I don't usually blog about politics because I don't consider myself very knowledgable on the subject. I am principly a theologian, and my understanding of politics is more theorhetical than practical.
However, I have found some of the discussion surrounding President Barak Obama lately interesting. President Obama, in my opinion, is someone who doesn't seem to understand that people disagree with him. He seems to view any detractor as a fringe subversive, rather than as a respected opponent. This has caused him to act in rather uncooth ways in regards to how he pushes his agenda.
Two recent events I think have really clarified this. First of all, there is the entire affair regarding the Honorable Judge Vinson. Vinson declares Obama's healthcare to be unconstitutional, yet Obama continued to enforce it. Techiniquely, as I understand it, the bill is in limbo until it is heard by the Supreme Court. Thus Obama has no actual authority to enforce anything, yet he still attempted to.
A second thing is the recent attack on DOMA, which I think it his attempt to say "Look I really am for the constitution" in a way that still is consistant with his overall agenda. However, ironically, DOMA doesn't really go against the constitution at all. It merely says that the federal government isn't allowed to use the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution to get around state decisions on gay marriage. There are really only two sections to DOMA, considering the section 1 is just naming the thing: Article 2 which is making something official which was already true; that no state is under the obligation to hold up another states law if it contradicts its only public policy. Article 3, which is a bit more contraversial, is defining the terms marriage and spouse only in regards to how they are used within federal documents and agencies (a fact that seems to be routinely ignored). So I don't really see how this is supporting the Constitution.
I have always heald that I don't particularly care about gay marriage: I only care that it remains under the juridiction of the states to decide policy on the matter. I still stand by that, and it seems to me that Obama is trying to get around that. He seems to continuely undermine state authority. I don't like the consolidation of federal power, and it has increasely come to my attention that this is precisely what the current president's agenda is.
February 24, 2011
December 27, 2010
Calvinism Myths
I was recently pointed to this post by Calvinist Michael C. Patton, who I respect a great deal. Here he lists 12 myths that he believes are levied against Calvinism. I wanted to review a couple of these and add my own thoughts on them. Some I think are legitimate myths, some I really do not.
**UPDATE** Since I made this post, I made some editions. Typos I just corrected, but anything added is in italics
1. Calvinism is not system of theology that denies God’s universal love.While there are some Calvinists who do deny God’s universal love for all man, this is certainly not a necessary or a central tenet of Calvinism. Calvinists do, however, believe that God has a particular type of love for the elect (an “electing love”), but most also believe that God loves all people (John 3:16). It is a mystery to Calvinist as to why he does not elect everyone. (More on this here.)
I have to agree with Patton that this is to some degree a myth. To some degree. Every respectable Calvinist that I have met agrees that God universally loves all, and that God not electing some is a mystery.
In the end, this statement is really an argument against Calvinism, rather than a myth. It is an ethical argument which states that God couldn't possibly love all men if He refuses to save them. I think this argument is valid. While I concede that it is a myth that non-hyper-Calvinists believe this, I think it takes either impressive mental gymnastics or intention ignorance to pull it off.
I would like to add that this is something that the Bible is a bit clear about: those that are not saved are not saved because they reject God. This is clear. One of the reasons that I don't believe in Calvinism is that they take things like responsiblity, love, and divine goodness and make them mysterious. These are things that the Bible is clear about. Meanwhile, they take things like omniscience, and omnipotence and seem to think that these ideas should be understood perfectly. It's like they have the mystery in the wrong places.
2. Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell.Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.)
Again it is true that most Calvinists don't believe this. But some do, and that is a bit scary. In fact, supralapsarianism (which is not the same thing as hyper Calvinism BTW) was the theological position that Arminius was opposing at the time of his life.
3. Calvinism is not belief that God is the author of evil.Because of Calvinism’s high view of God’s sovereignty, many mistakenly believe that Calvinists hold God responsible for sin and evil. This is not true. There are very few Calvinists who believe that God is the author of evil. Most Calvinists believe that to ascribe responsibility for evil to God is heretical.
This is the primary area where I am happy that Calvinists are inconsistent with their beliefs. I've never met a Calvinist that would say that God is the author of evil, but, at the same time, they believe that everything that happens God decreed to have happened and made it so. In other words, God may have caused it, but He isn't responsible for it. Why He is not responsible may depend on the Calvinist, and is often overly complex. But even though I know that Calvinists don't believe that, I would have to if I actually accepted predeterminism. It is just the logical consequent.
Again, this is an example of something that isn't a myth, but an argument. I don't know any Arminian who thinks that Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil. However most, if not all, Arminians that I know (including myself) believe that if Calvinism where true, than God created evil.
4. Calvinism is not a belief in fatalism.A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control, though Calvinists differ about how meticulous this control is.
I find Patton's definition of fatalism interesting, especially since that isn't really what it means. Fatalism is the belief that everything which happens is inevitable: it is your fate. Why that is your fate can vary among fatalists, and many believe that your fate is set by personal omnipotent beings (such as the three Fates in Greek mythology). So saying that Calvinists don't believe in fatalism because God is an intelligent guide, to me, is based more on a very unique definition of fatalism.
Fatalism is to some degree a contested term, but usually within such debates fatalism is about the futility of human actions in terms of what their ultimate destiny will be. In this sense, one could say that Calvinism is fatalist, in the sense that humanity really can't affect its destiny.
On the other hand, one could say that Calvinism isn't fatalist, because that isn't part of the emphasis of Calvinism, like calling someone at a recycling depot a garbageman. Within Calvinism, no one is really trapped by their destiny. Instead, they are privileged to it. For this reason, I don't tend to call Calvinists "Fatalists". Another way to say it is that Fatalism is pessimistic about determinism, Calvinism is rather optimistic about it.
Mind you, I don't think that this is much better. Calvinism is rather self-absorbed in its theology in my opinion. "God chose me to be saved for all eternity, unlike the vast majority of humanity! Isn't God wonderful?" You can kind of see why those who aren't Calvinist see this as fatalism. A reprobate may say, "Sure you aren't trapped by your fate, but the rest of us are!" Therefore, Calvinism is only sorta fatalist. It is fatalist in its worldview, but not in its attitude about it. However that is hardly a glowing recommendation.
5. Calvinism is not a denial of freedom.Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.)
By "properly defined free will" he means "free will as defined completely differently from all of history before Calvin and from every other belief system than Calvinism." I personally think that compatibablist free will is philosophical incoherent (More on this here.) It's like calling a blueberry a grape, and then only listing the similarities. So, yes, Calvinism is a denial of freedom, while compatibalism is simply being in denial.
6. Calvinism is not a belief that God forces people to become Christians against their will.Calvinists believe in what is called “irresistible grace.” This might not be the best name for it since it does not really communicate what is involved. Calvinists believe that people are dead in the sin (Eph 2:1), haters of God, with no ability to seek him in their natural state (Rom 3:11; John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14). Since this is the case, God must first regenerate them so that they can have faith. Once regenerate, people do not need to be forced to accept God, but this is a natural reaction—a willing reaction—of one who has been born again and, for the first time, recognizes the beauty of God.
So once they are forced to be regenerate, they are not forced to become Christians?.... Right. Thank you for the clarification.
To be frank, Augustine, who Calvin based his thoughts on, was insistent that he was forced to become a Christian. The percentage of Calvinists that describe their salvation experience as being dragged kicking and screaming is also quite high. I'm sorry Michael, but if you were being honest with yourself, you would simply learn to claim this one.
7. Calvinism is not a belief that you should only evangelize the elect.No one knows who the elect are. I suppose that if there was a way to find out, both Calvinist and Arminians (the other primary option to Calvinism) would only evangelize the elect (since Arminians also believe only the elect will be saved even though they understand election differently). Since we don’t know, it is our duty to evangelize all people and nations. Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of Christianity, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, have held to the doctrine of unconditional election.
Have to agree with Michael on this one being a myth. Calvinism does not teach you should only evangelize the elect, but that evangelism is the process through which the elect are revealed. Mind you, many Calvinists have rejected evangelism in history. Indeed, I think evangelism is something that Calvinists have had to "make work" with their theology, rather than something which flows naturally from it.
8. Calvinism is not a belief that God arbitrarily chooses people to be saved.Calvinists believe that God elects some people to salvation and not others and that this election is not based on anything present or foreseen, righteous or unrighteous, in the individual, but upon his sovereign choice. But this does not mean that the choice is arbitrary, as if God is flipping a coin to see who is saved and who is not. Calvinists believe that God has his reasons, but they are in his mysterious secret will.
This isn't a myth. It is not "Election by Unknown Conditions", but "Unconditional Election". In Calvinism, God has reasons for electing, as a general concept. The elect may also have a very specific demographic that God has planned. But according to true Calvinism there is no condition, or attribute that belongs to the person which causes them to be elect instead of someone else. There is another word for that: arbitrary (actually two. You could also say random).
9. Calvinism is not a system of thought that follows a man, John Calvin.While Calvinists obviously respect John Calvin, they simply believe that he correctly understood and systematized some very important Apostolic teachings concerning election, man’s condition, and God’s sovereignty. However, much of this understanding did not originate with John Calvin, but can be seen in many throughout church history such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Ultimately, Calvinists will argue, they follow rightly interpreted Scripture.
I agree that it is a myth to say that Calvinism is just based off of John Calvin, but Calvin is still who defines Calvinism. Many Calvinists disagree with Calvin on things. So fine, this is a myth.
Oh, if you want to list people who believed in Arminian theology: Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Ignatius, Athanatius, Basil, both Gregories, Tertullian, and pretty much everyone else who predates Augustine, not to mention Francis of Assisi, the Council of Orange and probably a few more that predate Calvin.
10. Calvinism is not a system that has to ignore or reinterpret passages of Scripture concerning human responsibility.Calvinists believe that all people are responsible to do what is right, even though, as fallen children of Adam, they lack ability to do what is right (in a transcendent sense; see below) without God’s regenerating grace. Therefore, God’s call and commands apply to all people and all people are responsible for their rejection and rebellion.
It does have to reinterpret them. Sorry. This is just what it means to have Christians that disagree with you. Naturally you think that I am reinterpreting verses, and conversely I think that you are doing likewise.
11. Calvinists do not believe that no one can do any good thing at all.Calvinists believe in what is called “total depravity” (so do Arminians). However, total depravity does not mean that people cannot ever do anything good. Calvinists believe that unregenerate people can do many good things and sometimes even act better than Christians. But when it comes to people’s disposition toward God and their acknowledgment of him for their abilities, gifts, and future, they deny him and therefore taint all that they are and do. An unbeliever, for example, can love and care for their children just as a believer can. In and of itself this is a very good thing. However, in relation to God this finds no eternal or transcendent favor since they are at enmity with him, the Giver of all things. Therefore, it might be said, while all people can do good, only the regenerate can do transcendent good.
This is kind of awkward. OK, yes, Calvinists do believe that unbelievers can do good, but classic Calvinism believes this for completely different reasons than Michael states. Classic Calvinism believes in "common grace", or grace that God extends to everyone which prevents sin from completely running amuck.
12. Calvinists do not necessarily believe that God predestines (wills) everything, including the color of socks I chose this morning.There is a spectrum to belief about God’s sovereignty in Calvinism. The one thing that unites all Calvinists is their belief in God’s sovereign choice to elect some people to salvation and not others. However, Calvinists differ concerning God’s involvement in other areas (for more on this, see here). Some Calvinists believe in what might be called “meticulous sovereignty”, where God has not only predestined people to salvation, but also he has predestined everything that occurs. As the old saying goes: “There is not a maverick molecule in the universe.” However, most Calvinists believe in what might be called “providential sovereignty.” Here, Calvinists would distinguish between God’s permissive will and his sovereign will. In his permissive will, many things happen that he permits, but is not necessarily bringing about as the first cause. In his sovereign will, many things happen because of his direct intervention (for more on this, see here).
I have no problem with the notion of "providential sovereignty." Indeed, as an Arminian, I believe in providential sovereignty. Patton is the only Calvinist I have ever met though to believe in it as well. If he wants to call that "not necessarily believing", than fine. But his personal beliefs does not qualify something as being a myth. Standard Calvinist theology states that God meticulously controls everything, and always has.
1. Calvinism is not system of theology that denies God’s universal love.While there are some Calvinists who do deny God’s universal love for all man, this is certainly not a necessary or a central tenet of Calvinism. Calvinists do, however, believe that God has a particular type of love for the elect (an “electing love”), but most also believe that God loves all people (John 3:16). It is a mystery to Calvinist as to why he does not elect everyone. (More on this here.)
I have to agree with Patton that this is to some degree a myth. To some degree. Every respectable Calvinist that I have met agrees that God universally loves all, and that God not electing some is a mystery.
In the end, this statement is really an argument against Calvinism, rather than a myth. It is an ethical argument which states that God couldn't possibly love all men if He refuses to save them. I think this argument is valid. While I concede that it is a myth that non-hyper-Calvinists believe this, I think it takes either impressive mental gymnastics or intention ignorance to pull it off.
I would like to add that this is something that the Bible is a bit clear about: those that are not saved are not saved because they reject God. This is clear. One of the reasons that I don't believe in Calvinism is that they take things like responsiblity, love, and divine goodness and make them mysterious. These are things that the Bible is clear about. Meanwhile, they take things like omniscience, and omnipotence and seem to think that these ideas should be understood perfectly. It's like they have the mystery in the wrong places.
2. Calvinism is not a belief that God creates people in order to send them to hell.Again, this is not representative of normative Calvinists. While supralapsarians do believe that God creates people to send them to hell, the majority of Calvinists are not supralapsarians. (More on this here.)
Again it is true that most Calvinists don't believe this. But some do, and that is a bit scary. In fact, supralapsarianism (which is not the same thing as hyper Calvinism BTW) was the theological position that Arminius was opposing at the time of his life.
3. Calvinism is not belief that God is the author of evil.Because of Calvinism’s high view of God’s sovereignty, many mistakenly believe that Calvinists hold God responsible for sin and evil. This is not true. There are very few Calvinists who believe that God is the author of evil. Most Calvinists believe that to ascribe responsibility for evil to God is heretical.
This is the primary area where I am happy that Calvinists are inconsistent with their beliefs. I've never met a Calvinist that would say that God is the author of evil, but, at the same time, they believe that everything that happens God decreed to have happened and made it so. In other words, God may have caused it, but He isn't responsible for it. Why He is not responsible may depend on the Calvinist, and is often overly complex. But even though I know that Calvinists don't believe that, I would have to if I actually accepted predeterminism. It is just the logical consequent.
Again, this is an example of something that isn't a myth, but an argument. I don't know any Arminian who thinks that Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil. However most, if not all, Arminians that I know (including myself) believe that if Calvinism where true, than God created evil.
4. Calvinism is not a belief in fatalism.A fatalistic worldview is one in which all things are left to fate, chance, and a series of causes and effects that has no intelligent guide or ultimate cause. Calvinism believes that God (not fate) is in control, though Calvinists differ about how meticulous this control is.
I find Patton's definition of fatalism interesting, especially since that isn't really what it means. Fatalism is the belief that everything which happens is inevitable: it is your fate. Why that is your fate can vary among fatalists, and many believe that your fate is set by personal omnipotent beings (such as the three Fates in Greek mythology). So saying that Calvinists don't believe in fatalism because God is an intelligent guide, to me, is based more on a very unique definition of fatalism.
Fatalism is to some degree a contested term, but usually within such debates fatalism is about the futility of human actions in terms of what their ultimate destiny will be. In this sense, one could say that Calvinism is fatalist, in the sense that humanity really can't affect its destiny.
On the other hand, one could say that Calvinism isn't fatalist, because that isn't part of the emphasis of Calvinism, like calling someone at a recycling depot a garbageman. Within Calvinism, no one is really trapped by their destiny. Instead, they are privileged to it. For this reason, I don't tend to call Calvinists "Fatalists". Another way to say it is that Fatalism is pessimistic about determinism, Calvinism is rather optimistic about it.
Mind you, I don't think that this is much better. Calvinism is rather self-absorbed in its theology in my opinion. "God chose me to be saved for all eternity, unlike the vast majority of humanity! Isn't God wonderful?" You can kind of see why those who aren't Calvinist see this as fatalism. A reprobate may say, "Sure you aren't trapped by your fate, but the rest of us are!" Therefore, Calvinism is only sorta fatalist. It is fatalist in its worldview, but not in its attitude about it. However that is hardly a glowing recommendation.
5. Calvinism is not a denial of freedom.Calvinists to do not believe that people are robots or puppets on strings. Calvinists believe in freedom and, properly defined, free will. While Calvinists believe that God is ultimately in control of everything, most are compatibalists, believing that he works in and with human freedom (limited though it may be). Calvinists believe in human responsibility at the same time as holding to a high view of God’s providential sovereignty. (More on this here.)
By "properly defined free will" he means "free will as defined completely differently from all of history before Calvin and from every other belief system than Calvinism." I personally think that compatibablist free will is philosophical incoherent (More on this here.) It's like calling a blueberry a grape, and then only listing the similarities. So, yes, Calvinism is a denial of freedom, while compatibalism is simply being in denial.
6. Calvinism is not a belief that God forces people to become Christians against their will.Calvinists believe in what is called “irresistible grace.” This might not be the best name for it since it does not really communicate what is involved. Calvinists believe that people are dead in the sin (Eph 2:1), haters of God, with no ability to seek him in their natural state (Rom 3:11; John 6:44; 1 Cor 2:14). Since this is the case, God must first regenerate them so that they can have faith. Once regenerate, people do not need to be forced to accept God, but this is a natural reaction—a willing reaction—of one who has been born again and, for the first time, recognizes the beauty of God.
So once they are forced to be regenerate, they are not forced to become Christians?.... Right. Thank you for the clarification.
To be frank, Augustine, who Calvin based his thoughts on, was insistent that he was forced to become a Christian. The percentage of Calvinists that describe their salvation experience as being dragged kicking and screaming is also quite high. I'm sorry Michael, but if you were being honest with yourself, you would simply learn to claim this one.
7. Calvinism is not a belief that you should only evangelize the elect.No one knows who the elect are. I suppose that if there was a way to find out, both Calvinist and Arminians (the other primary option to Calvinism) would only evangelize the elect (since Arminians also believe only the elect will be saved even though they understand election differently). Since we don’t know, it is our duty to evangelize all people and nations. Some of the greatest evangelists in the history of Christianity, such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Jonathan Edwards, have held to the doctrine of unconditional election.
Have to agree with Michael on this one being a myth. Calvinism does not teach you should only evangelize the elect, but that evangelism is the process through which the elect are revealed. Mind you, many Calvinists have rejected evangelism in history. Indeed, I think evangelism is something that Calvinists have had to "make work" with their theology, rather than something which flows naturally from it.
8. Calvinism is not a belief that God arbitrarily chooses people to be saved.Calvinists believe that God elects some people to salvation and not others and that this election is not based on anything present or foreseen, righteous or unrighteous, in the individual, but upon his sovereign choice. But this does not mean that the choice is arbitrary, as if God is flipping a coin to see who is saved and who is not. Calvinists believe that God has his reasons, but they are in his mysterious secret will.
This isn't a myth. It is not "Election by Unknown Conditions", but "Unconditional Election". In Calvinism, God has reasons for electing, as a general concept. The elect may also have a very specific demographic that God has planned. But according to true Calvinism there is no condition, or attribute that belongs to the person which causes them to be elect instead of someone else. There is another word for that: arbitrary (actually two. You could also say random).
9. Calvinism is not a system of thought that follows a man, John Calvin.While Calvinists obviously respect John Calvin, they simply believe that he correctly understood and systematized some very important Apostolic teachings concerning election, man’s condition, and God’s sovereignty. However, much of this understanding did not originate with John Calvin, but can be seen in many throughout church history such as Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Ultimately, Calvinists will argue, they follow rightly interpreted Scripture.
I agree that it is a myth to say that Calvinism is just based off of John Calvin, but Calvin is still who defines Calvinism. Many Calvinists disagree with Calvin on things. So fine, this is a myth.
Oh, if you want to list people who believed in Arminian theology: Justin Martyr, Iraneus, Ignatius, Athanatius, Basil, both Gregories, Tertullian, and pretty much everyone else who predates Augustine, not to mention Francis of Assisi, the Council of Orange and probably a few more that predate Calvin.
10. Calvinism is not a system that has to ignore or reinterpret passages of Scripture concerning human responsibility.Calvinists believe that all people are responsible to do what is right, even though, as fallen children of Adam, they lack ability to do what is right (in a transcendent sense; see below) without God’s regenerating grace. Therefore, God’s call and commands apply to all people and all people are responsible for their rejection and rebellion.
It does have to reinterpret them. Sorry. This is just what it means to have Christians that disagree with you. Naturally you think that I am reinterpreting verses, and conversely I think that you are doing likewise.
11. Calvinists do not believe that no one can do any good thing at all.Calvinists believe in what is called “total depravity” (so do Arminians). However, total depravity does not mean that people cannot ever do anything good. Calvinists believe that unregenerate people can do many good things and sometimes even act better than Christians. But when it comes to people’s disposition toward God and their acknowledgment of him for their abilities, gifts, and future, they deny him and therefore taint all that they are and do. An unbeliever, for example, can love and care for their children just as a believer can. In and of itself this is a very good thing. However, in relation to God this finds no eternal or transcendent favor since they are at enmity with him, the Giver of all things. Therefore, it might be said, while all people can do good, only the regenerate can do transcendent good.
This is kind of awkward. OK, yes, Calvinists do believe that unbelievers can do good, but classic Calvinism believes this for completely different reasons than Michael states. Classic Calvinism believes in "common grace", or grace that God extends to everyone which prevents sin from completely running amuck.
12. Calvinists do not necessarily believe that God predestines (wills) everything, including the color of socks I chose this morning.There is a spectrum to belief about God’s sovereignty in Calvinism. The one thing that unites all Calvinists is their belief in God’s sovereign choice to elect some people to salvation and not others. However, Calvinists differ concerning God’s involvement in other areas (for more on this, see here). Some Calvinists believe in what might be called “meticulous sovereignty”, where God has not only predestined people to salvation, but also he has predestined everything that occurs. As the old saying goes: “There is not a maverick molecule in the universe.” However, most Calvinists believe in what might be called “providential sovereignty.” Here, Calvinists would distinguish between God’s permissive will and his sovereign will. In his permissive will, many things happen that he permits, but is not necessarily bringing about as the first cause. In his sovereign will, many things happen because of his direct intervention (for more on this, see here).
I have no problem with the notion of "providential sovereignty." Indeed, as an Arminian, I believe in providential sovereignty. Patton is the only Calvinist I have ever met though to believe in it as well. If he wants to call that "not necessarily believing", than fine. But his personal beliefs does not qualify something as being a myth. Standard Calvinist theology states that God meticulously controls everything, and always has.
October 22, 2010
A Great Article on Corporate Election
Dr. Brian Abasciano has written an absolutely fantastic article in response to Dan Wallace on the issue of Corporate Election. For those of you who are interested, here's a link:
Dr. Brian Abasciano Responds To Dr. Dan Wallace On The Issue Of Corporate Election
Dr. Brian Abasciano Responds To Dr. Dan Wallace On The Issue Of Corporate Election
October 2, 2010
BABY
Hey everyone, I just wanted to do a bit of a personal update, since things have been fairly blank here for a while.
First of all, my wife is currently 3 months pregnant for our first child :D. So that's really exciting. I'm a guy, so I don't know how to talk about this... so I'll just move on.
Second, I don't know if I've mentioned this on my blog, but I got a new job a few months ago working with people with developmental disabilities. It is a really good job, and the agency has a spiritual care department which I hope to be able to transfer into within the next couple of years. If, at some point, I don't really think that is going to happen, I intend to start looking for a chaplaincy position, but I'll wait at least three years before really pursuing that. I would rather move within this organization since I really like it.
Third, and this is completely unrelated, I've often talked about having "a list" of movies that I really need or want to see. I've never really composed such a list... until now! Some are on the list because, as a lover of film, that are landmark movies that are important for reference. Others are on there because I just flat out want to see them. Then there are a couple that I'm just a tad curious about. So I thought I would print it here and see if anyone has any other films I should probably add (I know there are some, but I only compiled this list in 15 minutes):
* seen it before (or part of it) but don't remember it well
- *All About Eve
- Blade Runner
- * Breakfast at Tiffany's
- Book of Eli
- The Bridge Over the River Kwai
- Bringing Up Baby (Cary Grant and K Hepburn)
- Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
- * Casablanca
- Die Hard 2 & 4 (Because I've seen 1 & 3)
- Dr. Strangelove
- * Enter the Dragon
- Godfather
- Gone With the Wind
- The Good, the Bad, And the Ugly
- The Greatest Story Ever Told
- Iron Man II
- The Lady Eve
- Laurence of Arabia
- Mad Max
- The Maltese Falcon
- Modern Times (Chaplin)
- One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest
- Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief
- * Pink Panther
- Point Break
- Raging Bull
- * Roman Holiday
- The Searchers
- Seven Samurai
- Sunset Blvd
- Thank You For Smoking
- The Third Man
- Toy Story 3
- Tron
Important or interesting film, but not really sure if I should and/or want to see it
- 12 Monkeys
- 2001 A Space Oddessy
- *Animal House
- Annie Hall
- Butterfly Effect (People tell me that its bad, but I'm curious about time paradox stories)
- The Graduate
- Green Hornet
- House of the Flying Daggers
- Inception
- Inherit the Wind (I want to see it for masochistic reasons)
- Kick "butt" (From what I understand, there is a lot of cursing and violence.)
- Saving Private Ryan (Again, a lot of violence)
- Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
- Watchmen
September 20, 2010
A Few Points About the Bible That May Make People Hate Me
- The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books. There is a difference between a book (a single piece of literature) and a codex (a means of publishing literary works where edges of paper are bound by cord or glue to a single binding). You can have a book that takes up more than one codex (usually each codex being called a volume) or you can have several books contained in a single codex. The Bible is 66 books in one codex, and as such each book needs to be treated differently, and as a whole
- The Biblical Books Are Independent. Though it is true that any good theologian is going to be taking the Bible as a whole when forming his/her theology, it is also true that each book is a self-contained unit. They need to be treated as distinct
- The Bible has multiple genres. You cannot treat the whole bible as if it is a collection of aphorisms (sentences that can stand alone). One needs to be sensitive in regards to what genre you are dealing with.
- The Bible has multiple authors. As cute as it is to say that God is the author of the Bible, in truth God inspired many different authors to write the Bible, and each author used his own perspective and manner of phrasing into the text. This doesn't undermind that there is a divine origin as to what is being written, but it does mean that when it comes to "interpreting Scripture with Scripture" we cannot pretend the Paul and James must mean the same thing with a certain term or phrase.
- The Bible is translated. This means that the infallibility of the Bible is tied to the original text, not to the translation. You cannot fully grasp what the Bible means from English, no matter how many times you read it,though you can understand everything that really matters. But when it comes to contraversial topics, you should be familiar with the original text.
August 22, 2010
Rhetorical Translation: Acrostics
I've had the idea for a while now that we should translate some of the rhetorical structures of the original languages. This doesn't necessarily mean that we copy them (though in some instances it will), but that we use rhetorical devices in English which serve a similar purpose.
This concept becomes the most poignant in the poems. I have always had trouble reading the Psalms because they don't feel like poetry to me. I see that as a failure of the translation: poems should feel like poems. Simply changing the indentation isn't enough for me.
Now what I have given some more thought to is the Hebrew acrostic poem. The alphabetical acrostic is an incredibly common poetic form in Hebrew. However, translating that structure into English is quite difficult. Here are some of my thoughts:
Now you may say that this is pointless, but I think it is important to at least try and see whether or not it works.
Any thoughts.
This concept becomes the most poignant in the poems. I have always had trouble reading the Psalms because they don't feel like poetry to me. I see that as a failure of the translation: poems should feel like poems. Simply changing the indentation isn't enough for me.
- Some things are simple: throw in some rhyme to group sections together that are clearly grouped in the Hebrew
- If there is alliteration, use alliteration (even if it is not precisely in the same place, or if it isn't the "best english word" to mean what the Hebrew meant)
- If there is a pun, establish at least some kind of word connection (puns are untranslatable, but there are other ways to connect two words)
Now what I have given some more thought to is the Hebrew acrostic poem. The alphabetical acrostic is an incredibly common poetic form in Hebrew. However, translating that structure into English is quite difficult. Here are some of my thoughts:
- A different structure that serves a similar purpose
- Though I know some rhythmic and rhyming structures that can stretch across a poem, I don't know any that can bring the kind of stylized unity as an acrostic
- Using the English Alphabet
- The Hebrew alphabet has 22 letter. English as 26. I don't think it's right to just add or split lines to make the acrostic work (especially if you try to do Psalm 119 that way)
- Not all English letters are easy to use in acrostics, like 'j', 'z', or 'x' (though 'x' you could solve by use the 'ex' prefix, but there are still other leters)
- Though it would seem the first and second problem could solve itself (take out 4 problem letters), in order to make an quasi-alphabetical acrostic like that work, you would need to have the most important letter groups, especially the two most important: abc and xyz. Out of all the letters to remove, 'z' is the most important since there are less usable words starting with 'z' than any other letter.
- Using the Transliterated Hebrew Alphabet
- You still have 'z' to contend with (The Hebrew letter zayin)
- There are some Hebrew letters that don't have English equivalents. This isn't that bad though since the letters alef and ayin can use two vowels to represent them (I would recommend 'a' and 'e'), the letter chet is usually represented as a 'ch' anyway, and that really only leaves the letter tsade (it makes a "ts" sound).
- You have recurring sounds in letters. Again this isn't too bad. You can use 'sh' instead of sin, 'th' instead of tav, and kaph and qoph have 'k' and 'q' (or 'k' and 'c' if you want to be nice to yourself).
- The Hebrew Alphabet isn't known to the English public, so it won't really serve the same funtion. If this is the case, we would essentially have to rely on people learning "Hebrews used acrostics" or simply noticing that so many poems use this same letter order (Psalm 119 will help in that observation).
Now you may say that this is pointless, but I think it is important to at least try and see whether or not it works.
Any thoughts.
August 18, 2010
So, are you into labels?
Surely you have heard the phrases, "I'm not into labels" or "I don't want to be labeled". It is a very common thing to say nowadays, and represents an overall apathy to philosophical matters (or whatever subject the phrase comes up in). I first want to say that I completely respect these people, since most of them are really just trying to avoid a fight about something that they don't care about it. But I wanted to discuss the concept of labels within society, and maybe tease out why some people use them, what they are for, and whether they should be used at all.
A Rose By Any Other Label...
First of all, let's get down to the basic question: what is a label? Essentially 'label' is nothing more than another word for 'name'. The only real difference is the term 'label' forms a word picture of some kind of visual "name-tag" being placed upon the thing named. It is clear that no one is really against naming things, but yet they are against labeling. This is almost contradictory.
Almost. What people are really against is having a name forced upon them that they don't want, and that is the key. Naming/labelling is incredibly important, and innate to the nature of man, but it also a very powerful thing.
Consider Adam. Adam's first role within the garden was to name everything that was around him. Why? I mean, didn't God have name for these things? It is important to recognize that within the Hebrew thought, the concept of naming something was exerting your power over it. By naming it, you brought it under your dominion: you define it. Thus by having Adam name everything, God was giving Adam dominion over the Earth.
Though this concept isn't quite as conscience within the minds of our culture, it is still true, and we know it on an intuitive level. When someone else applies a label to us, they are, to some degree, exerting some kind of control over us. They are defining us. That's not always comfortable (especially if we don't like or don't identify with the label being applied). Additionally, the person themselves are also somewhat aware of it, for those that insist on a label for you are usually people who are attempting to categorize you to assess how they are supposed to interact with you (often in terms of "friend or foe"). Let's face it, labels of the basic building blocks of organization, and many people want or need to organize the people they know.
This brings up a second word picture that the term 'label' offers. There is the one picture, mentioned above, of the name-tag that defines me, but the far more disturbing image is the box label. I'm much more comfortable with the name-tag that is there to help distinguish me from others, but not so much with being put in a box with a bunch of people I don't like so I can be filed away, perhaps even discarded.
With all of this, it is quite easy to see why people don't like to be labeled.
So, Labels Are Bad?
Not at all! Labels are a necessary part of human interaction! Like I said above, labeling serves very important functions.
First it defines a thing. It is not wrong for things to be defined. Can you imagine what conversation would be like if we didn't have names for things? Imagine if every time I wanted to refer to John, I would have to describe him because he didn't have a name. Indeed, if we had no names at all, imagining trying to describe him without such words as 'hair', 'shirt', 'male', 'head', 'eyes', and even 'age'. Likewise imagine political conversations if we had no names for positions, and a person would have to describe their entire political platform at the beginning of every conversation. I mean we could do it, but who would want to! If you think that I am wrong, just look at the words that are usually used to replace labels (given that the person is trying to abandon "labeling").
Second it organizes things. As much as no one wants to be organized, it is important for one to organize their social life. I want to know who my friends are. I want to know who my family is. I want to be able to quickly identify who is going to support me in a discussion on politics or theology. This is incredibly helpful, and makes life, well, livable.
Third it works as a short-hand. This is sort of already implied with what I said above, but it is important to note separately. It is often helpful within a conversation though to define a concept and then label it for further reference. For those who frequent this site, I often reference the Machine Gun Hermeneutic. This is a term that I invented, but whenever I refer to it, I link to the first article I wrote on it. The truth is I wrote that article for the purpose of defining a label that I was intending to use. That is the value of labeling.
Label Libel
The real problem is in the mismanagement of labels. Many labels in our society are misused, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malevolence.
Here's an example from a movie. Have you ever seen Hot Fuzz? Hysterical movie, though I would not recommend it to those who are sensitive (though I do recommend it to everyone else). There is one scene where the main character is being asked whether he believes in God. He says no. So the questioner (a priest unfortunately) says, "So you're an atheist?" He says that it more that he isn't certain about the concept of God, to which which the questioner responds, "Ah, you're an agnostic then." It is true that any belief that is unsure about the existence of God can be called an agnostic belief, but technically (as I understand), one is "an agnostic" if they assert that the existence of God cannot be known. However, the term is often used to label those who are simply unsure, as if they actually fell on the spectrum or something.
Another example is a label I take on myself: Arminian. The concept of Arminianism is that God extends his grace to all, and enables all to come to Him, but that only a few respond to this grace (this is a gross oversimplification, but I discuss it in more detail elsewhere). However, many attempt to define Arminianism as "salvation by works" or "man-centered" or "anything that believes in free-will" even though these are fallacious definitions. Indeed, many attach other labels which are completely foreign to the stance.
But it is incredibly important that we don't try to abandon labels or avoid them. Instead we need to own and defend them.
You see, the real problem is not that you are being labeled, but that other people are the ones doing it. When you label or name something, you are exerting power over it. Therefore the problem is other people trying to have power over you. The solution is not to not be labeled (since they label you anyway), but that instead you control which labels are attached to you.
For instance, I don't see myself as a conservative (politically speaking). That is not a label that I attach to myself. However, I do use the labels federalist and capitalist, and if someone calls me conservative, I can correct by using the terms that I define myself as. Yes, I am on the right side of politics, but not for the same reasons as many, and thus I don't really belong in the same category. On the other hand, I don't mind the label "right-winged" for that implies a spectrum rather than a political philosophy, and that is the side of the spectrum I'm on.
Therefore, to answer the question that I labeled this post with: Yes, I am into labels, and I hope that you will be to. Let us just take the time to understand and appropriately choose the labels we use.
A Rose By Any Other Label...
First of all, let's get down to the basic question: what is a label? Essentially 'label' is nothing more than another word for 'name'. The only real difference is the term 'label' forms a word picture of some kind of visual "name-tag" being placed upon the thing named. It is clear that no one is really against naming things, but yet they are against labeling. This is almost contradictory.
Almost. What people are really against is having a name forced upon them that they don't want, and that is the key. Naming/labelling is incredibly important, and innate to the nature of man, but it also a very powerful thing.
Consider Adam. Adam's first role within the garden was to name everything that was around him. Why? I mean, didn't God have name for these things? It is important to recognize that within the Hebrew thought, the concept of naming something was exerting your power over it. By naming it, you brought it under your dominion: you define it. Thus by having Adam name everything, God was giving Adam dominion over the Earth.
Though this concept isn't quite as conscience within the minds of our culture, it is still true, and we know it on an intuitive level. When someone else applies a label to us, they are, to some degree, exerting some kind of control over us. They are defining us. That's not always comfortable (especially if we don't like or don't identify with the label being applied). Additionally, the person themselves are also somewhat aware of it, for those that insist on a label for you are usually people who are attempting to categorize you to assess how they are supposed to interact with you (often in terms of "friend or foe"). Let's face it, labels of the basic building blocks of organization, and many people want or need to organize the people they know.
This brings up a second word picture that the term 'label' offers. There is the one picture, mentioned above, of the name-tag that defines me, but the far more disturbing image is the box label. I'm much more comfortable with the name-tag that is there to help distinguish me from others, but not so much with being put in a box with a bunch of people I don't like so I can be filed away, perhaps even discarded.
With all of this, it is quite easy to see why people don't like to be labeled.
So, Labels Are Bad?
Not at all! Labels are a necessary part of human interaction! Like I said above, labeling serves very important functions.
First it defines a thing. It is not wrong for things to be defined. Can you imagine what conversation would be like if we didn't have names for things? Imagine if every time I wanted to refer to John, I would have to describe him because he didn't have a name. Indeed, if we had no names at all, imagining trying to describe him without such words as 'hair', 'shirt', 'male', 'head', 'eyes', and even 'age'. Likewise imagine political conversations if we had no names for positions, and a person would have to describe their entire political platform at the beginning of every conversation. I mean we could do it, but who would want to! If you think that I am wrong, just look at the words that are usually used to replace labels (given that the person is trying to abandon "labeling").
Second it organizes things. As much as no one wants to be organized, it is important for one to organize their social life. I want to know who my friends are. I want to know who my family is. I want to be able to quickly identify who is going to support me in a discussion on politics or theology. This is incredibly helpful, and makes life, well, livable.
Third it works as a short-hand. This is sort of already implied with what I said above, but it is important to note separately. It is often helpful within a conversation though to define a concept and then label it for further reference. For those who frequent this site, I often reference the Machine Gun Hermeneutic. This is a term that I invented, but whenever I refer to it, I link to the first article I wrote on it. The truth is I wrote that article for the purpose of defining a label that I was intending to use. That is the value of labeling.
Label Libel
The real problem is in the mismanagement of labels. Many labels in our society are misused, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes out of malevolence.
Here's an example from a movie. Have you ever seen Hot Fuzz? Hysterical movie, though I would not recommend it to those who are sensitive (though I do recommend it to everyone else). There is one scene where the main character is being asked whether he believes in God. He says no. So the questioner (a priest unfortunately) says, "So you're an atheist?" He says that it more that he isn't certain about the concept of God, to which which the questioner responds, "Ah, you're an agnostic then." It is true that any belief that is unsure about the existence of God can be called an agnostic belief, but technically (as I understand), one is "an agnostic" if they assert that the existence of God cannot be known. However, the term is often used to label those who are simply unsure, as if they actually fell on the spectrum or something.
Another example is a label I take on myself: Arminian. The concept of Arminianism is that God extends his grace to all, and enables all to come to Him, but that only a few respond to this grace (this is a gross oversimplification, but I discuss it in more detail elsewhere). However, many attempt to define Arminianism as "salvation by works" or "man-centered" or "anything that believes in free-will" even though these are fallacious definitions. Indeed, many attach other labels which are completely foreign to the stance.
But it is incredibly important that we don't try to abandon labels or avoid them. Instead we need to own and defend them.
You see, the real problem is not that you are being labeled, but that other people are the ones doing it. When you label or name something, you are exerting power over it. Therefore the problem is other people trying to have power over you. The solution is not to not be labeled (since they label you anyway), but that instead you control which labels are attached to you.
For instance, I don't see myself as a conservative (politically speaking). That is not a label that I attach to myself. However, I do use the labels federalist and capitalist, and if someone calls me conservative, I can correct by using the terms that I define myself as. Yes, I am on the right side of politics, but not for the same reasons as many, and thus I don't really belong in the same category. On the other hand, I don't mind the label "right-winged" for that implies a spectrum rather than a political philosophy, and that is the side of the spectrum I'm on.
Therefore, to answer the question that I labeled this post with: Yes, I am into labels, and I hope that you will be to. Let us just take the time to understand and appropriately choose the labels we use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
