First Principles

Bill Vallicella (better known as the Maverick Philosopher, blog linked at right) posted this interesting tidbit on a quote attributed to Martin Luther in Table Talks. You can click on the link, but I will summarize and address my concern anyway, so you don't need to.

The quote is this: contra negantem prima principia non esse disputandum. In English: one should not dispute with those who disagree on first principles.

In context, Luther was referring to arguing with those who disagree on Biblical authority. The Maverick criticizes this take on theological debate, but goes on to apply it to the nature of truth. There is an absolute truth, and anyone who disputes that ought to be ignored, as arguing is merely a waste.

I agree with Dr. Vallicella on his second point, but I can't help but be irked at the simplistic response to the first. Luther was hardly an intellectual lightweight, and it does not seem particularly charitable to characterize this as a misapplication, and I have lately been exposed via experience to the wisdom of this quote of Luther's.

I belong to TheologyWeb where "we debate theology...seriously!" I am fascinated by apologetics, ethics and the nature of theological (and by correlation philosophical) truth. It was therefore hardly a surprise that I ended up finding myself drawn to discussions on the nature of God with Muslims, who explicity deny the Trinity and Christ's divinity. Now, I am okay with this if they are willing to debate from a Biblical foundation. The catch is that they are not.

It has been my observation that the entirety of Christian doctrine is principally a straw man Islamic construction. For example, in a thread on the Trinity, I invoked the Narnian Trilemma citing Jesus explicit and implicit claims to godhood in the Gospels, saying that Muslims could either revoke Jesus as a prophet of Islam or accept Christianity. Naturally, if they chose the former, the claim to Abrahamic succession falls flat and Muhammad becomes a standalone prophet. In response, a member effectively said "Muslims don't believe in the Gospels, so your argument doesn't count." He then went on to speak of gnostic writings and pseudepigrapha which are historically removed from the life of Jesus by at least a hundred years, whereas the Gospels are removed from Jesus by at most 50 years.

So, here is Islam saying they reject the most historically reliable sources, and when Old Testament is cited instead, they state that the Old Testament was corrupted by Jewish tradition instead of faithfulness to the actual revelation of God, therefore it was unacceptable. Try applying the same argument to the Koran, and you get shouted down because the Koran is the word of God.

I have since started to ignore any posts challenging Christian theological constructions from Muslims. When someone disputes first principles, it can be addressed such that this first principle can be shown to be true or false. (For example, I can disagree whether the Bible is true or false.) However, once a person denies first principles, it is pointless to argue with them as no argument, even from an Islamic contextual understanding (e.g. that all Biblical prophets are prophets of Islam), proves useful.

One really should not dispute with those who deny first principles. It's a waste of time.

From the Mouths of Babes

Wow, two posts in one week, let alone one day! How impressive am I today!?

The mention of "existential angst" in my previous post brought to mind something that had me suppressing my own laughter in church this past Sunday. I was using my audial aptitude and technical skills to master the sound during service (in non-geek terms: running the "sound board"), which included singing by our church's children's choir.

Now, I wish for a moment I could remember the title of the song, or even more of the lyrics, but there was something immensely humorous about hearing first- thru sixth-graders utter the words "I cannot do this alone / Say I'm forgiven." What incredible existential angst from elementary schoolers! I doubt any of them realized the gravitas of the song, or why that guy in the back who was controlling their soloists' microphones was hunched over with a gentle rolling motion running through his body from stomach to shoulders, but upon reflection, there is something more heartbreaking than humorous about this song.

These kids do not at present understand the grave theological truth that they indeed "cannot do this alone." They don't realize how true it is that their sins cry out to the Living God of their own humanity, of the brokenness they have existed in since the moment they were conceived. Now, it is heartbreaking, the human condition, but what makes this song heartbreaking is that our children do not understand. They utter empty words, they sing, and their parents smile and clap...but no one cried, and I think now crying may have been a more appropriate response to the song's sentiment.

We say we want to protect our children's innocence, but the truth is, the very concept that they are innocent is a standing fallacy, if not an outright lie. Thankfully, the gift of the Spirit and baptism (Greek baptizo, the washing) is a "gift for you and your children." Does that mean we should expose them to all the more sin? Indeed not, as Paul notes in Romans. Yet I think we ought to instill in everyone the sad truth of their being.

I will attempt to the get the lyrics to the song they sang so I can post them in the near future.

I Deny the Holy Spirit...

...Now Give Me My Free DVD!

The Blasphemy Challenge is fairly old news for the religion/philosophy blog circuit, but I've been wasting time at work today and it involved a good deal of incidental reading of material regarding it on various blogs and even news sites. I think it started at IrContent where Doug Beaumont chided the "Rational Response Squad" (the group person behind the Blasphemy Challenge) as being "too stupid for Hell" due to the apparent lack of understanding as to just what "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" means.

First of all, blaspheming the Holy Spirit in the context it appears in the Gospels is the attribution of Jesus' divine authority to the power of Satan. That is to say Jesus drove out demons and healed people by the power of God and the direction of His omnipotent Spirit; but a blasphemer would say Jesus ordered about demons and cured diseases because the Devil gave Him this power. But there is something more to it than that, insofar as something that has been revealed as True (note capital T) is denied by one who knows it to be true. Essentially, it would be an effective an exercise of doxastic voluntarism (if such a thing can/does exist) against the One True God. It would be akin to me saying, having read Scripture, prayed, seen the work of God, come to believe and know His Truth, that He does not exist at all.

However, this post does not concern definitions and how silly the aforementioned Rational Response Squad is being. I actually wrote this fine monologue. See, the RRS says the video must explicitly state "I deny the Holy Spirit," using those exact words, to claim a free DVD of The God Who Wasn't There. If I am to read this exhortation correctly, it requires a declarative statement in that exact sentence structure. So, for anyone with a webcam who feels like getting a free DVD and perhaps subverting the Blasphemy Challenge from within, perhaps you can say this:

The God my church taught me about in Sunday school doesn't exist. He didn't pour out a million dollars when I prayed for it, even though it says "anything you ask in my name will be given to you." He doesn't "love the little children, all the children of the world." I remember the story of Noah that they taught: flooding the world, which must have involved in some dry, rocky locations flash floods, sweeping small children out of the arms of their mothers, only to dash them, terrified and screaming, against craggy rocks to instantaneous death. But that would require that book being true, which it isn't, because that god doesn't exist.

I deny the Holy Spirit.

[Beat.]

If you thought that was the end of my video, where I stared intently at the web camera as if to convey my teenage rebellion and existential angst in a moment of silent, solemn certainty, you were wrong. The God I learned about in Sunday school doesn't exist. That much is true. My God isn't a childhood image concocted to make me feel good.

He is a God of Wrath and a God of Love. He sent a flood into the world that really did dash screaming children against craggy rocks. But then He sent another child into the world, His Son. Jesus did worse than suffer instantaneous death after a brief, terrified moment. He endured agony on a cross, a crown of thorns affixed to His head, the strain on His arms tearing open the barely scabbed over wounds of being whipped as blood and sweat flowed commingling down His back, gasping for air, nails in His hands and feet. How much worse than that baby in the age of Noah!

This is not a children's story, this is not foolish. This is what is to understand reality--the need for a Creator God, further on to the need for a moral force, which requires something intensely personal. And since this world is so screwed up, it seems intellectually (and personally) convenient to think that God loves enough to save us.

Now give me my free DVD for saying "I deny the Holy Spirit."

Classics and Me

Ladies and gentlemen, honored readers, I am looking to you for advice. After letting myself wallow in cultural degeneration during the early part of this year, I have decided my book a week resolution from last year must be reborn in another form. Therefore, I am declaring this year to be The Year of Classics™. That is to say that for the remainder of the year, I shall select one well-regarded classic author per month and read selected works, preferably two or three of their better-known and/or best-regarded works. The schedule currently appears as follows:

1. January -- Not part of resolution.
2. February -- Not part of resolution
3. March -- Dostovesky Depression Month®, consisting of The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment and The Idiot
4. April -- Austen Acrimony Month®, consisting of Emma, Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice
5. May -- Tolstoy Tedium Month®, consisting of War and Peace (duh, hence the tedium) and Anna Karenina
6. June -- Someone Something Month
7. July -- Someone Something Month
8. August -- Hugo Social Justice Month® (I couldn't think of a fair synonym for Hugo's thematic sentiment that started with H), consisting of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Les Miserables and Last Days of a Condemned Man
9. September -- Someone Something Month
10. October -- Someone Something Month
11. November -- Someone Something Month
12. December -- Dickens Dreams Month®, consisting of Oliver Twist, Great Expectations and A Christmas Carol (duh, December)

What do you think? I need five authors comprising 10-15 books from the vague category "classics." Let me narrow it down. Whereas I consider writers like James Joyce to offer amazing classics, and I consider Dante Alleghieri's Divine Comedy to be a classic piece of poetry, I keep these fine authors-cum-poets off the list for specific reasons. For Joyce, it is because he is a well-regarded twentieth century author, and I would very much like to dedicate a year for twentieth century writers in the future (Rand, Joyce, Faulkner, Kerouac, et al.). And for Dante, it is because I would like to read his work in accordance with a poetry year in the future, suffused with Longfellow's Hiawatha, Milton's Paradise Lost, the Homerian epics and Virgil's Aeneid. In many ways, poetry is a whole other category to novels, despite that they are both literature.

So here is the criteria: authors from between 1500 and the early 1900's (Twain would qualify if you would think he was recommendable, but I've never actually finished one of his books, so I kept him off the list off-hand) writing on periods in that time frame, or, say, Jules Verne with sci-fi writing in that era. They must be fairly well-known to the general public, not just in academic cricles (say goodbye to most Gothic authors) and their works must be fictional novels or novellas written in prose.

Let the recommendations flow!

Roses are Red, Violets are Blue...

...Shakespeare is art,
...and Sixpence, too!

About a week ago, the fine blog Mere Comments (linked at the right) offered this post regarding love poetry through the ages. Anthony Esolen, the contributer who made the post, questioned whether his selections from the past were useful in measuring popular culture and comparing those cultures with this. I immediately cried foul when he selected What a Girl Wants (lyrics here) by Jessica Simpson as our modern representative.

The problem with bubblegum pop typified in Brittney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Jennifer Lopez and the general hip crowd c. 1999 is that their songs are mass-produced by a few common writers. My Backstreet Boys albums' liner notes list the songwriter Max Martin on almost every track from their first three discs (Backstreet Boys, Millennium and Black & Blue) before Brian Littrell took on more songwriting duties for Never Gone. Therefore, we do not consider this the poetry of the masses, but the poetry of one individual put into mass production. For true popular poetry, we have to turn to rock music, a few pop groups (Sixpence None the Richer, Five for Fighting) and even hip-hop.

Consider even further this notion: it has been 500 years since Shakespeare. What crap from his generation has been filtered out of our cultural memory over that time? More importantly, with the advent of acid-based printing in the late 18th century, the mass publication of written material went too whole new heights. Prior to this era, that which was valuable survived in quality print and nothing else. Now, anyone can print something. So, in 500 years, what musical lyrics will survive? Will Jessica Simpson be filtered out? God, I hope so. In 500 years, I want my great-great-[...]-grandchildren to know I listened to stuff like this:

I packed his books up, left the office
Went to tell the wife the news
She fell in shock, the baby kicked,
And shed a tear inside the womb
I breathe in, I breathe out
Soak the ground up with my eyes
It's hard to say a healing word
When your tongue is paralyzed
(Sixpence None the Richer, "Paralyzed," Divine Discontent, 2002)

Babies underneath their beds
(In) hospitals that cannot treat them
All the pain that money causes,
All the comfort of cathedrals
All the cries of thirsty children,
This is our inheritance,
All the rage of watching mothers,
This is our greatest offense
(Jars of Clay, "Oh My God," Good Monsters, 2006)

I was just guessing at numbers and figures,
Pulling your puzzles apart
Questions of science, science and progress
Do not speak as loud as my heart
And tell me you love me, come back and haunt me
(Coldplay, "The Scientist," A Rush of Blood to the Head, 2002)

And I am nothing of a builder,
But here I dreamt I was an architect
And I built this balustrade
To keep you home, to keep you safe
(The Decemberists, "Here I Dreamt I Was an Architect," Castaways and Cutouts, 2002)

Little boy prays to God to answer his song
To hold her hand when everyone else's are gone
Time goes by and the wounds slowly turn into scars
So he makes his final wish on the midnight stars
(Vertical Horizon, "Children's Lullaby," There and Back Again, 1992)

Meta-Ethics!

NaturalismYou scored 75 Objectivism, 68 Naturalism, and 73 Cognitivism!

There are moral facts, they can be reduced, and they can be the subjects of true or false propositions. You are probably a Naturalist. "Different philosophical doctrines travel under the heading of “naturalism.” We can usefully distinguish two broad and important categories: methodological (or M-naturalism) and substantive (or S-naturalism) (Leiter 1998; cf. Railton 1990 and Goldman 1994). Naturalism in philosophy is most often a methodological view to the effect that philosophical theorizing should be continuous with empirical inquiry in the sciences. Such a view need not presuppose a solution to the so-called “demarcation problem”—i.e., the problem of what demarcates genuine science from pseudo-science—as long as there remain clear, paradigmatic cases of successful sciences. Some M-naturalists want “continuity with” only the hard or physical sciences (Hard M-naturalists); others seek “continuity with” any successful science, natural or social (Soft M-naturalists). Soft M-naturalism is probably the dominant strand in philosophy today."

My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 99% on Objectivism You scored higher than 99% on Naturalism You scored higher than 99% on Cognitivism

Link: The Meta-ethical Theories Test written by jacostyle on OkCupid Free Online Dating, home of the The Dating Persona Test

And we wonder why our kids are confused! I scored 68% on Naturalism, but I'm still a naturalist and I scored higher than 99% of my age group in all three categories.

That said, let's examine something and see if I am still a "naturalist" in regards to ethical theory:

There is an absolute, natural Moral Law that applies to all humanity vis-a-vis some god-force. That said, this god-force is necessarily good. There is no bad in it. Therefore, that Moral Law which it implanted in us could not have possibly been bad. Perhaps the Law is not to murder because of its benefit for society (bene from the Latin root for good and fit from the Latin root for act) in sustaining the population, or perhaps even for the good it does for our personal soul as it maintains our equity with human life, as social creatures we naturally crave human contact. That said, the Moral Law is in us naturally, but it is the Moral Law because it is good.

I surmise I am a cognitive naturalist. However, I believe that morality is an objective truth. It is not at all subjective. Murder is wrong no matter who you are or where you live; to Hell with the law of the land in which you are living.

Becky...

..and why her kids hate church

ThinkChristian (blog linked at right) posted this scathing commentary by music critic Lou Carlozo of the Chicago Tribune about the sad, sad state of editorial integrity in the world of Contemporary Christan Music (CCM). A commenter, in turn linked to ChristianMusicToday.com where an ongoing series of posts are dealing with a similar issue: the state of modern Christian radio.

Modern Christian radio, as we read in the second post in the series, markets to "Becky" a 40-something soccer mom with penchants for reading and simplistic volunteerism. The local station, "Spirit 105.3" KCMS even gets a nod in this post. I once listened to modern Christian radio a lot, but then I went to concerts and festivals and learned something devastatingly true, something that destroyed my thoughts of the radio station I enjoyed: there was Christian music that wasn't adult contemporary!

And they were better. And I began to detest Christian radio because it built up this absolutely stupid image of Christians in the world. I once belonged to Spirit's "listener advisory board", an open circle of people that advise Spirit on their musical programming direction. After months of complaining--via votes and ratings on songs--I couldn't understand why I still had to hear "I Can Only Imagine" three times per hour. Wasn't there another sane person out there who comprehended that this song was old after its first ten plays?

Becky wants her soccer-playing Timmy and Ashley to love Christian music, to love God even when they're not at church. But they won't, and Becky doesn't understand why. It's because Timmy and Ashley go to school, see the world, hear other music and understand that the Christian subculture is a facade for people that are just as broken as everyone else. That whole concept of "living abundantly" plays nice on paper, but Christians still go through struggles. But Becky smiles as she listens to the tacky morning show where they have kids say the Pledge of Allegiance over the air, a testament to the falsehood that her life has become: she's stressed out going to three soccer practices a week for each kid, having laundry to do, errands to run and little personal peace and quiet.

Timmy and Ashley begin to detest the Christian subculture, and they begin to realize how much it affects church itself. After all, didn't Pastor Mike say last week God has blessed them, and wants to do incredible things with them, and how joyful the life of a Christian is. Then why is Ashley crying when that cute new kid Joel dumps her? She thought life was supposed to be joyful. What rubbish! And so Timmy and Ashley hate church, because the kids who actually show up to youth group are just like their mother: two-faced, always cheery and heart-wrenchingly lost.

I eventually ended up writing the aforementioned local station this e-mail:

To be perfectly honest, when I think of a radio station for people "like me," I question what people "like me" are. In one sense, I could say this is a form letter and the entire LAB got it, in which case the responses will inevitably vary vastly from my own--I tend to disagree with the LAB on a lot of things, not the least of which is the music choices reflected in airtime for certain songs. I'm 17, and I'm a student, as are most of my friends. I'm under the impression that the vast majority of the LAB is probably 20 years older than me working 9-5 jobs with kids at home, which is fine, but leaves a broad social gap.

I do not know what I'd call a radio station designed to my tastes, but I know what I'd do with it. There is a Christian radio network called The Effect. Here in Washington, they broadcast out of Everett on KEFX 88.1 FM. They're a listener-supported radio network, meaning that the station is commercial-free, because the broadcast costs are covered by listener donations--for which they offer incentives, such as CDs as "thank you" gifts for the donation. I love the concept of listener-supported radio stations not just because of the commercial-free nature, but because it is invariably survived based upon its loyalty. If listeners like it, it will stay; if not, it'll go under. So there's the first thing: the listeners have to contribute, but not just in taste.

Secondly, as I said, I am a student by occupation. Yet, being a student isn't limited to the classroom, and this holds true for the vast majority of my youth group. My best girl friend, who incidentally is also my best friend's romantic girlfriend, used to be a leader for the Auburn chapter of Young Life. I support Young Life's ministry, but the thing is, kids are ready for something more than "Jesus loves you, let's play games" before going home. She quit because she wanted more substance to her spiritual growth. A radio station needs to be spiritually challenging and not just encouraging. Encouragement for something that is not a challenge (and yes, this is an indictment against Spirit) is useless. Students want to learn. Greg Stier gave a talk at Creation Fest West this year about this concept, citing the Mormon practice of morning seminary for high school students where they are taught Mormon theology.

I want a radio station that isn't 90% music, 10% "let's pray together." I love good music, sure, and praying together is an awesome spiritual act, but I'd love talk shows where listeners can call in, DJ's with serious spiritual knowledge, to discuss what is going on in the Church, to learn their faith inside-and-out, and talk shows addressing social issues from a Church perspective--not from a politically driven perspective, but just looking at Scripture, knowing that the Church is about the Gospel, not the law, and looking at our stance on things. Something on the entertainment and theological level of The Wittenburg Door in broadcast form. Something that says as Christians we can accept homosexuals because homosexuality is but a symptom of the fallen world, of sin, and we need to address the deeper, spiritual issue at hand, while at the same time say "gay marriage is not okay because it's not in accordance with Scripture." The faith is a paradox, it's a challenge, and a good radio station should reflect that.

Finally, let's talk about the music. About 10 years ago or so, KOMO AM 1000, the radio sister station to KOMO 4 News on TV, didn't do all news and traffic and talk. They used to play music, too with news and talk. That's what a good radio station should be. Something that's just as stimulating as it is entertaining. So, the music, to be honest, needs to come from a more diverse artist group than Sparrow Recording artists. There are two Christian music charts, right? I can't remember the two, but what if a station actually gave airtime to both. I want bands from Tooth & Nail Records played on a station: Anberlin, Pillar, Seventh Day Slumber, Brave Saint Saturn (by the way, love having Caroline on Spirit), or bands from Fervent Records like Exit East or even rappers like KJ-52, Big Unc, the classic Gospel Gangstaz. And I want Michael W. Smith and Jars of Clay and Sixpence None the Richer. I just don't want them on mutually exclusive segments of programming. They should be inerspersed. Don't limit Anberlin to Saturday nights with Mike and Matt or that Studio B program you have now.

Christian music is so much broader than what people actually realize, and good music even goes beyond record labels. There's a band called Vertical Horizon signed to Hybrid Recordings, used to be signed to RCA, and listening to any number of their songs and you notice such an underlying Christian theme to the songs. If the Church wants to break down the wall between Christians and culture, it needs to look at even what culture has that is good. Why not play good Christian music and acceptable secular music, music that didn't discourage the Christian lifestyle or support something other than it, but music that pointed to a Christian lifestyle?

And speaking of the music, don't cut out the electric guitars. I believe in artist purity. There is something wrong with Audio Adrenaline's Hands and Feet played with violins. There's no audio adrenaline to it. Or Sanctus Real's Everything About You stripped of its screaming energy on the vocal bridge. And on LMP, don't limit it to worship groups from different churches. In 2001, Overlake Christian Church put on a New Year's Eve party. They had local bands there. One of them, I remember very vivivdly, was called Shale. They were an incredible band, but they weren't a worship group. They were like a local Switchfoot (better than Switchfoot in my opinion), and I doubt I'd ever hear them on LMP. Or Cloud2Ground, sure, they're electronica, very free form lyrics, but at the end of every symphony, Mozart wrote two words: Laus Deo. It's Latin for "Praise to the Lord!" The most abstract art is still worshipful, like a Lincoln Brewster guitar solo.

To be honest, a lot of this is why I rarely listen to Spirit anymore. I don't want a baby faith. I want an effectual faith. Stimulating and entertaining, challenging and encouraging, are not mutually exclusive. We need a radio station for my generation that can be both. Our battle in this "culture war" isn't against the people or what's going on with them. It's Spiritual. "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

With all this in mind, maybe we could steal from Mike Yaconelli's magazine and call this station The Door, like The Wittenburg Door, the place where Martin Luther stepped up and challenged something that he knew was wrong with Catholicism at the time, where someone stood against fallacy for the sake of scripture, and at the same time challenged a generation to take up their own faith instead of the faith of the priest to intercede for them, but also a door--a door between Church and culture, a door to Heaven in the metaphorical sense, and a door to a far deeper knowledge of the Lord.

We have met the enemy...

...and he is us.

The Maverick Philosopher (blog linked to the right) pointed me toward this article at the New English Review on the evil of humanity. A particularly poignant quote:

I would once have taken the opening sentence of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments for a truism:

"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there is evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."
But now I no longer think it is even a truth, let alone a truism. I would be more inclined to write:

"How good soever man may be supposed, there is evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the suffering of others… etc., etc."

However, at the same time, I read this post at Signs of the Times (also linked on the right). Another poignant quote:

The enemy...is evil with its expansive kingdom...with [its] disposition inclined toward the domination of others and the exaltation of the self, barely able to see what is true and good. (emphasis added)

Dr. Dalrymple is moved by a shattered world to believe that man is evil. That the existence of evil is the existence of man and man is evil given flesh, that there is no natural good in him, despite what we might like to think of him. In other words, man is essentially inseparable from evil. (Here we must note that "essentially" is derived from the word "essence," meaning the core reality of a being.)

Thankfully, Matt over at the Crux Project knows something else. Man is not evil. Evil is the enemy of man, the thing that we have been at war with since the dawn of time. Further, he notes that evil is aware of "what is true and good." This recalls to mind a passage from the book of James: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! (James 2:19, ESV) Demons recognize good. They recognize the truth of one God, and they shudder. They shudder because judgment is coming and they live in open rebellion, by choice. They shudder because they hate truth; they hate what is good.

But man does not hate what is good and what is true. Man is fallen, and to be fallen, there had to be a point from which he fell. Man has a natural state that is free from evil, free from all its deceptions. I believe in man's total depravity. But this is not his essential nature. Man was not made this way. The modern man is born into it, but man is not merely the physical body which goes through birth and death. Man is soul, man is spirit. And though the soul comes with the body, though the spirit enters into sin with the body, we know that eternally, man is not like this. He has fallen from grace into it.

So we turn to the cross. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. If he led a sinless life, he did not do it simply as God. He did it frought with all the temptations and weariness of man as well. There is something essential in Christ that is also essential in us. If humanity is de facto evil, then Christ would have been as well. But this is not the case. Man is de jure evil--by the Law. The Law is there to convict us of our wrong. We disobeyed once God's command, and therefore we are evil. It is not a matter of fact; it is a matter of consequence.

We continually subsist in this state by our actions, by our choice. Our actions are contrarian, and they force evil upon us. But without these choices made, we are not evil. Unfortunately, having made the choice once, we continue to make it over and over again. Thankfully, we can see what is good and true: that 2000 years ago, on a small hill overlooking the city of Jerusalem, one man, one God, surrendered His blameless life on a cross, and by His choice, we are de jure made whole again.

We live in a fallen world. We are evil, disgusting creatures. Thankfully, we are not necessarily so. This can be separated from our nature by the blood of Christ.

Indeed it is true: "When our depravity meets His divinity, it is a beautiful collision." ~David Crowder

New Year's Resolutions

It is now the year 2007, and as such it is time to come up with resolutions, goals to obtain in the coming year. But before I do that, I would like to do a review of my 2006 resolutions:

1. Read one book per week.
   
   This resolution was intended as a means to edify myself in various disciplines. I read some philosophy, some sociology and a lot of fiction, but I predominantly read Christian works: studies of the church, commentary on Christianity and "spiritual autobiographies" (my favorite, of course, being Blue Like Jazz, which was the first book I read last year).
   
   Did I achieve the resolution? Strictly speaking, no. Not only did I fail at reading one book PER week but I did not even read one book FOR every week of the year. That is, I didn't even read 52 different books.
   
   However, in many respects, I consider this resolution to be successful. Much like we talk about "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law," I can speak of the spirit behind the resolution. I easily read over 40 books this year, and I consider that an achievement in its own right. I consider myself bettered because of this effort. I learned history from Citizen Soldiers and Team of Rivals. I had my Christian view put in check by Blue Like Jazz and Total Truth. There are of course many other books I read, including finally finishing the Star Wars New Jedi Order series, which strongly dives into philosophical and political implications in the Force and the Jedi.
2. Learn to play the piano.
   
   Unequivocally a failure.
3. Enroll in a four-year college.
   
   A failure. Partly my own fault for not following up on something filed with Decatur, and partly Decatur's fault for mismanagement of the request filed with them. This is hands down the most disappointing reality of 2006.

On to the resolutions for 2007:

1. To read the complete Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.
   
   Luckily, I wll not need to buy this in a ridiculous set of a dozen or so volumes for a few hundred dollars. On the contrary, it is completely available online, along with countless other theological resources.
2. Once again, I am resolving to learn to play the piano.
   
   This time I might just do it.
3. Start a fairly consistent running/exercise pattern.
   
   I had originally intended to run 30 minutes every week day, but upon review I can say pretty definitively that this will not happen, and even if it did, it doesn't seem entirely practical. As I improve in running, the distance I run in a half hour improves, whereas the calories I burn remain mostly static.
4. Enroll in some four-year college, preferably Seattle U or Gonzaga, fairly local Jesuit schools for which I have much respect academically. Plus, their core curriculum includes theology classes.
   
   This does not mean I will start classes this year, merely that I am enrolled so that I may start classes. Ergo, I may start attending in 2008. But by 2007, my name will be on a student list at a four-year school.
5. Finish a full manuscript of a standalone work.
   
   I have written what seems like dozens of books, mostly for series, most of which I have scrapped or given up on or (in the case of what would undoubtedly be my most successful commercially excepting publishing) handed off to a partner. I intend to finish a complete novel this year that is not part of a series.
6. Begin keeping a journal/diary of sorts.
   
   If you think about it, most famous or respected invidiuals have memoirs or chronicles of their non-public life. C. S. Lewis' letters to friends have been compiled in various volumes. Winston Churchill's World War II chronicles are highly respected. Nietzche's random thoughts became Gay Science. I do not intend to be dishonest. There was a time I was arrogant, and I am past that, but I am still far from perfectly humble and still ambitious. One day, I hope to be famous or at the very least well-respected in whatever field I end up going into. Therefore, I am writing this for the sake of posterity. I am not perfect, I am not humble and I do not intend to disguise it.
7. To, in all things, aim to please God first and society second and myself last.
   
   This may seem like it should be "Number One," but I saved it for last to remind myself that this should always be the end of my actions. Also, it is number seven, God's holy number.

This seems to be a particularly ambitious year for me, not to mention incredibly challenging. I implore anyone who reads this blog to hold me accountable. Check on the status of new applications to colleges. Ask me about my exercise regimen. Call me out when I am acting in a matter unbecoming of a Christian. When we're around a piano, ask me to play something I've learned. (If I haven't learned anything, obviously how embarrassing!) Ask for updates on my writing. Ask about interesting things in my life so I will remember to write them in my journal.