Visiting the Pub

So Traci and I visited John and Jen this weekend and I finally got the actually go to the Curragh! Besnik was there, too and it was great fun and I had plenty o' Guinness. The funny thing about it was I totally imaged it to be like Murphy's in Champaign all the way up to it being next to other shops and bars on a downtown street. But then I realised that this was, as John called it, "Shombard" and it was across from a mall in the middle of a parking lot.

On the way home, John informed me that they no longer meet there for Bible study, but have now opted for metting at Starbucks.

Prepare Ye the Way of the LORD

El Greco. St. John the Baptist. c. 1600. oil on canvas.

Happy Advent!

Welp, since no one's posted anything in a whie I thought I'd be cheap again and post something that I already posted on my site. My wife told me it looked "really cool" when I made it. It's kinda a Robert Mangold/Minimalist approach to litergical art. (I heard Mangold lecture once- very interesting fellow. Depending on my mood, we have somewhat similar views on making art.)

Inspired by Matt's suggestion on my previous post about an Advent/Christmas/Epiphany piece I'm working on, here is a study for the interior middle panel. The scanner really doesn't do justice to the glowing golden underpainting I was experimenting with.

I'm a regular ol' Painter of Light!

Hermeneutical Schools of Thought

I posted this as a comment to Grant's post - but on his site. I decided this might warrant its own thread.

In his anthology of essays entitled "The Weight of Glory", CS Lewis writes "Is Theology Poetry?" During the '40s and '50s, scientists wrote off scripture as "mere poetry" rather than permitting it to say something true about the world.

This exemplifies several schools of thought that are now active in this discussion - even here on this site.

School 1: [Modern Scientific Naturalism] Theology (and, by extension, Scripture) is "mere poetry", and therefore, while it is made up of pretty-sounding words, does not have anything (or much of anything) true to say about the world. (Traditional Science Anti Theology as Non-Science)

School 2: [Modern Fundamentalism] Theology (and, by extension, Scripture) is a better scientific framework in which to work than Scientific Naturalism. Theology is not poetry, because poetry doesn't talk about Truth. Therefore, not only is Scripture a scientific document, but we are to fit anything we find into its literal understanding. Anything we find that doesn't line up is "bad data" or "misinterpreted." The Bible isn't poetry, it is fact. (Scripture as Science Anti Traditional Science)

School 3: [Modern Conservatism] Theology (and, by extension, Scripture) is a mixture of poetic metaphor and "cold hard facts." Poetry can, in fact, describe truth, but to find that truth, we take our poetry largely at face value. This means we examine poetry for the truth framework behind it, and use that to describe how Science and Theology can mesh. (Scientific Harmonizing of Traditional Science and Theology's Scientific Aspects)

School 4: [Modern Peacekeeping] Theology is poetry, and that poetry speaks of truth that Science cannot understand. Scripture is Theology. Nevertheless, Science speaks of truth Poetry could never describe. Scripture was written before Science; therefore, it doesn't play by Science's rules. They talk about two different things, therefore, they both can coexist, but one cannot accuse the other of anything problematic. (Peaceful coexistence of Theology and Science as long as no one encroaches on the other's territory)

School 5: [Postmodern Sacramental] Theology is poetry, and Poetry is inherently true. The truth will probably not be found on its surface. The sub-surface nature of truth means that there can be a number of valid interpretations, because all we have to work with is the surface and the truth of the poetry is a mystery that is beyond us. At the same time, Scripture is an ancient set of documents produced by the people of God through God for the people of God, written in an ancient mindset to ultimately describe truth, but not in written form. Truth is a person, the person of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we do not access truth through documentary analysis but through getting to know the person Jesus Christ. Science, too, is poetry, describing things that aren't quite measurable, since the act of measurement changes the thing being measured. Nevertheless, we describe the truth within the confines of our philosophical perspective, which includes Science and Scripture. Therefore, our Theology describes the Truth- the Person of Jesus Christ - through the ancient Scriptures, the history of God with his People, and through our current cultural-philosophical understanding. While Scripture is still Canon (i.e., the measuring stick) it is a component part with Science, language, culture, experience and history in a Theology that ultimately describes Jesus Christ. As any person is, he can only be quantified when he is dead, thus missing key components of who he is. Therefore, much remains a mystery (Latin, Sacramentum). (Theology describes Truth Poetically as a living person using whatever means are at its disposal: Scriptural, Scientific or otherwise.)

School 6: [Postmodern Agnosticism] Poetry describes what is real. So does Science. But we can't see enough to describe it well. It's hard to know anything. So can we even know anything at all? Both Science and Theology are bunk. The Bible is an old book. Go with what feels right. That's all you can trust. Either party on or destroy yourself. (Theology, Scripture, and Science are pointless because we can't know anything.)

These six schools of thought are all active in the discussion. Part of the reason we talk past each other is because we don't realize that. I suspect Grant's question is either #3, #4 or #5 addressing #2 or #3. John clearly answers with #3 with a touch of #4. It's not clear from Grant's question whether he's coming from #3 or not.

I offer #5 as a genuine alternative because it removes the frame that created the problematic question in the first place. First, it doesn't equate Theology and Scripture. Second, it doesn't put them in opposition to Science. Third, it acknowledges that our outlook shapes our theology. Fourth, it permits truth to exist poetically without analysis.

Thoughts?

I'll cross-post this at M Squared T and the Pub so that the thread can develop on its own and not detract from Grant's original question.

Bible Study Fellowship

For the last two weeks I have been attending BSF, which is not Baptist Student Foundation, its Bible Study Fellowship. Its pretty intense Bible study that gathers Christians from all denominations. There's even homework. Each week they start you off reading an overview and then assign biblical texts with questions for the week. Than you meet together on Mondays to share notes. If you haven't answered the question at home they don't let you talk in discussion. (Which seems a little harsh, but I can see why they would do that.)

Bsf usually studies one book a year and this year's book is Genesis. I went to the study both dreading it and looking forward to it. I love Genesis, but I have also found it at times to be one of the most devisive books in the bible. The first discussion was an overview, and everybody was very gracious and no one seemed to want to excomunicate anyone else for believing something different about the Bible. (Maybe this is a sign that I'm not in a college aged Bible study anymore.) And noby thought that the Earth was created on October 18, 4004 BC

So I went home to read the Overview of Genesis 1. Unfortuantely, I think the author is missing the point of the book. They spent 95% of the article talking about the science of Genesis (sorry John) and it was actually pretty biased. Hardly any discussion on application of the passage which is something BSF prides itself on.

They listed the different theories and gave this introduction which made me hopeful:

Such diversity among biblical scholars who accept the authority of the Bible requires that we be humble and cautious before forming our own conclusion and to avoid divisive self-confident dogmatism that obscures the intent and message of the passage-the creative power of the Triune God.

So they listed Atheistic evolution (not sure why), Intellegent Design, Thesistic evolution, the gap (resitution) theory, progressive creationism, and finally the literal, six-days viewpoint- with this little summation statement:

This viewpoint [literal, six-days] is both biblical and scientific, so the professing Christian must give is the most serious consideation

So much for avoiding divisive self-confident dogmatism that obscures the intent and message of the passage.

My question is, why do we look at a poem and try to extrapolate scientific fact from it? If we looked at e.e. cummings poem, "She Being Like New", we might think that a woman really is a car not a woman. (Granted, e.e. cummings is not the Inspired Word of God.) Hebrew poetry often intorduces several ideas and then echoes the idea again and adds details. So at the risk of sounding divisive self-confident and dogmatic, here's how I look at Genesis 1:

Genesis 1:1-5 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Gensis 1:6-8 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Genesis1:9-13 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

Genesis 1:14-19 [paralell to day 1]

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis 1:20-22 [paralell to day 2]

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

Genesis 1:22-25 [paralell to day 3]

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

At this point the tone shifts and God creates man and the sabbath.

So I ask again: Why do we take a poem and expect our science to match up with it?

Household Art

The Marxist view of the arts, which pervaded Modernism, was that art should confront you with something and cause a revolution of change in the viewer and the viewer would leave the work enlightened and convinced of whatever ideal the work conveyed. In other words: Great art does not match your couch. In fact, Marx would even say that anything that does not offend the senses maintains the bourgeois status quo.

It has been interesting to see how this has played out over the last hundred years or so. (Pop Art, Dada, Minimalism being 20th century examples) and there are many artists I greatly admire from this period (Klee, Jasper Johns, Francis Bacon, Duchamp) yet I am relieved that art has moved away from this ideal over the last fourty years or so.

Postmodernism has moved away from such a dogmatic, propaganda-like view of art (though politics are still a very popular) to highly personal works almost to the point where it becomes very hard to understand unless you know a lot about the particular artist. Whereas something like minimalism sought to be very general to appear democratic, postmodern artists are very specific in hopes of being heard by the universal.

I think that some of this has been good for Christian aesthetics. I believe that if we are made in the image of a God who creates beautiful things, we will also seek to make beautiful things. And postmodern art is ok with you arranging your furniture in a way that is pleasing to the eye and calling it "art". Some may laugh, but isn't that simply using the creative power that God puts in all of us to make beauty?

So I have been beautifying the space I live in to help me worship God in my home and to gloify Him by using the creativity he has given me. About a year ago, I saw some small Ethiopian alterpieces in the Krannert art museum. These were much smaller than an alterpiece you would encounter in a church. In fact, they were meant to travel with you so you could worhsip God any where. I was struck by how they were both ornate and simple.

It inspired me to make one for my own home. I had to make it small enough to take with me when I travelled, yet large enough that it would be something I would see in my house everyday. When it is closed on Fridays and Saturdays, it depicts the crucified Christ. On Sunday it is opened for the week and shows the resurrection in the center panel. The left wing shows the baptism of Christ with God the Father depicted as the beams from above (its hard to draw a voice from heaven) and the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove. The right wing depicts the accenssion. This piece is unfinished which is why Jesus looks like my Dad or Keith Green and the accenssion is unfinished. but I hung it up anyway, because I am an unfinished work myself and one day I will be finished and look like Christ, just as one day my art work will be finished and look like Jesus instead of Keith Green.

Prairie Home Companion on Intelligent Design

cross-posted on grantcthomas

This is for John ZuHone:

Prairie Home Companion's take on teaching intelligent design in school:

Sue Scott: Hello and welcome to Central High. I'm your teacher, Miss DuCharme. The class is called Origins of Life and we deal with evolution or intelligent design or creation, the Big Bang, erosion, whatever you want to call that process or event or whatever it was that came at the beginning. This is a self-taught course, so I will not be here in the classroom with you, so your assignment is to write one paper about whatever you believe in, and that's just as valid as whatever anyone else thinks, so. — Not a problem. You're probably wondering about grades — you will be grading these papers yourself, so that the bias of your teacher does not influence your grade, so I would advise you just to give yourself an A because that's what everyone else does. Yes?

read the rest of the script here

listen to it here (under segment 2)

Naboth's Vineyard

Cross-posted on grantcthomas.blogspot.com

When I was seventeen or so, I read the book of James a lot which might account for my leanings towards Liberation Theology at times. Mostly I read it s lot because it was short and I could read it in one sitting, but I think what I liked the most about it as a young man, was it told me exactly what to do with my life. I was also drawn to the Sermon on the Mount for similar reasons.

But the rest of the Bible has always been more ambiguous to me. Its more like my life; a continuing story of life with which God interacts, there is always the struggle to find meaning in the story of my own life as well as the stories of the people of the Bible.

As a twenty-first century man, what am I supposed to take away from the story of Naboth's Vineyard (II Kings 21) ? It seems on the surface to be a record of an event in which a King's greed comes back to him like bad karma. Yet there their are prevailant themes of vineyards in the Prophets (Isaiah 5:1-7 comes to mind) and in the Gospels (John 15) and that makes me think that there is more going on than a stubborn man standing up to a bully and not giving up his family's land. If Jesus is the vine and we are branches, what light does that knowledge shed on Naboth's refusal to give up the inheritance of his fathers?