Molinism?

So, I've discovered that aside from Calvinism and Arminianism, there is a third theological position that can be taken regarding Free Will and man's spiritual state apart from God; this soteriological school is called Molinism.

Its most prominent advocates are Alvin Platinga and William Lane Craig, both of whom I have read and admire as Christian academics. However, we know that intellectual respectability and omniscience are not the same thing. Molinism, in short, claims the sovereignty of God but maintains that humans have free will. Essentially, God knows how we'll act in any given set of circumstances, and his ends are achieved by which our free choices achieve his desired ends. Wiki it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

I am predisposed to being moderate - all the time. So, naturally, this theology is appealing to me. However, I am in danger of falling into a system where I make decisions based on pattern and habit than reason and spiritual directives. I never made a soteriological decision because, up until now, I was unaware that there were choices beyond Calvinism and Arminianism. Now that there's a middle ground available to me, of course I would throw up my hands and shout "Hallellujah". But alas, I cannot do that. Why is Molinism so obscure that I have never heard of it? Claiming the middle ground is something that is sure to get you compromisers and fence-sitters like myself. I'm not going to get into all the philosophical jargon about Molinism simply because I am easy confused by logic, but apparently many people see it as heresy. Interesting, no?

So....if you were waiting for a conclusion from me, here it is: I am not going to make a decision here and now. I must read more. I need to understand more before I decide. All of Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism seem plausible to me.

In the meantime, read this: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/four-types-of-theologians/

idiocy

I love going on instructables.com to look at DIY projects. I came across this one where you can use the barrel of a standard pen and the ink of an incredibly nice pen...anyway totally irrelevent. I was reading the comments which went from the article itself to peoples' favourite pens to...well, you'll see. so stupid.

Radical or Reckless?

I took part in a conversation a few days ago with two friends. One was complaining about his job as an accountant - the stress of the long hours and the unrealistic expectations demanded of him were too overwhelming. That, paired with a sense of fruitlessness in his cold, hard, money-grubbing sector, compelled him to express his frustrations with the directionless of his post-school life. He exclaimed that he would much rather teach snowboarding in Chile for the rest of his life.

My other friend asked him why he didn't just do it. Why didn't he just pick up and leave? Not only was friend number 1 in his early-mid twenties, a prime time for irrational and impulsive behaviour, but if he hated his job so much what was the point? My second friend has been on exchange and she has since been advocating these kinds of opportunities.

Frankly, I didn't say much during this conversation. But I've had some time to process what was said and I have some thoughts about what it means to be radical and, conversely, what it means to be reckless. What is the difference? Are these two things mutually exclusive? If my friend were seriously contemplating quitting his job and doing "whatever he felt moved to do" would I encourage him to do it and herald him as someone who was bold? Would I aspire to be like him because he was not content to live in a bubble?

Being moderate in every single aspect of my life, I see both sides of the coin. Of course, being type B I am unable to come to a definitive conclusion, even regarding something as simple as my personal opinion, about whether someone should go where the wind takes them just because.

Let's lay down the cons.

Being stuck in a job that you hate:
- you don't feel fulfilled. You feel directionless
- you will always fantasize about the what ifs and if onlys
- you are not living life to the "fullest" (whatever that means)
- you are knowingly sheltering yourself from bigger opportunities

Going to hypothetical "Chile"
Although "going to Chile" would mean that you're "free" and "experiencing the world" and "becoming cultured" and "doing what means something to you" red flags start to fly in my mind. I am all about opportunity, but in this context and others like it, I feel as though we are ALL bought by the idea of experiencing the world; immersing yourself in other viewpoints and other cultures and beliefsystems, casting down all things that tie you down and living life to the fullest. However, I feel as though the rejection of bureaucratic tendencies and the embracing of a new kind of radical, whimsical living is completely ironic because we then become slaves to a new kind of ideology. We assume that those who have seen more are necessarily more cultured, more fulfilled. Those of us who have never strayed outside Canada are seen as sheltered, ignorant, held down. Because one has seen more and experienced more, they are living more fulfilled lives and their lives are, in essence, better than the guy who works in an office. I have major qualms about this. "Going to Chile," to me, seems so self-indulgent, selfish, worldly. We're lusting after things and we assume that it's fine because what we're lusting after isn't material. We're not lusting after things but experience which is totally different, right? Not even. It's the same damn thing. Worldiness is worldiness. Materialism just fits under the umbrella.

So how do you find the balance? How do you not get tied down by your daily menial tasks but not become self-indulgent? Is it simply about being more realistic? How much calculation and thought and reasoning should go into a decision before you make it? Do we only do things that make sense? Or do we jump first and figure the rest out later?

I've deliberately left out the notion of God's will in all of this. Just think; what would change if that notion was incorporated into your thought process?

one-handed softball player

Today, I used about 1/2 a cup of curdled milk in my cereal and didn't realize it until later when i poured another glass for me to drink. My colon didn't explode. In fact, I felt no effects whatsoever.

But that's totally not what I'm writing about. Today, again, I played in a softball tournament with a bunch of Laurier and Waterloo students. There was one team that we faced where their pitcher had a deformed right hand (presumably since birth) that was utterly useless. When he pitched he didn't use a glove - he both caught and threw the ball with his left hand.

Not only did he pitch, but this guy batted. With one hand.

Not only did he pitch and bat, but this guy also played outfield. He had a glove on his left hand and if he caught the ball, he would wedge and hold his glove between his right arm and his body, grab the ball out of his glove with his left hand, and throw the ball to cutoff.

Not only did he pitch, bat, and field with one hand; he was also really good.

I didn't have the guts to go up to him afterwards, but I wanted to tell him how amazed and inspired I was by him. He came out of a position of physical advantage; he was probably made fun of as a kid; he probably struggled with a lot of self-confidence issues. But he didn't just make something good out of his situation, he excelled. And that's what's so amazing to me. Half the guys that I played with, who all had two functioning hands, probably couldn't play as well as this one-handed guy.

How can you NOT think of stewardship?

Would you rather someone be a lapsed Christian (meaning that they once were hardcore but are now i don't even know what?) or someone be a total non-Christian (meaning they believe in God but that's about as far as they go when it comes to spiritual contemplation)?

I'd say the latter. I've been in utter turmoil for the last 2 hours because the frontman and drummer of my potentially-favourite-band-of-all-time-whose-cd-i-just-bought-and-listened-to-in-confusion-because-of-the-cryptic-lyrics are apparently no longer christian but self-proclaimed universalists. They were never a "christian" band, but there was obvious spirituality in their lyrics. This new album is full of cynicism and "i just don't know anymores" which breaks my heart. Is it BETTER to be a lapsed Christian or a non-and-never-was-Christian?

What happens when the Shepherd leaves his flock to go look for the lost sheep and comes back and the sheep we thought were safe have disappeared?

I was at Faith Christian Books yesterday with a couple of friends when I began browsing a book which included 2 Tozer writings: How to be Filled with the Holy Spirit and The Counselor. Frankly, I can't remember the last time I read and finished a book about Christian life/living. While I was browsing through it, one sub-point caught my eye. One cannot pursue the Spirit through intellect. That hit me hard. I will be the first to admit that for the last four years I have been more fascinated about the study of Christianity than my own discipleship and growth in Christ. I've always known the difference and where my priority should lie but I always made excuses and tried to justify myself. I would argue Why can't God be known through studying academically? God is God, He reveals himself however he wants. We can't limit Him, there are so many dimensions to Him. But my wanton disregard for coming towards God clearly had a toll on me.

Anyways, back to the book. I was prepared to buy it because I really think that Tozer has great, practical stuff to say, when I came across a book containing the collection of Old Testament Apocrypha. I wanted it bad. I love this stuff. I looked at the two books together and it, literally, was like a battle. I wasn't willing to buy both because I wasn't willing to pay the exorbitant total for both. I had to choose. So, would it be Tozer, who warned against placing too much on the intellect? Or the Apocrypha which would nourish my mind and naught else more? I could have bought both. I really could have. But I lost that battle by choosing the Apocrypha, which I was quite happy with, but know that it is not what I need at the moment.

And then today, while I was doing prestudy for the Bonhoeffer Bible Study I'll be facilitating tonight, I read something ridiculous that really just made me want to bang my head against the wall. Jesus cannot be known through abstractions. Bonhoeffer says that the study of the historical Jesus, or even the dogmatic Jesus is useless and rather superfluous for our Christian walks. We need to know the Jesus that is personal, here, and now. I'm sitting here, shaking my head. I am convinced, but still unwilling to let go of the academic aspect. I, of all people, know not to take academe too seriously. In the end, it all breaks down and I have a feeling at the end of the age it's just a load of crap. But I can't let go enough to let it come down a notch on my list of priorities. Maybe it's a pride thing. I'm not the most insightful person in the world, but I work hard to read and it's an advantage that I feel like I have. Do I have to let go at all? Can I just bring my other Christian pursuits up a notch? I'm torn. I know the "right" answer but I just don't really want to face the music.

Religulous'd

I just had a chance to watch Bill Maher's Religulous, a so-called documentary where he attempts to debunk religion and deduce our need for it as nothing more than a psychological disorder. This concept isn't a new one. I believe Freud was the first (or at least the most prominent) figure to speak of religion as a mental disorder.

Maher goes international in this movie, hitting up places like Amsterdam, the Vatican, Jerusalem, Megiddo, and England, in addition to sites in the U.S. such as Salt Lake City, The Holy Land Experience in Florida, and various other religious institutions throughout the country. He interviews people about their beliefs and asks them questions about their faith (questions about textual authenticity, scriptural literalism, how they know God exists, why religion and violence are so inextricably linked and other faith-based questions). Of course, the man has done his reading, and he rebuts everything that people say with, "but doesn't your faith believe ....." catching people off-guard and unable to defend themselves or their faiths. Some people, when they realize Maher's intent to disprove their beliefs, walk out on the interview.

The movie was funny. It really was. Maher is a funny guy. But did I find it offensive? A tad. Not because he has questions and not because he's a staunch atheist bent on the mass rejection of religion altogether. My biggest annoyance comes from his claim of filming a documentary. Personally, I hardly believe in the objective documentary anymore unless it's by the National Geographic and it's about meerkats and other wildlife. The people he interviews are not the most intelligent people. Of course, it's important to hit up the masses when determining public opinion and these people are the bodies of their respective religions. But really? He goes to a trucker-church, a church for truckers someplace down south and he "interviews" them about their faith. There is so much complexity to religion -that's one of the beauties of its collective. Faith can be simple and it can be ridiculously complex. So he asks these truckers some fairly tough questions, and he's ready with a rebuttal for almost every possible answer. Obviously, these men aren't theologians, so how are they expected to keep up? Maher smashes them to bits, and is obviously very smug because he feels as though he has won the battle. Well, duh.

He does interview some religious leaders however. They, sadly, generally do not fair much better than their layperson counterparts. I don't know whether it's because they're caught off guard or whether they're just dumb, I can't say. I was really disppointed in some of them, especially some of the Jewish and Muslim authorities who are generally supposed to be more scholarly (I'm pointing out the fact that Evangelicals just aren't that academically-minded. I'm not saying that they're dumb. I'm saying that the focus in the Protestant faith is generally not on the academic, it's on church building, ministry and so forth). But anyhow, everybody ends up looking kind of dumb and Maher of course celebrates gleefully.

But Maher has a larger objective/thesis that emerges near the end of the movie. He talks about violence and religion and how they're not just linked, but that religion causes violence. (I have a textbook I could lend him that might state otherwise) His bottom line is that if humanity is to survive, there must be a collective rejection of any form of religion. It's an interesting statement.

I've been learning about what makes a good paper and a good argument, one that would be accepted by academics. You need a counter argument. He does not have that. I've also learned what makes a bad argument. Selective evidence is one. He uses that. He interviews lay people who are not theologically-inclined, people who are well, just not that well informed, "politicians" who are religious observants and nothing more, crazy people (the Joel Osteen types, there's this one minister in the States who believes that he is both the descendent and manifestation of Jesus), those people who run that "God hates fags"church, etc. I have a hard time imagining that some the religious scholars/theologians, who are prominent in my mind, would have a problem answering well some of his questions. And lastly, he's far from objective. He doesn't approach the issue with respect. At every turn, he's making fun of the people and religions he's questioning. If his intention is to make people reject their religions I think it would hardly work. When I watched this, I was pretty infuriated at his lack of objectivity and respect for anything considered sacred for billions of people. One last thing, he really only targetted the big 3: Judaism, Christianity (most of all), and Islam. He talked about some fringe religions such as Scientology and some Marijuana religion but nothing more. He wasn't looking at things holistically.

Okay, enough about some of the flaws of the movie (there are just a few more, but I won't go into them). How does this make me feel? Well, I'm sad. I hate feeling intellectually and ideologically superior to people, but some of these people were not representing their faiths well. At all. They actually looked a little cuckoo. It was mostly those Christians down south. I wish, with all my heart, that people would inform themselves and not be ignorant about what they believe. And if they believe something, back it up - WHY do they believe it? So many times people just said, "I just know it in my heart." Not a good answer. Not to me anyway. I know postmodernism is about the realm of human experience, but sometimes, that just doesn't cut it. BACK IT UP.

Other than the laughs (some of it really is pretty freaking hilarious) I did get something out of this movie. I examined myself a little more which is something I haven't done in a long time. Self reflection and evaluation is so important and people forget about it. I asked myself, why do I believe? Why do I believe it? How do I know what I believe is right? That sort of thing. It's always important, especially when it comes to one's faith because it is what DRIVES a person, it's what gives life MEANING.

So anyway, Religulous = good entertainment (like hilarious), poor journalism (the man's a comedian, and not a religious scholar. I'm offended on that level alone), some flawed thinking, but some good questions that one needs to consider. I recommend it. Despite hating "documentaries" such as Jesus Camp, Religulous, and What Would Jesus Buy because they're just so damn biased, I always recommend them to people. Don't be afraid to look at something that might poke fun of what you believe. It's always a learning step. Honestly, I blame Michael Moore for starting all these politically charged documentaries. I love it but I hate it.