Paradox or Contradiction? Which is which?

Contradiction.  Paradox.

I see these two terms a lot, usually in arguments over the legitimacy of some controversial conclusion.  Despite the evidence, an apparent logical consistency, or appearances to the contrary, something is asserted to be true.  When it is pointed out that the evidence does not support that conclusion, supporters of the conclusion will generally call the equation a “paradox” while detractors will call it a “contradiction”.  And the conversation can go no further.   

It got me thinking, how DO we actually define these words?  How do we determine whether something is a paradox or a contradiction?

Paradox:

-a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory

-a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth

-a statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring that walking

Contradiction:

-a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another

-a difference in two or more statements, ideas, stories, etc. that makes it impossible for both or all of them to be true

-someone or something with qualities or features that seem to conflict with one another <a loving father as well as a ruthless killer, the gangster is a living contradiction>

-a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>

This doesn’t clear it up at all.  It just highlights the whole dilemma all over again.  Both “paradox” and “contradiction” acknowledge that a given conclusion doesn’t make sense in light of the evidence.  A paradox says it is true.  A contradiction says it isn’t.  The word choice, then, is based on the preference of the speaker. 

So when is a conclusion wrong, and when is it right and it’s our own harmonization of the evidence that is lacking?  Forget the purely mathematical for a moment.

Take the example of “a loving father as well as a ruthless killer, the gangster is a living contradiction”. 

A person might argue that this is a paradox, not a contradiction.  Both personas exist – the loving father and the ruthless killer.  That they seem contradictory does not seem to negate the sheer fact of their existence. 

A contradictory take on this individual would assert that one of these personas is not true.  For example, if the gangster is truly a loving father then he must not really be ruthless killer.  What do we mean by “ruthless” and “loving” after all?  These are not binary terms, and the thought experiment is thus based on categorical errors.

So who’s to say?

My point is this.  We often don’t know how or why we come to the conclusions that we come to.  Very often we find ourselves believing things and we aren’t sure exactly how or why we came to believe them.  That isn’t to say that there isn’t a deliberative process, or that we are fully irrational.  It’s to say that there’s a lot that happens in our depths, below the levels of conscious choice. 

That's not to say that a we let any old thing go under the banner of "paradox".  It's just to say that we’re not just mathematical models running on as-yet undetermined computer code.

We are blurry and, despite the importance and appeal of "choice", maybe we are not determined by our own sheer will power and rationality.  

Our complexity demands humility.  

We ourselves are walking contradictions.  Or paradoxes.  Which is it again?

The Meaning of the Trinity for the Communal Life of Faith?

I wrote a series of posts several months back about the question “Is God Primarily Angry?”  (My answer to that question is “No” btw.)

One of those posts had to do with the Trinity.  In it, I invoked the image of perichoresis – “dance” or “rotation”.

Now, I didn’t intend to try to work out any sort of “doctrine of God” or to “explain” the Trinity.  I know now more than ever that I am not able to do so.  I mentioned in the post itself that the image that I started with was anthropomorphic and, essentially, to not get too caught up in it.  

My goal in appealing to the doctrine of the Trinity in my approach to divine wrath was really threefold:

1. To establish that God is not lonely and doesn’t have needs (as in God doesn’t need “wrath” to display some aspect of Himself that might not be possible without someone to punish). 
2. To question and clarify what is intended by the word “wrath”. 
3. To argue that God doesn’t have “parts” (as in “primarily” angry).

Essentially, my intent was to view and define divine “anger” (or “wrath’) through the lens of protology (origins and first things).  In other words, what is original within God?  Is the sort of hostility that characterizes the typical construal of wrath an eternal ‘attribute’ of God?

I still think my questions/points about “primary anger” are valid, that a protological imagination is essential to how we address them, and that the Trinity shapes Christian protology.  Attack the metaphysics of that post if you like, but don’t let them detract from the intent of the post and the validity of the line of thinking therein.  

But since the release of Richard Rohr’s book The Divine Dance (which I haven’t read) and The Shack (which I haven't seen), there seems to have been a spike in discussions of the Trinity (along with an associated spike in heresy hunting).  I’ve read several in-depth blog posts & discussions, most of them by some really smart guys.  

It's been...interesting.  Sobering.  A bit disorienting.  

The terminology is often inaccessible, necessarily anthropomorphic, and riddled with semantic equivocation.  People use the same words but mean different things.  When it comes to Trinitarian thought, the definition of “person” is enough to make your head spin.  So as far as the Trinity goes, to be forthright, I’m not sure that I have any idea what I’m talking about.  Looking in on some of these discussions makes me realize just how much I don’t know.

So there’s that. 

But that’s only part of what I wanted to say in this post.  The other part has to do with the place of the Trinity within the spiritual life of the Christian faith that I currently find myself in (of the evangelical variety).  What is it’s meaning for the life of faith?  

At best, the answer is not self-evident.

We do not say the creeds.  Our “liturgy” rarely invokes any traditionally Trinitarian language.  Even if it did (per more liturgical traditions), there is no clarity as to what it is that we’re talking about or why such things matter beyond dogmatic identity and association.  Evangelists occasionally reference the necessity of intellectual assent to the proposition “Jesus is God”, but their reason for doing so is to avoid the terrible fate that will come as a result of not making such a confession.  We may take a few steps into the realm of meaning in asserting that “to see Jesus is to see God”, but that hardly validates the metaphysical complexities, intricacies, and anathemas seen in the history of Trinitarian thought.

Sure, a few of the theologically minded may discuss some of the finer points of Trinitarian thought.  But other than a passing reference to the Trinity being “confusing” (the most common reference), as a religious badge of identity over against “non-Trinitarians” and their “misunderstandings” (“they think we believe in 3 gods!” we say incredulously) or in the rhyme of contemporary music, it holds no particularly vital or life-giving place in the spiritual life of the Christian community of which I’m a part.

I don’t know what to make of that.

Facts, Narratives, Confirmation Bias, Politics, and Belonging

A few weeks ago, a story broke (or unbroke depending on how you look at it) about a young woman who had claimed that she was harassed by a group of white male Trump supporters in a New York Subway.  As is common in our time and place, there was a race to break the story.

But it turns out that she made the whole thing up.  None of it happened.  And so there was a race to unbreak the story.  But the new story had to do with how the story broke in the first place.

I rarely watch Fox News, but I happened to be watching The Five when I learned that the story was a hoax.  Unsurprisingly, the panel on The Five was all over the story.

As material for the segment, the lead commentator focused on a particular set of Buzzfeed headlines related to the story.  Per these Buzzfeed headlines, the attack itself was originally presented as fact and was thus sensationalized.  When it became known that the attack was a hoax, the follow up Buzzfeed headline stated, with much less color, that it was “allegedly” a hoax.

“Why not ‘alleged’ in the initial report?” the roundtable asked.  “Why is the word ‘alleged’ only in the retraction?”

Those aren’t unfair questions.

And Fox had an answer.

It’s because, they argued, the “mainstream media” has a fundamental narrative (or “agenda” if you prefer) that they are prepared to believe aside from any evidence, and thus facts that support this preconceived narrative are not sufficiently fact checked.  Call it confirmation bias.  This monolithic media fundamentally believes that Trump supporters are racist and are thus quick to believe and perpetuate any narrative of bigotry and will seek to portray that narrative as normative.

The fact that this story turned out to be a hoax, per the Fox commentary, provides the occasion to talk about the narrative and bias of the “mainstream media”.

The real critique was about confirmation bias - a willingness to emphasize the facts that one wants to be true.  It’s not so much "fact" or "not fact" as much as it is “which facts?”  The narrative determines this.

The irony was that the Fox News panel proceeded to do the same thing.

They interpreted a particular facts within their pre-existing narrative.  They seemed positively giddy about the story being a hoax because it provided a means to support a narrative - that of the bias of the “mainstream media”.

Now let’s be clear.  The story of the young Muslim woman was a hoax.  While we should be careful in ascribing intent or overanalyzing, the Buzzfeed headlines are real.  It’s not that these particular facts aren’t true.  Rather, it’s the way that a particular situation or set of facts is viewed in isolation and held up as normative in support of a pre-existing narrative.  Just like their "mainstream media" foes.

Each narrative can find a set of facts to support their narrative and win them the day.  And it drives me crazy that the Fox News panel seems to think that the “mainstream media” is a monolithic group without any differences.  Or that “bias” is isolated to their political foes and not themselves.  That they aren't subject to confirmation bias.  Go read Breitbart for heavens sake.

It also provided evidence to suggest that the larger narrative of tangible anti-Muslim sentiment is itself a myth perpetuated by this same media.  Reports of increased hostility towards Muslims as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center were addressed with “And who is auditing those?”  Credible reports of anti-Muslim sentiment are thus either disavowed or transplanted into the desired narrative – that of racism as being manufactured by this same media.  Two birds, one stone.  The proclivity to ignore or minimize a post-election increase in racially motivated incidents by appealing to a fake story as normative is driven by - you got it - a pre-existing narrative.

The point is, it seems that we humans have a tendency to find and focus in on the worst in whatever group we’ve identified as the “other”, and we’re prone to use those things to confirm our narrative.  Put another way, we sometimes focus in on weak arguments and caricatures in order to dismiss or avoid the strongest arguments.  Our narratives give us our belonging.  They help us make sense of our world.  We like certainty about our narratives.

Everybody lives from a narrative that provides some sort of basis for filtering reality.  We all seek to make sense of a complex world, and we have immediate access to more information than any other time in human history.  Sifting through it all is unrealistic.  Yet we are wired to make sense of our reality.  Wired for certainty and control.  Confirmation bias is real.  And it effects everybody.

This is why it’s important to not live our lives in an echo chamber.  It’s why it’s important to notice when and why a particular opposing viewpoint gets our blood boiling, and on the flip side, when and why we’re quick to believe something.  This doesn’t mean that each and every competing viewpoint is equally true or that all narratives are hopelessly muddled in ambiguity.  I don’t believe that at all.  It simply means that we need to be aware of our own confirmation bias and that we should always seek to engage varying viewpoints at their strongest rather than their weakest.

Hacksaw Ridge and The God Who Does Not Grow Weary (3)

Prior posts here and here.

----------

The connection between Isaiah 40 and the narrative of Desmond Doss is a carefully chosen one.  It is not on accident or arbitrary that the movie opens with those words.  The connection is essential, I think, to understanding the story.

So what is the connection?  I’d suggest that in this particular case, we should use Doss’s story to inform how and why Isaiah 40 is being used.  Only then can we say what it is that God “does not grow weary in doing” as was originally asked.

There is little doubt that the verses from Isaiah could be used as a sort of war cry, an enchantment designed to provide comfort that one’s cause is righteous and will prevail in the end through military might.  If you “wait for him”, God will strengthen your arms for war.  Your bullets will fly straighter.  Your bombs will land with greater precision and effect.  And perhaps the aim of the enemy will be just a bit off.  The conquest narratives of the Old Testament provide just the sort of “biblical” backdrop that we’d be looking for as support.

And perhaps we could find a way to squeeze Desmond Doss into that narrative.  We, those observing the movie from our comfortable chairs with popcorn in hand, notice that he’s doing a pretty good job as a medic.  So maybe he doesn’t need a gun to be a medic.  His convictions can, perhaps, exist as an interesting subplot within the war narrative.  Cool.  It’s sort of inspiring.  But that Desmond Doss is nothing more than an oddity.

And while Doss is certainly an “oddity” in one sense, the narrative centers around HIS actions.  We need to look at HIS narrative as THE narrative, regardless of how “odd” it might be.

When does Doss “now grow weary?”  When does he have strength when others do not?

The answer to me is obvious.  It’s when, out of fear, weariness, and death, the battlefield clears of all but Doss.  It is then that his particular narrative sets itself part as the one that reflects “not growing weary”.

And the implication of this is also obvious.

Doss does not “not grow weary” in killing.  Or in vengeance.  No.  He doesn’t grow weary in saving.  Even his enemies, those mindless enemies (here the portrayal as merciless zombies running into bullets is all the more relevant).  He sees something deeper than an enemy.  “Please Lord, help me get one more.”  This is the power given to the faint.

So this is the connection made to Isaiah 40.  These are not verses that can applied to any and all circumstances without respect to an end.  God, the everlasting God, Creator of all things, is one who does not grow weary in saving.  This is God’s “understanding”.  These are God’s “ways”.  This is God’s strength.  And so this is, in the end, what His strength is given for.

Many things about our life in this world would seek to label this as foolishness.  The Hebrew Scriptures, after all, are NOT foreign to violence as retribution and hatred - even divine violence.  That is a separate issue, but a closely connected and important one.  Here I simply ask: Do we possess an imagination that can see this connection between Doss and Isaiah 40?  What gets in the way of this?  Can we find a way to live in which this sort of “weakness” is actually “strength”?

return to 1st post

Hacksaw Ridge and The God Who Does Not Grow Weary (2)

1st post in the series is here.

----------

Hacksaw Ridge is a war movie.

In many ways, Hacksaw Ridge is like any other war movie.  Utilizing varying degrees of action and graphic brutality, war movies explore the tension between life and death, the loss of life and innocence, the internal conflict and compromises, the darkest parts of the human heart.  There are two clearly identified sides - the good guys and the bad guys - who are trying to and succeeding in killing one another.  One side - “our” side - is portrayed as faithful, honorable and life revering.  And then there are the Japanese - the “others” - the godless, merciless, cowardly “others”.  More often than not, these guys don’t even try to duck below the cascades of bullets. They just run right into them, indifferent.  Like zombies.  Taking the “demonization of the enemy” quite literally, the enemy is characterized as “Satan himself”, a characterization with which the movie's protagonist agrees.

While the same themes are often repeated in war movies, they each tell their story through a unique and heroic protagonist who possesses a unique perspective and exists in a unique (and usually dire) set of circumstances.

My point is NOT to assess the rightness or wrongness of this characterization or circumstances, but  simply to acknowledge that the movie itself portrays things in this light.  We must see Desmond Doss, the protagonist, within this context.

----------

Desmond Doss, as is well known, refuses to carry a weapon because he refuses to kill another human being.  He does this because of his Christian faith.  Thou shalt not kill.  Love your enemies.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  Doss strives to live by these ideals even in war.

This is a problem.  A big one.  Ideas such as these are just fine, even admirable, when it comes to private piety, of course.  But are such beliefs a luxury that have no place in the “real world”?  At one point or another, this refusal to carry a weapon is a problem for virtually everyone in the movie - him, his father, his fiancee, the courts, his commanding officers, and each man in his combat unit.  All the problems - directly or indirectly - relate back to the fact that successfully waging war depends on people being willing to kill other people because they’ve become convinced that it is righteously necessary to do so.

Necessary.  There’s no church in the wild.

When all is said and done, what sort of a man refuses to pick up a gun and kill Satan himself?

Here I’m not interested in talking about pacifism, just war theory, whether Doss would be dead if his fellow American soldiers who did carry guns hadn’t first killed the Japanese soldiers that wanted to kill him, or any of that.

I’m interested in why the movie starts with a reading from Isaiah 40.

If the idea is just to explore the ethics of war using the Bible, why not read from the 10 commandments?  Why not grab a few words of Jesus about loving your neighbor?  Or that those who live by the sword will die by the sword?

Why Isaiah 40?

So let us ask these questions of Isaiah 40 once again.  Not grow faint or weary doing what?  Renew their strength to do what?  What do these words mean?

continued

Hacksaw Ridge and The God Who Does Not Grow Weary (1)

The previews end.  The lights dim and the moviegoers settle a bit deeper into their seats.  Hacksaw Ridge begins.

A voice speaks the words of Isaiah 40:28-41

28 Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
    the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
    his understanding is unsearchable.
29 He gives power to the faint,
    and strengthens the powerless.
30 Even youths will faint and be weary,
    and the young will fall exhausted;
31 but those who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength,
    they shall mount up with wings like eagles,
they shall run and not be weary,
    they shall walk and not faint.
—NRSV

These are soaring words.  But what do they mean?  And how do these words both give meaning to and find their meaning within Hacksaw Ridge?

----------

The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.  He does not grow faint or weary,

He does not grow faint or weary?  What does this mean?  Is this a mere statement of power independent of whatever ends are wrought by this power?  A straight forward (and what many may take to be obvious) affirmation that the God who creates, sustains, and transcends all things is more powerful than human beings and not subject to human limitations?  Or can words such as these only be given proper meaning in terms of God’s character?  In other words, He does not grow faint or weary in doing what?

His understanding is unsearchable.

The same sorts of questions as above.  Is this mere poetic language that the good theologian should convert into the propositional language of divine omniscience?  As in, God knows more facts than human beings?  Actually, what is “understanding”?  In what ways does this understanding reveal itself?  How does this “unsearchable understanding” relate to not growing faint or weary?  How does understanding relate to love and goodness?  Does it?  All the time?  Some of the time?

He gives power to the faint, and strengthens the powerless.

The same sort of questions once again.  What is this power that he gives to the faint?  Power to do what?  What is this strength that he gives?  Strength to do what?

Even youths will faint and be weary, and the young will fall exhausted; but those who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles.

Are we just talking about physical weariness here?  And a renewal of strength for the purpose of whatever the one who is strengthened desires - a sort of force that the worshipper can tap into and control?  Is this an if/then statement - a math equation?  We shall pray before our battle, and the strength to destroy our flesh and blood enemy in our great fury shall be the reward of “waiting for the Lord”?  Who is my enemy?  What does it mean to “wait for the Lord”?  Wait for the Lord to do what?  Yet again, renew their strength to do what?  For the Lord, of course, can only renew “strength” in a way that is consistent with his own “strength”.

They shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not be faint.

Run and not be weary while doing what?  Walk and not be faint in order to do what?

continued

"We Live in a Semantic Universe" - Random Thoughts 11/10/2016

We Christians sometimes talk about “obedience”.  If “obedience” is viewed in the abstract and as independent of or superior to faith, hope and love rather than as their manifestation, then “obedience” is a sham, a millstone tied around your neck, a bringer of death and division.

----------

“Every prayer is an expression of hope.  If you expect nothing from the future, you cannot pray.  Hope is based on the premise that the other gives only what is good.”  (Nouwen)  For what do we hope?  Or rather, to whom do we hope?  Is the “God” that we see one that calls our hearts and minds to that mode of existence that we call “hope”?

----------

Be aware of “the immense difference that exists between hope and wishfullness.” (Nouwen)

----------

The fact that the word “great” appears in “Make America Great Again” does not itself make self-evident what the term means.  Be assured that it doesn’t mean to Donald Trump what it means to you.  To understand what Donald Trump means by “great” we need only look at his words, actions, policies, pursuits, and (perhaps most importantly) who or what is sacrificed in the pursuit of “greatness”.

----------

To those evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who piously hold forth that God “intervened” to give the presidency to Donald Trump I simply ask “Did God’s intervention on behalf of Trump begin before or after the Republican primary?”  If before, you cannot absolve yourself of the ramifications of your support due to him being “the lesser of two evils” or “having no other choice.”

----------

When I look into the face

Of my enemy

I see my brother

I see my brother

(“Brother” – The Brilliance)

This prayer of faith is pious nonsense unless that which binds and gives life to humanity is eternal; deeper and stronger than those things that separate.  A true vision of our beginning and our end may yet bring a healing and reconciling word to our present, a word that renders the construct of “the enemy” as illusory.  As vapor.

The Privilege of NOT Talking Politics

As the world of politics gets nastier and nastier, I’ve been more and more inclined to just ignore it all.  Write it off.

For one thing, I simply can’t keep up with the constant barrage of news and the associated political spin.  What is my source for “unbiased news”?

But more than that, I’m tired of the “my tribe is better” power struggle.  Let "them" hash it all out.  “The future of our country” narrative, I tend to believe, is largely fear based manipulation because fear provokes action and rallies supporters quicker and more effective than calls for patience and the common good.  Civility has all but vanished.  I find myself getting caught up in the spirit of anger.

It’s not that I don’t have opinions.  I do, and I try to make them informed opinions.

But there is a sense in which stepping away from the circus is a realistic option for me.  Don’t mishear me.  It’s not that I exist outside the world of politics.  But there is a degree to which it can be compartmentalized.  I can lay it down and pick it up as is convenient.  I don’t say that with pride.

**********

As the same time as the political world descends into chaos, I’ve been coming to an awareness of the privilege that I’ve enjoyed throughout my life.  My "success" cannot be reduced to "hard work" alone.  I’ve been given SO many opportunities and I’m increasingly able to recognize the political side of that.

So when Science Mike said this on Episode 34 of The Liturgists Podcast entitled “Black and White: Racism in America”, it stung.

“I’ve been learning that the ability to NOT talk politics is an embodiment of what some would call privilege…..”

**********

I think he’s right.

Random Thoughts: The Week of 3/25/16 to 4/1/16

**********

In his Meditation from Friday, 3/25/16 entitled "The View From The Bottom", Fr. Rohr writes:

"Only by solidarity with other people's suffering can comfortable people be converted.  Otherwise we are disconnected from the cross - of the world, of others, of Jesus, and finally of our own necessary participation in the great mystery of dying and rising."

A few thoughts:

1. The word "solidarity" is a carefully chosen word.  It is not "caring" about other's people's suffering (as in feeling a twinge of emotion or guilt when watching the news or a movie) though this is not a bad thing in and of itself.
2. It is not simply a long distance financial commitment to the suffering of others (though this is far, far, far from a bad thing).
3. It is solidarity with other people's suffering.
4. Solidarity implies that you also will suffer.  You too are affected.
5. Change that word "you".  I will suffer.  I am affected.
6. Solidarity leads to suffering.
7. But I don't want to suffer.  And it seems like the entirety of my life is set up to avoid it.  The "panem et circenses", the "bread and circuses", seeks to define my life.
8. Solidarity can only happen in love.  And love can only happen in solidarity with others.
9. Love leads to suffering.  The Way of the Cross.
10. Love, the manifestation of which is solidarity, also leads to conversion.
11. This "conversion" itself is a "participation in the great mystery of dying and rising."
12. Conversion  = participation.
13. Now what???

**********

Paul Ryan in a recent speech:

"There was a time when I would talk about a difference between "makers" and "takers" in our country, referring to people who accepted government benefits. But as I spent more time listening, and really learning the root causes of poverty, I realized I was wrong. "Takers" wasn’t how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap, just trying to take care of her family. Most people don't want to be dependent. And to label a whole group of Americans that way was wrong. I shouldn’t castigate a large group of Americans to make a point.

So I stopped thinking about it that way—and talking about it that way. But I didn’t come out and say all this to be politically correct. I was just wrong. And of course, there are still going to be times when I say things I wish I hadn’t. There are still going to be times when I follow the wrong impulse."

It's impossible to pretend that the rhetoric that Ryan seeks to eliminate isn't prevalent.

Check this out - Who Said It: Fox News or Jesus?

Biased?  Perhaps.  But the question is not whether there is "bias" in the presentation, but whether the source material itself is real and being used in reference to broad groups of people (as opposed to addressing specific cases of abuse).  It represents a fundamental way of seeing the world, one in which all people get and are getting what they deserve.  Poor?  It's your fault.  The opportunities are there and are available to all without exception.  Government should get.  Out.  Of.  The.  Way.  I'm successful?  Wealthy?  I have earned it.  Me.  The system works!!

This is not true for me.  I have two wonderful parents who stayed married.  My health and basic needs were provided for.  I lived in safe neighborhoods growing up.  I went to safe schools where I could learn effectively.  I wasn't ANY more motivated than any other teenager, but my own lack of motivation was effectively covered up by extensive opportunity.  I was able to get into a good college.  My parents paid for it, and I graduated virtually debt free.    This lack of debt opened up opportunities - to travel a little bit, to buy a house, to save money, etc.  Would I have started dating my wife if I'd been living at home with my parents?  Through all of this, I made TONS of mistakes that I got away with where others haven't.  I have done things that could have ruined my life.

This is not to say that life is just pure randomness with no cause and effect.  It's just to say that where you start goes a long way in determining where you end up.

I'll be curious to see how this plays out within the political world.  Is this posturing, rhetoric and political gamesmanship, or something more?

**********

A walk from Thursday to Sunday of Holy Week with two of my favorite bloggers, Richard Beck and Brian Zahnd:

Thursday: To Hell With Symbolic (Richard Beck)

Friday: Good Friday: A World Indicted (Brian Zahnd)

Saturday: Awake, O Sleeper, And Rise From The Dead (Richard Beck)

Sunday: The Gardener (Brian Zahnd)

**********

Much of what marinates in my mind over the course of a week originates either directly or tangentially in the things I’ve read during the week, some of which is new, some was published earlier but is new to me, and some I’m returning to after having read it some time ago.  Among the dozens of excellent blog posts and articles that I read each week, here are a few that I found to be particularly profound, inspiring, challenging, enlightening, informative, memorable, or provocative for me personally.  I might even reference something with which I profoundly DISAGREE (which I’ll identify accordingly - there won’t be a need to guess!)

Owning Up to Torture (New York Times) – Eric Fair

The growing controversy over Georgia’s Indiana-style religious freedom bill, explained (Vox) – German Lopez

The Self and the Gospel (Eclectic Orthodoxy) – Brian Moore

Traditio Deformis (First Things) – David Bentley Hart

It’s Always Better to be More Gracious than God (Speaking Freely) – Matthew Frost

How the Soul Matures – Fr. Ron Rolhesier

**********

And lastly, a few quotes that I came across this past week:

"Life is lived forward, but is only understood backwards."
--Kierkegaard (as quoted in Walking With Grandfather by Michael Hardin)

"If the skill could not be practiced by anyone, anywhere, then it was useless."
--(Walking With Grandfather by Michael Hardin, p70)

Random Thoughts - 3/22/16

Haven't posted anything in awhile. Why not a few random thoughts?

1. There is a scene in Jurassic Park (the original) where the raptors are systematically testing out their electrified containment fences for weaknesses.  They probe and test every inch of it, ramming their bodies into it, trying to escape.  This is my 2.5 year old daughter right now.  A velociraptor testing the boundaries.  Of every.  Single.  Thing.  But she’s my velociraptor and I love her desperately.
2. What better time to argue about Atonement Theory than Holy Week?  It’s SO important.  In the end, atonement theory is simply the question of “Who is this living God of whom we speak?”
3. In getting older, time seems to slip away.  Work.  Responsibility.  How rare is a true, deep, intimate friendship as an adult!  How I long for one.  Just one would be enough.
4. This March Madness Bracket has to be my worst one ever.
5. To my wife: I’ve come to realize that in my own spiritual wanderings – this painful deconstruction and isolation – I have not wandered alone.  No Man Is An Island.  I wanted it to be a noble, lonely, heroic journey – whether selflessly, or selfishly.  I do not mean this in a Footprints in the Sand way (my how I hate that poem).  Not in a “with you in spirit” way.  I mean this in a tangible human way.  I have brought you with me (not metaphorically) – whether we recognized it or not, whether you wanted to or not.    It is the price you pay for loving me.  I’m afraid that I’ve brought you down into the mud of cynicism.  I am sorry.  I have said it many times.  Forgive me.
6. I’m really looking forward to baseball season.  Next year is here, Cubs fans.
7. I wish that Truffula trees were real.
8. “Children’s Bibles” suck.  They really do.

“Aha! Moments” and “Oh Sh$% Moments"

A few days ago I wrote a post about accidentally overheating some puréed sweet potatoes for my daughter and how that triggered something for me.

It got me thinking about "aha! moments".

Apparently "aha! moment" is worthy of an actual dictionary definition:

a moment of sudden insight or discovery.
"it was one of those aha moments, when you know you have to risk it all"

Sound like a good thing.  A flash of insight or clarity, a new realization that clears up misconceptions, or forms a new connection.  A breakthrough.

Form a few mental image of an "aha! moment".  Everybody is happy.  Everybody is smiling.  Where the light bulb was once off, now it's on.  There is light where there was once darkness.  You're scribbling furiously wanting to write it all down to make sure that you don't lose it.  It leads to action and productivity.  You want to share it with those close to you.

Here’s the thing though.  I don’t actually want to talk about "aha! moments".

What I was referring to in my previous post is actually the nefarious sibling of the “aha! moment”.

I’ll call it the “oh no” moment.  And I'm not talking about an "oh no" moment in the sense of "I just lost Super Mario Bros" or "That chili isn't sitting so well."  I'm talking about something big.  A game changer.  I'm not even talking about devastating health type things (though those may lead to an existential crisis), but rather an event that leads to the opposite of an aha! moment.

You know what?  “Oh no” or "Uh oh" doesn’t cover it.  It’s not strong enough.  It doesn’t do justice to the reality of it.  If you’ve had one, you know what I mean.

Something stonger is needed.

“Oh shit.”  That's it.  An “oh sh$% moment.

Much better.  (I'll censor it the rest of the way as I feel no need NOT to.)

I don't mean this comedically, though it may carry that connotation.  I mean this in the sense of dread and angst.  In an extreme case, your world comes crashing down like a house of cards.

For this post, I thought I'd try to come up with a few characteristics of an "oh sh$%" moment.

Not all of these apply to each and every "oh sh$%" moment, but most probably do.

1 - An "oh sh$%" moment has to do with something major or significant.  Something existential, bound up with your identity, worldview or well-being.  It has to be major to illicit a response strong enough for it to qualify as a true "oh sh$%" moment.

2 - An "oh sh$%" moment is disorienting.  Rather than the light bulb going on as in an "aha moment", it's more like a light bulb going off.  It's often accompanied by an experience of extreme cognitive dissonance.

3 - An "oh sh$%" moment isolates you.  You can't just run out and tell everyone about it.  Because it has to do with something major or significant, is very likely to be bound up with your identity, world view or sense of ultimate well being, and because it is so disorienting, it's difficult to talk about it.  It's not just difficult as in it's confusing or disorienting and difficult to get the words out, though it may be these things.  In many cases you simply can't talk about these things with just everybody.  When it comes to "oh sh$%" moment material, we tend to group together with those who think like we do, so we're forced to bear it alone.  We're either afraid of rejection, or we don't want to hurt our friends or loved ones, or both.  I'm no sociologist so this is just a novice observation.

4 - Unlike an "aha moment", you aren't out looking for an "oh sh$%" moment.  If you are looking for it, I contend that your "oh sh$%" moment had already occurred and what you're now searching for is a way to move forward.

5 - There's no going back after an "oh sh$%" moment.  You see something in a way that you can't unsee it.

6 - While an "oh sh$%" moment may seem like it came out of nowhere, you may be able to look back and see that the seeds of it have been in the soil of your life for awhile.

7 - An "oh sh$%" moment, though it may be characterized by any of #'s 1-6 above, may ultimately prove to be a necessary precursor to an "aha! moments".  While the two are quite different in their immediate experience, we may be able to look back at "oh sh$%" moments and see that the lines that separated them from "aha! moments" have become a bit blurry.

8 - If #7 applies, only the one who experienced an "oh sh$%" moment is allowed to look back and say how it was actually an "aha! moment", that it "made you who you are today."  You don't get to make that determination for anyone else and nobody gets to make that determination for you.

Did I miss any?