The Wheel of Fashion...

is ever turning, and it's amazing to have lived through a full rotation. Pastel colored izod shirts with flipped collars are everywhere in this town. I don't understand it. Can someone confirm whether or not this is just a local phenomenon?


I'm preparing myself for a pegged jeans sighting. Or maybe I'll launch the revival myself.

UPDATE:

Well I was always taught it was tacky... but I guess if your Ralph Lauren you can tuck in a sweater without recrimination.

Michael Foster in Mystery and Philosophy says the following:

"it is characteristic of the analytical philosopher to treat all mysteries as puzzles. For him there are problems, which the scientist solves, and puzzles, which the philosopher resolves. But for the Christian theologian there must be a third thing also, namely, mysteries, which remain mysterious even when understood, because, though understood, they exceed our comprehension."(p.19)

I brought the quote to my local tattoo artist but he said it was too lengthy.

P.B.B. Part II

However, despite my reservations about his scientism... I must admit that Mr. Atheist got a good point in last night:

"When my mom was dying, my absolutely certain knowledge that this life is all there is enabled me to enjoy and treasure what time I did have with her."

This Marxist, Existentialist, or if you prefer, Marleyan point of view is the, as you know, classic rejoinder to any perspective valuing the "hereafter." That is to say, heaven is merely a distraction from what really matters, which is earth.

In response, here's a story I heard recently. When James Forbes, the famous pastor of Riverside Church in N.Y.C., was being considered for installation, the conservatives in the parish asked him if he believed in the physical resurrection of Christ. By so doing, they hoped to exclude Forbes, who is quite liberal, from consideration. The conservatives figured if he's as interested as he is in social issues here and now, then he must not believe whatsoever in any kind of there and then. Their suspicion, one must admit, was not without warrant... but Forbes response was far from expected:

"Of course I believe in Christ's physical resurrection... Why do you think I'm so concerned about social justice?!"

Now I'm no Forbesian liberal, but that's an answer of his that I can applaud. Maybe Mr. A. could try diversifying his portfolio. He might discover that investment in the future can actually increase one's stock in the here and now.

Public Broadcasting Broadening

So someone in the "spirituality" department at PBS finally got their act together, and exchanged the inane neo-transcendentalist ramblings of Wayne Dyer during the fund drive for a serious conversation about God. Who would have thought that the same channel that produced the controversial Carl Sagan documentary Cosmos would now air a program that parallels documentaries on the lives of C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud, interwoven with a conversation with modern skeptics and believers. And believe it or not... the God squad (so far) has the upper hand.
Continued...
But how hard is it to gain an upper hand with closet modernists? The "skeptics" they've invited on the show, at least one complete with mock turtleneck and blazer, have claimed that

"Science is the only common objective standard,"

which means they've got a lot of catching up to do in contemporary physics! Though coffee-shop atheists still think that science can "account for everything," don't they realize that real scientists who spend their time in laboratories not coffeeshops have (for quite some time) conceded that the ever-so-slippery universe has popped out of yet another box designed for it by generations past - this time the box labeled "science is the only common objective standard"? Of course not all scientists today are Christians, let alone theists, but the old "I believe in science, not God" resort simply doesn't work anymore. But it is still attempted... and the result is that the self-professed "free thinkers," don't seem to be so free.

In Howatch's latest novel, when someone insists,

"No... I don't believe the Christian stuff about the resurrection of the body. That's just contrary to common sense."

a priest responds

"So is much of the world revealed by modern physics!" (p. 424)

Whether it pleases readers of Skeptic Magazine or not, in this day and age a response like that by a believer is fair game. What's foul is pretending that the world can still be "rationally" explained with neat and tidy Newtonian categories. It can't. This of course doesn't mean Christianity wins, there's still a lot of battles to fight, it's just that that's not one of them.

So Bravo to the post-Sagan PBS for airing an actual debate. Part II airs tonight at 9pm, and will I hope air again.

millinerd tech-patrol

Now anyone can flip through the earliest Shakespeare manuscripts, a privilege for which you formerly had to have scholarly credentials (make sure to click for close ups).

And this company is working on putting you into famous European architecture, video game style.

Continuing in the millinerd tradition of bringing you fascinating things that other people say, I relate a story that Diogenes Allen told today:

A while back a scientist he knew named Russell Stannard was heading up some research that led to the discovery of another sub-atomic particle besides the quark, which was subsequenltly discovered and called "CHARM" (definition #7).

A woman, upon discovering that he was a successful physicist and a committed Christian, asked him how she could "find God." His response was that the U.K. has put up ten million pounds for two years to do experiments every day with just a 15% chance of finding the new particle. Seek God directly for five minutes a day for the next two years. It won't be nearly as expensive, and your chances of actually finding him will be significantly higher.

Ja!

In 1934 a Protestant theologian by the name of Karl Barth wrote a famous response to a Protestant colleague who was flirting with something called "natural theology," and its twin "natural law." The response was simply entitled "Nein!" ("No" in German - glad to translate for you, clearly I'm fluent). Little did Barth know that seventy years later a website named millinerd would take him on. Good thing too... he would surely have been terrified...

Read more...

As you may guess from the title of this post, (which means "Yes" in German, glad to translate again), I'm beginning to think that Karl Barth's early career rejection of natural theology and law may not be the best paradigm for Protestants today. After all, even Barth himself mellowed out on his position later in life.

Because it's impossible to think your way to the Trinity, I would certainly follow Barth in his rejection of natural theology (as I've mentioned before). But regarding the possibility of a cross-cultural, hard-wired instinct towards discerning (not deciding) what is right and wrong... I'm find myself much more optimistic. Whether one obeys that voice of conscience is another matter altogether, but that humans, Christian or not, at least know instinctually what is right in their dealings with other humans seems clear. Consequently, there can be a lot for a Christian to recover in non-Christian moral thinkers such as Aristotle, Seneca, and Cicero. Or, so as not to sound too occidental, Confucius and Ghandi.

Looking back, of course Barth was heroic to reject what was passing for theology in Germany, 1934. But the unfortunate situation is that Barth's rightful rejection of natural theology in that context has been so influential that Protestants influenced by him seem now to have no understanding of the tradition of natural law. This is despite the fact that natural law talk is all over the classic Reformers, and despite the fact that one Martin Luther King Jr. recently summoned the tradition quite persuasively. In other words, natural law's is the baby, natural theologies the bathwater - and we've lost them both.

The sad result is that when dealing with matters outside specifically church-related issues for which the natural law tradition would provide a helpful framework (like this Presidential campaign), the conversation rapidly devolves into knee-jerk emotivism, making actual debate impossible.

Rather than carry on, may I simply recommend this fine article for those interested in more, and for those with $35 to spare, this course.

The (Church's) West Wing

Just as I was about to sit down and write a review of Susan Howatch's new novel (unfortunately titled "The Heartbreaker"), someone beat me to it, and did a fine job as well.

I'll admit that in my love of Howatch novels there is a degree of "West Wing" syndrome. By this I mean that in the same way people fantasize that Martin Sheen's character on that show actually was president, so do I fantasize that there actually were ministers as articulate and competent as the ones Howatch creates. But though the world and the church usually can't live up to their fictional projections (nor should be expected to), that doesn't mean they're not rife with insight.

Susan Howatch, who I've mentioned before and will I'm sure mention again, is a British lawyer who made a fortune as a novelist. Yet in struggling with the unexpected emptiness of her financial success, she became a Christian, and then (very fortunately) kept writing. The novels that hooked me me initially were her Starbridge Series, which are set in England over the span of the 20th century. As you may have noticed in that link, you can get started on the first one (used) for literally one penny. I assure you it will be a penny well spent. In fact, it's on me. I'll pay you back next time I see you.

If you'd prefer something more recent however, go ahead and jump right into her later books (The Wonder Worker, The High Flyer, or The Heartbreaker) which are are set in the 90's and center around a healing ministry in the heart of London. It was from these novels that I first learned (among other things) that ordering "A tankard of the widow" at a restaurant meant you wanted a bottle of this... information which I hope one day to be able to put to use.

Please, don't let the publisher's goofy titles and blandly designed book jackets fool you. Her theological sophistication and insight into human experience are unmatched. In fact, the Starbridge series may be one of the better histories of twentieth century theology on offer: Each theological position is embodied in a character, with the consequences of doctrinal missteps laid bare.

And they're also really fun to read.