Category Archives: Thesis

Ruskin on Pride as (a)the Motivation

02 Monday May 2016

Posted by in Culture, Glory, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

john-ruskin

In this early section Sesame: Of Kings Treasuries, Ruskin demonstrates how deeply the desire for honor, for glory — the motivation of pride — lies at the heart of what we do:

3. Indeed, among the ideas most prevalent and effective in the mind of this busiest of countries, I suppose the first—at least that which is confessed with the greatest frankness, and put forward as the fittest stimulus to youthful exertion—is this of “Advancement in Life.” May I ask you to consider with me what this idea practically includes, and what it should include? 

Practically, then, at present, “advancement in life” means, becoming conspicuous in life;—obtaining a position which shall be acknowledged by others to be respectable or honorable. We do not understand by this advancement in general, the mere making of money, but the being known to have made it; not the accomplishment of any great aim, but the being seen to have accomplished it. In a word, we mean the gratification of our thirst for applause. That thirst, if the last infirmity of noble minds, is also the first infirmity of weak ones; and, on the whole, the strongest impulsive influence of average humanity: the greatest efforts of the race have always been traceable to the love of praise, as its greatest catastrophes to the love of pleasure. 

4. I am not about to attack or defend this impulse. I want you only to feel how it lies at the root of effort; especially of all modern effort. It is the gratification of vanity which is, with us, the stimulus of toil, and balm of repose; so closely does it touch the very springs of life that the wounding of our vanity is always spoken of (and truly) as in its measure mortal; we call it “mortification,” using the same expression which we should apply to a gangrenous and incurable bodily hurt. And although few of us may be physicians enough to recognize the various effect of this passion upon health and energy, I believe most honest men know, and would at once acknowledge, its leading power with them as a motive. The seaman does not commonly desire to be made captain only because he knows he can manage the ship better than any other sailor on board. He wants to be made captain that he may be called captain. The clergyman does not usually want to be made a bishop only because he believes no other hand can, as firmly as his, direct the diocese through its difficulties. He wants to be made bishop primarily that he may be called “My Lord.” And a prince does not usually desire to enlarge, or a subject to gain, a kingdom, because he believes that no one else can as well serve the State, upon its throne; but, briefly, because he wishes to be addressed as “Your Majesty,” by as many lips as may be brought to such utterance. 

5. This, then, being the main idea of “advancement in life,” the force of it applies, for all of us, according to our station, particularly to that secondary result of such advancement which we call “getting into good society.” We want to get into good society, not that we may have it, but that we may be seen in it; and our notion of its goodness depends primarily on its conspicuousness.

Book Review: Identity and Idolatry The image of God and its inversion

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Book Review, Culture, Idolatry, imago dei, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Identity and Idolatry
The image of God and its inversion
Richard Lints
172 page IVP, 2015

In the first chapter, Lints makes clear that this discussion about the imago Dei will not concern “human nature”, but rather is an “account about how life is lived as reflections of God and as reflected in our communal contexts” (24). “The imago Dei captures this transitory reality – as an image is contingent upon the object for its identity, so the imago Dei is contingent upon God for its identity” (29).

In this respect, Lints’ thesis matches closely with the aphorism of Beale’s title, “We Become What We Worship.”

Chapter 2, “A Strange Bridge” works out the concept of “image” in some detail. The last paragraph of the chapter has this wonderful sentence, “Image bearers are not intrinsically idolatrous though they are doxologically fragile” (42).

The next two chapters begin to work the biblical text in greater detail as it concerns “image.” Being made as the image of God, we are hardwired, if you will to reflect: “Humans are made in such a way as to yearn for something beyond themselves that grants them significance, most notably the God who made them as his image” (62).

This thread will be developed in the second half of the book, when Lints turns to the question of
idolatry.

There is profound irony in idolatry. Human beings will become conformed to what we worship — we are built to worship and reflect (which are aspects of the same process). Now an idol is an image created by human desire coupled with the promise of fulfillment:

It was because the fragility of the human heart disposed it to yearn for security on its own terms. This disposition was made all the more dangerous when it was underwritten with the power to create gods in their own imagination. This points at the reality that idolatry was not in the first instance a cognitive error (believing in other gods) but a fallacy of the heart (yearning for control) (86).

It is a god who can be controlled and made fulfill and meet the human desire: and yet, that desire cannot be met by the idol, because the cannot do anything. And since those who make idols “become like them” (Ps. 115:8; interesting that Lints does not interact with this verse and only once makes mention of the Psalm; however, the concept is everywhere present in his discussion of idolatry), the idol worshipper becomes captivated by and transformed in unfulfilled desire:

Paul is insistent that idols will not deliver on their promises. Instead they create consuming passions in which there is deliverance. This inverted state is surprising from one angle-how foolish humans are to suppose they can have a god on their own terms. And yet the inversion produces an entirely predictable consequence — abandoning God results in an identity crisis wherein one’s safety and significance become endlessly fragile (111).
Chapter 7, “The rise of suspicion: the religious criticism of religion” is a brilliant summation of 19th philosophy its critique of Christianity — a critique which still plays in the broader culture. I am honestly amazed at Lints ability to aptly and fairly summarize Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche in such a small space.I have lectured on these most of these men and know who hard they are to summarize in any cogent and fair manner.

The final chapter is good solid advice for Christians.

There are enormous gaps in my discussion of this book — because I want you to buy it and use it.

Tiger Woods has retreated

12 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Ecclesiology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

IMG_0495

 

Ecclesiastes 2:4–11 (ESV)

4 I made great works. I built houses and planted vineyards for myself. 5 I made myself gardens and parks, and planted in them all kinds of fruit trees. 6 I made myself pools from which to water the forest of growing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man.

9 So I became great and surpassed all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. 10 And whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I kept my heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil. 11 Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had expended in doing it, and behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.

The religion of “sci-tech progress”

30 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in Culture, Hope, Psychology, Theology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This article from reason explains that hope — although it does not explain it in terms of hope — is the (?) basis for satisfaction:

Stavrova and company concluded that the “correlation between a belief in scientific–technological progress and life satisfaction was positive and significant in 69 of the 72 countries.” On the other hand, the relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction was positive in only 28 countries and actually negative in 5 countries. Similarly, belief in sci-tech progress correlated with a sense of personal control in 67 countries, whereas religiosity was positively associated with personal control in only 23 countries—and was negative in 10 countries.

Stavrova and her colleagues speculate that this negative association between a belief in God and a sense of personal control might arise from dispositional differences. Primary control strategies aim to change the external world so that it fits with one’s personal needs and desires; secondary control strategies seek to change personal needs and desires so that they fit with the external world. Earlier research has found that religious believers tend to score higher on secondary than primary control strategies. Stavrova and her fellow researchers suggest that future studies might “examine whether a belief in scientific–technological progress, in contrast to a religious belief, entails individuals to rely more on primary rather than secondary control strategies.”

So why do people who believe in sci-tech progress tend to be happier than the religious faithful? Stavrova and her colleagues propose that “achieving control over the world and mastering the environment has always been one of the major goals of science. Believing that science is or will prospectively grant such mastery of nature imbues individuals with the belief that they are in control of their lives.” This sense of personal control in turn contributes to a higher life satisfaction.

It turns out that people who rely upon the efficacy of the human intellect to solve problems have a greater chance of living satisfying lives than those who cling to the supernatural hope that an unseen sky-God will somehow save them from their troubles.

A few things here: I certainly don’t believe bare “religious belief” matters much at all. In fact, I would hold that his belief in “science” is a “religious belief”. Belief can never be better than its object: the study merely looks at “religious belief” as if all religious belief were interchangeable. It does not consider the certainty of that belief.

It is the Scriptural position that most “religious belief” is false and rebellious.

Second, there is no apparent control for circumstances. I suspect that most of the people who hold to the “sci-tech progress” and well-educated, relatively prosperous and younger. In such a circumstance “sci-tech” has relatively little work to do. A comfortable, sociable, reasonably attractive 30 year old is probably happier than other people: but such happiness hinges upon circumstance.

I would be curious of the satisfaction of a “sic-tech progress” believer on the day they learn their child has cancer.

As a Christian (and often a poor specimen), I know that there is no promise of endless happiness now. In fact, the promise is precisely the opposite. I am hopeful; but I also know the realism that this world as a painful one. I know that making a better device will not alter the human heart. I know that no amount of medical technology (for which I am very grateful) will ever ultimately put off death.

I know that cultist and idolators often begin joyful.

Another aspect: personal control. Any belief in “personal control” is on its face irrational — although the desire for personal utter autonomy has been a human goal since the Garden.

 

 

 

Arthur Brooks on the Increase in Narcissim

15 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Culture, Psychology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Michelangelo_Caravaggio_065

Arthur Brooks discussing Narcissism in the New York Times:

To solve the problem, we have to understand it. Philosophy helps us do so every bit as well as psychology. The 18th-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about “amour-propre,” a kind of self-love based on the opinions of others. He considered it unnatural and unhealthy, and believed that arbitrary social comparison led to people wasting their lives trying to look and sound attractive to others.

This would seem to describe our current epidemic. Indeed, in the Greek myth, Narcissus falls in love not with himself, but with his reflection. In the modern version, Narcissus would fall in love with his own Instagram feed, and starve himself to death while compulsively counting his followers.

What is Worship (2)?

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Culture, Thesis, Uncategorized, Worship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Last night working this definition through my graduate theology class, I had some helpful assistance:

First, the “sin” is recognized, typically by a subject sense of unhappiness. The “salvation” thus being that which brings happiness.

Second, the matter of sin and salvation could be better understood as a matter of shame and honor.

Third, there are a series of sin/salvation events which lead ultimately to a self-honor which resolves the problem of having been put to shame in the Fall (since no one aspect of the creature is sufficient to resolve the lose of the Creator (see, Romans 1:18, et seq.) it will be necessary to seek multiple “salvations” — no creature will ever be enough).

 

What is Worship?

10 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Culture, Sin, Soteriology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

I have been trying to find a definition which captures the concept of worship when it expands out into “normal” activities. Without question, our relationship to various “idols” — sports idols, music idols, the famous, the beautiful, the powerful can constitute  worship. A college football looks like worship.

But there is also the worship of the mall (James K.A. Smith’s first chapter in Desiring the Kingdom is brilliant on this point). How do we capture work as worship? And how do we distinguish appropriate human action is appropriate and not as sinful worship? How do I go to a football game or a concert and not “worship” the performer?

This is still tentative:

Every worldview — even if it is inarticulate — grapples with the “wrong” in the world, the way it is not supposed to be. The most thoughtless person still struggles against something wrong. There is some Fall, some Sin which haunts us all — even if we don’t think of it in “religious” terms.

There is a solution to that something wrong: If you will, there is  Sin and there is Salvation.

The object of worship is that thing, person, whatever, which the human worshiper believes will resolve the “what is wrong with the world” problem. It might be the outcome of political election or new shoes.

The act of worship is that set of actions and affections which seek to obtain the benefit of the object hoped in.

There may be more than one object of worship necessary to resolve the problem as understood by the human worshipper.

Seen in this way, not all worship will entail distinctly “religious” means. The act of worship is fit to the object of worship.

“Religious” acts of worship take place where the object of worship is principally spiritual.

However, where the objet of worship is a material object the practice of worship will not appear to be “religious”. If it is an objection and action which is common to a particular culture, it will appear “normal” and be largely invisible.

 

 

Huldufolk: A Secular Age looks rather old pagan

11 Monday Jan 2016

Posted by in Culture, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

iur

The WSJ reports:

Not in Europe, however, where the churches, once so important, are now empty. For the champions of the secularization thesis, such a development is nothing to complain about: Empty churches are a sign of reason’s progress. Mr. Stark offers some amusing evidence to the contrary. Drawing on the Gallup poll, he notes that Europeans hold all sorts of supernatural beliefs. In Austria, 28% of respondents say they believe in fortune tellers; 32% believe in astrology; and 33% believe in lucky charms. “More than 20 percent of Swedes believe in reincarnation,” Mr. Stark writes; “half believe in mental telepathy.” More than half of Icelanders believe in huldufolk, hidden people like elves and trolls. It seems as if the former colonial outposts for European missionaries are now becoming more religious, while Europe itself is becoming interested in primitive folk beliefs.

There’s more

 

Jung’s Proof for the Existence of Archtypes

11 Monday Jan 2016

Posted by in Philosophy, Psychology, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Rebirth is an affirmation that must be counted among the primordial affirmations of mankind. These primordial affirmations are based on what I call archetypes. In view of the fact that all affirmations relating to the sphere of the suprasensual are, in the last analysis, invariably determined by archtypes, it is not spring that a concurrent of affirmations concerning rebirth can be found among the among the most widely differing peoples. There must be psychic events underlying these affirmations which it is the business of psychology to discuss–without ever entering into all the metaphysical and philosophical assumptions regarding their significance.

C.G. Jung, “Concerning Rebirth,” in Four Archtypes, trans. R.F.C. Hull (Princeton: Princeton Press, 1973), 50. That is, since certain images, concepts exist among divergent people groups, there must be a common source for this psychological structure: that common source is the realm of archtypes.

Advice on Happiness and Life from an Ancient Greek Philosopher

30 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Diogenes Laetrius, Greek, Greek Translation, Philosophy, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Thales, ca. 582 B.C.

He said, “There’s no difference between Death and Life.” “So,” someone said, “Why don’t you just die?” “Because,” he said, “there’s no difference!”
To the question, “What came first, night or day?” “Night,” he said, “by one day.”
Someone asked him if it would be possible to hide evil from the gods. He said, “Not even in your thoughts.”
To the adulterer who wanted to know if he should swear he didn’t commit adultery, he said, “Adultery’s not worse than perjury.”
Being asked, “What’s difficult?” He said, “To know oneself.”

“What’s easy?” He said, “To tell someone else what to do.”
“What’s pleasant?” “To get the goal.”
“What’s divine?” “That which has neither beginning nor end.”
“What would surprise you?” “An old tyrant.”
“How might one bear really bad luck?” “To see your enemy doing even worse.”
“What is the best, most righteous way to live?” “Don’t do that which we condemn in others.”
“What’s happiness?” “A sound body, together with a rich soul and a well-taught life.”
He always remembered to tell his friend, whether present or absent, that beauty did not come from one’s appearance but by doing that which is beautiful.
“Don’t do evil to get money,” he said, “and don’t let a single word throw away those with whom you have shared your trust.”
“Whatever you have done for your parents is what you should expect from your children.”

Greek Text and Notes:

Continue reading →