name. But sometimes we try. I know I'm most likely to call him Lord and Father than Judge, Savior, Creator, etc. Its a hard thing to keep his whole nature in our minds because its beyond our minds. He can not be contained, and so my attempt to do so is doomed to fail. But thats okay, because ultimately it is an awesome God with many names that describe who he is. And I am thankful for who he is.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Self-Sufficiency and Independence

These two things, Self-Sufficiency and Independence, are two of the highest ideals in modern American society. Its understandable that they would become so when evaluating the history of our nation. But its gone too far. The founding fathers sought independence from an oppressive regime and self-sufficiency in the sense of being able to provide for ones family using the resources available. Now we seek self-sufficiency in everything and independence from anyonw. Our idea of freedom is the ability to choose whatever we want whenever we want, and it is destroying the notion of freedom that the founding fathers intended.

The theme of these two as is generally accepted now is an illusion. We are not self-sufficient. Name for me anyone who ever didn't need their mother and father to be born? Name for me someone who could provide all their living necessities without anyones help. Now wait a second, I'm not just talking about humanity helping but name me a person that didn't need the resources on the earth, the plants, animals, etc. to survive. Its not possible. Self-sufficiency is an illusion in the ultimate sense and its also against the way the Lord has called us to live. The church is to be interdependent and provide for one another. The church is to care for one another in all senses, spiritual, emotional, physical, etc. And that care is to extend out to others as we take the Gospel to the rest of the world. There is only one who is self-sufficient, Our Lord and God. Jesus our Savior(and the Father and Spirit) is the only one who can claim he doesn't need anyone else to surevive, or exist. He is self-sufficient, but even then has chosen not to be independent. The very nature of the Trinity, a mystery when you really think about it, is an interdependent one. We are not to be independent from one another. We are only to be separate, i.e. independent from the nature of this world. Independent from the evils and sins prolific in our fallen world. We are to be set apart, and that is what it means to be independent in the only sense that pleases God.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Motivation and Will

I've recently been thinking about the subject of motivation. Sometimes I have to do something or go somewhere and I lack any motivation to go or do that thing. If you don't know what I'm talking about I'm sure you're not human. We all have those times when we don't feel like doing anything. But we take it further in some areas of our lives. We feel entitled to motivation. A lot of times if we don't feel like doing something we simply won't do it and anyone attempting to compel us to is somehow in the wrong. Or how about the opposite end? What about things people are motivated to do, but shouldn't do? What about people who do evil things, but have an abusive childhood? In some cases people even can get away with things because of their motivations for doing things. But that is where I take issue.

Society sometimes treats people in the same way as animals. When a person is camping and leaves food out and a bear comes and rampages through the campsite, who is at fault? The person who left the motivation for the bear to do what it did. The bear does not have a will. It will act in accordance with its nature and its nature is to eat and be aggressive. That person gave the bear the motivation. But when it comes to our thoughts of justice and human behavior we sometimes take the same approach. The criminal is not at fault, the parents who abused him/her is. I'm sorry, it is a tragedy for children to be abused, but that person had a choice. They have a will, and they chose to act sinfully. Regardless of our past histories we are still responsible for our own actions.

It is because I have a will that I often do things that I have no motivation to do. But not always. I've been failing to regularly run lately and I'd like to blame motivation, but the truth of the matter is I have chosen not to run when I could have chosen to run. It is one of the primary things that makes us humans so complicated creatures. We can do things in spite of all our instincts, expectations, and histories. We can make a choice for good or evil regardless of our past and regardless of our future. Its a frightening yet beautiful thing and its a fact of humanity that theologians and philosophers have struggled with for millenia as pertains to human will and the divine will. And that is another subject that would take a book to scratch the surface. I'll put this much up there though. I believe we have free will, but I also believe God is sovereign. It is the interplay of those two facts that have given thinkers the world around such trouble and I'm not likely to resolve it for people. So go in God's grace and know that He is in control yet desires your surrender and submission.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Opposing Values of Truth and Preservation

There is always a tension between idealism and realism. We live in a sinful world and that means there are evil people and terrible atrocities occurring on a daily basis. How we deal with them though is a personal choice and I don't know that I have really made one myself. To be sure in my mind I am quite an idealist. I know that if I was in a bubble and someone were holding a gun up to me and the only way to stop them from killing me was to kill them I would take the bullet. But we don't live in bubbles. Everything we do has consequences for others. If I am killed what will happen to my family? What will happen to the ministry that I'm working in? Thats what people start thinking about in terms of realism.

People sometimes ask the question, if you went back in time and met Hitler as an infant, would you kill him knowing what he would do in the future? Just to avoid the nonsensical temporal loops you'd find yourself in phrasing it like that I'll ask it this way, "If you met an infant and the LORD told you this child would someday bring about the death of millions of people, what would you do?" I don't know that I have an answer to that question, nor do I think I can give one until I'm in situations where I must make a decision.

Dietrich Von Bonhoeffer struggled with this very thing. He eventually took the position that he would never kill a Christian, but those who were clearly evil he would fight against and even kill, people like Hitler. He was part of an underground movement fighting against the Nazis, but to do so he had to pretend to be one. That is where the ground gets very shaky for me. Is it ever appropriate or justifiable to lie in order to do good? I don't see any justification for it in scripture. People often talk about "white lies" as if there is no consequence to some lies. Then others will counter-argue that with things like "Well, when you use hyperboles you're not telling the truth, so it is lying, so if you're strictly against lying you are not allowed to use hyperboles." But thats not really lying either. How I define lying is the intentional misleading or misinforming of another person. When I use hyperboles I am not misleading or misinforming others because they understand the use of hyperboles. It is the same thing with sarcasm. Language is an incredibly complex thing that we use in a variety of ways. But when we give false information intentionally, that is lying and bearing false witness which is one of the ten commandments.

But if I was hiding Jews in my house during WW2 and soldiers came and inspected my home, what would I do? What would I do if they blatantly asked me if I was hiding any Jews? If I hold to my ideals of not bearing false witness, then I can not say no. But if I hold to my values of human life and preservation of all peoples, then one would assume I'd say no. They're mutually opposing one another in these situations and I don't know what I would do. I'd probably make a horrible person to hide people in such a situation unless simply keeping my mouth shut was a viable option. Then I'd do that. I'd keep my mouth shut.

If you're still reading this, then you probably get by now that I don't have this fully worked out even in my own mind and don't intend this to be any kind of prescription for the behavior of others. I hold to the statement that I don't know what I'd ultimately do until I find myself in such a situation.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Approaching Marriage

Its coming closer. Only a couple months away. But the waiting is getting harder. The distance is that much more agonizing. I get to talk to Brenda almost every night, but our longing for one another grows deeper and stronger making the time and distance that much harder. It doesn't help that my schedule has lightened up either. Track is over so no commitments there. Comprehensive exams have been taken so no more worries there (well, I don't know whether I passed yet or not!). Its a few seemingly minor details for me and in one month I can finally go to Montana to be with my beloved. But then theres still another month!

In that month we'll be going up to Canada for Eric & Gisela's wedding. I'm sure that will serve to increase our desire to be married as well. I can only imagine the mixture of desire, longing, expectation, excitement, and all other kinds of emotions that will be present in those last few weeks. Its no wonder marriage is one of the pivotal parts of what it means to be human. Birth & Death are things that every human shares, but marriage is almost a universal too. There is no culture that doesn't practice it in some form. I look forward to the day when Brenda ceremoniously walks down that aisle and we are united, one and forever. It will be truly something to remember for the rest of our lives. May the Lord bless us with long memories.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Induction, Deduction, and the Truth

I was recently in Saskatoon, Sasketchewan for a Track meet. One of those evenings the tv was on as people did various things in our room. The movie playing was Sherlock Holmes(the first of the two more recent hollywood movies). In the movie, Holmes states something to the effect of "I merely deduced from the facts the conclusion." But there is a big problem with that statement, what Sherlock Holmes does and what people understood deduction to be are two very different things. In fact, this cultural misunderstanding of the difference between deduction and induction(something people don't really know about) is evident in the fact that the movie has Holmes stating it is deduction, when in fact it is induction. You can look up the definitions sometime if you choose, but here is the gist. In reference to logic, deduction is the process of coming to a conclusion that is NECESSARY based on the facts on which the conclusion is based. Induction is a conclusion that may logically and reasonably come from the facts, but is not necessary. Basically, supposing the underlying facts used to make a conclusion are correct, then if it is truly deduction, then the conclusion MUST be true. Otherwise it must be induction, for if the facts are true and the conclusion is false, then there is no necessary connection.

Now this brings me closer to my point for this blog. We live in a culture that highly values logical induction, but masquerades it as deduction. In fact, true deduction is something that is rather rare, for we almost never have all the necessary facts for conclusions. We can make reasonable conclusions and guesses based on the facts we can observe, but the fact remains that we don't know, see, hear, or observe everything and therefore rarely get the chance to truly use deduction. Furthermore, deduction is a rather artificial thing since we only really ever get to use it when solving logic problems or using math. Ultimately thats what deduction truly is, pretty much math. Its a logical mode of thought that puts things into a rather black and white configuration.

I have no particular problem with induction, its what we use the most when trying to think logically, but here is what bothers me. Deduction carries with it the weight that given a set of facts a conclusion MUST be true. This becomes very problematic when people make such claims when in fact their arguments are inductive, and are not NECESSARILY true. Take Evolution for example. People have observed certain facts about the world we live in. They take certain facts that corroborate their hypotheses and using those as a basis for their argument claim to deduce evolution from it. There are two major problems with this from the get-go. First is that they often completely ignore other facts(which negates any claims of deduction). Second is that they claim from these facts their conclusion must necessarily be true, using a mode of thought akin to deduction rather than induction which is what they actually are using.

Induction and Deduction are closely related, after all there is only one minute difference between the two. They are both modes of logic, an approach to understanding the world that much of Western culture has been built upon. Logic in many cases has become synonymous with reason, truth, and correctness. But it is not the only mode of understanding the world, and in itself does not DETERMINE truth. It is a method of understanding truth developed by one culture(or set of cultures) and passed on to others in a way that nowadays logic is often thought of being truth. Its just too bad that so many people are decieved into believing that logic=truth and if something isn't logical, then it must not be true. Don't get me wrong, I use logic all the time. I'm a very logical person using lateral thinking all the time. In fact, much of what I'm saying here is based on logic. I bought a magazine full of logic problems today and enjoy thinking logically. I just constantly need to remind myself that it is only a tool, and not necessarily even the best one for understanding truth and the world around us.

For His Glorious Name,
Jason

Stoicism, Gnosticism, and Spirituality

It has been a while since I have shared any thoughts, almost 2 months exactly. However, as I drove home this evening I was having a bit of a droopy mood, which was kind of odd because I heard a rather invigorating and compelling sermon that makes one think about one's true allegiances. Which got me thinking about my emotions. I'm a man who historically has struggled to understand my own emotions. I have come a long way in this, but I still bear some of the burden of my past being raised in a culture that highly values stoicism. This eventually led me to thinking about the different parts of a human being. In the Bible and North American culture(though subculturally and across cultures the distinctions sometimes are blurred or not recognized at all) we generally categorize the human into 4 parts that interact in various ways, the body, the mind, the soul, and the emotions.

I got to thinking about these distinctions and what it means to be spiritual. What does it mean to be fleshly? Paul, in 1 Corinthians 3:1 says, "But I, brothers could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ."(ESV) This is somewhat dangerous territory as the Gnostics show is historically. The temptation is to conclude that everything of the flesh is evil and only things that are spiritual are right and just and holy. This led to heresies concerning the nature of Christ on earth. So what was the gnostics' mistake? Well, its really one of degree. They took something to its extreme end. Well, if these fleshly things are bad, then all flesh must be bad right? Therefore we should have nothing to do with the flesh. And we still have many of those kinds of thoughts in North American culture.

But things of the flesh are not always in conflict with things of the spirit. Is our desire for companionship and fellowship a fleshly desire or a spiritual desire? Its both. The problem comes when they are in conflict. We can't always have agreement between the mind, the spirit, the emotions, and the body. So what does it mean to be spiritual? It means to choose the spirit above the other aspects of ourselves when they are in conflict. When the body tells you to gawk at the girl across the room, but your spirit tells you it is sin you have two choices. You can be fleshly by gawking, or spiritual by not gawking. Whichever of the two is the impetus for your decisions is what you are. For Stoics, the idea of emotions is like the gnostic idea of the flesh. It is to be avoided at all costs. If a person makes all their decisions based on emotions, we would call them an emotional being. And I myself often find my emotions in conflict with other parts of myself, especially my mind and spirit. But not always.

We have some pretty deep roots in North American culture concerning both gnosticism and stoicism. We highly elevate the mind and the spirit, even within Christendom, and consider emotions and flesh to be evil. Though I might still even say that I would consider the mind and spirit to be more motivating factors for my decisions, to consider the emotions and flesh to be evil is wrong-headed and sometimes dangerous. Here is my problem with it all. If you consider the emotions and flesh evil, what do you do when your whole being is in accord with something? What if something that you decide or are considering or experiencing resonates with all of you mind, spirit, body, and emotions? If emotions and the flesh are evil a priori, then you would likely choose against it just because of their involvement in it. Now I don't think anyone holds to this particular extreme of decision making, but I want to use it to highlight our general misconceptions about everything God has given us as humans. He has made us in the flesh, with a mind, with a spirit, and with emotions.

So a spiritual man is someone who considers the spirit to be the top priority. An emotional man considers the emotions the top priority. A fleshly man think first of the body. And a logical man(though this is not exactly accurate for logic is only one mode of thought, but is usually used generically to refer to things of the mind) considers the mind to be the highest. So ask yourself, are you spiritual?

For His Glorious Name,
Jason