Well, I've been all but missing from the blogosphere, so maybe this is appropriate.

Please, please forgive me,
But I won’t be home again.
Maybe someday you’ll have woke up,
And, barely conscious, you’ll say to no one:
“isn’t something missing? “

You won’t cry for my absence, I know -
You forgot me long ago.
Am I that unimportant…?
Am I so insignificant…?
Isn’t something missing?
Isn’t someone missing me?

Even though I’d be sacrificed,
You won’t try for me, not now.
Though I’d die to know you love me,
I’m all alone.
Isn’t someone missing me?

—Evanescence, Missing

How are y'all anyway?

Over the past few weeks, I revised my play, Deafening Silence: the Tragedy of Private Alan Michelson in numerous ways. The most important, perhaps, was adding an interpretive essay at the end dealing with the serious theological issues it brings up. It isn't anything heavy, but considers the big issues of the play, at least in passing: the problem of evil, the verification and falsification debate and the ability (or lack thereof) to lose salvation.

From a story standpoint, I also introduced several pages of new material that helped smooth out the scenes, create what I hope is a more natural, realistic pace and so on. Couple that with improved wording, and I think the play is a lot better now than it was in early September.

How long is it? It is a featherweight if you compare it against Shakespeare's works. Compared to its inspiration work, Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, it weighs in about 14% shorter. It is about 33% shorter than Chekhov's Uncle Vanya. I'm just guessing, but I'm presuming with its size, it would take 60-90 minutes to stage, at most.

If anyone who has already received a copy would like an updated release, please let me know. Also, if anyone else is interested, just give me a holler.

I am working on getting this piece published, so I decided against posting it here on this blog. I'm sorry about the inconvenience.

Ed asked me if I would put my Difference of Opinion: A Look at C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud into one long document as opposed to three separate parts (part I, part II, part III). I actually wrote this originally as one long, 12 page piece and I now present it (below) to you in that original form, subtracting the extra introductory and conclusory materials that were added to aid the reader when I turned the piece into three separate parts. I should also add that credit should be given to Dr. Armand J. Nicolai, author of the Question of God, for the idea of comparing C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud.

Read more...

In the first two parts (part I, part II) of this series, I considered two major issues on which C.S Lewis and Sigmund Freud differed dramatically. On the other hand, we ought not discount the similarities in the arguments of the two men. Both Freud and Lewis advocated their ideas as key to improving civilization as a whole. Freud saw the atheism as the eventual pinnacle of evolution, although he conceded that the question of whether people would truly be better without God was up in the air (61). According to Freud, in an era casting away illusion, people would enter a time when λογος or reason would become the god of civilization (it is interesting that Freud chose a name used in the Bible to reference Christ as the “name” of his new atheistic god), eliminating what he feels to be a clear illusion for something that appears not to be, namely, science.

Read more...

On its surface, pure Theravada Buddhism seems like an attractive worldview. There is plenty to like about it: it features philosophical simplicity, and its middle path, while restrictive, might seem like a peaceful respite to many who want to escape the hectic everyday world. Unlike the expanded worldviews that are often built on top of Buddhism, it seems that one could argue that there is little to assert as even a potential conflict between the components of Theravada Buddhism.

So why does there seem to be a tendency for almost all cultures that have Buddhist roots to add on additional layers of complexity, such as savior-like Bodhisattvas, various other similar concepts or even the elevation of merit making? Why not keep the system simple and focused on the self? Yet, while this might seem a bit puzzling at first, as anthropologists and other observers of such things will note, Buddhism has not appeared in any substantial fashion within a society without the addition of elements that start sounding like ideas from theistic religions. More correctly stated, the composite religion of most Buddhists is quite theistic, or at least, animistic, indeed.

Read more...

In case you've been in a cave all day, German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (78), has been chosen as the new pope under the name Benedict XVI. He is the first German to serve the office since the sixteenth century. It is a bit of irony, I suppose, that the last German pope, Andrian VI, presided just after the beginning of the Reformation schism and I believe the last German pope before that, Victor II, was the first pope elected after the Great Schism of 1054; take that for what you will. The new pontiff does not look to be too much a of friend of ecumenism, having previously criticized the Protestant churches that have established dialog with Rome. On the other hand, his orthodoxy is a good thing in many ways as opposed to electing someone who might have been inclined to lead the church in too liberal of direction.

Ratzinger has previously served as prefect of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” better known by its old name: the Inquisition.

On a Lighter Note
And, timely enough, a theologian friend of mine passed on a little humor concerning the Cardinal turned newly elected Pontiff. The story goes that Cardinal Ratzinger dies and goes to Heaven. When he arrives there he waits with two other theologians to talk to God. The first one goes to see God, and comes back weeping. “How could I have been so wrong for so long,” he sobs. The second theologian is nervous but goes in and comes back out weeping and exclaiming “How could I have been so wrong for so long?” Then the Cardinal goes in to see God. Soon after God comes out weeping and says “How could I have been wrong for so long?”

I know I have several Baptists reading this, so perhaps one of you could straighten me out on an issue that is confusing me. How exactly are the Primitive Baptists and Free Will Baptists of the nineteenth century connected to the modern day ABC and SBC? At first, I thought perhaps the two present conventions descended from one or both of those groups, but I almost get the feeling that the precursor to the present mainline Baptists actually had the Primitive Baptists and Free Will Baptists split off from it.

Any light that can be provided would be appreciated.

This is part two in a series considering “the five solas,” the key cries of the Reformation. You can find part one here. Please feel free to discuss, disagree and posit your own thoughts in the comments.

The solas are a series of stepping-stones. Imagine I want to get to point B from point A and a rushing stream runs between those points. Now, I could try to swim across, but the current would likely move me down the river so I'd land at point C rather than B. Let's say point A is the new Christian who wants to come to understand the key doctrines of the Church so as to be able to reach B, a point where one is giving everything that is God's to God (Matt. 22.21). The first stepping-stone to get across the stream is to understand where we ought to get our idea of God from, and we answer that Sola Scriptura, from Scripture alone.

So, we read the Bible and we are told that one must be “born anew” (John 3.3), that is, we must be “saved.” So then, how are we saved? Certainly, this is a key stepping-stone to recognizing what God is really doing, a stepping stone upon which everything afterward hinges. The answer is Sola Gratia, by grace alone.

“And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. “

—Romans 11.6 (WEB)

This is a difficult idea. We do not tend to like it. Salvation by grace alone. Here's the bad news: I cannot save myself! Instead, I must receive the grace provided only by Christ in order to be saved.

We don't like to be told that we cannot do something ourselves, and the idea of being told that one is only going to succeed because an authority is going to extend an exception to us would generally make us feel upset. “I'll just do it myself, thankyouverymuch.” Sure, I do not mind if a few violations are overlooked for me, but the idea that I'm dependent on someone doing me a favor to proceed at all is uncomfortable.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

—Romans 6.23 (WEB)

Now that is exactly what I did not want to hear! But since we are told that no one is sinless (Romans 3.10) and the cost for my sin — even just one teeny tiny one — is death, suddenly maybe an exception sounds pretty good. I may be proud, but when I am being led to the electric chair, am I really going to refuse a pardon just so that I can say I did not need to depend on anyone's help? Clearly, I will accept it, unless I just have some kind of perverted death wish.

And so it is with Grace. “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me!”

Next time in my sola series, I shall consider the third motto, which is essential to understanding Sola Gratia: Sola Fide.

It is hard to imagine a fundamentally more important question than if God exists or not. Arguably, all of eternity is at stake. While this is not a good reason for belief by itself, this very issue led to Pascal’s argument for a wager on the question of God (Hick 59). If I “bet” on God, I lose relatively nothing if I am wrong, but if I bet against God, I have everything to lose. Whether true faith can come from such a pragmatic, cynical approach to belief is a topic for another day, but it does demonstrate how important belief in God is, if theists are right in their arguments.

The idea of belief, or lack thereof, by rational calculations, on the other hand, is sometimes argued as an unrealistic view of how we come to believe. In the video the Question of God, skeptic Michael Schemer argues that part of his reason for joining the camp of skeptics was that he liked the people in that “community” better, and, he asserts, theists would do well to admit that purely emotional reasons are part of the reason why we believe as we do as well (“A Transcendent Experience”).

Read more...