Calvinism and Reformed theology seems to be a big topic of discussion at the moment, e.g. this article from Christianity Today, "Young, Restless and Reformed," some posts about the five points of Calvinism on Craig's blog... There have been more discussions that I've come across, but I can't remember where they all are.
I've been meaning to post something about Calvinism for awhile - trying to figure out if I'm a Calvinist or not. I suspect I've been brought up in a Reformed tradition without explicit labels, so nothing in the CT article was that earth-shattering for me. But I did start thinking about it after a debate on free will and God's sovereignty with a Presbyterian philosopher of physics at Cambridge in July. I still haven't had a chance to think through this fully... Hopefully some thoughts will be forthcoming soon!
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Great Are the LORD's Works!
Praise the LORD!
I will give thanks to the LORD with my whole heart,
in the company of the upright, in the congregation.
2Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who delight in them.
3Full of splendor and majesty is his work,
and his righteousness endures forever.
4He has caused his wondrous works to be remembered;
the LORD is gracious and merciful.
5He provides food for those who fear him;
he remembers his covenant forever.
6He has shown his people the power of his works,
in giving them the inheritance of the nations.
7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness.
9He sent redemption to his people;
he has commanded his covenant forever.
Holy and awesome is his name!
10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
all those who practice it have a good understanding.
His praise endures forever!
I will give thanks to the LORD with my whole heart,
in the company of the upright, in the congregation.
2Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who delight in them.
3Full of splendor and majesty is his work,
and his righteousness endures forever.
4He has caused his wondrous works to be remembered;
the LORD is gracious and merciful.
5He provides food for those who fear him;
he remembers his covenant forever.
6He has shown his people the power of his works,
in giving them the inheritance of the nations.
7The works of his hands are faithful and just;
all his precepts are trustworthy;
8they are established forever and ever,
to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness.
9He sent redemption to his people;
he has commanded his covenant forever.
Holy and awesome is his name!
10The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
all those who practice it have a good understanding.
His praise endures forever!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Just in case...
If anyone happens to be in the vicinity of UNSW next Tuesday evening (October 3, 5-6pm) I am giving a lecture at CASE on Natural Theology and Christian Apologetics. This is part of a weekly lecture series on Christianity and Contemporary Thought.
I was invited to join CASE this year as an 'emerging scholar', which is giving me the opportunity to explore the interactions between my faith and my academic work. This lecture is part of that. The idea is that I will be speaking about how my PhD research relates to Christianity. I'm not sure exactly what I'm saying yet - I still have to write the lecture!
Anyway, if you're around, I would love to see you there.
October 3
5-6pm
New College, Anzac Pde
Kensington
I was invited to join CASE this year as an 'emerging scholar', which is giving me the opportunity to explore the interactions between my faith and my academic work. This lecture is part of that. The idea is that I will be speaking about how my PhD research relates to Christianity. I'm not sure exactly what I'm saying yet - I still have to write the lecture!
Anyway, if you're around, I would love to see you there.
October 3
5-6pm
New College, Anzac Pde
Kensington
Just another manic Monday
I don't like Mondays. And I don't think I'm the only one...
Monday morning feels so bad
Everybody seems to nag me...
Monday I'll have Friday on my mind
- The Easybeats
Monday, Monday, can't trust that day
Monday, Monday, sometimes it just turns out that way
Oh Monday mornin' you gave me no warnin' of what was to be
Oh Monday, Monday, how could you leave and not take me
Every other day, every other day
Every other day of the week is fine, yeah
But whenever Monday comes, but whenever Monday comes
You can find me cryin' all of the time
- The Mamas & the Papas
It's just another manic Monday
I wish it was Sunday
'Cause that's my funday
My I don't have to run day
It's just another manic Monday
- The Bangles
Tell me why?
I don't like Mondays.
I want to shoot
The whole day down.
- Boomtown Rats
Friday, September 22, 2006
Fundamentalist nutcases or priests of nature?
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
This article from the Onion cracked me up. Nick sent it to me over a year ago, but I didn’t get around to posting about it.
I like this quote:
I’m not sure if the quote from Newton is correct, but if it is, he certainly would have been alluding to a higher power. Newton, and many people who took up his ideas, believed that gravity was evidence of God’s providence. One particularly famous example of this view is the Boyle Lectures given by Richard Bentley in 1692; so famous, in fact, that several historians of science see this as the beginning of an intimate connection between Anglican theology, hierarchical views on social order and Newtonian natural philosophy.*
Physics based on the Bible? This is not as bizarre as it sounds. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there were people who attempted to construct explanations of natural events based on literal readings of Scripture. Thomas Burnet, for example, developed a “Sacred Theory of the Earth” which used Descartes’ philosophy to explain Noah’s flood and the final destruction of the world. William Whiston worked out a similar account using Newtonianism instead of Cartesianism. John Hutchinson, who thought that Newtonianism would lead to atheism, wrote a book called “Moses’ Principia” – an entire system of natural philosophy based on the Genesis account of creation.*
This all sounds like nonsense to us today, with our firm beliefs about the proper roles of religion and science, but things were not so clear-cut back then. I particularly like Robert Boyle’s thoughts on the topic. He suggested that studying the natural world is a type of philosophical worship of God. He described the natural philosopher (or a scientist today, perhaps) as a priest of nature, explaining the book of God’s works to his fellow Christians.
Similarly, I think some scientists today would view their work as understanding God’s creation better – for God’s glory, not for chasing God out of the universe. But I think the most important thing about this historical stuff is that is shows that the relationship between science and religion has not always been about conflict, no matter what some scholars and airport novelists might want us to believe.
*Note: I think all this is correct, but I’m speaking very generally and not constructing a well-researched and referenced argument!
This article from the Onion cracked me up. Nick sent it to me over a year ago, but I didn’t get around to posting about it.
I like this quote:
Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
I’m not sure if the quote from Newton is correct, but if it is, he certainly would have been alluding to a higher power. Newton, and many people who took up his ideas, believed that gravity was evidence of God’s providence. One particularly famous example of this view is the Boyle Lectures given by Richard Bentley in 1692; so famous, in fact, that several historians of science see this as the beginning of an intimate connection between Anglican theology, hierarchical views on social order and Newtonian natural philosophy.*
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
Physics based on the Bible? This is not as bizarre as it sounds. In the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there were people who attempted to construct explanations of natural events based on literal readings of Scripture. Thomas Burnet, for example, developed a “Sacred Theory of the Earth” which used Descartes’ philosophy to explain Noah’s flood and the final destruction of the world. William Whiston worked out a similar account using Newtonianism instead of Cartesianism. John Hutchinson, who thought that Newtonianism would lead to atheism, wrote a book called “Moses’ Principia” – an entire system of natural philosophy based on the Genesis account of creation.*
This all sounds like nonsense to us today, with our firm beliefs about the proper roles of religion and science, but things were not so clear-cut back then. I particularly like Robert Boyle’s thoughts on the topic. He suggested that studying the natural world is a type of philosophical worship of God. He described the natural philosopher (or a scientist today, perhaps) as a priest of nature, explaining the book of God’s works to his fellow Christians.
Similarly, I think some scientists today would view their work as understanding God’s creation better – for God’s glory, not for chasing God out of the universe. But I think the most important thing about this historical stuff is that is shows that the relationship between science and religion has not always been about conflict, no matter what some scholars and airport novelists might want us to believe.
*Note: I think all this is correct, but I’m speaking very generally and not constructing a well-researched and referenced argument!
The Candle of the Lord
Nathaniel Culverwell, An Elegant and Learned Discourse of the Light of Nature, 1652
Proverbs 20:27:
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (ESV)
1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (ESV)
But I speak to men, to Christians, to the friends of learning, to the professors of Reason: to such as put this Candle of the Lord into a golden Candlestick, and poure continual Oile into it. Yet lest any among you Athenians, should erect an Altar to an unknown God; lest you should ignorantly worship him, we will declare him to you.
Proverbs 20:27:
The understanding of a man is the Candle of the Lord. (Culverwell's translation).
The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly. (KJV)
The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts. (ESV)
The lamp of the LORD searches the spirit of a man; it searches out his inmost being. (NIV)
The spirit of man [that factor in human personality which proceeds immediately from God] is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts. (Amplified Bible)
God is in charge of human life, watching and examining us inside and out. (The Message)
1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (ESV)
11For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16"For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25 (ESV)
18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
I boast no more
Matt has written a great post about intellectual idolatry. He writes of being challenged about whether he considers his intellect to be more important than God, and whether he puts more trust in himself than in God, thinking that he can solve any problem on his own.
This is something I struggle with too. I don't know if I consider my intellect more important than God, but I do know that it's a source of pride and self-value. Maybe that's not entirely a bad thing, but it is if I start judging other people based on these standards rather than loving them as God's creation. It's also bad if my pride in my intellect leads me to think that I'm better than other people, or that I don't need God as much.
Do I judge people according to their intellect? Last year I was chatting to a friend on MSN and somehow we ended up discussing Descartes. I didn't agree with something one of his lecturers had said about Descartes, and I dismissed his opinion with a comment along the lines of "what kind of authority is he on Descartes?" After all, I'd written a whole honours thesis on Descartes, so of course I knew better. My friend pulled me up on it very quickly and, I thought, rather harshly. But he was so right. I was really shocked at my own behaviour. I think that too some extent it's the influence of my academic environment and training, but that's no excuse. We're to be in the world but not of the world, and that includes academia!
Another example. I rant and rave about judging people on their physical appearance is such a terrible thing. In a discussion on Craig's blog, I suggested that the attraction of My Darcy was that he loved Lizzie for her mind, not for her looks, money or family connections. Craig challenged me on this: "I think loving someone for their mind is just as shallow as loving them for their body." Oh.
I love the Isaac Watts hymn "I boast no more."
It was sung as an item at my church a while back. There was a wooden cross on the stage, and we wrote down on paper what we considered to be our glory and nailed it to the cross. For me, it was my intellect. I wasn't always this proud of my mind. In high school, I didn't care much. Once I hit uni, started getting some HDs (they can be quite addictive) and some of my lecturers thought that I had academic potential, I did start to become more proud of my intellectual ability.
But is that entirely bad? God has given us certain qualities and gifts to use for his glory. I need to remember that my intellect is a gift from God, and not something that I can be proud of achieving on my own. On the other hand, I shouldn't neglect this ability by not using it. There's a fine line between working hard to use God's gifts wisely, and becoming too dependent on them.
When (or if!) I finish my PhD, can I be proud of that achievement? I think so, as long as I keep it in the perspective of God's grace. I'm working hard at my PhD, but I'm doing it for God's glory, not my own. At least, I hope I am. I see academia as my mission field, and if I become an academic, it won't just be a job - it'll be a ministry. But, I can't do this on my own. I need to acknowledge that God is the one with the power and control. If he wants something to happen, it will. If he doesn't want something to happen, it won't. It's not easy. I think I'll have to continually struggle to submit to God's will, and give all the glory to him, but I think that struggle is just part of living in the "now, but not yet."
Enough rambling. Back to work. I don't think I'll be glorifying God if I spend too much time blogging and not enough on my PhD work!!
This is something I struggle with too. I don't know if I consider my intellect more important than God, but I do know that it's a source of pride and self-value. Maybe that's not entirely a bad thing, but it is if I start judging other people based on these standards rather than loving them as God's creation. It's also bad if my pride in my intellect leads me to think that I'm better than other people, or that I don't need God as much.
Do I judge people according to their intellect? Last year I was chatting to a friend on MSN and somehow we ended up discussing Descartes. I didn't agree with something one of his lecturers had said about Descartes, and I dismissed his opinion with a comment along the lines of "what kind of authority is he on Descartes?" After all, I'd written a whole honours thesis on Descartes, so of course I knew better. My friend pulled me up on it very quickly and, I thought, rather harshly. But he was so right. I was really shocked at my own behaviour. I think that too some extent it's the influence of my academic environment and training, but that's no excuse. We're to be in the world but not of the world, and that includes academia!
Another example. I rant and rave about judging people on their physical appearance is such a terrible thing. In a discussion on Craig's blog, I suggested that the attraction of My Darcy was that he loved Lizzie for her mind, not for her looks, money or family connections. Craig challenged me on this: "I think loving someone for their mind is just as shallow as loving them for their body." Oh.
I love the Isaac Watts hymn "I boast no more."
1. No more, my God, I boast no more
Of all the duties I have done;
I quit the hopes I held before,
To trust the merits of Thy Son
2. Now, for the loss I bear His name,
What was my gain I count my loss;
My former pride I call my shame,
And nail my glory to His cross.
3. Yes, and I must and will esteem
All things but loss for Jesus’ sake;
O may my soul be found in Him,
And of His righteousness partake!
4. The best obedience of my hands
Dares not appear before Thy throne;
But faith can answer Thy demands,
By pleading what my Lord has done.
Chorus:
No more my God,
No more my God,
No more my God,
I boast no more.
It was sung as an item at my church a while back. There was a wooden cross on the stage, and we wrote down on paper what we considered to be our glory and nailed it to the cross. For me, it was my intellect. I wasn't always this proud of my mind. In high school, I didn't care much. Once I hit uni, started getting some HDs (they can be quite addictive) and some of my lecturers thought that I had academic potential, I did start to become more proud of my intellectual ability.
But is that entirely bad? God has given us certain qualities and gifts to use for his glory. I need to remember that my intellect is a gift from God, and not something that I can be proud of achieving on my own. On the other hand, I shouldn't neglect this ability by not using it. There's a fine line between working hard to use God's gifts wisely, and becoming too dependent on them.
When (or if!) I finish my PhD, can I be proud of that achievement? I think so, as long as I keep it in the perspective of God's grace. I'm working hard at my PhD, but I'm doing it for God's glory, not my own. At least, I hope I am. I see academia as my mission field, and if I become an academic, it won't just be a job - it'll be a ministry. But, I can't do this on my own. I need to acknowledge that God is the one with the power and control. If he wants something to happen, it will. If he doesn't want something to happen, it won't. It's not easy. I think I'll have to continually struggle to submit to God's will, and give all the glory to him, but I think that struggle is just part of living in the "now, but not yet."
Enough rambling. Back to work. I don't think I'll be glorifying God if I spend too much time blogging and not enough on my PhD work!!
Monday, September 18, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
Amazing!
I managed to get up and out of the house this morning to make it to the gym in time for the 6:15am step class. I'm quite impressed with myself. It's only the third time I've managed it since joining the gym back in May. The step class is fun, but it's quite an exhausting work out. And for some reason, I always seem to end up with a headache later in the day. Not good.
It's a small world after all
It's said that every person in the world is connected to any other person by six or less degrees of separation. I think that if you throw in a Christian, you're down to three. And if that Christian has a blog, it's probably even less!
I started out in the blogosphere by reading Karen's blog. I knew Karen through CBS and Word by Word, received her newsletter and then realised she had a blog. One afternoon when I was procrastinating at uni, I clicked on all her links, and started reading other blogs, one of which was Duncan's. I met Duncan for the first time in real life at a CASE seminar on Monday night, but I didn't know it was that Duncan until he blogged about the seminar. Then, I was browsing through the rest of his blog, found a picture of him with his fiancee Fiona, and realised that I'd had a philosophy class with her a few years back.
From Duncan's blog I followed a link to Martyn's, and from there followed a linked labelled "Veg". I used to chat to a guy on ICQ who was nicknamed Veg. It wasn't his blog - it turned out to be Gin's, and I went to primary school with her!
This is all very scary...
Oh, by the way, I'm only three degrees of separation from Sarah Blasko. That's pretty exciting for me!
I started out in the blogosphere by reading Karen's blog. I knew Karen through CBS and Word by Word, received her newsletter and then realised she had a blog. One afternoon when I was procrastinating at uni, I clicked on all her links, and started reading other blogs, one of which was Duncan's. I met Duncan for the first time in real life at a CASE seminar on Monday night, but I didn't know it was that Duncan until he blogged about the seminar. Then, I was browsing through the rest of his blog, found a picture of him with his fiancee Fiona, and realised that I'd had a philosophy class with her a few years back.
From Duncan's blog I followed a link to Martyn's, and from there followed a linked labelled "Veg". I used to chat to a guy on ICQ who was nicknamed Veg. It wasn't his blog - it turned out to be Gin's, and I went to primary school with her!
This is all very scary...
Oh, by the way, I'm only three degrees of separation from Sarah Blasko. That's pretty exciting for me!
Thursday, September 14, 2006
3rd Annual European Adventure?
I wasn't planning to go overseas next year, but I might have to reconsider now that I've found out about this extremely exciting conference opportunity...
Science and Religion: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
I'm already getting excited!
Science and Religion: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives
I'm already getting excited!
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Oh baby!
I found this post that I began well over a year ago:
Update: Toby is now 5, and Noah is 2 and a half. Donna's nephew, Harrison, is about 18 months old. A couple of my other friends had a baby just over three months ago. I saw them at a wedding recently, and was able to hold little Joshua. He was still half asleep, and cuddled against my chest. Just so sweet! And I'm still clucky. In case you hadn't guessed.My very good friend Donna recently became an auntie. On Sunday night at church, I got to hold her little nephew Harrison for the first time. He started crying a little, so I gave him back to Auntie Donna - I figured he'd be happier with her, and besides, I didn't want him to throw up on my new black trench coat! I was trying to coax a smile out of him, doing usual baby-entertaining stuff - tickling him, letting him grab my finger, some low-level baby talk along the lines of "you cute little munchkin."
Deb, one of the lovely girls who I led in youth group last year and who I now mentor said to me, "Lara, I think you're clucky!"
"I never used to be clucky!"
"That's what I thought," said Deb. "This isn't the intellectual Lara I'm used to talking to!"
Oops! I've never been particularly clucky. Sure, babies are cute, but they cry and throw up and dirty their nappies, and I'm always happy to give them back. I've never been particularly fond of older kids either. I think four years of teaching Sunday School to kindergarten kids turned me off. But lately, I seem to be getting clucky. "It's not a bad thing," Donna said, but I'm not so sure. It seems now that I might actually want to have children (or maybe just one child) of my own. That means I have to figure out what I believe about gender roles in marriage and parenting! It wouldn't have been an issue if I didn't want to have kids...
I blame my new-found cluckiness on Tim, the associate pastor at my church. Well, at least I blame it on his kids (and I guess his wife, Sam, had something to do with that as well!) Tim and Sam have two little boys - Toby, who is "3 and 5/6" (the 5/6 eems very important to him) and Noah, who turned 1 a month or so ago. They are very adorable kids. Toby can be rather naughty, but generally in a very amusing way, and Noah is just very sweet. I remember visiting Tim and Sam just after Noah was born. Sam asked if I wanted to hold him. I said I wasn't very good with kids. "You'll be fine," she said. "Um, I've got a cold..." "He'll be fine," she insisted. Some months later, at a young adults camp, I voluntarily held him for quite a long time, and he was just so adorable. Probably the first kid who actually seemed to like me.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s spiritual walk
When a brother or sister in Christ asks me how my walk with God is going, I never know what to say. I don’t even know how to tell if my walk with God is going well or not. Will I feel particularly close to God, or ‘super-spiritual’? Is it when I am reading the Bible and praying regularly? Well, I’d fail on both counts.
In truth, I’ve never been able to keep up regular quiet times for any length of time. I’ve tried different methods – a variety of devotional books, Bible-reading guides, schedules for reading through the whole Bible in a year, outlines of questions for quiet times, morning quiet times, evening quiet times, afternoon quiet times… It’s never lasted more than a few weeks. I’m not very good at praying, either. I feel weird praying aloud by myself, but if I pray silently I get distracted easily. I’ve tried writing my prayers down, but it takes quite a long time, and it feels a bit stilted and excessively formal. Sometimes I pray when I’m going for a walk, but again, I’m not very good at keeping my thoughts under control. Sometimes I feel particularly aware of the love of God, or especially convicted of the truth of Christianity, but at other times I feel very distant.
I was thinking about this recently, and I remembered a book by Bill Hybels, Courageous Leadership, that we studied at church when I was on the deaconate a few years back. I’m not generally a big fan of the kind of material that comes out of massive American churches (with the notable exception of John Piper), but there were parts of this book that I found very encouraging. I recalled a chapter where Hybel’s discusses the different ways in which people relate to God. So, the other night, I reread it.
Hybels writes that he meets church leaders all over the world “who admit to me privately, in hushed tones, that they have never been able to establish and sustain a close, consistent, vital walk with Jesus.”
Hybels describes seven different pathways:
Hybels does point out that most people will not neatly fit into one of these pathways, and the seven he describes are only a sample – he cites a book called Sacred Pathways by Gary Thomas, which I think I’ll try to get hold of. He also warns against comparing one’s own pathway with someone else’s – “pathway envy”. Or, as I think Thomas puts it, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s spiritual walk.”
I particularly like the description of the Intellectual pathway:
This is fairly close to describing me. I like heart-warming stories, but more so in testimonies than as sermon illustrations. I respond more to sermons that tell me something I haven’t heard before – something that makes me think about the passage in a new way. The two most interesting subjects I’ve done at Moore College so far were Old Testament Prophets and Biblical Theology, primarily because the lectures were intellectually stimulating and made me look at the Bible from a new perspective. I’d never thought about the structure of Isaiah – how the two middle sections are out of order chronologically, but fit together thematically, or how despite the possibility of more than one author, there’s a literary or thematic unity to the whole book. I’d never considered how the Creation account of Genesis and the New Creation account of Revelation ‘book-end’ the whole Bible, or how the prophets viewed the new creation in different ways depending on their situation – a pastoral image for Isaiah, a priestly perspective for Ezekiel, and a city for John. This kind of stuff fires up my mind, puts me on a high. I wish I could do more theological study, but I only seem to be able to manage two subjects a year.
I find this part of Hybel’s book encouraging, because it reassures me that the way I am is ‘ok’. I don’t have to feel spiritually refreshed by the same things that other people are. It’s ok to be an intellectual, as long as I don’t use that as an excuse to look down on other people. Now, all I need to do is work on the discipline…
In truth, I’ve never been able to keep up regular quiet times for any length of time. I’ve tried different methods – a variety of devotional books, Bible-reading guides, schedules for reading through the whole Bible in a year, outlines of questions for quiet times, morning quiet times, evening quiet times, afternoon quiet times… It’s never lasted more than a few weeks. I’m not very good at praying, either. I feel weird praying aloud by myself, but if I pray silently I get distracted easily. I’ve tried writing my prayers down, but it takes quite a long time, and it feels a bit stilted and excessively formal. Sometimes I pray when I’m going for a walk, but again, I’m not very good at keeping my thoughts under control. Sometimes I feel particularly aware of the love of God, or especially convicted of the truth of Christianity, but at other times I feel very distant.
I was thinking about this recently, and I remembered a book by Bill Hybels, Courageous Leadership, that we studied at church when I was on the deaconate a few years back. I’m not generally a big fan of the kind of material that comes out of massive American churches (with the notable exception of John Piper), but there were parts of this book that I found very encouraging. I recalled a chapter where Hybel’s discusses the different ways in which people relate to God. So, the other night, I reread it.
Hybels writes that he meets church leaders all over the world “who admit to me privately, in hushed tones, that they have never been able to establish and sustain a close, consistent, vital walk with Jesus.”
They tell me how ashamed they feel when other leaders describe their consistent practice of disciplines like solitude, fasting, prayer, journaling, or Scripture memorization. Leaders often end their private confessions of inadequacy by asking, "Is there something wrong with me? Do I have a character flaw or spiritual defect? Why can’t I establish and sustain a vital walk with Christ?”
Often I suggest that perhaps they have never discovered their spiritual pathway – their unique means of moving toward vital union with Christ.
Hybels describes seven different pathways:
- Relational
- Intellectual
- Serving
- Contemplative
- Activist
- Creation
- Worship
Hybels does point out that most people will not neatly fit into one of these pathways, and the seven he describes are only a sample – he cites a book called Sacred Pathways by Gary Thomas, which I think I’ll try to get hold of. He also warns against comparing one’s own pathway with someone else’s – “pathway envy”. Or, as I think Thomas puts it, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s spiritual walk.”
I particularly like the description of the Intellectual pathway:
People who thrive on the intellectual pathway are those whose minds must be fully engaged before they can make significant spiritual progress. When these folks sit in testimonial services where people are passionately describing God’s amazing activity in their lives, they find themselves thinking, Where’s the beef? These heart-warming stories are all well and good, but where’s the substance? Where’s the theological data? I need something to chew on. I’m dying here!
These people can’t have their morning devotions without two or three opened commentaries flanking their Bibles. They carry several intellectually stretching books with them wherever they go. They gravitate toward classes, seminars, and special events that will challenge their thinking. Why? Because they know that their hearts will never fully engage until their minds are filled with truth…For people wired up this way, once their minds are fully convinced, their hearts and will quickly follow and their convictions are rock solid. I think it is quite possible that the apostle Paul had an intellectual pathway. For him, the transformation of the world depended on the “renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2). Paul was quick to appeal to the rational side of human nature, apparently convinced that once a person’s mind belonged to God, everything else would follow. Win the intellectual argument, and it would be game, set, match. Victory!
I’ve met many leaders who feel guilty about their intellectual proclivities. They don’t want anybody knowing that they sneak peeks at the deep stuff once in a while. They feel “unleaderly” if they spend too much time in research and study. The truth of the matter is that if they don’t keep their minds challenged, they will probably dry up spiritually…
If you have an intellectual orientation… stop apologizing for it and start developing a spiritual formation plan that focuses on the development of your mind. Love God with all your mind and watch what happens to your daily union with him.
This is fairly close to describing me. I like heart-warming stories, but more so in testimonies than as sermon illustrations. I respond more to sermons that tell me something I haven’t heard before – something that makes me think about the passage in a new way. The two most interesting subjects I’ve done at Moore College so far were Old Testament Prophets and Biblical Theology, primarily because the lectures were intellectually stimulating and made me look at the Bible from a new perspective. I’d never thought about the structure of Isaiah – how the two middle sections are out of order chronologically, but fit together thematically, or how despite the possibility of more than one author, there’s a literary or thematic unity to the whole book. I’d never considered how the Creation account of Genesis and the New Creation account of Revelation ‘book-end’ the whole Bible, or how the prophets viewed the new creation in different ways depending on their situation – a pastoral image for Isaiah, a priestly perspective for Ezekiel, and a city for John. This kind of stuff fires up my mind, puts me on a high. I wish I could do more theological study, but I only seem to be able to manage two subjects a year.
I find this part of Hybel’s book encouraging, because it reassures me that the way I am is ‘ok’. I don’t have to feel spiritually refreshed by the same things that other people are. It’s ok to be an intellectual, as long as I don’t use that as an excuse to look down on other people. Now, all I need to do is work on the discipline…
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Images of September 11
Last night I attended a seminar at CASE - Religion, terror & film: reflections on 9/11. I found it absolutely fascinating and intellectually stimulating, so I thought I should share some notes on it. Greg Clarke spoke first, giving some theological thoughts on images.
Greg discussed the conflicting attitudes to images throughout the history of Christianity and Christian thought. From the Old Testament commands against making graven images to the use of symbolism of the early church – particularly the fish, and the bread and wine of communion. From the iconoclasm of the Reformers to the Romantic and liberal approach of experiencing God through religious art. From sociologist Jacques Ellul’s “Invasion of the Image” emptying the word of its power, to Archbishop Rowan Williams’ (did you know he’s a druid??) reclamation of the image as giving meaning to the word. Greg suggested a tri-partite Christian approach to imagery:
I think the title of her talk here is really clever. “Re-membering absent bodies.” Not just recalling them to mind, but trying to put them back together, to restore their dignity, to be able to grieve properly. So many of the people killed in the attacks have just disappeared. All their families have to grieve over is a jar of dust. The bodies are absent, but in some way they are still present. The absent body is at the heart of 9/11 imagery and, as Justine points out, there is also an absent body at the heart of Christianity.
Justine commented on four films that are about or are connected to the 9/11 attacks: United 93, World Trade Center, War of the Worlds and The Falling Man. I was a little surprised at first by the inclusion of War of the Worlds. I’d forgotten how recently it was made. I started watching it earlier this year, but actually got a bit bored. By some strange coincidence, I think I actually turned it off just before the segment that Justine showed in the seminar – the part where these aliens start zapping people with the heat rays. It’s quite graphic. I thought there were body parts flying through the air, but apparently it was just clothes – the bodies had completely disappeared. All that was left was dust. There’s one part where you see a woman vaporised and Tom Cruise passes through the cloud of dust left behind. When he finally makes it back home, his children ask what this stuff all over him is. It’s quite powerful, particularly when seen in the context of 9/11. I think I should try watching it again.
It was a shame that there was such a small turn out to this seminar – only about 10 people. I have to say that anyone who didn’t come really missed out. This was probably the most fascinating CASE event I have been to so far. I’m not very philosophically inclined, so Greg’s talk on imagery was quite new to me. I love being exposed to these kinds of ideas – it’s like a whole new world has opened up, a new way of viewing things that I’ve never thought about before. And while I have an interest in pop culture, I don’t have a systematic background in cultural studies, and I’m generally not too critical in films, or very aware of the context and meaning of the imagery. I’m looking forward to reading Justine’s thesis when it’s done – it should be fantastic.
I would highly recommend Justine’s upcoming lecture at CASE – ‘Saviours on film – on September 26, 5pm at New College. Unfortunately I can’t make it, but hopefully it will be up on the CASE site eventually. And she has another one on November 28: ‘Spirituality on the screen’, which hopefully I will be able to attend.
Greg discussed the conflicting attitudes to images throughout the history of Christianity and Christian thought. From the Old Testament commands against making graven images to the use of symbolism of the early church – particularly the fish, and the bread and wine of communion. From the iconoclasm of the Reformers to the Romantic and liberal approach of experiencing God through religious art. From sociologist Jacques Ellul’s “Invasion of the Image” emptying the word of its power, to Archbishop Rowan Williams’ (did you know he’s a druid??) reclamation of the image as giving meaning to the word. Greg suggested a tri-partite Christian approach to imagery:
- Suspicion. The basic biblical position is iconoclasm. From the OT commandments, to the NT focus on the Word of God and the false image of Christ, images are seen as a (potential?) distraction: leading us to worship the creation instead of the Creator.
- Confidence. With our trust in the Ultimate Image we can act graciously towards other images, understanding them within the framework of the Image of God revealed in Jesus Christ. Greg came up with a nice phrase he was particularly chuffed about – “epiphanies, not theophanies.” We might experience some kind of meaning from an image, but it’s not going to be a revelation of God. An image may impress, but not save or sanctify.
- Co-option. In Acts 17 with the altar to the unknown god, Paul co-opts Greek imagery to fit his own doctrinal pattern. Similarly, the ‘accidentally Christian’ imagery of 9/11 – e.g. the cross at the WTC site – can be appropriately (key point) co-opted for Christian apologetics.
I think the title of her talk here is really clever. “Re-membering absent bodies.” Not just recalling them to mind, but trying to put them back together, to restore their dignity, to be able to grieve properly. So many of the people killed in the attacks have just disappeared. All their families have to grieve over is a jar of dust. The bodies are absent, but in some way they are still present. The absent body is at the heart of 9/11 imagery and, as Justine points out, there is also an absent body at the heart of Christianity.
Justine commented on four films that are about or are connected to the 9/11 attacks: United 93, World Trade Center, War of the Worlds and The Falling Man. I was a little surprised at first by the inclusion of War of the Worlds. I’d forgotten how recently it was made. I started watching it earlier this year, but actually got a bit bored. By some strange coincidence, I think I actually turned it off just before the segment that Justine showed in the seminar – the part where these aliens start zapping people with the heat rays. It’s quite graphic. I thought there were body parts flying through the air, but apparently it was just clothes – the bodies had completely disappeared. All that was left was dust. There’s one part where you see a woman vaporised and Tom Cruise passes through the cloud of dust left behind. When he finally makes it back home, his children ask what this stuff all over him is. It’s quite powerful, particularly when seen in the context of 9/11. I think I should try watching it again.
It was a shame that there was such a small turn out to this seminar – only about 10 people. I have to say that anyone who didn’t come really missed out. This was probably the most fascinating CASE event I have been to so far. I’m not very philosophically inclined, so Greg’s talk on imagery was quite new to me. I love being exposed to these kinds of ideas – it’s like a whole new world has opened up, a new way of viewing things that I’ve never thought about before. And while I have an interest in pop culture, I don’t have a systematic background in cultural studies, and I’m generally not too critical in films, or very aware of the context and meaning of the imagery. I’m looking forward to reading Justine’s thesis when it’s done – it should be fantastic.
I would highly recommend Justine’s upcoming lecture at CASE – ‘Saviours on film – on September 26, 5pm at New College. Unfortunately I can’t make it, but hopefully it will be up on the CASE site eventually. And she has another one on November 28: ‘Spirituality on the screen’, which hopefully I will be able to attend.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Renovation
I ended up with a headache this afternoon after spending more than half an hour arguing about heroic history of science versus contextual history of science. (10 points for the first person who correctly states which side I was on!!)
I would have gone home, but there's a CASE event on tonight. My brain was a bit too tired to start reading Henry More's 1653 classic An Antidote Against Atheisme, so I decided to update my blog. (I was going to do this over the weekend, but I was lazy and watched about six episodes of Lois and Clark on DVD instead.)
Any thoughts on the new look?
I would have gone home, but there's a CASE event on tonight. My brain was a bit too tired to start reading Henry More's 1653 classic An Antidote Against Atheisme, so I decided to update my blog. (I was going to do this over the weekend, but I was lazy and watched about six episodes of Lois and Clark on DVD instead.)
Any thoughts on the new look?
Are we worthy of our kitchens?
This is an interesting article by Christine Rosen. Are we buying more and more kitchen stuff in the hope that it will improve our home lives, while we should just be spending more time at home using the things we already have?
The argument that domestic appliances have not eased the burden of housekeeping for women seems strangely familiar. I'm sure it's part of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, but I can't be sure because it's a long time since I read that, and I didn't finish it anyway. Friedan took the argument much further, though, to suggest that the production of all these fancy gadgets for household chores was a deliberate attempt to oppress women by keeping them in the home, working harder than ever.
However, Rosen raises some thought-provoking points. Our culture seems to be more and more keen on the trappings of domesticity - fancy appliances, beautiful kitchens, glossy cookbooks - but less and less keen on actual domesticity. People are working longer hours, buying more take-away food, eating together as a family less often. Appliances are supposed to make our lives easier, but we are just as busy as ever. Duncan wrote an interesting post about iPods, and how we almost seem to be afraid of silence these days. (I do have to say here that my iPod is very handy, because sometimes it's dangerous to leave me alone with my thoughts, but I didn't pay for it. My brother won it for me. Thanks Tim!) Do we really believe that these kinds of material possessions will make our lives easier? Will I actually get more work done once my shiny and speedy new MacBook arrives?
I think there's something about the picture of perfect domesticity that we are served up from magazines and lifestyle TV that appeals to a lot of people. It seems so peaceful... clean... tidy... orderly. If only we had the right house, or the right gadgets, we could live like that too. I know I get caught up in this kind of thing too. It's often stationery for me. If I go to Officeworks and get a whole bunch of fancy file boxes and folders, I'll be able to keep my life and work in order. I don't covet $6000 Aga stoves, but I do like granite benchtops (good for making pasta and pastry!) and those pretty blue Breville appliances and saucepans. And I have collected a pile of Nigella Lawson homewares for my glory cupboard. I've even got a copy of The Penguin Book of Housekeeping. I've consulted it once - I wanted to see how the author suggested folding fitted sheets. They can be so tricky! I guess it's all this kind of stuff that prompted one of my friends to tell me once that I'm "too Martha Stewart to be a feminist"...
But anyway, I found this article fascinating. Domestic bliss is a huge marketing tool at the moment, but it's something that many people just don't have. I don't think buying more stuff will solve our problems, though.
The argument that domestic appliances have not eased the burden of housekeeping for women seems strangely familiar. I'm sure it's part of Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique, but I can't be sure because it's a long time since I read that, and I didn't finish it anyway. Friedan took the argument much further, though, to suggest that the production of all these fancy gadgets for household chores was a deliberate attempt to oppress women by keeping them in the home, working harder than ever.
However, Rosen raises some thought-provoking points. Our culture seems to be more and more keen on the trappings of domesticity - fancy appliances, beautiful kitchens, glossy cookbooks - but less and less keen on actual domesticity. People are working longer hours, buying more take-away food, eating together as a family less often. Appliances are supposed to make our lives easier, but we are just as busy as ever. Duncan wrote an interesting post about iPods, and how we almost seem to be afraid of silence these days. (I do have to say here that my iPod is very handy, because sometimes it's dangerous to leave me alone with my thoughts, but I didn't pay for it. My brother won it for me. Thanks Tim!) Do we really believe that these kinds of material possessions will make our lives easier? Will I actually get more work done once my shiny and speedy new MacBook arrives?
I think there's something about the picture of perfect domesticity that we are served up from magazines and lifestyle TV that appeals to a lot of people. It seems so peaceful... clean... tidy... orderly. If only we had the right house, or the right gadgets, we could live like that too. I know I get caught up in this kind of thing too. It's often stationery for me. If I go to Officeworks and get a whole bunch of fancy file boxes and folders, I'll be able to keep my life and work in order. I don't covet $6000 Aga stoves, but I do like granite benchtops (good for making pasta and pastry!) and those pretty blue Breville appliances and saucepans. And I have collected a pile of Nigella Lawson homewares for my glory cupboard. I've even got a copy of The Penguin Book of Housekeeping. I've consulted it once - I wanted to see how the author suggested folding fitted sheets. They can be so tricky! I guess it's all this kind of stuff that prompted one of my friends to tell me once that I'm "too Martha Stewart to be a feminist"...
But anyway, I found this article fascinating. Domestic bliss is a huge marketing tool at the moment, but it's something that many people just don't have. I don't think buying more stuff will solve our problems, though.
Nice. Very nice.
I found Simon Conway Morris's abbreviated CV on the web. A very impressive list of achievements: Fellow of the Royal Society of London, Professor at the University of Cambridge... but I particularly liked what he listed under 'Other Interests':
I wonder if I'd be more employable if I listed 'wine' as one of my interests on my resume??
Wine, G.K. Chesterton, science and religion
I wonder if I'd be more employable if I listed 'wine' as one of my interests on my resume??
Waiting for Mr Darcy
Some comments on this 'phenomenon' from Nixter, Craig and Sam in the City.
Yep, I've been guilty of this too.
And so on...
But do I have unrealistic expectations about the perfect relationship? I'm not so sure I do. I complain that all the nice guys I meet are either gay, married, non-Christian, not interested or not an option for some other reason, and it's not as though I'm turning away scores of potential suitors.
Besides, Mr Darcy wasn't perfect (in Pride and Prejudice or in Bridget Jones). Neither was Lizzie. And they didn't have an easy relationship either. First Darcy insults Lizzie, then she vows never to even dance with him, he proposes in an extremely insulting and patronising way, she refuses harshly and perhaps too honestly. And then when they start to have feelings for each other, they both have to deal with family objections... What attracts me to someone like Darcy is that he loved Lizzie not for her looks, for her money, or for her family connections, but for her mind. And I can relate to Lizzie because of her determination to marry for love. Two classic Lizzie quotes (from the BBC version - it's all I can remember off by heart):
The relationship between Darcy and Lizzie is about love, respect and a true meeting of minds, despite the faults of the individuals. That's the fairytale that I want. I'm not looking for the perfect man. I'm not expecting love at first sight. But I would love to think that there is someone out there, someone that, when the right time comes, I will want to share my life with. All I know is that he will love God and love me. What's a few imperfections in light of that?!
Edit:
I should also link to Mike's beautiful post about Christine. A real-life fairytale perhaps?
Yep, I've been guilty of this too.
"Where's my Mr Darcy?"
"I want to go to Cambridge so I can meet my Mr Darcy!"
And so on...
But do I have unrealistic expectations about the perfect relationship? I'm not so sure I do. I complain that all the nice guys I meet are either gay, married, non-Christian, not interested or not an option for some other reason, and it's not as though I'm turning away scores of potential suitors.
Besides, Mr Darcy wasn't perfect (in Pride and Prejudice or in Bridget Jones). Neither was Lizzie. And they didn't have an easy relationship either. First Darcy insults Lizzie, then she vows never to even dance with him, he proposes in an extremely insulting and patronising way, she refuses harshly and perhaps too honestly. And then when they start to have feelings for each other, they both have to deal with family objections... What attracts me to someone like Darcy is that he loved Lizzie not for her looks, for her money, or for her family connections, but for her mind. And I can relate to Lizzie because of her determination to marry for love. Two classic Lizzie quotes (from the BBC version - it's all I can remember off by heart):
If I could love a man who would love me enough to take me for a mere £50 a year, I should be very well pleased... Such a man could hardly be sensible, and you know I could never love a man who was out of his wits!
I am determined that nothing but the very deepest love will induce me into matrimony. So... I shall end an old maid and teach your 10 children to embroider cushions and play their instruments very ill!
Jane: A marriage where neither party can respect the other, that cannot be agreeable.
Lizzie: As we have daily proof...
The relationship between Darcy and Lizzie is about love, respect and a true meeting of minds, despite the faults of the individuals. That's the fairytale that I want. I'm not looking for the perfect man. I'm not expecting love at first sight. But I would love to think that there is someone out there, someone that, when the right time comes, I will want to share my life with. All I know is that he will love God and love me. What's a few imperfections in light of that?!
Edit:
I should also link to Mike's beautiful post about Christine. A real-life fairytale perhaps?
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
Books I read (for pleasure) in July & August 2006
1. Alex Garland, The Beach
I bought this as some light reading to take overseas. It was ok, but seemed to be a bit of a rip-off of Lord of the Flies, and things got really weird by the end of the book. It's also been made into a movie with Leonardo di Caprio, but I haven't seen that.2. Henry James, The Portrait of a Lady
This was some less light reading I took overseas. I like to take cheap books with me so I can leave them behind, and classics tend to be quite cheap! The book is described as a tragedy, and it took awhile before I could see how it would be tragic. But it really was very sad. Isabel, the heroine, is a free spirit but she ends up making a terrible decision that basically removes all her freedom.3. Iain Pears, An Instance of the Fingerpost
This was a fantastic book! It was recommended to me by some people I met at the BSHS conference in Canterbury, and it was definitely a worthwhile read. It's a murder mystery set in Restoration Oxford, told in four conflicting accounts. Characters include Robert Boyle and John Locke - people I'm studying for my PhD. And considering I'd just been to Oxford, it was even more exciting! I didn't pick the ending, but that's not unusual. I enjoy getting caught up in novels so I can be surprised by the twists.4. Marisha Pessl, Special Topics in Calamity Physics
This book had the potential to be very special, and it was quite an enjoyable read. It just seemed a little pretentious with all the references, and was a little too close to Donna Tartt's The Secret History, an excellent book. Also, the story unfolded very slowly over 600 or so pages, and the end seemed rather far-fetched.5. Susanna Gregory, A Wicked Deed
This is the 5th Matthew Bartholomew Chronicle - a series of crime novels set in medieval Cambridge. The main character, Matthew Bartholomew, is a physican with some rather unorthodox ('modern') ideas about how to treat his patients. It can get a little tiring seeing him always opposed by the fanatical friars and monks who view him as heretical, so it was nice to see him in this novel espousing a view that is wrong by modern standards - i.e. that the earth is motionless. These novels are always a good, light read.
What is going on in there?!
Sometimes I really worry about myself. Occasionally I doubt my own sanity - usually after a particularly strange dream. I have weird dreams quite often - most nights - and I remember bits and pieces of them. Perhaps it has something to do with not sleeping very well and waking up frequently during the night. These dreams often make me wonder what on earth is going on inside my head!
The other night, I had a dream that someone showed me a figurine, a kind of action figure, I guess, of a Cambridge Platonist. This person (not sure who they were) told me they bought it at a Disney Store, so I went looking. I'm not sure what city I was in. Sometimes it seemed like Sydney; other times, it seemed I was on holidays. At one point I was riding a bike. Well, I was trying to ride a bike, wobbling all over the road. I finally found the Disney Store, and it was MASSIVE! So, I'm wandering around, trying to find these Cambridge Platonist figurines, and the store is about to close, but I desperately want one, so I'm frantically looking at all the shelves... The store has at least three levels, and rows and rows of shelves. It's kind of like a maze - weaving in and out, trying to get past people, trying to find these figurines before the store closes, because I'm going back home and won't be able to find them at home for some reason, unless I use the internet... I'm not sure if I found them or not - can't quite remember where the dream ended.
Weird, huh? The Cambridge Platonists were a group of theologians and philosophers based at the University of Cambridge, mainly at Emmanuel College, around the time of the Civil War in England, in the mid-seventeenth century. Why anyone would make action figures of these guys, I have no idea. That said, if there were action figures of the Cambridge Platonists, I'd certainly be out looking for them! Although I think I'd be after an action figure of Descartes or Galileo first. I could buy an action figure of Albert Einstein, and I have been tempted, but have never got around to it.
So what does this dream mean? Perhaps I've been working too hard. I've spent most of the last fortnight on the Cambridge Platonists, and I spent awhile before that reading Ralph Cudworth's The True Intellectual System of the Universe, one of the major works to come out of the group. That was a pretty intense book - took me 6 days to get through it. He makes such fun of atheists though - it's quite amusing.
I think the bike bit may have been a reminder of cycling in France and all the bruises I got from bashed the pedals against my legs, crashing into barriers and falling off.
Hmm... I wonder if there would be much of a market for action figures of seventeenth-century theologians and natural philosophers? Maybe a series of the Boyle Lecturers - that would be cool! Perhaps I should throw in my PhD and go into toy making...
Or, maybe not.
The other night, I had a dream that someone showed me a figurine, a kind of action figure, I guess, of a Cambridge Platonist. This person (not sure who they were) told me they bought it at a Disney Store, so I went looking. I'm not sure what city I was in. Sometimes it seemed like Sydney; other times, it seemed I was on holidays. At one point I was riding a bike. Well, I was trying to ride a bike, wobbling all over the road. I finally found the Disney Store, and it was MASSIVE! So, I'm wandering around, trying to find these Cambridge Platonist figurines, and the store is about to close, but I desperately want one, so I'm frantically looking at all the shelves... The store has at least three levels, and rows and rows of shelves. It's kind of like a maze - weaving in and out, trying to get past people, trying to find these figurines before the store closes, because I'm going back home and won't be able to find them at home for some reason, unless I use the internet... I'm not sure if I found them or not - can't quite remember where the dream ended.
Weird, huh? The Cambridge Platonists were a group of theologians and philosophers based at the University of Cambridge, mainly at Emmanuel College, around the time of the Civil War in England, in the mid-seventeenth century. Why anyone would make action figures of these guys, I have no idea. That said, if there were action figures of the Cambridge Platonists, I'd certainly be out looking for them! Although I think I'd be after an action figure of Descartes or Galileo first. I could buy an action figure of Albert Einstein, and I have been tempted, but have never got around to it.
So what does this dream mean? Perhaps I've been working too hard. I've spent most of the last fortnight on the Cambridge Platonists, and I spent awhile before that reading Ralph Cudworth's The True Intellectual System of the Universe, one of the major works to come out of the group. That was a pretty intense book - took me 6 days to get through it. He makes such fun of atheists though - it's quite amusing.
I think the bike bit may have been a reminder of cycling in France and all the bruises I got from bashed the pedals against my legs, crashing into barriers and falling off.
Hmm... I wonder if there would be much of a market for action figures of seventeenth-century theologians and natural philosophers? Maybe a series of the Boyle Lecturers - that would be cool! Perhaps I should throw in my PhD and go into toy making...
Or, maybe not.
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye...
I heard this song on Triple J this morning. I thought it was quite a cute song, the lyrics are kind of sweet, and I think most people get the feeling from time to time that they are so tiny compared to this enormous universe we're in, and so unimportant in the context of human history. But, it's exciting as a Christian to know that even though we are so small, we're still important to God. So important that he wants to be in a relationship with us, and sent Jesus to die so that relationship could be restored. And God is not some distant, scary deity, uninvolved with our lives. We have an intimate relationship with him as father and children, so we can call the creator of this amazing universe Abba, Father.
Kimya Dawson
When I go for a drive I like to pull off to the side
Of the road, turn out the lights, get out and look up at the sky
And I do this to remind me that I'm really, really tiny
In the grand scheme of things and sometimes this terrifies me
But it's only really scary cause it makes me feel serene
In a way I never thought I'd be because I've never been
So grounded, and so humbled, and so one with everything
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything
Rock and roll is fun but if you ever hear someone
Say you are huge, look at the moon, look at the stars, look at the sun
Look at the ocean and the desert and the mountains and the sky
Say I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
When I saw Geneviève I really liked it when she said
What she said about the giant and the lemmings on the cliff
She said 'I like giants
Especially girl giants
Cause all girls feel too big sometimes
Regardless of their size'
When I go for a drive I like to pull off to the side
Of the road and run and jump into the ocean in my clothes
And I'm smaller than a poppyseed inside a great big bowl
And the ocean is a giant that can swallow me whole
So I swim for my salvation and I swim to save my soul
But my soul is just a whisper trapped inside a tornado
So I flip to my back and I float and I sing
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything
I am grounded, I am humbled, I am one with everything
So I talked to Geneviève and almost cried when she said
That the giant on the cliff wished that she was dead
And the lemmings on the cliff wished that they were dead
So the giant told the lemmings why they ought to live instead
When she thought up all those reasons that they ought to live instead
It made her reconsider all the sad thoughts in her head
So thank you Geneviève, cause you take what is in your head
And you make things that are so beautiful and share them with your friends
We all become important when we realize our goal
Should be to figure out our role within the context of the whole
And yeah, rock and roll is fun, but if you ever hear someone
Say you are huge, look at the moon, look at the stars, look at the sun
Look at the ocean and the desert and the mountains and the sky
Say I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
I am just a speck of dust inside a giant's eye
And I don't wanna make her cry
Cause I like giants
Kimya Dawson
Sunday, September 03, 2006
If
If you can organise your lab
Nor lose the power to think
And deal with academic chores
Not drive yourself to drink.
If you can make a test of all your findings
And risk it on one test of yes or no
And lose, then
You'll stay a prof my son.
Patrick Blackett, unpublished manuscript.
Nor lose the power to think
And deal with academic chores
Not drive yourself to drink.
If you can make a test of all your findings
And risk it on one test of yes or no
And lose, then
You'll stay a prof my son.
Patrick Blackett, unpublished manuscript.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)