New locations

It's been a while since I've contributed to this blog in any form. My free time to lay down thoughts has been lacking in light of my responsibilities with school. I am, however, trying to reorganize my time so that I have more opportunities to write on things of interest. In the meantime, some changes are to be noted.

First, this blog will ultimately become inactive simply because I have moved over to Wordpress. For access to that blog, please use this link:

carlsweatman.wordpress.com

So, if you have arrived here, I would encourage you to use (and bookmark) the above link for future reference. Also, if you're really interested, my wife and I have a blog on our life in England that is housed at Wordpress as well. (I should say, that blog too is a bit behind; however, we are planning on making necessary updates really soon). For access to that blog, please use this link:

ourlifeinengland.wordpress.com

That's pretty much it for this post. I hope that everyone has a wonderful rest of the day, and I look forward to hearing from anyone who would like to comment, dialogue, rant, etc.

Take care,

-cs

give it back(?)

Not too long ago, Al Gore was awarded (half of) the Nobel Prize for his mission across the world to generate awareness and foster a response to the problem of global warming.  What I thought was interesting was that after receiving his award, Al Gore openly (and in some ways rightly) stated: 

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."[1]

While he may have not intended this to be political issue--and he is certainly in the right on this--one cannot help but notice how it has become a key point in political discourse.  That being the case, it might be safe to assume that if it is such a part of the political rhetoric, it seems to have lost its original moral and spiritual motivation; for we all know that terms like "moral" and "spiritual" are quite bitter on the political palate.  

The statement about the moral and spiritual implications of addressing this issue was not the problem for me; what came next stimulated a little concerned:

"It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced, but it is also the greatest opportunity we have had to make changes."[2]

I find myself in agreement with the latter half of this statement, but I just cannot seem to endorse the former half.  With respect to the latter half, I do think we have a responsibility to find better ways of producing energy and to create more (energy) efficient means of transportation.  (The combustion engine is certainly in need of a replacement; but I do not think standard battery-electric systems are a better solution).  I also think we are in a better position now--technologically speaking--to find better options and to make them happen than we were several decades ago.  

With respect to the former half of Gore's statement, I do not believe this is the most dangerous challenge we have ever faced.  There are two key reasons why I think this.  First, the absolutism with which this is stated is fundamentally wrong.  At best, it is a relativistic claim about a present dilemma that appears to be progressing with unabated tenacity. (As such, it reflects tendencies and beliefs engendered by the Enlightenment project of the 18th century).  If that were the case, then I would be more prone to accept his argument; but because such is not necessarily the case, his argument does not have the effect that he thinks it does or desires it to have.  

Second, the argument is couched in terms of: this is a (or, "the") serious problem; we are primarily responsible for its existence; therefore, we need to own up to our fault and make immediate amends.  If this is the case, and if such human error has caused global effects; then, yes, this is a dangerous and immensely difficult challenge to address.  It would be like asking a small child to rebuild the estate (i.e., a ginormous house with lots and lots of land) that his or her parents destroyed because of their reckless behavior.  Gore's argument suggests that the only real explanation for global warming is human ill-concern and/or senseless emissions of greenhouse gases for the past few generations.  We, therefore, are like the child being asked to rebuild what out "parents" destroyed (or, at least severely damaged).

But what if, in the analogy, the parents are not necessarily at fault?  What if, in reality, the primary contributer to the problem is not human ill-concern and/or senseless behavior?  What if a leading cause to global warming was completely out of our control?  And what if global warming was not the most dangerous challenge every faced?  What would happen then?  

A short while ago, I came across this web-article, which prompted the question: "Does this mean Gore has to give back his award?"  The article presents the case--one that I argued for a while back--that solar activity is a leading (if not "the" leading) cause for warming and cooling cycles on Earth.  The key word in this case is "cycles", which is a variable commonly overlooked in typical (political) global warming presentations.  My earlier argument, and the article mentioned supports this, was that we really only have just under two centuries of data concerning temperature and climate changes.  (This is one key point where Gore's absolutism fails to convince).  Not only that, but the less than two centuries of data confirms that the world's climate goes in cycles--it has not been on a steady rise which will ultimately end in a global meltdown.  The one constant in these findings and in these cycles is the activity associated with the sun.  And if we think we can control the sun's activity; then, yes, the fight against global warming will be "the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced."  

just too (hypocritically) ironic

A recent CNN headline reads: "Clinton, Obama attack each other for being too negative".  So . . . they individually continue the negativity by negatively criticizing the negative remarks given by the opposing candidate?  (In the words of the great philosopher, Charlienus Brownus, "Oh, good grief.")  I remember this sort of maturity in campaigning when I was in high school. 

(w)right about heaven

I admit that I am, for the most part, a "fan" of the New Testament scholar, NT Wright.  I also admit that I try to read (and/or listen to) all that I can from him.  (His "unofficial website" has been perused by me on many occasions).  Now, this does not mean that I agree 100% with all that he says--I have to have my own views at some point, (w)right?  But when it comes to questions regarding heaven, second coming, recreation, etc; I find myself nodding in agreement with Wright.  

This morning, I came across this article from the internet version of Time magazine, which contains an interview with Wright about his views on heaven.  One of the benefits about this article is that it is a fairly informative summary of Wright's arguments about the nature of resurrection, second coming, restoration of all things, etc.  The down side is that it is only a summary of Wright's arguments.  There is so much more going on beneath what is stated in this article.  One would have to wade through his other writings in order to get a bearing on what he's getting at in this interview.  

I would be interested to hear your thoughts not only about this article but this issue in general.  I think it is good to deal with these sorts of questions openly and honestly.  So, please feel free to create some dialogue in the comment section.  I will do what I can to remain abreast with what is said, and contribute some feedback when I can.  

I've always wondered

In late 2006, I began a general study on the book of Revelation for an adult Bible study at my best friend's church. The study lasted nearly a year, which to me was not long enough to deal with the book as a whole. However, we were able to cover the "big picture" items and begin to acquaint ourselves with some of the "controversial" aspects of the book.

Naturally, three major points of concern were in the back of my mind as we covered the material: 1) the so-called tribulation, 2) the so-called rapture, and 3) the so-called millennial reign of Christ.[1] As we went through the book, I tried my best to present the various (and divergent) positions concerning these three points. There were occasions when I said, "this is where I am on this issue"; but by and large, I kept my positions to myself.

Recently, I taught a course at Cincinnati Christian University on how to interpret the Bible to a group of adult students. The final lecture covered the various types of writing found in the Bible, which naturally led us into a discussion on Revelation. The class, prior to this lecture, had been extremely interactive and asked many good questions. When we began to deal with the genre and details of Revelation, one of the students asked me where I stood. I gave a brief response which was reflective of much of what was presented in the original Bible study.

Since that time, I have wondered what my position would actually be--if I were to categorize it. When I was doing my research for the Bible study, I made sure that I had before me commentaries and other resources from each of the major theological positions. At the time, my goal was not to determine where I stood in relation to these positions; instead, my intent was to obtain a fair understanding of each position so that I could present it as an option.

This morning, I came across a quiz developed by a theology student in Manchester, England. The quiz, if you follow the link provided, is designed to "reveal" one's theological position regarding the so-called "end-times". I gladly took the quiz and here are the results:

You scored as a Moltmannian Eschatology

Jürgen Moltmann is one of the key eschatological thinkers of the 20th century. Eschatology [for Moltmann] is not only about heaven and hell, but God's plan to make all things new. This should spur us on to political and social action in the present.

(Rating compared to the other Eschatological views):
Moltmannian 95%
Preterist 80%
Amillenialist 75%
Postmillennialist 50%
Premillennialist 30%
Dispensationalist 15%
Left Behind 5%

I must admit that I was a bit surprised at the post- and pre-millennial percentages; but the ambiguity in some of the questions most likely contributed to those figures. I was, however, utterly shocked to have any percentage related to the "Left Behind" theology. The presence of such a figure leads me to want to go and be baptized in the Jordan River seven times.
__________________________________________
[1] I say "so-called" on these points because the terms are simply categorical labels used to describe these topics of discussion. Not only that, but I tend to hold modified conclusions on these points that differ from those commonly advanced.

the CSO and the Christian gospel

Last weekend, while traveling to one of the local malls of Cincinnati, I passed a new billboard promoting the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra (CSO). I openly admit that I am a fan of classical music, and I have attended several performances since I have lived in the greater Cincinnati area. The CSO is a finely tuned (pun intended) and well-conducted group of astutely trained musicians led by the capable hands of Paavo Järvi. With this much "padding", one necessarily expects a "but" or a "however". Well, here it is:

But, the billboard I passed caused me to become a bit disappointed with the CSO and its means of advertisement. The slogan was quite simple:

Music you'd hear in heaven
without the high price of admission

My immediate thought was: They really have a poor understanding of "admission" into heaven; but then I reflected more on slogan and my initial thought and wondered: Is this poor understanding "our" fault? Are we portraying the gospel as something that comes with a price-tag more than $12? ("$12" because that's what the billboard says it costs to enjoy the quasi-heavenly music here on earth).

What the CSO has missed, either through ignorance or through mixed (or bad) messages, is that Christ stands at the door to the eternal symphony and has already "paid" the cover charge for those who wish to enter. From a different angle: the CSO has missed the fact that one cannot "buy" their way into heaven. (Jesus made that point abundantly clear). There is no monetary initiation fee that has to be forked over in order to secure one's place in heaven. If the CSO has been told otherwise, they deserve our deepest apologies, for such is not consistent with the Christian gospel.

However, if the advertisement is referring to the idea that salvation[1] has the "requirement" of one's life, then yes, that is a high price; because in a world of self-preservation and self-aggrandizement, what could be more valuable? But here again I think the CSO has been misinformed. It is true that when "Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die";[2] but this call is only costly if one places their entire value and worth in this life alone. By the same token, it would be utterly foolish to think that by paying this "price" one is going to be shafted on the other side--i.e., heaven is not going to be what they thought it would be.

Yes, sacrificing this life does seem costly; but that is only because many implicitly (or explicitly) tend to believe that this life is all that there is. But to believe such things is to ignore--at one's own peril--the truth about this life and the next (or, to use NT Wright's wonderful phrase: " 'life' after 'life after death' "). This life has infinite value because it was "paid for" by an infinitely gracious Benefactor. Again, this payment, for those who accept it, grants access into the eternal symphony to be experienced (and thoroughly enjoyed) in the life to come. And unlike the performances of the CSO, heaven is not dictated by a time schedule, nor is it limited to small range of octaves and possible note variations.

_________________
[1] i.e., eternal life with God through Jesus, which is essentially what heaven "is".
[2] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Cost of Discipleship (1995), 89.

time + matter + chance + unlucky dinosaurs

"Was humanity inevitable? Or is humanity just something that happened to arise because of this sequence of events that took place at just the right time. It's hard to say."

That's the closing statement from a recent science article found here. The article deals with the "new findings" of scientists regarding the extinction of the dinosaur population via a massive asteroid/meteorite. (The article begins by offering some observations that would send Ken Ham and his entourage into a convulsing frenzy). It did not take very long, however, before I found myself asking: how is it that scientists can have "a 90 percent probability" rating concerning a supposed event that occurred over 160 million years ago? I say "supposed" because the 90% is banked on the singular event of two asteroids colliding with one another which then hurled cosmic shrapnel toward earth. Why not just a stray asteroid? The culpability of the cosmic order would remain the same--i.e., the impact would still be accidental and the universe would be free from blame.

But that underlying theme is what truly caught my eye--i.e., the theme of a cosmic accident. The blunt force of the article is that with this impact all prehistoric life was extinguished, which then provided the biological context in which new life could begin. Yet, there is no explanation for why this took place other than bad news for dinosaurs and good news for humans. But is it truly "good news"? As the above quote reveals, (and to recapitulate just a little) this cosmic-gospel is that human civilization began via a freak collision in space that just so happened to involve earth in its collateral damage, which completely wiped all living creatures out of existence (except alligators, whales, roaches, and a few others--strangely enough), which then created an environment which fostered a new kind of species to evolve and aimlessly roam the earth hoping that a similar event does not happen to them. In other words: we exist because of unlucky circumstances.

However, this accidental motif to the origins of the cosmos and all created life does not produce an atmosphere in which all life can be valued. Granted, one may choose to value either their own life or the life of another; but, under this framework, that person has no legitimate reason to do so. Their feelings and esteem are meaningless, which then ultimately destroys a chief purpose for having such feelings and esteem. Life has value because it has meaning and because it has a purpose; yet, the accidental theory cannot allow such a reality to exist. What is often forgotten is that the effects of this theory do not limit themselves to the area of physical science alone; the ripples of this crest over into the other "sciences" as well--e.g., psychology, sociology, etc. People, by and large, live their lives in accordance to how they perceive life as a whole. (This "whole" refers not only to existence itself but also to the existence of that specific person and other created beings around them). The cosmic explanation espoused by the accidental motif provides a rather grim psychological perception for social life.

Here's how I see the logic of this motif playing itself out:

when life is accidental, it has no purpose;
when life has no purpose, it has no meaning;
when life has no meaning, it has no hope;
when life has no hope, it has no reason to continue to exist.

Yet, this to me is a fundamental paradox within the evolutionary model of creation. A key component to this model is that life is constantly advancing toward the betterment of its existence; yet, the goal to be obtained is nothing more than a nihilism that ultimately ends in extinction. And, it appears to me, that the movement toward this nihilism is prodded by the continual preaching of only the first part of the paradox; yet, this half of the message is couched in language that hides the second part lest no one follow its broad path. Proof that the latter half of the message is unknown can be found in the desire of many to improve the quality of life and/or environment so that future generations can enjoy the fruits of this present desire. But if all life is accidental and there is no ultimate value for life, then these desires are empty and meaningless; therefore, why bother pursuing a better quality of life if there is truly no such thing (or such a standard) in the first place?

It appears to be the case that this approach to life is pursued because it does not discourage individualism, selfish (instant) gratification, or even the dismissal of fair play. Thus, the quality of life is relative to the person. Yet, it does not take very long before the results of this approach to life to manifest themselves in anticlimactic ways. People may reach the top, but they will be utterly alone; people may pursue selfish indulgences, but their appetite for more will never be slaked; and people may bend (or even break) the rules for their advantage, but their sense of true accomplishment will be built on a lie. However, there is a rival creation (and "end times") account that provides a radically different view to this approach to life; yet it is one that is not commonly pursued. Just as the evolutionary account is not limited to physical science, this rival account is not limited to theological discussions. Just as the former plays itself out in how life is lived, the latter completely redefines what it means to live--and to live life to its full potential.

This rival account is opposed to the accidental one because it completely subverts everything the accidental account promotes. The rivaling explanation says: life has a purpose because it was intentionally created; life has meaning and value because it has a purpose; life has hope because it knows it has meaning and value; life has a reason to exist because it has hope in the One who intentionally gave it a meaningful existence. When this perspective toward life is adopted, living life takes on a whole new meaning. The desire to improve the quality of life is justified and is no longer individualistic; the attempts to better the environment are understandable because they are concerned about the entire community of the world; justice is pursued and implemented for the sake of everyone and not just for a select few and their selfish ambitions; and the fair treatment of all humanity is automatic because all human life has incalculable value. Not only that, but there is a hope for life beyond this present mortal life. The promised life to come is one of eternity and immortality with the One who intentionally created all things. Now, that's "good news".