Faith and Philosophy

Faith and Philosophy Moves!

2009-05-12T16:23:00.004-04:00

After a long struggle, I have decided to move Faith and Philosophy to a new site. Thus, I am proud to announce the new location at http://faithandphilosophy.wordpress.com.

Part of the reason for moving is a change of focus. Rather than the short pieces I have been doing recently, I would like to do some longer articles and musings. The change of location is meant to reflect this.

However, the site here will not be shut down, it just won't be updated.

So, for more, just link over to the new site.

Roccondil

Palm Sunday

2009-04-05T14:37:00.002-04:00

Today is Palm Sunday, when Christians celebrate the beginning of Christ's passion with his entry into Jerusalem.

The King had returned. He was entering his capital to fanfare and cheering crowds, with people laying their cloaks before his mount to give him a regal carpet. Yet what kind of King was this? No noble stallion, like a conqueror, nor a high camel like a Bedouin sheik, but a donkey's colt. This was an entirely different King from any who came before: this was a humble King, a suffering King. His triumph would culminate in His death.

In the week that would follow, the world would be turned on its head and the gates of Hell would be broken. Satan's greatest victory would also be his greatest defeat. The great eucatastrophe was about to happen.

~Roccondil

St David's Day

2009-03-01T15:17:00.003-05:00

Today is St. David's day, a national holiday in Wales, when the life of St. David, Archbishop of Menevia (now called St Davids) is remembered.

Not much is known about the life of St. David other than the fact that he lived in the 6th century, was an ascetic, and was a staunch opponent of Pelagianism. This latter fact is significant because during the 6th century, Pelagian teachings were still very influential in Britain. St. David, however, saw that a man, however ascetic he may be, is still justified by God's grace alone and not by his own works and attempts to be good. Ultimately though, the heirs of St. David's staunch orthodoxy would be the Protestant Reformers, not the monks that he led.

So let us today remember a man who saw that his own good works were nothing compared to the grace of God.

~Roccondil

Ash Wednesday, Lent, and Fasting

2009-02-28T14:06:00.002-05:00

Ok, so I was busy on Ash Wednesday, but thankfully, it's just the start of Lent, the period between Ash Wednesday and Easter.

Lent is, in a way, a fast. You give something up to focus on God for a time. The interesting part of it is that you're doing it with a bunch of people, so it isn't like doing it is a matter of boasting, but of humility. Lent is also a period of thankfulness because of Christ, who gave up everything for us, so we give something up in remembrance of His sacrifice, which was far greater than we could ever give.

So, whether or not you observe Lent, remember the one who gave up everything.

~Roccondil

St Matthias' Day

2009-02-24T23:00:00.002-05:00

Today is the day of St. Matthias. The scriptures don't give us many details about St. Matthias. What we do know is that in Acts 1, he was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot as the 12th apostle.

Due to a lack of other information on Matthias in the scriptures, some have supposed that his being chosen was a mistake on the part of the other eleven and that the spot was really reserved for Paul. However, I think that this overlooks the fact that Matthias fulfilled the qualifications: he had seen the risen Christ, been a disciple, and could testify to miracles. The fact of the matter is, that we don't have much more information.

However, I think that we should use this time to ponder the nature of the apostleship as a unique institution of the Church that serves as a foundation for our faith.

~Roccondil

St Valentine's Day

2009-02-14T10:51:00.003-05:00

So, we come to that day of the year where hearts are aflutter . . . apart from those who are simply hopeless bachelors. But aside from all the commercialization, I think it appropriate to reflect on the life and death of St. Valentine and of marriage.

St. Valentine was a priest in Rome, as the story goes, at a time when Christianity was illegal. He was, so the legend goes, found to be performing Christian marriage ceremonies and was condemned to death for refusing to sacrifice to the Emperor.

The connection between St. Valentine and romance seems to go back to the fact that he was performing Christian marriages. The beauty of Christian marriage is that it reflects the great marriage of Christ and His Church. This marriage is what all history is leading up to and we ought to look forward to that day when it will be consummated.

~Roccondil

Candlemas

2009-02-02T21:14:00.002-05:00

Yes, it's one of those days that just sounds strange and liturgical: Candlemas. I actually had to look this one up and it's the day that marks the end of the epiphany season and it celebrates the dedication of Christ in the Temple.

This is one of those parts of the Christmas story that gets (unfairly) glossed over. Even the relatively recent The Nativity Story forgets to put in this significant event. As Luke tells it, Christ was brought to the Temple to be circumcised and after the ceremonies, Mary and Joseph were met by Simeon, a righteous man who had been promised that before he died he would see the Messiah. Here we have a man who has been waiting patiently in faith so that when he sees Jesus he can praise God and say, "Now your servant can die in peace."

The Holy Family is also met by Anna, a prophetess who had also been expecting the Messiah. These two people, Simeon and Anna, show that even in a nation that had become blinded by legalism and politicization of religion, there were still individuals who remained faithful and kept their focus on grace rather than law and on the faithfulness of God rather than the promises of political leaders.

~Roccondil

St. Thomas Aquinas

2009-01-28T18:45:00.003-05:00

Some may ask why today I am celebrating the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas: after all, isn't he a Catholic saint? Well, yes. However, I think it is good and right to remember those saints who went before us and what they did (more on that when I get to St. Martin Luther, later in the year).

So what to say about St. Thomas Aquinas? He was a man who sought Truth and saw all Truth as God's Truth and the Truth that set him free. Aquinas saw a world created by God and man as a fallen creature who nonetheless still bears the image of God. Aquinas tried, and to an extent succeeded, in creating a system where all truths are inseparable from the Truth about God. He, and the other scholastics of his day, saw that all things are interconnected. In other words, he saw that education and philosophy must be wholistic.

This idea, I think, has been largely abandoned by many in education who would rather be shut up in their own disciplines and study them in isolation. Aquinas, however, saw all truth as connected. He saw that science is linked to philosophy and philosophy to theology and theology to political theory and literature. It was for these reasons that Aquinas wrote his monumental Summa Theologica, which would be referred to by both sides in the Reformation and to which John Calvin was indebted in his own Institutes.

So today, let us celebrate the life and legacy of true philosopher: one who loved the wisdom of God.

~Roccondil

The Conversion of St. Paul

2009-01-25T14:20:00.000-05:00

If you have your liturgical calendar out, you will notice that today is the day commemorating the conversion of St. Paul. Of all of the apostles, St. Paul may be (with maybe an exception for St. John the Evangelist) my favorite. His conversion shows first, that even the worst of us may be saved: that's an encouraging thought in itself.

I think also, though, it is significant that Paul is often known as the Apostle to the Gentiles: that is, that his story shows the full spread of the gospel to the ends of the known world. Many New Testament scholars think that Paul, after his first imprisonment in Rome, traveled to Spain, which was the edge of the known world at the time. So really, his missionary journeys do mark the fulfillment of Christ's command to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Paul, however, was also a man whose life was completely dedicated to Christ. More than anyone before or since, he gave up everything for Christ: his position in society, his reputation, his wealth, even his life. Here was a man who truly followed our Lord by taking up his cross. The conversion of St. Paul, then, should be remembered as an encouragement to us that even the chief of sinners and persecutors can be saved and do mighty things through Christ.

Epiphany: Wise Men from the East

2009-01-06T13:24:00.003-05:00

Today is January 6, the Christian feast of the epiphany, the traditional date when the wise men came to visit Christ, bringing gifts. In the church year, since the date celebrated wise men, the preceding day was known as the feast of fools and was known for its excess before the solemn feast of wisdom.

As a philosopher and one who studies wisdom, this day is meaningful for me because here is something simple enough to be understood by anyone and yet so profound that not even the wisest can fully comprehend it. God come in the form of man to suffer for man. I suppose the epiphany, then, is a day of reflection over the past season and its meaning before turning to the mundane once more.

It is also a day to reflect on wisdom itself: Solomon said that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." In order to understand the world correctly, one must have the correct perspective.

So today, I will reflect on the wisdom of God which is foolishness to men.

~Roccondil

New Year: Old Idea

2008-12-31T16:43:00.001-05:00

Well, it's almost the new year. Within a few hours 2008 will be history and 2009 will be news.

At the new year, it's a custom to make resolutions, usually things like losing weight or character improvement. However, this year I thought I'd do something a little different.

I suppose you could say I got this idea in Salisbury Cathedral in Salisbury, England. I was sitting in the choir waiting for the service to begin when an old gentleman, who could see that I was not from those parts, came up to me, sitting in the pew, and reminded me that it was Corpus Christi and that the evensong would, in consequence, be a eucharistic service. Having someone remind me of this Christian feast which, I confess, I had thought little of, gave me an idea which I have been mulling over and have decided to put into practice this year.

I have decided, this year, to observe the Christian calendar as it is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer (currently sitting on my shelf). As I do this, I will be posting my meditations on the different days here.

Now, before all my good Presbyterian and Baptist friends shoot me, let me explain what this is and what it isn't.

What this is not is an attempt to force anything on anyone. I do not believe that any Christian is bound to celebrate any holy day other than the Christian Sabbath. This is also not me becoming a Roman Catholic: I have no intention of ever going in that direction.

What this is, for me, is a spiritual journey. In observing the traditional church year (yes, including some saints days) I am seeking to find a deeper relationship with God by giving Him more of my time and marking more times than just Sunday mornings on my calendar. One might say that these days are stops along a journey of faith through time.

So, in the next year, I invite all of you to join me (or just watch) in this journey that I will call Anno Domini 2009.

Grace and peace,

~Roccondil

The God in the Cave: A Meditation

2008-12-17T10:16:00.001-05:00

Well, it's Christmas season again, and so time for my annual Christmas meditation:

I was struck by the title of chapter 1 of part II of G. K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man: "The God in the Cave (from which this meditation is partially adapted)." We sometimes forget that the stable where Jesus was born was probably a cave and if we do remember it, we dismiss it as a mere bit of historical trivia with no further significance. However, if we consider the implications, we will realize the paradox: God in heaven in born not just on earth, but under it. It is like a medieval painting where earth is placed at the top and heaven is placed below. God has descended not just to earth, but below.

When we talk of Christ's passion, we forget that it began not with the betrayal of Judas, or with his prayer in the garden, or even with the last supper, but with the birth of Christ. The suffering of Jesus began at Christmas. We say in the creeds that Christ descended into Hell and forget that He descended, not when He died, but when He lived. He preached to the spirits not only in the three days of His death, but in the thirty-three years of His life.

So, God was born in the cave and to this cave came the shepherds. There may be no more universal symbol than a shepherd, for a shepherd represents the beginnings of civilization. Abel was a shepherd; David was a shepherd. Virgil's Eclogues are his poems of the shepherds. Shakespeare presents the shepherds in As You Like It as examples of virtue. The Highlanders of Scotland were shepherds. In Africa today, one may still find examples of this ancient, noble, and despised profession. Any of these shepherds of history would have felt at home here: Abel with his sacrifice, David with his sling, the classical shepherd with his simplicity, Shakespeare's shepherds and their virtue, the highlander in his kilt, and the modern African with his staff. All of these would have understood and fallen at the feet of the child.

For all of these would have known that this was the great shepherd. All would have understood that this was the one who would find the lost sheep. The mystery of Christmas is plain enough for the simplest shepherd to understand.

To this cave also came the wise men: the philosophers and here they were confounded. With the wise men came the spirits of Plato, of Aristotle, of the Egyptians, of Confucius, even of Buddha. It is no coincidence that the wise men were conceived as being from Greece, from Egypt, and from Persia. These wise men came seeking answers and they found a mystery. They sought a king and found a baby. Truly, as Chesterton remarked, "The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of men." In coming here, Plato would have had to acknowledge the value of matter, Buddha the personal, and Confucius the transcendent. Here their theories would have been confounded and yet confirmed. The story of Christmas was simple enough to be understood by the shepherds and yet it confounded the wise men.

The paradoxes of Christmas abound. Here is the myth become fact: the God in the cave: the simplicity and the mystery. The only proper response to this is wonder, delight, and thankfulness. For this day is born to us a savior who is Christ the Lord.

Merry Christmas,

~Roccondil

The Problem of Evil: Part 1

2008-11-02T19:14:00.000-05:00

The holocaust, abortion, nuclear war, genocide, hunger, rape: all of these things are examples of evil in our world today. Many, in such circumstances, will turn to God as a result, yet in our world many would cite evil as argument against God, reasoning that the existence of evil, the quantity, or something else about it disproves the existence of God.

It is my contention in this note to demonstrate otherwise: that evil in no way argues against God's existence.

First, let me set forth the terms: an atheist arguing in this manner will have the burden of proof since he (or she) is on the offensive.

Second, let me lay forth the set of beliefs that a theist must subscribe to in order to remain orthodox.

1) God exists
2) God is omniscient
3) God is omnipotent
4) God is wholly good--morally perfect
5) God is the creator and sustainer of the world
6) Evil exists

There are two arguments from evil that attack this set of beliefs: an inductive argument and a deductive argument. Both attack directly premise 7:

7) God has a good and sufficient reason for allowing evil into the world.

In the next two sections I will be laying forth these arguments and refuting them.

The Deductive argument

1. It is impossible that God exist if there is evil in the world
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

On the contrary: the problem with this argument is that premise 1 denies that God could have any good reason for allowing evil into the world. Proposition 7 in my list has been outright denied. While this is not a fallacy, it is impossible to prove, since no one, atheist or theist, can know every possible reason why God might allow evil into the world.

Thus, the atheist, since he has the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is no possible reason that God would allow evil into the world, is caught in a web of his own weaving.

The Inductive Argument

1. It is improbable that God exist if there is evil in the world
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

On the contrary: Here again, proposition 7 has been denied, this time on a probabilistic basis. The burden for the atheist here is now not to know all possible reasons, but to know enough reasons to justify a denial of the proposition.

However, this too is impossible since we as humans do not know how many possible reasons there are why God might allow evil into the world. Therefore we cannot know how many of those would constitute sufficient evidence to justify a denial of proposition 7.

Here again, the atheist has been caught in a quandary.

To be continued.....

The Holistic View: Why I am a Pre-Modern

2008-10-07T10:04:00.002-04:00

Since Descartes, Philosophy has been a highly specialized discipline. As Western Civilization has progressed, the different disciplines have become fragmented, specialized and sub-specialized. Within the study of history, for example, there are disciplines of Egyptology, European Studies, American History, Classical Studies, and the list goes on. Science and philosophy have been separated (or have they?) and both are in turn separated from theology and literature.

The reason is that during the "enlightenment" of the late 17th and 18th centuries, philosophers and thinkers began to study these subjects in isolation, believing that they had little to do with one another. In stark contrast, the classical-medieval approach was that all subjects were inter-connected.

For this reason, Aristotle didn't just write about the proper approach to ethics, but about beauty, drama, science, and mathematics. He, like the other pre-moderns, saw clearly that all knowledge is inter-connected and that general knowledge increases one's knowledge of whatever is of special interest.

As an example, my knowledge of physics or biology may very well tie in with my special discipline of philosophy. This is why a holistic view of knowledge and education is beneficial: it enables a person to go deeper in their own discipline and still keep a larger perspective of how it fits into the big picture.

Probably the great example of pre-modern thought is Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica. In this monumental work, the theologian not only addresses theological questions, but discusses philosophy, political theory, ethics, and even science, while drawing on past thinkers. Aquinas saw clearly that all truth is inter-connected because it is God's truth. A pre-modern holistic view of knowledge keeps this in perspective as opposed to the ever-fragmenting modern view.

~Roccondil

Presuppositions and Evidence

2008-10-04T17:25:00.002-04:00

Ok, so I hang out a lot with debaters and know a thing or two about debate. One of the things that debaters do a lot is use evidence. Having a brother who went to nationals in debate, I know how much evidence can be used, even on a single topic.

However, one thing that many debaters forget is that evidence alone does not prove anything. Any piece of evidence can be read multiple ways: the evidence itself is just there. It is the interpretation of the evidence that matters. The interpretation of evidence is related directly on the presuppositions of the interpreter.

At this point I am going to define what I mean by a presupposition. A presupposition is a preconceived notion that a person brings to any discussion. Everyone has presuppositions: they may be rational (ie: logical consistency is best) or arational (aesthetic values). No one can leave their presuppositions aside when they enter a situation.

Now, as a Christian, I have distinctly Christian presuppositions as a part of my worldview. My friend Joe, however, is a materialist. He, therefore, will see a biological organism differently than I, regardless of my stance on evolution. Why? Because I see the world differently than he does. Therefore if I am to convince him from evidence, I have to take his presuppositions into account, maybe even taking them to a logical conclusion (order in a random universe, for example). I might even take his presupposition of evolutionary biology and use it as an argument for God's existence (yes, it can be done).

Evidence and logic is of utmost importance in convincing someone of anything, yet I must also know my audience. It's just common sense: if I take presuppositions into account (and maybe even find common ground) I will be much more convincing. I also have to examine my own presuppositions when approaching a topic, being careful that I'm not being overly closed-minded.

~Roccondil

Tradition and the Free Society

2008-09-09T20:37:00.003-04:00

There are many in today's world who denigrate and minimize the importance of tradition. There are those who say that tradition freezes society and creates molds that a free person must break. Even in the church there are those who say that since tradition must not be placed on a level with Scripture, we must therefore do away with it altogether.

First of all, I'm going to define the characteristics that define a tradition. First there must be a common history: a tradition in this sense has a common experience that all its members share in whether directly or not. Next there must be shared beliefs and assumptions used to interpret reality. Thirdly, there need to be common rituals and symbols. Finally, a tradition has a living community.

Many in the secular community who talk negatively about tradition of course mean by it, "organized religion." They think that a man must stand by his own beliefs but "tolerate" those of others and above all, not form into a group with those who share similar beliefs. But of course the peculiar thing about religion is that it is organized. If one would talk of "unorganized religion" one might as well speak of an unorganized government. Religion is, by its very nature, organized. Philosophy may be unorganized, but never religion.

What these people are objecting to is rituals, practices, and beliefs that they see as shackling man and keeping him from "thinking for himself." What they want is a "free society." Of course the characteristic feature of a free society is that it has common rituals and beliefs. One of the first things that an independent nation does is to institute national holidays and design a flag. The first thing that any free society will do is create laws, rules, institutions, and rituals.

For Christians, of course, we simply cannot afford to ignore tradition. We are part of a tradition: if we were not, why would we identify ourselves as "Christians?" Of course we need to be careful that our traditions line up with Scripture, but once we've determined that, we are free to proceed.

In closing, let me quote G. K. Chesterton who said, "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."

~Roccondil

Made for Eternity

2008-08-27T22:50:00.004-04:00

Change: it's a word we are hearing a lot right now, and not just from certain left-wing politicians. Our world is changing, our country is changing, we ourselves are changing. However, for all the change that is constantly taking place and for all its current use as a political buzzword, it remains a fact that humans in general dislike change.

My most recent change was my move from home to college last week. It has been interesting going through this process as I leave the familiar behind, heading into the unknown. While this change has been, to quote Donald Rumsfeld, a "known unknown," it is still unknown and therefore uncomfortable.

In general, we as humans want constancy and while the occasional change may be welcome, we still want a return to "normalcy" as soon as possible. The reason is, I think, that we do long for eternity rather than this ever-changing chaotic world. We are made by God for eternity and yet, because of sin, we have become enslaved to time. In addition, too often change is for the worse rather than for better.

Dealing with change is hard, yet we must all do it, from a change in home to a change in financial circumstances. In the end, the only thing we can cling to is God, the one constant in this chaotic world. So to those of my readers who are dealing with change, I give my sympathy and encourage you to lean on Christ, through whom we can receive the eternity we were made for.

~Roccondil

A Sense of History

2008-08-19T17:47:00.003-04:00

Profoundest apologies for the lateness of the post.

Recently, I acquired most of the volumes of the monumental Story of Civilization history series by Will and Ariel Durant. These eleven volumes record the history of Western Civilization from its beginnings until the reign of Napoleon.

The worldview of these volumes (which I have by no means read thoroughly yet) seems to be humanistic and yet somewhat sympathetic to religion, which is refreshing next to modern-day atheists like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.

However, probably the best thing about this series is the view of history they present. Not only do the Durants chronicle all of the events, but they set them in the context of the culture and philosophy of their time. Thus, not only do they chronicle the Thirty Years War, but the prevalent ideas in Germany at the time of the war.

They also present history as, well, a story. The Durants present history not as just dates and dead people, but as a progression of events that eventually produces the modern world.

In short, while the worldview of The Story of Civilization is flawed, most of the facts are accurate and the approach is interesting, well-written, and informative.

~Roccondil

The Dark Knight: Pyrrhic Victory

2008-07-20T18:26:00.003-04:00

Pyrrhic: achieved at excessive cost also : costly to the point of negating or outweighing expected benefits (from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary). This is the term that describes Batman's victory in The Dark Knight, the second installment in Christopher Nolan's new Batman series.

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne conquered his fear, caused the criminal elements of Gotham to fear him and saved the city from Ra's Al Ghul's fear gas. But in The Dark Knight, things are different: there's a new villain in town and he's here for laughs, albeit sadistic and dark laughs.

Yes, the Joker has come to town and he's not here for stand-up comedy. The late Heath Ledger's take on the Joker is an Oscar-worthy depiction of a man who is pure evil, a man who will destroy a city to make the point that even the best person, when the chips are down, will become a villain. The victim: Harvey Dent, Gotham's "White Knight" DA who loses everything and becomes the vigilante Two-Face.

In the meantime, Bruce Wayne is considering stepping down as Batman so that the city can return to order. Yet he finds that the city needs him more than ever and that he must "Endure" as the ever-faithful Alfred tells him.

The real battle in the film is for the soul of Gotham. The Joker, as a sadistic joke, wants to prove that Gotham is just as bad as it ever was and that "when the chips are down" they'll cut each other's throats. While the Joker succeeds in destroying Harvey Dent, he underestimates even the worst elements of Gotham. I won't give away what happens, but Joker is disappointed when ordinary people do the right thing.

Then comes the showdown: when Two-Face and Batman face off and Batman kills the former DA in the act of saving someone. Realizing that Gotham needs a symbol and that he can't be that symbol. Batman heroically takes the blame for Harvey Dent's sins, presenting the people of the city with a face that they once knew and taking that face's dark side upon himself.

All in all it was a good movie. It was intense and quite disturbing. The Joker seems almost possessed at times. This Film is not for the faint of heart. It's also not one that should be watched for mere entertainment value, but for its ideas. Thus, I recommend watching it infrequently and thoughtfully.

Artistically, it was flawless. Nolan manages to pull off all of the Joker's murders without showing a single drop of blood, somehow making it all seem all the more horrific. Of course there were explosions and car chases galore.

Actingwise it was brilliant. The late Heath Ledger pulls off a chilling, disturbing, and Oscar-worthy performance as the Joker. Aaron Eckhart also did an excellent job as Harvey Dent, making him a sympathetic character who is deceived by the Joker. And of course Michael Caine, Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman do great in reprising their roles.

Hopefully a sequel is forthcoming: Gotham cannot remain in darkness.

~Roccondil

Come What May: My (late) Review

2008-07-18T23:27:00.003-04:00

Ok, so I waited three weeks to review Come What May, the film I posted about. Apologies all around: I have no excuse.

Anyway, as a warning there will be minor spoilers (nothing more than you'd see in the trailer, though).

As a brief synopsis, the main character is Caleb, a student at Patrick Henry College who is trying to win the national Moot Court championship . . . because if he doesn't he can't go back. Then, they announce the topic: abortion. So he faces the dilemma: compromise a little bit by leaving Roe V Wade in place, or run that case against it with the knowledge that he'll lose.

So, my comments. The acting was fine, nothing really spectacular, but good enough for a new film company. The directing was also good: Mr Escobar seems to know his stuff.

What wasn't as good was the script. Characters needed more development and there needed to be more explanation than just "Do the right thing." Caleb needs to know why this is the right thing, not just why abortion is wrong. Yes, there's faulty logic, but why is it wrong for him to try and get around Roe? When was the last time someone argued against Roe before the Supreme Court?

Philosophically, I agreed completely, it just could have used more development. However, this is a good start which (hopefully) will catch the attention of some distributors. Good job, Mr Escobar.

Stay tuned for my review of Durant's Story of Civilization as well as a post on evolution.

~Roccondil

The Communion of the Saints

2008-07-04T23:14:00.002-04:00

It's a phrase often overlooked in the creeds. We explain what we mean by "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and we define what is meant in the Christological sections of it, and so we often miss this little phrase: "The communion of the saints." What is meant by this phrase?

I must confess that until a few weeks ago, I too had overlooked this phrase. Then, I went to England and wound up at an evensong service at Westminster Abbey. One of the features of Westminster that cannot be missed is the vast number of monuments and tombs. As one walks even down the side aisles toward the choir one cannot help but be struck by it. Memorials cover nearly every inch of wall and floor space. As I was leaving, I found myself walking on the grave of William Wilberforce (one of my heroes).

It would seem odd to many to put tombs in a church. After all, isn't Christianity supposed to celebrate resurrection, not death? Yet as I think on it, I believe that there is a good reason to place graves in a church: the communion of the saints.

In Revelation 20, it says, Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

Now my dispensationalist friends would say that these verses refer to the thousand year reign of Christ after the tribulation, but I see it as here and now. These are the saints and they have communion with Christ and, to some extent, with us. Tombs in a church are a reminder that the saints who have gone before worship with us. We are indeed surrounded by a cloud of witnesses who are cheering us on and praying for us. That, I think, is the communion of the saints.

One day, that communion will be made perfect.

~Roccondil

Faith and Film: an interview with George Escobar

2008-06-16T14:58:00.003-04:00

While at the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association national debate tournament last week, I had the privilege of interviewing George Escobar, the founder of Advent Film Group and the director of its first feature film, Come What May, a story about two Moot Court debaters who are willing to lose rather than compromise their principles. Mr Escobar had much to say both on his film and on a Christian approach to film-making:

What made you decide to start Advent Film Group?
I see a need for movies with Christian themes directed by Christian directors. Out of recent films with Christian themes like The Nativity Story, Amazing Grace, or The Chronicles of Narnia, none were directed by Christians. Hollywood won't pay a Christian director because there are no qualified directors. People ask, "What about Mel Gibson?" and I say, "Well, what about Mel Gibson?" The Passion of the Christ was financed by private investors.
I also see homeschoolers being trained in communication skills by the NCFCA. I think God has been preparing homeschoolers to communicate and start a movement toward Christian films because there is an audience for such films with Christian directors.

What inspired you to make Come What May?
In 2001, Patrick Henry College had a team that made it to finals in Moot Court but chose to lose on principle. I took that basic concept and added more ingredients such as the family strife. I also wanted to show how to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I am hoping there will be controversy so that more people will hear about this film and hopefully go to see it and hear the message.

How do you think a film like Come What May will impact a secular audience?
I actually have an exact quote from a non-Christian pro-choice man who previewed the film. He said, "This movie has caused me to rethink my position." I'm really hoping this might have something of the same impact that To Kill a Mockingbird did in the 1960s.

Where do you see Advent Film Group in five or ten years?
I have a vision to create a market for quality Christian films. It is really a calling: to tell stories that draw people toward Christ and not away from Him. All I'm really trying to do is equip Christian filmmakers. Too often, Christians have divided and I hope to bring Christians with a passion for filmmaking together and have a community of Christian filmmakers.

What advice would you give to Christians interested in making films?
For a student, the main thing is to be a storyteller. The hardest part of filmmaking isn't the technical aspect, but the literary aspect, especially the spiritual and moral foundations. All aspects of filmmaking are influenced by it, even such seemingly mundane things as lighting and angles. It's a good idea to study literature, history, art, art history, and especially the Bible. It's a little-known fact that most successful filmmakers have a background in literature, history, or something similar rather than film.

Can you give my readers any hints about future productions from Advent Film Group?

Certainly. In the fall we'll be making Take 2, a romantic comedy and in Summer 2009, we'll be returning to PHC for a film which is . . . top secret.

And we'll certainly be looking forward to your future films, Mr Escobar. Within the next week, I hope to have watched my preview copy of Come What May and will certainly review it, so stay tuned.

~Roccondil

Faith and Philosophy Graduates!

2008-06-14T15:05:00.002-04:00

Apologies for the lateness of this post, but I was out of the country and traveling to Alabama and back.

It's no coincidence that the day after I graduated high school, I also posted for the hundredth time on Faith and Philosophy. Yes, that's right. This is the one hundredth post.

I have sincerely enjoyed the past two years of this site and look forward to more years blogging.

Just so you know what's coming, in the next couple weeks I hope to publish the first ever Faith and Philosophy interview as well as reviewing a preview film. So stay tuned and thanks for reading!

~Roccondil

The Chestertonian Perspective

2008-05-16T15:25:00.003-04:00

One of my favorite writers (if you haven't guessed already) is G. K. Chesterton, the great British apologist, theologian, novelist, and philosopher who was writing from about 1900 until his death in 1936. He is chiefly known for his apologetic works such as Orthodoxy or The Everlasting Man as well as for his short stories but really he wrote more than that: he wrote from a perspective that looked at the world upside-down . . . or is it we who look at the world upside-down? I think it's because of this "uncommon sense for the world's common nonsense" that I have begun to describe myself as a Chestertonian.

It is a paradox worthy of Chesterton himself ("the prince of paradox") that I describe my views this way. Chesterton would probably have found it amusing that I, whose theology is decidedly Calvinistic (though I prefer the term "Reformed"), would be such an admirer of this Roman Catholic apologist (though, I would argue, I am just as "catholic" in the apostolic sense).

So what is the Chestertonian perspective? It involves looking at things differently. It involves looking at a worldview and saying, "where does it go right and where does it go wrong?" And the next question is, "what is the contradictory paradox of the position?"

Take postmodernism, for example: it goes right in saying that most worldviews don't hold together. It goes wrong in saying that Christianity doesn't hold together. The paradox is that postmodernism itself is fragmented and therefore doesn't hold together. If there is no absolute truth, then the statement "there is no absolute truth" is false, itself being an absolute statement. Therefore there is absolute truth. It is right in that if Christianity is false, then postmodernism is true. However, postmodernism is wrong in saying that Christianity is false.

That's a Chestertonian perspective on postmodernism. It's important because it helps us to see the world as it is and yet also how it should be (the greatest paradox of all).

In a paradoxical fashion, I see my own Reformed Theology as being Chestertonian. I know from the Bible and by logic that I and all other humans have free will and yet I also know from the Bible and logic that God is in control of all history and has planned it from the beginning. That's the paradox of Reformed thinking (one that Chesterton, sadly, seems to have misunderstood). I believe in God's plan but not in fate: I believe in human free will, but not human sovereignty. That's the paradox.

Of course the glorious paradox that both Chesterton and I agree upon is the paradox of the incarnation and life of Christ. Christ was fully God and yet fully man. He was the eternal God and yet he became a baby. He taught unconditional love and yet he taught a path of narrow holiness. He was innocent of sin and yet he was guilty of all our sins. That is the paradox of the cross and that is where Chesterton and I come together: we both affirm the glorious paradox of Christ, the "everlasting man."

So, if you can, I encourage all you readers to read Chesterton and consider the Chestertonian perspective.

~Roccondil

Liberalism and Abortion: A Chestertonian Perspective

2008-05-03T22:49:00.001-04:00

Recently posted at Faithfusion.net by me:

The following was originally written by me as part of an essay contest for the American Chesterton Society and has been expanded for Faithfusion:

In today’s world a revolutionary is not one who espouses a new idea, but one who would dare to bring back an old one. The reason is that the new ideas are generally boring and mundane while old ones are fresh and exciting because they have been packed away for so long. In today’s world, a boorish man is generally accepted because it is new and respectable to be rude; being chivalrous, on the other hand, is decried as sexist and offensive because it is an old idea. Thus, those who call themselves “liberal” and embrace the new ideas tend to be the critics rather than the idealists. It was with something of this in mind that G. K. Chesterton wrote in Varied Types, “He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative.”

One issue in which this can be clearly seen in modern American politics is the issue of abortion. Probably no issue has been so polarizing as whether or not a woman ought to have a legal right to, in the language of the “pro-choice” party, “terminate an unwanted pregnancy,” or in the language of “pro-life” advocates, “kill a baby.” However, because the idea of abortion is so relatively recent, that it is politically and socially acceptable while pro-life advocates are condemned because they dare to argue for a traditional understanding of life as beginning at conception.......

The rest of the article can be found here.

~Roccondil

Passion

2008-04-16T22:16:00.004-04:00

Posted by me at FaithFusion.net:

After some recent reading and thinking on the subject I thought I'd talk a little bit about passion and its importance in the church.

A little background here: I'm a Presbyterian. I have grown up in two conservative PCA churches, one of which educated me very well in doctrine and biblical history. I still sometimes trade biblical trivia with a good friend of mine and love it. The great strength of this, of course, is that I know my way around a Bible and can tell you where to find stuff on a lot of subjects. I also know my Church History and can tell you which theologians come where, what the major movements were, and what happened in the crusades (and I seriously had trouble with coveting when I saw a t-shirt with “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” on it).

The problem is that often I have all this head knowledge and no heart knowledge. I can quote chapter and verse on the great theologians from the Apostle Paul to R. C. Sproul, but if I don't have any heart, it's nothing. It doesn't do me any good because I'm not living it.

I was convicted several weeks ago when I was listening to R. C. Sproul talk about the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard. On a side note, Kierkegaard was a Christian, albeit a controversial one and one who has (unfortunately) had a legacy that he didn't intend in the form of existentialism. As I was saying, Sproul was explaining that Kierkegaard's concern was that the church of his day had no passion for God. They had theology, oh yes they had it, and they had good liturgy, but they had no passion: they were a dead church. Kierkegaard's philosophy was meant to reawaken a flame of passion for God in the church of his day.

So in honor of Kierkegaard, here are some places where the church needs passion......

The rest of the post can be found here.

~Roccondil

Well . . . Alright

2008-04-02T21:02:00.002-04:00

Ok, so St Euphineas isn't a real saint (unless you're on Narniaweb) but the feast day was an interesting idea.

So anyway, hope you had a great April Fool's Day!

~Roccondil

In Memory of a Blessed Saint

2008-04-01T00:00:00.003-04:00

My friends, today as many of you know is the feast of the blessed St. Euphineas, founder of the Prestadigitarianist Order (entry 105 in 972 Ancient Religions That No One Cares About) so I thought I'd share some thoughts on this most holy man.

First, who was St. Euphineas? Many thanks to Faun Fan of Narniaweb for his help in clearing up the details.

St Euphineas was a most most holy saint. He was known to have been born on the first day of the month called April to the wife of a woodcutter. He grew in stature and in wisdom until at the age of 17 he had a vision after drinking of holy wine that he was to go forth and preach and thus began the wanderings and teachings of St Euphineas.

He himself said of his feast day (in the words of his faithless servant, St Fallacy of Arythmia), "Come away, O followers and let us celebrate the blessed day of my birth. Let there be feasting before twelve and fasting afterwards. Let there be prayer and singing, but not at the same time, lest you damage my delicate hearing. Let there be inflatable vessels of brightly colored rubber. Let there be punch. Let there be much holiness, indeed. Also, let there be the pulling of pranks and the laughter thereof....just not on me, for I am a Saint and it is much evil to prank a Saint." (more apologies to Faun Fan for the quote, for he hath read more of the sayings of St Euphineas than I).

And again, he said in his famous sermon on the hill of trepidation (as is recorded in the writings of St Brutus of Albequerque), "Verily I say to thee, blessed are those who laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused."

So here is to St Euphineas that he may be remembered (and here is where the discussion started).

~Roccondil

Yet Another One......

2008-03-30T15:31:00.002-04:00

As if maintaining two blogs wasn't enough, I have accepted an invitation from Narniawebber Dr. Ransom (known on Nweb as the Most High Reverend Father of the Holy Order of the Spoiler-Free Monastery) to join his blog over at Faithfusion. On there, I'll post a bit more infrequently than I do here, but then again there's Dr. Ransom over there. Probably my posts over there will be more political in nature.

So head on over there and check it out. Dr. Ransom has done some fine stuff in the past (I remember with fondness his rendering of the Iraq War in King James English) and while I don't agree with him on everything, I can highly recommend the site.

~Roccondil

He Is Risen!

2008-03-24T20:57:00.002-04:00

Well, today being the day after Easter, I have some thoughts about the Resurrection of Christ:

In the resurrection, we have a miracle, or, may I say, the miracle. This is the event that gives Christianity its hope. Without it, the cross is meaningless and it is not finished. If Christ is not raised, then our faith is in vain, as Paul says, for then there is no victory over death. There is no life beyond the grave. The circle of life just continues.

Yet Christ is raised. Tolkien called the crucifixion a eucatastrophe, or a sudden change for the better. Yet in reality it is the resurrection that is the true eucatastrophe. Here when all hope was thought lost, the hero has returned from death. Death has lost its sting and Hell its power. The son of God has returned to life, having reversed death itself.

There is a tradition that Christ, after dying on the cross, went to Hell and freed those who had trusted in him before they knew who he would be. I don't know whether or not this is true however what I do know is that this tradition reveals that Christ reversed death. It is accurate in that he suffered Hell so that others would not have to. The chains are broken, the serpent's head is crushed. The hour of supreme defeat is the hour of supreme victory.

As Keith Green said:

Hear the bells ringing
They're singing that you can be born again
Hear the bells ringing
They're singing Christ is risen from the dead

The angel up on the tombstone
Said he has risen, just as he said
Quickly now, go tell his disciples
That Jesus Christ is no longer dead

Joy to the world, he has risen, hallelujah!

Amen to that. He is risen indeed!

TBG

The Moosepath League Begins!

2008-03-19T23:07:00.004-04:00

What do you get when you cross Maine history, a club of slightly clueless middle-aged gentlemen, and some Dickensian situations? You get Van Reid's Moosepath League series. Having read two of these books, I can testify that they are good fun literature with plenty of quirky characters and a lot of suspense.

So let's meet some of the members of this league:

Ephram, Eagleton, and Thump: the founding members of the league. Three middle-aged gentlemen who are of different political parties, different churches, and different backgrounds, who nonetheless are good friends and had the original idea to form a club, the purpose of which escaped them at first.

Tobias Walton: a rather round gentleman and the chairman of the Moosepath League. He is resourceful, has a wonderful sense of humor, and is always willing to meet interesting people and loves adventure.

Sundry Moss: the youngest (so far) member of the club. He is resourceful, loyal, and brave but also quiet and often underestimated. He is often party to Mr Tobias Walton's adventures.

The first book, Cordelia Underwood: or the Marvelous Beginnings of the Moosepath League invloves, among other things: a fistfight between two politicians, an incident involving a moose and red underwear, a bear that stands on its head, the lost treasure of Captain Kidd, and much much more.

So, if you like humorous adventures, local legends, and Dickensian characters, these are the books for you.

~Roccondil

Humility and Winning

2008-03-09T13:50:00.002-04:00

Hearty apologies to all my readers for the two week delay. It was necessary due to a resetting of priorities and general business.

I have been in speech and debate for a while and have seen a lot of people win in competitive speech and I will tell you that the best debaters and speakers that I have seen are also the most humble. These are the ones who will talk with you when they win, and give you advice or congratulate you when they lose. These are the ones who win national awards and then laugh off the congratulations they get.

Humility is probably the hardest of the virtues to have because it's counter-intuitive. It means being just as happy when someone else succeeds as you would be when you yourself succeed. It means being teachable in failure and gracious in success. It means going up to get the award and afterwards helping to stack chairs and clean up. It's also a virtue that it's hard to know you have because it's the one virtue that might justify pride.

I myself have had a measure of success and so I have to be careful to make sure that I don't look down on those who haven't and to even encourage them. Failure must be a chance to learn from my mistakes and success must be a chance to encourage others by saying, "look, if I can do this, you can." It's a hard balance to strike and I still haven't mastered it.

~Roccondil

The Success of Failure

2008-02-15T22:45:00.002-05:00

Failure. That's a word that we all fear and hate. Yet it happens to all of us. No one in history (aside from Jesus) has ever succeeded at everything, try as they might. Yet my point with this little post is that failure can be beneficial and that often it is the fear of failure that keeps a person from success.

First, often we don't try something because we're afraid we'll fail. Is there substance to our fear? Yes. Many people do fail when they try. However, in order to succeed at something, one must try. Those who do not try may not ever fail, but neither do they ever succeed. Those who aren't willing to take risks will never have success.

Next, success is often found in failure. Strange but true. Thomas Edison went through more than two thousand experiments before he invented the lightbulb. In fact, the lightbulb he invented was originally a fluke. Hermann Melville's classic Moby Dick wasn't published until after his death. J. S. Bach died in obscurity and yet today is recognized as one of the great geniuses of history.

Sometimes success comes by learning from failure. I do NCFCA speech and debate and I'll tell you first that I've had more failures than successes. However, if I can learn from those failures and keep trying rather than giving up, I may well eventually succeed, maybe not in this league, but later in life.

Finally, success often comes by overcoming failure. During his lifetime, Harry Truman was deemed a failure at almost everything he did. He never went to college, failed at farming, his business went down the tubes and he often speculated on failed operations. When he entered politics, he was seen as the creature of political machines and his nomination as Vice President was as a compromise candidate. Even when running for reelection it was assumed that his opponent, Dewey, would win. And yet Harry Truman fought to the end and won. Today, Harry Truman is known as one of America's best Presidents (and who knows? Maybe President Bush will).

Failure happens. I have experienced it and I know my readers have. But failure is a chance to learn, not an excuse to give up.

~Roccondil

What Time is it?

2008-02-05T16:05:00.000-05:00

What time is it? When I ask this question, most people pull out their watches and say, "it's a quarter till." Often, I think we miss the significance of this as I did until I recently read Ecclesiastes 3. Here's what Solomon (or whoever wrote the book) says:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 (English Standard Version)
For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
a time to be born, and a time to die;
a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
a time to kill, and a time to heal;
a time to break down, and a time to build up;
a time to weep, and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
a time to tear, and a time to sew;
a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
a time to love, and a time to hate;
a time for war, and a time for peace.

There is a time for everything. Often, sin is doing something at the wrong time that might be appropriate at some other time. Often we try to do things out of order when it isn't appropriate. I have the problem of speaking when it's time to be silent or fighting when it's time for peace. Or sometimes I am silent when I ought to speak up, or am passive when I should be active. A large part of wisdom is knowing what to do when.

Two controversial parts of this passage are "a time to kill and a time to heal" as well as "a time for war and a time for peace." That sure defeats pacifism. There is a time when conflict is necessary and good and when it is appropriate to take the life of another human being. Often this is when that action would serve justice or when a man is defending his family or himself.

So before you do something, ask yourself what time it is. You may be surprised.

~Roccondil

Religion and the Public Square

2008-01-31T22:33:00.000-05:00

One of the areas where I have seen many evangelicals stumble is in the area of politics. Living in Northern VA, I guess you can't get away from politics, but I have seen a lot of Christians assume that national politics is a matter of spiritual life or death and it's not. God makes the rulers, even in a democracy. He's the one who raises up leaders and crushes them.

However all that is not to say that Christians, and Christians who are involved in politics especially, shouldn't be vocal about their faith. Indeed, I am all for that and I have applauded Barak Obama and Mike Huckabee for being clear about their faith in this year's election cycle.

But why is it important for there to be religion in the public square? After all, doesn't the first amendment forbid it? Well first of all, the first amendment doesn't forbid religion in the public square, it's just been interpreted that way in recent years. When the amendment was passed, eleven out of thirteen states had state churches.

I believe that it is important for religion to be in the public square because that is its proper place. Did the Apostle Paul practice his faith in private and encourage others to do the same? No, he went and preached in the synagogues, on the streets, and on the Areopagus. Did Jesus practice His teachings in private? No, he overturned tables, angered the authorities, and preached from the hillsides. Christ died in public, exposed to the mockery of those He died for and so we ought to be bold and carry our faith to the public square. We need not be ashamed of offending, Jesus wasn't (though we shouldn't offend unnecessarily, as some Christians have).

The Christian faith is about all of life. Our faith isn't just for church or for Sunday mornings, but for our work and our Saturday nights. It's not just for the pew, but for the voting booth as well. The Church ought to be the conscience of the nation, not just a segment of society. In many ways we've given up that battle, choosing instead to preach to the choir of ourselves and even that breaks down.

Our mission is to reach all peoples and to shake the halls of power to their core. The Church is the rock that all will stumble upon and which will one day become the mountain that will overwhelm the nations when Christ returns. Will all the world become a Christian state one day? Not while sin is here. Only when Christ returns will all be put to right.

When will that be? Only God knows.

~Roccondil

The Epic Every Day

2008-01-20T17:08:00.000-05:00

This past week, I had the honor of revisiting Covenant College and after hearing Third_Lobby play and having one or two interesting things happen during the course of the visit, I had a few thoughts on their song "The Epic Every Day."

"Can't you see the Epic Everyday
The greater story hiding underneath the mundane
'Course you won't see the Epic every day
So when you hit the Doldrums, take a look at the book
And see how the story ends
......and tell all your friends"

Sometimes we get caught up so much in our problems and in our own selves that we forget to look outside of ourselves at the world around us. Every day is a gift that ought to be used for the glory of God. Life is not boring: it is we who are boring.

When we look at life under the sun: under the microscope of ourselves, we see meanlinglessness and endless dull repetition. But when we look at life under heaven: from God's perspective as seen in the Scriptures, then a whole new world opens up. We see God's epic that He is writing in all of us.

Rather than thinking about how dreary our life is, we ought to rejoice in life and exult in it, even when things are hard. What great story doesn't have hardships that are overcome? If God had made things easy, maybe it wouldn't be boring (after all, God is never boring), but it would certainly be less exciting and we certainly wouldn't see God's greatness and majesty in the same way.

So, when you think that things are boring, look again, this time from an ultimate God-centered perspective. You'll be surprised at what you find.

~Roccondil

Legacies

2008-01-12T18:01:00.000-05:00

Today, I was honored to attend an 80th birthday celebration for my grandfather: a man who has had a full and abundant life and has been well loved. I myself have often sought advice and counsel from this man and so I thought I'd post my thoughts on the legacy someone can leave.

First, what is a legacy? Well, it's what you leave behind: what you're remembered for. Everyone leaves a legacy, whether they think so or not. This is a physical fact, but it's also a philosophical question. What do you want to leave behind?

Some want to leave material things behind. There are those who, though they can't take it with them, still try to gain material wealth as if they could. They save and invest their money and yet at the end what do they leave? Money that may just go to the IRS or a distant relative.

Some people want to leave their name behind in the history books. The great conquerors --- Alexander, Caesar, Ghenghis Khan, even Hitler and Stalin --- all left behind names that are feared to this day. Some do it through prizes and charitable work, but the motivation is the same --- you want to be remembered, if not for good, then for evil.

Others want to leave behind relationships. They want people to come to their funeral and to bear witness to the good they did. These kinds of people are remembered for their deeds and for the lives and the hearts that they touched. Our family had one friend who is remembered in just this way: because she touched so many lives in profound ways.

So, what will be your legacy?

~Roccondil

Government, Law, and the Bible

2008-01-04T17:51:00.000-05:00

As a result of a discussion on the Narniaweb forum, I've been thinking a lot about the biblical mandates for law and government and so here are my thoughts about the biblical basis for government.

Romans 13, makes it clear that Government has been established by God to do justice and to bear the sword. Government is part of the curse, and like all of the other parts of the curse, government is meant to restrain man. Yes, that's right, I believe that the curse is a blessing as well because the curse keeps man from becoming utterly depraved (as opposed to totally depraved).

So, what is government supposed to look like? First, government is supposed to be subject to the law. Since the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, the law has not meant the Mosaic Law, but the Common Law also known as "Natural Law." Common Law as we know it in the West is ultimately based (as it should be) in the Bible. Natural Law is properly understood by means of a biblical worldview.

Many have brought up the point that many of the laws in the Bible are "draconian" and violate what they perceive as "liberty." First of all, my contention is that biblically, liberty is simply the legal freedom to do what is right. Second, common law, being based in both justice and in mercy, will leave certain sin issues up to the Church and will balance the punishment of the criminal as well as his improvement.

So in conclusion, government is to be based in law and law in the Bible. Does this mean that this kind of government will always be perfect? No. Man is fallen, after all. What it does mean is that man should base his law's on God's because, as the Psalmist says, "the law of the Lord is perfect: enlightening the soul."

~Roccondil

Silent Night, a Rose . . . and Merry Christmas

2007-12-24T21:22:00.000-05:00

Silent night, holy night,
All is calm, all is bright,
Round yon virgin mother and child,
Holy infant so tender and mild,
Sleep in heavenly peace,

These are the words of the classic carol that we all sing, but I thought that I would reflect further by using the lyrics to a lesser-known but equally great German carol:

Lo, how a Rose e'er blooming,
from tender stem hath sprung!
Of Jesse's lineage coming,
as those of old have sung.
It came, a floweret bright,
amid the cold of winter,
when half spent was the night.

This carol to me reflects both the miracle of the incarnation and the great history of redemption. The promise of God to David that from his line would come the Messiah. The rose, the perfect one, amidst the cold of hearts that had given up waiting for Him.

The son of God became man, as Lewis said, "so that men could become sons of God." The God of the universe humbled Himself and became a baby born in questionable circumstances to a virgin in order that he might live a blameless life and die a horrible death. That is the scandal of the incarnation and the hope of all who believe in His name.

That's what it's about: Christmas is about the cross. The wood of the manger, a lowly feeding trough, would become the wood of the cross, the shame and the glory of Christ: a a stumbling block to all, and the salvation of His people.

Merry Christmas!

~Roccondil

Future Statesmen Starts Up!

2007-12-19T16:20:00.000-05:00

Friends, enemies, and otherwise:

I am glad to announce the launch of a new blog which my younger brother Daniel, my friend Gregory and I have started called Future_Statesmen. This will be a primarily political blog which will cover different issues from our varied perspectives. Hopefully there will be others joining us.

In the first post, my brother pointed out that the teenagers of today are the statesmen of tommorrow and he's absolutely right. Hillary Clinton was once a bright young college student and so were all the other candidates in the upcoming Presidential election in the US. Maybe it seems like a truism, but the teenagers of today will be inheriting the world that is being decided today.

So that's why we decided to start future statesmen: because we believe that the youth of today deserve to be heard in the political arena because they are the ones who will be the statesmen and leaders of tommorrow.

So head over to Future Statesmen and feel free to comment on what we have to say.

~Roccondil

Christian Unity: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic

2007-12-09T21:52:00.000-05:00

Today after a sermon on the subject and a protracted talk with an Anglican (whose church split from the episcopal church) I thought I'd post my thoughts on Christian unity.

This may sound funny for a Presbyterian to talk about unity since after all, the Presbyterians have probably split more times than any other denomination. However, I think that it is important to have unity within the body of Christ.

In John 17, Christ prays that His followers would be unified and at one with each other. Does this refer necessarily to unity of denomination? Not necessarily. What it does mean is that we as Christians should have a unity of spirit that transcends denominational lines. I may disagree with my Catholic brothers, but they're still my brothers and I am to love them as Christ does. In fact, our theological disagreements should unite us rather than divide because in our discussions we sharpen each other that when the real enemy appears we may better fight him.

However, there are certain issues that are worth splitting the church over. The Anglican Church has a long history of being able to accomodate various spheres of theological thought from the Puritans of the 17th century to the Anglo-Catholics. In my discussion with this Anglican tonight, I was glad to hear about the many churches in the Episcopal Church in the USA that are splitting off and joining other Anglican branches over the issue of homosexuality. It was great to hear that these churches are standing up for the truth even while standing for unity.

So I guess one could describe me as a "catholic" Presbyterian (or maybe "Reformed catholic"): meaning not that I believe in Purgatory, Penance, or the Pope, but that I believe that Christians should be united as part of the "One holy catholic and apostolic church" (notice the small "c"). I believe in the Church universal of which Christ alone is the head. So I'm praying that all of you be unified in Christ not only in spite of your differences, but through them.

~Roccondil

A Season for Joy

2007-12-02T22:10:00.000-05:00

Well, it's that time of year again. The time when we get out all the lovely decorations and the songbooks. The time when we feel naturally more expansive, generous, and thankful. A time for friends, food, fun, and fellowship.

Or maybe it's the time of year when we feel rushed. When we're hurrying between events, doing a dozen different activities, making sure that letters and cards get out, and generally feeling stressed.

But whatever the Christmas season is like for you, it should be a season of joy. Now you may ask, "How can I be joyful in the rush?" Well first of all, joyfulness is a state of living not a state of emotion. Second one can be stressed about all the stuff that happens during the month of December, or one can think about it and say, "Wow! My life is really rich and abundant!" Being busy at this time often means that you have friends and family that you care about. That alone is reason to be joyful.

So as you sip your peppermint mocha as you rush to do more shopping, stop and think about just how blessed you are to be so busy: it means that you love and are loved.

~Roccondil

Fellowship

2007-11-25T18:10:00.000-05:00

Today, after having several good friends from my church to lunch, I have begun to think about fellowship. Often, Christians think that fellowship means talking at church functions, or else attending church and talking with the pastor afterward. However, I think that fellowship means something deeper: it means forming deep friendships with other believers, not just fellow members of the same church.

The book of Acts tells us that the apostles were "all in one accord" meaning either that they drove a Honda (if you haven't guessed, I repeat terrible puns) or that they had a common spirit. They had fellowship. This doesn't mean that they always agreed or that they never had their little squabbles, but in spirit they all had the same goal: the spreading of the Gospel and the growth of the Church.

Fellowship can appear in the most unlikely places. For example, today after lunch and after a few games, my friends and I were sitting in our back yard and talking about the past year when somehow, we started discussing practical ways to glorify and enjoy God. It was great!

Another unlikely place that I found fellowship was on the Narniaweb forum (link in the sidebar) where a fellow member started a discussion about the upcoming film version of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (this was two years ago) where he was lamenting that Christians were agressively foisting the Christian messages found in Narnia and "spray-painting" them in a way that not only turned people off to them, but to the movie as well. The discussion started an internet friendship that is still going (the guy is an awesome Christian) and it is yet another example of how Christians of different denominations and different theologies can have fellowship and be "of one accord."

So, I would encourage you to cultivate those relationships with other believers. It's time for some real fellowship.

~Roccondil

A Time to be Thankful

2007-11-21T22:00:00.000-05:00

Well, it's that time of year again. The time when we here in the States watch football, eat heartily, and enjoy time with friends and family while doing these things. It is also a time to reflect on the year and thank God for the things He has done for us. So, I'm going to do just that and list some things that I am thankful for from the past year:

First, I should express my thanks to my readers who still read my blog for supporting me and commenting. I loved that discussion of libertarianism.
Next, I need to thank my family for being here and supporting me in my college search (still ongoing, but nearing the finish line) and for putting up with my quirky personality.
I am also thankful to my late grandmother for her incessant prayers while she was alive. Despite her rough edges, she had a heart of gold and will not be forgotten.
Thanks to all my friends who supported my family and I through this hard year. Your prayers were very helpful.
Thanks are due to my Church for being there for me. Yall have become my dearest friends since we joined.
Last but not least, thanks are always due to God for his enduring faithfulness through all of my life and especially in this last year with a lot of hard things. Soli Deo Gloria!

Anyway, those kinds of things are what I will be thinking of this Thanksgiving. So, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

~Roccondil

A Tribute to a Songwriter

2007-11-10T22:12:00.000-05:00

This week, I'm going to pay tribute to probably the best songwriter, musician, and contemporary music artist that I've ever listened to and who you've never heard of. His lyrics are profound, honest, poetic, and often rather depressing. Bruce Cockburn and Pierce Pettis ("whoever they are," you say) have both called him "America's Best Songwriter." The man I'm referring to is the late great Mark Heard.

Mark Heard was a contemporary Christian music artist in the 1980s and early 90s. He was countercultural to the conservative Christian Music industry which had little use for an artist who smoked, sometimes cursed, and was Kierkegaardian in his approach to religion. However, he was orthodox, having studied at L'Abri in Switzerland under Francis Schaeffer, and was in no way ashamed of his faith.

What he didn't like was hypocrisy, which he saw left and right. He felt that Christians were "Dancing at the Policeman's Ball" and ignoring the world around them. As a result, though he was well-known by artists and musicians, Christian record labels didn't particularly like him and as a result he went solo, starting an abortive label in the mid-80s and finally, with the help of some artistically-minded friends, started Fingerprint Records in 1990 and released a remarkable "trilogy" of albums in the next three years before his premature death in 1992.

Mark Heard's lyrics were always poetic, but in his "wandering" years from about 1987-1990, when he was without a label, he developed his songwriting craft to an astounding degree. During this time, he was often asked by other artists to write songs for albums (notably Phil Keaggy's Sunday's Child album with "I Always Do" and "Everything is Alright") and recorded a lot of demos which were released poshumously.

His use of imagery was superb. "Paper-filled cracks in the wailing wall," "ever tried to carry water in a basket?" or "they have packaged our virtue in cellulose dreams" come to mind. While often the weight of depression resembles the ruins where the bones of the "Orphans of God" lie buried, rays of light appear frequently even as the rain peppers down from a clear blue sky. The "Strong hand of love," while hidden, is still there. One day, we will rise from the ruins.

In short, the music of Mark Heard is worth listening to. The "Greatest Hits" album from Ace Records is available as is Paste Magazine's "Hammers and Nails" album of unreleased demos, both of which are excellent introductions. There are also several tribute albums featuring various artists out there.

So, my recommendation is that as you "nod over coffee," that you listen to and ponder the work of this prolific songwriter.

~Roccondil

Christian Architecture of the Middle Ages

2007-11-04T07:51:00.000-05:00

One thing that I have always been interested in is architecture: the design and layout of buildings. In particular, I have been interested in Christian church architecture of the Middle Ages, so I'm going to take my readers on a little tour of some church architecture that I have found interesting:

To start our little tour, I'm going to use one of my favorite styles of Medieval Architecture: Byzantine.

The most famous example of Byzantine Architecture is definitely Hagia Sophia, once the largest Church in the world which was turned into a mosque after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. Here's what it probably looked like in the Middle Ages:

Notice the windows below the dome. These help to relieve the dome's pressure but they also create an illusion from below that the dome is floating.

An Italian example of Byzantine Architecture is San Vitale in Ravenna, which was a Roman (and later Byzantine) imperial center from the 5th century onward:

One thing to note in Byzantine as opposed to Western Architecture is the centralized plan. Most if not all Byzantine and Orthodox churches have a dome that the rest of the church is centered around. This is representative of the nature of Eastern Orthodoxy which has always centered around God reaching down to and revealing Himself to man, represented by the heaven-like dome.

In the west, there was a movement known as "Romanesque" which took elements from Roman and Byzantine Architecture and applied them in a particularly western way.

One example is the Cathedral of Saint-Fronte in Perigueux, France. Domes were also a common element in Romanesque, but there were often more of them and they were never the main focus of a church.

Then of course, came Gothic Architecture (please understand, I'm over-simplifying here). This was marked by pointed arches which represented the western medieval notion of man reaching up to God. The outsides of churches also contained spires: an element which had been present in Romanesque, but which was used much more frequently in Gothic.

One of my favorite examples of English Gothic is Salisbury Cathedral:

This form of architecture was often very intracate, marked by traceries, statuary, and small spires. Another great French example is the world-famous cathedral of Chartres. This church is famed for its statuary as well as for being the classic Gothic cathedral.

One interesting thing that I found interesting was that Gothic cathedrals were designed with deliberate design "flaws" such as asymmetry, that made the point that pointed out that only God is perfect.

So, hope my readers enjoyed this brief trip through medieval church architecture.

~Roccondil

Archetypes and the Christian Message

2007-10-25T22:49:00.000-04:00

This week, rather than continue the budding and highly interesting debate over Libertarianism that I started (and which has produced more heated reader response than any other post that I've done) I'm going to announce that I have been published, courtesy of E Stephen Burnett of Faithfusion.net on Speculative_Faith.

So, here's what I wrote:

"As a longtime fan of speculative fiction, especially that of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien, I have come to appreciate the ways in which the Christian message can be communicated through the medium of speculative fiction. As I have read works that delve even further into the philosophy of fiction, I have seen that one can incorporate Christian ideas and thoughts into a work of fiction in such a way that even the author doesn’t see the similarity until after the book has been written.

C. S. Lewis said that the Christian elements in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe came in “of their own accord,” and that he hadn’t meant to use the book as a means to communicate the Christian message. This is usually done through the use of archetypes: types of characters and situations that are universal in human fiction and point to God’s truth. In this post, I hope to show how archetypes, even three-dimensional and dynamic ones, can point to the Christian message . . ."

The rest of the article can be found here.

~Roccondil

The Fallacy of Libertarianism: Part II

2007-10-20T11:13:00.000-04:00

I think that last post has set the record for responses on this blog even without my rebuttals. So, I decided to do a more complete rebuttal to the responses of Narniawebbers Preserved Billy and randomlyretro. If this kind of thing continues to happen (and I hope it will) I may start doing scripts for "The Socratic Show" so please, keep responding.

The first thing that I want to respond to is PB's assertion that though I claim to believe in human free will that I really don't because I believe in Total Depravity (like every good Reformed person does). My response is that I believe in Total Depravity precisely because I believe in Free Will. Why? Because Free Will, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is "The ability or discretion to choose; free choice." That is, free will is the ability to make decisions based on what you want rather than what someone else wants. Now, my contention is that without the light of Christ, all people desire evil, to be independent from God and often from morality, and thus they choose evil rather than good. Man is basically evil and thus his free will is, in fact, bound by evil. The Christian's will is freer than the non-Christians because of the Holy Spirit.

End of theological discussion there.

PB also defined libertarian as meaning one who believes in liberty. I would contend that that may have been the original meaning but that is has come to mean something different. It has come to mean having as little government as possible. My contention is that this will inevitably breed an unstable and amoral society because the foundation of a society is its moral structure and if that is as changeable as the time of day, then that society is headed for collapse (as I would contend that American Society today is, with its amorality and devaluing of human life).

But why the government? Well, because the government has the power of legislation and is responsible before God for its actions regarding morality. In the Old Testament, who did God go to regarding morals? To the government (the king). I would contend that the purpose of government is not, as a Lockian like PB would say, the protection of life, liberty, and property, but to do Justice. Most of justice is contained in morality.

Of course, government is made up of people and people are basically evil and so I would contend that that's why we need law. In the first case, we need common law in order for justice to be served and second, we need written law in order that justice be absolute.

As for Billy's contention that property predates law, I disagree, as God is the ultimate lawgiver.

I should also mention that I do not believe that I do not support any kind of armed resistance to the government except in extreme or special cases (such as Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia). Even the American Revolution was, in my mind, unjustified. The Civil War was different, as the states had a legal right to secede and it was the north that was rebelling against the law (albeit: the implied intent of the law).

As for personal morality, I think that things like "Homosexual marriage" (I don't use the term "gay" in writing, as it constitutes political correctness) should not be condoned by the government because again, all law should be based in God's law and what does God say about homosexuality? Some pretty harsh things, as I recall. There's a reason why homosexuality used to be called "sodomy."

Again, my position could be described as "Conservo-libero-distribu-tarian."

Let controversy ring!

~Roccondil

The Fallacy of Libertarianism

2007-10-13T19:00:00.000-04:00

With the current trend in American culture of criticizing Conservatism in general and the President in particular, some Christians who have hitherto been staunch Conservatives are starting to realize some of the fallacies of Conservatism and to turn to other political philosophies. While this is actually good, many are turning to something much worse that could turn this country's moral foundation upside-down: libertarianism.

First of all, in discussing this subject it would be helpful to remember G. K. Chesterton's great quote about political sides: "The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and
Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." Libertarianism is not, as some would claim, extreme Conservatism, ultimately springing from the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. So what is Libertarianism?

Libertarianism is the political philosophy that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else. If they are only hurting themselves, it's fine. Practically, this philosophy espouses total free market as well as legalizing almost everything from drugs to Gay "marriage."

The reasoning is that much crime results from making things illegal and that many of the problems in the economy could be solved by releasing government control. The idea is to make the government as small as possible because governments have power that is dangerous because, as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The major flaw in this theory is that it assumes that man is basically good. The reasoning is that if man is allowed to seek his own pleasure freely then he won't commit crimes. However, this is simply not true. In today's world, drunk driving is one of the biggest causers of car accidents even though alcohol is legal. Man is basically evil and therefore his bad self has to be contained. Libertarians are ignoring the facts when they say that man can do without laws regarding personal morals. EDIT: Lord Acton's saying should also apply here because freedom is power and power, as Lord Acton said, "tends to corrupt." Power of government is dangerous, but power to do what one pleases is more dangerous.

Also, a pure free market with few restrictions will inevitably lead to disaster. Why? Well, it seems I need to again quote my friend Chesterton: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists." Basically, if it goes uncontrolled, capitalism turns into monopolism, and all economists agree that monopolism is a bad thing. Capitalism, like brandy, is a good thing in moderation.

Basically, my position is that too often we are afraid of oppression when in reality we should be afraid of liberty. The tyranny of self is far worse than the tyranny of authority.

~Roccondil

Plug for a New Blog Site

2007-10-04T21:49:00.000-04:00

I'm not known for putting lots of site plugs on this blog, but I'll make an exception in this case. Basically, a friend of mine (both in person and online) has started a blog that she will (hopefully) do some good writing on. Already she has posted some awesome stuff on philosophy, political theory, and life in general from a Christian perspective.

So, without further ado, I present: Random_Ramblings.

~Roccondil

"We Have Let Freedom Ring"

2007-09-23T14:41:00.000-04:00

This may be a one-time thing, or it may be something I do again, but I'm going to post a meditation on a song. The song I'll be meditating on is "We Have Let Freedom Ring," a song by the late great Mark Heard. This song has never been released except as a demo version in a collection of such demos released after Heard's death called "Hammers and Nails." Like many of Heard's songs, this one has incredibly vivid and poetic imagery in the lyrics. I'll just do the first verse and the chorus for brevity's sake.

We can see anything we want to see, no matter what is there,
We can find any fault we want to find, as long as love is blind,
You can tell any lie you want to tell as long as it's not true,
imagination,
You can hurt anyone you want to hurt as long as it's not you,
imagination,

The sad thing i our reletivistic culture today is that one can offend as much as one wants to as long as they are anti-moral. Once people start making moral judgements, they are labelled as "politically incorrect," and are ostracized. Sad really in a country founded on moral principles and natural law.

Just another wild beast wrapped up in the role of predator,
Untamed unchained anashamed unaware of danger,

We take our freedom for granted and use it to our own advantage, not realizing the consequences our actions may have. We forget that in order to have true freedom, one must protect the freedoms of others and be aware of those around them. You can't just be looking out for number 1. Without morals, there is no real freedom.

Run for your life,
We have let freedom ring,
Watch out for your heart,
We have let freedom ring,
Pray for your soul,
We have let freedom ring,

Without moral underpinnings, our lives are meaningless , our hearts become jaded and inhuman, and our souls become seared. When we let freedom go unchecked by morals, it becomes slavery. To borrow from George Orwell, War becomes peace, freedom becomes slavery, and ignorance becomes strength. Without morals, we end up in a nightmarish 1984-like world such as Orwell predicted.

When we take God out of a society, the society collapses without the moral underpinning of His word.

Let's remember that.

~Roccondil

Sept 19 Ahoy!

2007-09-19T11:00:00.000-04:00

ARRRRGH! Today be the nine-and-tenth day o'September. And I'll bet you be wonderin why that's significant and why I be writin so funny. I also bet that you be askin yerselves "Has Roccondil finally fallen off his rigging?" No, because today be "International Talk-Like-A-Pirate Day." It's a holiday that's alway's been dear to me heart.

So why d'we celebrate talkin like a bunch o'scurvy sea dogs and filthy bilge rats? I don't know, but I'll do't'anyway. It's a lot o'fun and it takes the mind off'a school, work, and makes ye want t'go out t'sea an' plunder, pillage, and otherwise have a'boatload o'fun.

So celebrate t'day in true piratical style with a'glass o'rum (or Root Beer) and remember, "they arent really rules, more like guidelines."

~AARRRRRRRRoccondil
Black Avenger o'th' Spanish Main

9/11 and Two Cities

2007-09-11T21:03:00.000-04:00

Six years ago, my country (the United States if you didn't know) was attacked by terrorists. It was a seemingly unprovoked and horrible attack on civilian (and military) targets by men who were agents of a radical Islamic group. Events like these are shocking and often make people question their faith or else turn to God. My words on this occaision are addressed to those who already have faith in God.

First of all, events of this kind should not really shock us, rather they should sadden us because of the fallenness of Man. Man was made in God's image and he has fallen. The image has been shattered by sin and only Christ's sacrifice can pick up the pieces.

Secondly, we should remember that God is sovereign. When the world seems to be falling down around our ears, God is in control. God has foreordained events like this for our benefit so that we may turn to him and grow. It's a test of our faith.

Lastly, we must remember that this world is not our home. Augustine, the great Church Father wrote of two cities: the City of God and the City of Man. We as Christians are part of the City of God, but we are traveling in the City of Man. This world is not our home. Whether America stands or falls, whether there is any place for us to go, whether civilization as we know it crumbles completely, God is still on His Throne and our citizenship is secure.

Let's not forget these things.

~Roccondil

Beginnings . . . of School

2007-09-04T21:53:00.000-04:00

Well, today was the first day of my Senior Year in High School (the two weeks of Latin prior to this really don't count). Like most things, today brought mixed feelings. For one, I now realize that my last summer of freedom is over and that next year I will probably have to have an occupation other than blogging.

On the other hand, I know that this is my last year of being at home and that next year I will be off to college (don't ask where because I don't know). I also know that this could be a good year because I'm now starting to enjoy the privileges of being older and more mature (at least according to some I'm more mature).

Beginnings are funny things. If you begin on the right foot, then everything tends to go smoother. On the other hand, if you begin on the wrong foot, you may find yourself in for a terrible time of it. How wise Solomon was when he wrote that "The end of a thing is better than the beginning," (it's in Ecclesiastes). It's good to start well, but I'll tell you what, it's better to finish well. If you finish well, the next thing will start better.

That's what you call a ramble. I may do this more often. Who knows if something more or less profound will come out of it?

~Roccondil

The Politics of God and Man

2007-08-29T17:18:00.000-04:00

Recently I reread The Politics of God and the Politics of Man by Jacques Ellul, a French political theorist and Christian thinker of the late twentieth century. This book is a study in Second Kings and focuses specifically on, you guessed it, the political aspects of the book. Some of the points that he makes are particularly relevant to Christians today in America such as:

1. Don't look for political solutions to spiritual problems: I'm not saying that it's wrong to make moral laws (indeed, all laws should be based on the Bible's moral standards) but don't think that political action is going to make man better because the politicians making the laws are just as corrupt as those who they are trying to prevent from sinning.

2. Don't put your faith in politics: I don't mean that we shouldn't let our faith influence our politics, but we shouldn't trust in politics. We belong to a different Kingdom which is not of this world. God shows his power most clearly when men are most powerless.

3. Don't forget God's commands even if you are following a divine calling: God called Jereboam to be a king, but when Jereboam, in the name of political expediency, disobeyed the second commandment (though the religion was still that of Yahweh) God cursed him for his disobedience.

Should Christians be involved in the public square? Yes. Should there be Christians in politics? Yes. But Christians should not be politicians because a politician looks to the next election. Christians should be looking to eternity.

If you haven't already, please read The Politics of God and the Politics of Man. Though Ellul does lean libertarian/pacifist/anarchist his thoughts are invaluable.

~Roccondil

Conservatives, Liberals, and the Gospel

2007-08-19T15:53:00.000-04:00

As my readers know, I just returned from Bay St. Louis, Mississippi where I did Katrina relief for about a week. One thing that people down there were saying was that the government let everyone down while the Churches stepped up to the plate and did an awesome job.

In the midst of this, I've been thinking about the relationship a Christian should have to politics and, more importantly, what a Christian involved in the political process should look like. I should warn beforehand that I am not going to endorse any candidates on this blog if I can help it. I will also try to look for flaws on all sides of the political spectrum.

One thing that I dislike in conservatism (which is why I label myself as having liberal tendencies) is the unwillingness to get hands dirty. Conservatives are really good at criticizing what the government is doing, but quite frankly, they don't always provide a very good alternative. There's a lot of emphasis put on downsizing programs like social security, welfare, and such, but almost none put on what should replace it. What should a Christian President do when the poor and elderly are starving and the private charities are incapable of helping? I would say that that president, as a Christian has the duty to do whatever is within his power to relieve the situation.

However, I do agree that it really isn't the government's job to do that kind of thing: it's the Church's job. I believe that we as Christians are commanded to help the poor and the elderly and that if that falls off and people are starving, then we aren't helping enough. We need to get off our middle-class conservative evangelical butts and get our hands dirty by helping people.

Maybe I sound harsh, but that's the way it is, really: the Church is supposed to be there where people are hurting, not sitting in our pews watching as people suffer.

If you haven't, consider going on a mission trip to somewhere in the US or elsewhere where people are needy both for physical things and for spiritual food.

~Roccondil

Lagniappe and a Look Back

2007-08-18T21:45:00.000-04:00

Having just returned from my second missions trip to Lagniappe Presbyterian Church in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi for Hurricane Katrina relief, I thought I'd share some things about it.

First of all, I just now realized that I've been doing Faith and Philosophy for over a year now. I just have to thank God and praise Him for letting me do this and maybe touch a few lives. Without Him, I'd be nowhere.

Now, your first question, probably, opun reading the title of this post was: "What is Lagniappe?" Lagniappe is actually a Cajun term used in Louisiana and Mississippi. It refers to when someone adds something extra. For example, when you buy a dozen doughnuts and the shop gives you an extra: that's lagniappe. When you drive up to the bank and the teller gives you a lollipop: that's lagniappe. It's something that's free, but you can't ask for it, and you definitely don't deserve it. In other words, it's Grace.

Lagniappe is also the name of a Presbyterian Church in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi founded after Hurricane Katrina by a pastor named Jean Lerroux, who was originally from the area. This Church functions as a relief agency and spreads the Gospel by building houses and, more importantly, rebuilding and restoring lives that were once lost. In an area devastated by nature and let down by the government, the Church is working to rebuild the community on a stronger foundation.

This really is what the Church is supposed to do isn't it? Rise from the ruins of mankind's sin and misery and build a community on the sure foundation of God's unfailing promises? Of course it's really the Holy Spirit who does the work: not us.

I encourage all of you to pray and ask God where you can serve in building His kingdom. Maybe you are called to go to Bay St. Louis, maybe you are called to a city, maybe to a foreign country, maybe to your own backyard. God uses all of us as Christians in powerful ways through our everyday lives to reach people with the Gospel and touch their lives with His Grace.

~Roccondil

Motifs, Motives, and "The Village"

2007-08-09T14:06:00.000-04:00

After being recommended to it by friends for years, I finally saw M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. The movie impressed me both because it built up the kind of suspense that I like in a movie (similar to some of Hitchcock methinks) and because it raised a lot of food for thought.

Just a note, if you haven't seen it don't read any further because there are major spoilers.

Artistically I saw a lot of symbolism, especially in the villagers' avoidance of the color red (the color of death, blood, anger, and pain) and their frequent use of the color yellow (the color of sunlight, gold, and hope). These colors symbolized what the villagers feared (especially the elders) and what they wanted. There was also some symbolism (and some artistic suspense) in the villagers not naming their fears but calling them "the things we do not speak of" (ironic, considering how much they speak of them).

At the end of the movie, the viewer learns that the "things" are a fabrication of the elders and that the village is really an isolated area in a wildlife preserve. But the viewer also learns that the reason for the deception is for the protection of innocence in the village. Yet the ironic thing is that in order to preserve innocence, the town elders have become guilty of deceiving their children about the outside world by keeping them from it. The moral questions of, "how much information should we be willing to give?" "What lengths are permissible for the preservation of innocence?" "Will humanity's fallen nature reveal itself in such a situation?" etc are endless.

Plenty of food for thought and for discussion in this excellently done film.

~Roccondil

Historical Fiction and the real "Kingdom of Heaven"

2007-08-08T20:05:00.000-04:00

I apologize for the long absence, but I've been out of town with limited internet for three weeks and will try to make up for it in the next three days before I leave for a missions trip.

Recently I watched a movie about the Crusades from a couple of years back starring Orlando Bloom entitled Kingdom of Heaven. The plot is based around the real-life figure of Balian of Ibelin who commanded the defense of Jerusalem against Saladin's army in events that led up to the Third Crusade and Richard the Lionhearted's exploits.

The film was very well-made, but it was quite innaccurate in many points. For one, Balian of Ibelin was a seasoned veteran who had lived in the Holy Land for many years when he defended Jerusalem. Another point would be that Guy de Lusignan and Rainauld de Chatillon were not Templars but mere barons. All that aside, the gaping innaccuracy was in the modernization of Balian's philosophy and the philosophy of Outremer: the Crusader state that formed after the First Crusade. In the movie, the state of Outremer is depicted as a place which is friendly to all religions and is a place of toleration. However, while this did occur in places, this state of affairs was by no means widespread. The Crusaders were largely bigoted and would treat their Islamic and Jewish subjects cruelly because they had the means to do so.

Balian is also depicted as a people's man when in reality he was no different from his fellow barons: just wiser in where to make a stand.

This is something that galls me: when a scriptwriter for a historical film puts his own thoughts onto the lips of historical figures. This is called anachronism and while it can be used for humor in humorous quasi-historical settings (A Knight's Tale, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, etc), in a film that is attempting accuracy it's simple lying and while no film can be completely free of hindsight, it should be avoided as much as possible.

Philosophically, the film is based on an elusive "Kingdom of Heaven:" which is represented as a place where all faiths can live in a sort of disharmonious harmony. Of course, the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus talked about in the Gospels is quite different. "Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!" is what He says, for the kingdom he speaks of is spiritual and is made up of broken people from "everyu tribe, every tongue, every nation." This kingdom is the Church Universal which is invisible until the time is ripe. It is a kingdom not made with hands which will one day supplant the kingdoms of earth and shall herald a new peace where evil shall be eradicated.

Let us pray that the Kingdom of Heaven comes soon.

~Roccondil

What is Art? Part 2

2007-07-14T22:51:00.000-04:00

First of all, apologies for not updating last week, but there was a death in the family (and a vacation) that kept us out of the house for two weeks. Thankfully, God is good and I'm back.

So, what is good art and what is bad art? I would define good art first of all in terms of being created for the satisfaction of the artist rather than for marketability (note that marketability is not a bad thing, but it shouldn't be the sole purpose of art). What I'm discounting is kitsch, that is objects for aesthetic purpose sold as knicknacks and usually mass-produced. Things like souveneirs, lawn ornaments, or collectible figurines are bad art. Why? Because they're non-unique replacements for good art. This doesn't mean that a little kitsch here and there is bad (there's nothing wrong with putting that Lord of the Rings replica sword on your wall) as long as it's part of your work of art in decoration of a room.

Good art is also created to produce positive emotion. For example, a painting of the crucifixion of Christ may be gruesome, but it is created to produce appreciation for what Christ did for us. "Art" created just to produce revulsion is just tripe, as it creates nothing positive. Likewise, confusion can be used positively, as in the work of M. C. Escher, whose optical tricks of perspective are delightfully confusing, or it can be simple nonsensical tripe as in the "dadaist" school of the early twentieth century.

In short, what is "good art" is not simply a matter of preference.

~Roccondil

What is Art? Part 1

2007-06-24T17:45:00.000-04:00

A few posts ago, I talked about how Christians should view and execute art, but I failed to define the term itself. So I ask the question here: what is art?

Some have suggested that art is simply work done by an artist. However, this theory has two major flaws. The first is the obvious circular logic of defining the term in terms of itself. The second problem, however, is more serious: defining art in this manner means that if an artist executes a work with no aesthetic merit whatsoever, then it's still art. In the postmodern world, this approach has resulted in the turing of "art" into an elitist exercise rather than something that is intended to give pleasure. In essence, it debases art, making it merely another way to prove superiority and make others look ignorant.

Is art work executed just for aesthetic pleasure and no other purpose? No indeed, as this would disqualify much of the world's art inculding the Sistine Chapel (a place of worship) all Byzantine art and much of the art of East Asia.

I would define art as being objects created (not manufactured) for an aesthetic purpose, possibly in addition to a useful one. Obviously, this broad definition covers more than just what we see in museums. A well-designed and executed building such as Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Waters house in Pennsylvania or Hagia Sophia in Istanbul would qualify as art. This would also disqualify such things designed merely to send negative messages or to satirize (such as the work of many "artists" today).

The next step, though, is defining "good art" from "bad art:" a subject that I will cover in next week's post.

~Roccondil

Postmodernism and Politics

2007-06-17T13:34:00.000-04:00

I've recently been reading Postmodern Times a book by Dr. Gene Edward Veith Jr, the former cultural editor of WORLD magazine and currently the dean of academics at Patrick Henry College. In this book, Veith analyzes current trends in art, literature, politics and philosophy including the deconstructionist and anti-foundationalist tendencies of postmodern works. One of the interesting things that Veith points out is the political implications of postmodern thought.

Consider that much of the rhetoric now used by intellectuals and politicians was used during the so-called "modern" era, specifically during the 1930s in Europe. Yes, much of the ideology of postmodernism such as no absolutes and revisionist history was used by Hitler and Mussolini. They claimed that their nations were oppressed by the evil forces of democracy (incidentally, democracy is also being questioned today) and that they needed strength to overthrow. They drew much from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche's idea of the "Ubermensch" (translation "over-man" or "superman" in English) as the ideal of how these nations should take their rightful due as superior.

Today, such concepts of the "Ubermensch" are taken to a logical conclusion that "might makes right." Thus, we have militant feminists who want to subjugate men and do away with all opposition (especially in the Church) as well as militant gays who want to do much the same thing. Yes, these are the neo-fascists of today. The forefather of postmodernism was Heideigger who was a Nazi, so it makes sense that postmodernist philosophy would result in fascism: that's how it started.

Doubtless many postmodernists are well-meaning, but "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

~Roccondil

C. S. Lewis: "Till We Have Faces" and Mythology

2007-06-10T21:28:00.000-04:00

While on a short trip for a family event this weekend, I found myself with a bit of free time and so I read "Till We Have Faces," C. S. Lewis's last and most bizarre novel.

This book is a retelling of the story of Psyche and Eros (or Cupid, depending on whether you prefer Greek or Roman names) told from the perspective of Psyche's sister. This book contains themes of anger, possessiveness, pain, and ultimately, redemption.

This book is also interesting because Lewis, as we all know, was deeply committed Christian. This raises the question: can a Christian write about pagan mythology?

Well, if a Christian can write about Christian mythology, why not pagan? Now what do I mean by that? Well, consider stories like Pilgrim's Progress, Paradise Lost, or the Medieval King Arthur stories: aren't these mythology? There is a redemptive element in all mythology, however hidden, and myth has a power to convey truth that few other literary genres have.

Consider for example the mythical writings of J. R. R. Tolkien, a committed Christian (and a close friend of C. S. L. to boot) and the author of The Lord of the Rings. Having read much of his work, I can say that Tolkien's writings of a pre-Christian world that anticipates and contains echoes of the Gospel convey God's truth quite powerfully even through a mythological lense.

You see, God can choose to reveal himself in many ways, including myths. All myth contains an echo, however faint, of God's truth. In his book The Pilgrim's Regress, C. S. Lewis compares it to pictures sent by God to gradually lead men to Himself by giving them a longing that only He could fulfill. Mythology gives us a longing for God and in Christians, it helps to stimulate an awareness of God and His truth. For as Augustine said: "All truth is God's truth."

So that's my exhortation for people to read their mythology from Homer to Lewis.

~Roccondil

Beginnings and Endings

2007-06-04T08:35:00.000-04:00

Well, this weekend I have been attending some graduation festivities for some friends and so in the process I've been looking forward to my own graduation from high school next year, but I've also been considering the concept of endings as beginnings.

Whenever something ends, be it an event, a class, or a semester in school, something else always begins, be it a break, another event, or even just a return to normal life. Things always seem to go in cycles, progressing from one thing to the next. I guess this is just further proof of our immortality as human beings. You see, humans may have mortal bodies, but the death of those bodies is merely the beginning of the eternal. Near the time of his death, the Greek philosopher Socrates was asked where he wanted to be buried and he answered that he couldn't be buried. Certainly, his body could be buried, but he couldn't because his soul was immortal.

So this brings us to the question of who is pre-existent and the answer of course is God. He is the alpha and omega (in modern terms, the "a" and the "z"), the beginning and the end. He created the world and He will end it one day and create a new world for His people who followed Him here. Now we don't know when this will happen (or how), but we can certainly be ready for when he comes for us be it now or two hundred years from now.

One other thing though is that God doesn't change. The world He created may change, but God doesn't because he is apart from it. That is a comforting thought: to know that God is truly eternal and is a constant rather than a variable.

~Roccondil

Myths Redeemed

2007-05-27T21:32:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking recently about how Christians should respond to myth due to my reading in the thought of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien: two wonderful thinkers on this subject. I think the answer to this, of course is that we should read myth not only for the pleasure and the feeling of "joy," as Lewis calls it, but also for the truths contained in myth.

"Wait a second!" you cry in horror, "I thought that myths were simply untrue stories in false religions about gods and goddesses and strange creatures! What do you mean by 'truths?'" I'm so glad you asked. You see, truth can be found in all myths, it's just buried. You see, myths are the result of a dilution and distortion of truth by sinful man that somehow continues to point to God's truth. God sends His truth to man (example: God's glory is found in nature) and man, in his sinfulness, distorts it (example: nature is God, aka environmentalism, a modern-day myth) yet still, there is truth to be found in the distortion (example: nature has value and should be taken care of). Ultimately, all myths point to Christian truth as found in God's Word.

An example would be the constant picture of death and rebirth found in cultures throughout the world which point to Christ's death and resurrection. Christ is the figure to which all other myths point. That's why Christians such as Lewis and Tolkien wrote myth: because they felt that it is a powerful vehicle for conveying God's truth. When I said that myth was a "twisting of the facts" I meant that it's simply human (and in the case of pagan myth, an attempt to forget God) not that it isn't an aproppriate way to covey truth or that all who write them, try to distort. Myth can provide great analogies and insights into God's truth. Myth is a searching for what Christ can fulfill. Christ is the true hero of Homer, the true Beowulf, the true King Arthur, the true Aragorn. Indeed, one might even say that history can be used as myth (aka, Christ is the true Ceasar and His people, the true Empire).

My point is this: that we shouldn't reject myths out of hand, but that we should study them so that we can see the beauty that God shows through even shattered all-too-human attempts to convey his truth.

~Roccondil

J. R. R. Tolkien: The Children of Hurin

2007-05-19T22:24:00.000-04:00

This week, I was able to read The Children of Hurin, the recently-published book by J. R. R. Tolkien. "But wait a minute!" you say, "Tolkien died over thirty years ago and this book just got published? What's the deal?" Well, if you remember, Tolkien's son Christopher has been editing and publishing much of his father's work and he finally finished collecting and editing the constituent parts of this tale to form the novel that you can now buy in stores (with beautiful illustrations by "His Artistry" Alan Lee).

And what a tale! I was familiar with the tragic story of Turin Turambar before I read this, but in this work, Tolkien sets forth this epic in greater detail and with more depth than ever before. About Turin's upbringing and his naturally compassionate nature paired with his arrogance and pride. Those who claim that Tolkien's characters are flat have obviously never read even a synopsis of the story of the heroic but flawed Turin Turambar.

In many ways, the story of Turin and his many failings stands as a warning to those who would preach self-reliance. Turin is a self-reliant and proud man who falls because he is quick to mistrust any opinion but his own or even anyone but himself. In the end, he drinks a bitter draught and though he wins a great victory, his triumph is turned to grief and despair. Tolkien paints Turin as the ultimate man: noble and sympathetic, yet also rash and proud: quick to act and slow to take advice. Here is man at his best and his worst.

I highly recommend this work of epic proportion: deserving to be on a shelf with the best of modern fantasy.

~Roccondil

Christian Art

2007-05-13T14:13:00.000-04:00

One topic that I have a great deal of enthusiasm for is "Christian art." First of all, I should say that I dislike the term "Christian art" just because art cannot be saved, but unfortunately there is no better term to describe what Christian artists create. Some have, in the past, said that Christians shouldn't do art or that they shouldn't do certain types of art or even that they shouldn't do certain styles of art. However, these views fail to understand the purpose or the meaning of Christian art. The purpose of Christian art is to redeem and answer the art of the culture.

In painting, Christians should seek to use methods that are popular and use them for God's glory. As an example, here is a painting by John Constable, a secular painter of the early 1800s. The art movement of the day was romanticism, which advocated a return to nature and to emotion and thus this painting is full of sentiment and of the natural world. Romanticism played up God's immanence and how He is revealed in nature, often forgetting that He exists apart from nature.

On the other hand, here is a painting by Thomas Cole, a Christian painter of the same era who also loved nature, but recognized that God exists apart from nature. Thus, his paintings are full of Christian symbolism.

Another area where Christians can be artistic is in music. One of the greatest composer of all time, Johann Sebastian Bach was a strong Christian. At the bottom of every piece of music he ever wrote, he would write the words Soli Deo Gloria. Today his works are considered some of the finest ever written. This can also apply to many (though not all) in the "Contemprary Christian Music" industry. Artists like Phil Keaggy, Tobymac, and the alternative rock band Switchfoot have shown that God can be glorified in contemporary music.

Of course this can apply to more than just music and painting. It can also apply to sculpture, architecture, literature, and food preparation (yes, that's an art). Christians should be doing art because, as Tobymac said, "God is a very creative artist." We are created in the image of God, therefore we should create. Francis Schaeffer, in his book How Should We Then Live? points out that the high points in western culture came when Christians were at the cutting edge of art. Art has the power to communicate truth to people, therefore Christians should be interested in it for, as Augustine of Hippo said, "All truth is God's truth."

~Roccondil

On the Greatness of Great Books

2007-05-06T22:32:00.000-04:00

Well, I've ended four years of studying great books with Schola Classical Tutorials so I thought I'd post my final essay on the greatness of great books on here. This is sort of an end and a beginning for me so I put some heart into it. Enjoy!

On the Greatness of Great Books

Through the last four years of studying great books, I have had to read many books of different sorts. From the fascinating histories of Herodotus to the circles of Dante’s Inferno: from the rage of Achilles to the psychological tragedies of Dostoevsky: from the depths of the well where Gyges found his ring (Plato’s De Republica) to the dizzying heights of the City of God (Augustine’s City of God): these are all places that I have traveled in my study of the great books of Western Civilization. All of these diverse works are considered great books and yet they all seem to be so different, coming from different periods, genres, and worldviews. This then begs the question, "What makes a book great?" The greatness of a book is often found either in its new ideas or in its unique exploration of old ideas. A great book is one that survives the test of time and echoes through the ages as loudly as it did when it was first written. In this essay, I will explore the rich and diverse literature of Western Civilization and show where the greatness lies.

Epic and Myth

The earliest Western literature is found in the works of Homer. The Iliad and The Odyssey are not only the earliest, but also two of the greatest books in the canon of Western literature. These two epics, along with later epics such as Beowulf or The Aeneid communicate universal truths even today because of their nature as myth. Myths show what is at the heart of a civilization and contain the essence of its heart and soul. A myth is not a lie, rather it is truth communicated through a story of man’s relationship with higher beings. Underlying all of these great mythical epics is a desire for greatness and belonging in the world. Achilles wants glory above all else and Odysseus wants to be home. Yet in these two epics is this same communicating of the basic ideas of Greek (and ultimately Western) culture: the love of glory and the love of nation or home. These ideas also shine through in Beowulf and The Aeneid. Beowulf looks for glory and honor at all cost while Aeneas searches for a place that he can call home. Again, these are the two extremes of Western Civilization: a longing for glory and a desire to belong and it is through these epic myths that this idea comes forth most clearly and the greatness of these myths is in their power to communicate these extremes through the ages.

Ideas and Solutions

It has been said that all of Western thought falls into two categories: the Platonists and the Aristoteleans. These of course correspond to the two great philosophers of Ancient Greece: Plato and Aristotle: the idealist and the realist. One of the great paintings of Western civilization is The School of Athens which depicts the great philosophers all together. In this picture Plato is pointing upward while Aristotle has his hand pointing toward the ground with all fingers out. This reflects clearly the contrast in Western thought between the Platonists, who focus on the absolute, and the Aristoteleans, who focus on the details and particulars. This contrast of ideas has produced many great books from Plato’s De Republica (the first "Utopia") to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. These books eloquently argue for a particular position in this conflict of ideas and the conflict only produces greater ideas. Yet the solution to this conflict between the Platonists and the Aristoteleans is found in Christianity, particularly in the work of Augustine in his book City of God. In Christianity, explains Augustine, we are to live out the absolute in our particular lives. In Christianity, the absolute God became a particular man to show us how to live for the absolute in every detail of life. In essence, the conflict between Plato and Aristotle points to the resolution in Christ.

The Age of Faith

The era that we refer to as the "Middle Ages" or the "Medieval Age" was the "Age of Faith" as Will Durant put it. In many ways, the Age of Faith was also a golden age of Western thought and writing. During this time, learning flowered as it had not done since the Roman Republic. Writers like Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and Dante Alighieri wrote books of history, myth, philosophy, and theology. Bede’s history of Christianity in England tells of the redemption of a culture through the power of the Holy Spirit. Geoffrey of Monmouth tells us of a legendary King who fought evil during his life and will reign again one day. Anselm shows us that we can be sure that God is and why He became man. Aquinas teaches us how we are to think when confronted with philosophy. Dante shows us the "true myth" (as C. S. Lewis put it) of Christianity. Together these writers represent the wide spectrum of the Age of Faith and all are tied together with the common link of Christianity. The Age of Faith was a time where fallen man realized that he had been redeemed and could reach to the height of heaven even from the lowliness of earth. During this age, men realized that Christianity fulfilled the wildest dreams of the pagan world.

Reformation

The Renaissance was less of a rebirth of classical thought than a rebirth of humanism and a rejection of the Age of Faith. Some humanists tried to do away with the parts of Christianity that they felt were uncomfortable or unenlightened other humanists sought to look into man’s place in the universe. It took one man, however, to alert the world to the corruption within the Church and to light the fire of faith anew. This man was Martin Luther, whose works, along with those of John Calvin, have changed the face of Christendom. These men called for a return to the Bible as the source for spiritual truth and wrote books to help people do just that. The works of the Reformation are great because they set the world on fire.

Reason and Romanticism

In the Seventeenth Century, a new movement known as the Age of Reason arose. This movement, led by men such as Descartes, Blaise Pascal, and John Locke challenged people to think about things based on logic. Though their intentions were good, their heirs, known as the empiricists, took their position to an extreme and so an equal and opposite extreme known as Romanticism arose. Rousseau, with books such as The Social Contract, started the movement by advocating a return to "natural man." This led to a flowering of imaginative writing such as S. T. Coleridge’s Rime of the Ancient Mariner, a poem almost on a level with the epics of Homer. The works of the age of reason led to events such as the American Revolution and to works like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The Romantics set the background for much of the imaginative writing of later years (including C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien). These works are great because they spurred later generations to do things.

The Novelists

In the Nineteenth Century there was a new generation of writers who wrote novels, a form of literature that used a self-contained story in prose form. These were writers like Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, and Dostoevsky. These writers wrote about issues of their time as well as about universal human experiences like love, war, revenge, legalism, and relationships. The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, for example, deals with problems like the contrast between an Eastern Russian worldview and a Western worldview, or how people of different backgrounds deal with problems. The novelists wrote to an audience of all times and places.

Conclusion

So what sets these books apart from others? Why is it that the works of the medieval writers, Plato, Luther, and Dostoevsky are so widely respected? What makes these the great books? These books contain the ideas that have made Western Civilization great. These books contain the heart and soul of Western Culture. The ideas in these books have shaped the way that the West has developed as a distinct culture. A great book is one that has the power to shape the culture and ring clear through decades, centuries, or even millennia. A great book is one that changes the way that we view the world. We should read these books because they endure and become clearer with time rather than fading. These are the books that shape the culture therefore we should read them if we are to understand the culture that we have inherited.

~Roccondil

Spider-Man 3: the best one yet

2007-05-05T22:17:00.000-04:00

Warning: **SPOILERS**

Well, I've seen it at last: Spider-Man 3. At last, the threads that have been coming together for the last two films are resolved. Harry decides to take his father's place as the Green Goblin remixed, MJ and Pete's relationship is becoming more complicated, a new villain, the sandman, has come to town, Peter finds out who really killed Uncle Ben, and on top of it all, an aggressive alien life-form is taking over Peter's life and amplifying his dark side. Sound good? You bet!

The multiple seemingly unrelated plotlines could have been difficult to do, but the filmmakers do a good job with getting them to mesh coherently, from an escaped convict's transformation into the Sandman, to Harry's quest for revenge, to the attempts of a new photographer to take Peter's place at the Daily Bugle. The plot seems disconnected at first, but slowly, the threads come together for a smashing climax (literally).

On the spiritual side, this movie explores the conflict within Peter Parker. His relationship with MJ is starting to become strained as MJ loses her job on Broadway, Peter makes one or two bad calls, and he puts off explaining things. In addition, Harry is trying to kill Peter and the Sandman (revealed as Uncle Ben's real murderer) appears. Peter gives in to the temptation to go out for revenge and becomes eaten with it, literally as an alien symbiant takes over the spidey-suit and amplifies his dark emotions. Yet ultimately, Peter makes the right choice, freeing himself of his dark suit on the top of a church steeple (though with some unforeseen consequences--no, I won't spoil that) while an enemy prays for vengeance. This movie shows the results of trying to get revenge and even the way to forgive. Altogether, this movie gives some great food for thought.

So I highly recommend this film both for the entertainment (and there's a lot of it--yes, J. Jonah Jameson tosses off some more one-liners) and for the good messages of heroism, love, and forgiveness.

~Roccondil

Phil Keaggy in Concert

2007-05-02T14:34:00.000-04:00

Last Saturday I had the privilege of hearing Phil Keaggy in concert. For those who don't know, Phil Keaggy is a Dove Award-winning guitarist and songwriter who is a virtuoso with an acoustic guitar. He uses a looping tool to set background for his playing. In many ways, Keaggy is an artist, using the looping tool to "mix his colors" so to speak.

I arrived with my Uncle where we would be attending an artist circle where Keaggy would answer questions and take requests. While there, I gained a great deal of respect for his playing as he played through some of his older music, sometimes reinventing it along the way. Afterwards, I managed to get a CD signed (his "Beyond Nature" instrumental album. It's one of the best instrumental albums I've ever heard).

The concert was also excellent, as Keaggy played old favorites like his "Salvation Army Band" and "What a Day" (from his first album back in the 70s) along with songs from his more recent albums. All in all, it was a great concert and I only wish that more people would listen to this awesome artist.

~Roccondil

P. S. Keaggy mentioned during the course of the evening that he's hoping to be able to re-release some of his older albums. Check his website http://www.philkeaggy.com.

Heresy Potter?

2007-04-23T21:51:00.000-04:00

"So what's the big deal with Harry Potter?" was what I thought about J. K. Rowling's best-selling book series until recently. "Why is the Christian community so divided and still the books are flying off the shelves like broomsticks?"

Well, after having read through book 5 (and half of book 6) I can say that I have the answer to one of those questions. The big deal with Harry Potter is that it's an incredibly well-written series full of mystery, surprise, and suspense. If only all authors wrote so well.

As for the second question, I was hoping to answer it after the first book, but couldn't. At first I thought I'd read the abridged version, but I double-checked that and now have one question: "Where is all the objectionable stuff?" Honestly, Christians complain about Harry Potter's "magical elements" but ignore such works as Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy, which presents a bleak, godless, atheistic view of the universe. Honestly, Harry's no more dangerous than Star Wars (which is chock-full of the eastern mysticism that created the 60s). The story is fascinating and the questions raised are good.

So please, before you judge a book, read it and see what it's really all about. Just make sure the book doesn't have a mind of its own and start taking over your mind . . . . oh sorry SPOILER!

~Roccondil

TobyMac's "Portable Sounds"

2007-04-14T21:41:00.000-04:00

Well, after I got hooked on dc Talk, it was probably only a matter of time before I got hooked on TobyMac. I have been listening to his cd, "Portable Sounds" and I've been loving it. TobyMac has a great voice and his style varies so much that you can't always relegate him to pure hip-hop or any other style. One thing I noticed was a lot of double meanings. For Christians like me, a lot of his lyrics mean something that a non-Christian would take a different way. It's actually a good way to spread the Gospel message in my humble opinion. Here are what I thought were some highlights:

"One World" was an excellent song about TobyMac's favorite subject: diversity. In it, he celebrates that while we have all these differences, that we are essentially the same as human beings. He is saying that we all have a lot more in common than we have different. He develops this further in "Boomin" where he talks about his mission to get all kinds of people asking questions.

"Made to Love," the second track, could be interpreted as a neutral love song, but what it's really talking about is how we as humans were made to love God and be loved by Him. It's an awesome message.

"Lose My Soul," the final track, is a great song about how we need to keep our priorities straight. If we have all the success in the world, but forget God, we're nothing.

Great stuff, with a few surprises along the way ("Hey, artist development, Chuck speakin!"). Please listen to this album.

~Roccondil

The Man Who Was Thursday . . . and Walden Two

2007-04-09T20:46:00.000-04:00

Yes, this past week I got hooked on yet another Chesterton book: The Man Who Was Thursday. This short novels is almost surreal in its plot. In fact, much of it revolves around how not all is ever as it seems. At first, the story seems simple: the Detective Gabriel Syme is supposed to infiltrate an anarchist cell and prevent it from doing harm. Yet almost immediately, the plot becomes bizarre as one cannot always tell who is on who's side.

Indeed, this book raises some interesting questions like "will the human race destroy itself?" "How much can you be sure of?" "Is all as it appears?" Yet the conclusions are astoundingly profound . . . . but I'll leave that for you to read for yourself.

Another book which I have read recently was the fascinating Walden Two by B. F. Skinner. In this book, Skinner presents his Utopian vision of a society where jealousy, ambition, and bickering have been eliminated through behavioral engineering. Yet as I read it, the vision seemed flawed from the start. What Skinner fails to realize is that so-called "behavioral engineering" treats only the symptoms of a deeper disease: Man's fallen nature. You see, all people at some level want to be God. We all want to have control of our own destiny yet at Walden Two, only the planners and designers have control. The vision that Skinner paints fails to take into account basic human nature. It would work only in a perfect world and unfortunately a) we don't live in a perfect world b) if we did live in a perfect world, such a society wouldn't be needed.

Please, read these two fascinating and thought-provoking books.

~Roccondil

Ok . . . ok!

2007-04-02T09:40:00.000-04:00

Alright, I admit it. That was April Fool's (but you guessed that). No, I am not going to become a monk and neither have I decided to become Eastern Orthodox (and the Celtic Orthodox Church doesn't even exist!). No, I'm staying within society and reformed (though I have at tims wished to visit Mount Athos). So anyway, hope you had a fun-filled April Fool's Day.

~Roccondil the would-be Hermit

An Announcement

2007-04-01T00:00:00.000-04:00

To all my friends on the web.......

This is a bittersweet goodbye. I have enjoyed posting, blogging, and otherwise, but by this time next week I will be with you no more.

It's a long and sweet story, but the end result is that I have decided to become a monk. On Good Friday I will be moving to Mount Athos, Greece where I will spend my days meditating on Eastern Orthodoxy. I will be fasting twice a week (once without water) and during lent I will flagellate. I will spend most of my time copying manuscripts by hand and carving icons when I am not drawing water from the well a mile below the hermitage or discussing deep theological matters with my superiors. After two years of this, I will go to the island of Lindisfarne and found a Celtic Orthodox Monastery there.

"But why this change?" You ask, "I thought you were a nice reformed guy."

My only answer is that I once thought that too, but now I have discovered the transcendental diophysitic life of an Eastern Orthodox Ascetic to be what I want most of all. At the moment I am converting my bedroom into a chapel and so I don't have time for much more. So I will say to you all I slap floor an expression of ancient origin that means "Farewell."

~Roccondil the Hermit

Fahrenheit 451: A Warning to our Culture

2007-03-26T20:17:00.000-04:00

This weekend, in addition to attending a highly stressful and tiring speech and debate tournament (in which I had fun, but didn't win anything . . . oh well, there's next year) I also found time to reread Ray Bradbury's science fiction classic: Fahrenheit 451 in which firemen don't put out fires, but start them in order to burn books. This dystopian world in which reading literature isn't allowed is a frightening picture, more frightening than even George Orwell's 1984 in some ways because unlike Orwell's totalitarian government in which ideas are twisted, Bradbury's world bears an uncanny resemblance to our own non-literary entertainment-saturated world.

In the novel, people don't resist the government's ban because they are so happy with their fast-paced thrill-filled lives that they don't have time to think for themselves or even want to read. Where in Orwell's world, the police state twists ideas, Bradbury's world eliminates them entirely. The prospect of twisted ideas is frightening, but then you can untwist them again. However, when you eliminate ideas entirely, it's hard to think for yourself.

So I guess the moral of all this is, don't take books for granted. Reading a good book is a good thing. As long as people care, we will still have literature, but once people stop caring, Fahrenheit 451 will be the first book to go on the pile for burning.

~Roccondil

Chesterton and Other Religions

2007-03-18T22:24:00.000-04:00

Last week I finished reading The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton. In this work, Chesterton defends the uniqueness of the Christian Faith. Chesterton is an interesting writer and his paradoxical style is delightful to read. But here, I will give reasons similar to Chesterton's explaining how Christianity is like no other belief system and comparing Christianity to these other religions is like making a comparison between apples and broadswords: they're completely different. I suppose one of the major differences is that Christianity is true, but I'll leave that aside for now.

Reason 1: Christianity baffles the mind. The basics of other religions are relatively easy to understand even to outside thinkers and yet no Christian has completely understood the very basic tenets of the Christian faith. When intellectuals point out seeming "absurdities" in the Christian faith, I have to laugh because I'm thinking "It's taken you years of study to figure out that parts of the Christian faith don't seem to make sense?" Yet for all their so-called "reason," the intellectuals are still baffled because they haven't yet come up with a good argument against Christianity.

Reason 2: Christianity provides answers where other religions provide questions. Take Islam, for example. In Islam there is no real answer. God is arbitrary, there's no certainty that anyone will end up in Heaven (Mohammed wasn't even sure) and the laws of logic are non-existent (in modern Islam anyway). In Christianity however, God is just, we can get to Heaven through Christ, and God is a God of order. Islam has no real answers, Christianity does, and that's just one of the more straightforward religions. Buddhism and Hinduism are mazes that lead, like the circular temple of Borobudur, to an unknowable and unreachable goal.

Reason 3: Christianity reaches what other religions saw as unreachable. Chesterton cites Rome and Carthage as examples. These two civilizations fought an idealogical war between Rome's moral and noble paganism of virtue, against Carthage's decaying and corrupt paganism of placating Moloch with child sacrifice. Yet Carthage's hideous worship could not placate the gods but was trampled by Rome, and Rome's virtue became tired and eventually collapsed into the corruption and tyranny of the Empire. Yet in Christianity, the sacrifice of Christ atones for sin and satisfies the wrath of God, unlike Carthage's gruesome rites, and produces an exhuberant and energetic pursuit of righteousness and sanctification from within that the Roman Republic could only dream of.

Those are just some of the differences that Chesterton explores and they indicate the uniqueness of the Christian Faith in that it fills in what other religions leave blank and yet still seems to baffle and confuse those who have not put their faith in the the Son of God.

~Roccondil

Christian fantasy? Absolutely!

2007-03-06T11:10:00.000-05:00

You know, it's amazing how sometimes we as Christians can be so legalistic and judgemental. Take, for example, an article that I recently read (and which I won't link to, it was that bad) that claimed that "Christian fantasy" is an oxymoron. Not only was this article judgemental and legalistic, but it was so poorly reasoned and took so much scripture out of context that it convinced me as never before, that Christians should write speculative stories such as fantasy.

The premise of the article was a) Satan is the father of lies b) fantasy is about things that didn't really happen therefore it is a lie c) Therefore Satan is the father of fantasy.

All I have to say to that is that it's "hogwash!" Seriously, that would preclude any type of fiction, from JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis (who this author claims were occultists) to Shakespeare and Chaucer. This writer says that because no story can totally grasp the truth, that it's therefore a lie and therefore Christians shouldn't write fiction. By that token, no book of theology or article can totally grasp the truth, therefore Christians shouldn't write period. Sorry but that is so poorly reasoned it makes me laugh.

1) No story can totally grasp the truth. And his point is? You see, while there definitely is a danger to writing fiction, the same is true of biblical interpretation, theology, philosophy and any other type of speculative writing. My point? This argument a) doesn't flow logically b) is a load of hooey that is supposedly "proven" by scriptures taken completely out of context.

JRR Tolkien said in his celebrated lecture "On Fairy-Stories" that:

Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative
mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness
of a Maker.

Another argument made is that the "magical elements" are occult and should be avoided. What they fail to understand is that occultism deals with the worship of demonic forces while the so-called "magic" used in fantasy works are either impersonal natural laws (as in the Star Wars and Harry Potter universes) or they are natural to certain people and their "goodness" or "badness" is determined by the choices of the people using them (as in Tolkien's Middle Earth). Really, this author is saying that apples equal oranges here when that's simply not the case. When the Bible talks about wizards, it's talking about people who are involved in the occult, not men with grey beards who study the stars or wave staves (pardon the rhyme). By that token, the "Wise men" from the east who visited Christ after his birth were occultists.

Guess what? These are the same people who claim that we shouldn't celebrate Christmas and Easter as these holidays occured around the same time and include some of the same traditions as certain pagan festivals. Again, so what? What is inherently wrong with celebrating the incarnation of Christ on the 25th of December? We celebrate Independence Day on the 4th of July, and Christ is definitely more important than the Declaration of Independence so what do we do? We devote a whole season to celebrating his incarnation.

My point? Simply to say that as Christians, we can celebrate our relationship with God in many ways. I was once slightly uncomfortable as I watched a friend of mine dance to the glory of God, but I have since come to realize that she was using her talent at dance to glory of God just as I use my *ahem* talent at writing to the glory of God. God has given us imagination: does that mean we shouldn't use it? No, it means that we are to use it for his glory even in Sub-created worlds.

As JRR Tolkien said:

God is the Lord of angels, and of men, --- and of elves

~Roccondil

The Big Sleep

2007-03-01T22:20:00.000-05:00

I recently saw the classic movie, The Big Sleep starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. The story of Detective Philip Marlowe, sent to figure out a blackmail case is truly excellent, what with the twists and turns of plot and of course several shootings. Truly a great film, and one not to miss.

~Roccondil

The Meaning of Life

2007-02-21T12:32:00.000-05:00

Here are some thoughts that I had based on a talk I heard recently while visiting a Christian college.

Adam and Eve were given authority over creation. What does this mean? It means that they were given all of creation so that they could bring it to its potential. That is, we were created to create. We were meant to use creation in such a way that it becomes more wonderful than it was before. We participate in creation to an extent. Obviously, we don't create ex nihilo but we do create using the resources that God has given us. Our minds are naturally creative because we are created in the image of God and God Himself is a creator. God is a sculptor, paintor, writer, engineer, architect, programer, landscaper, and much much more! We are created in His image that we might fulfill these roles to a lesser degree. Sin has corrupted this so that we cannot do our task properly, but that does not change our task. We are created to create, that's the meaning of human existence: to glorify God and enjoy Him, not only spiritually, but practically through the physical world that He has given us.

That is our mandate, now let's go out there and do something about it.

~Roccondil

Mawwiage!

2007-02-12T23:01:00.000-05:00

Since it's near Valentine's day, I thought I would say something on the subject of "Mawwiage."

Mawwiage! Mawwiage ith whah bwrings uth togetheh today. Mawwiage that bwessed awwangement, dat dweam wifin a dweam......... ~The Impressive Clergyman from The Princess Bride

But seriously, here are some thoughts of mine from a while back on the subject of marriage (by the way, I am not by any long shot an expert on marriage nor will I ever be).

Marriage and Equality

From the dawn of history, there has been a question: should men and women be equal? What should happen when a married couple disagrees? Should the partners in a marital relationship be equal? In this essay I will examine the role of the partners in this type of relationship and show my own conclusions from this: that the partners in a marital relationship should be equal in the sense that they complete each other and are one before God.

It is a given that physically, men are generally stronger than women. It’s just a scientific fact. This characteristic was given to men by God for the purpose of the protection of a family. A man’s job is to be a protector to his wife and to his family. As a protector, his job is to lead the family, not to abuse or misuse his power, but to take leadership as the God-appointed head of the family. Jesus said that if someone leads, he needs to be the servant of all, and that is the man’s role: to serve his wife in leading.

It has been said that behind every great man is a great woman. This is often true whether the man is married or not. This old adage shows the wife’s role as a supporter of her husband. She is to submit to him, but she is also to give moral support and counsel. She is not to manipulate like Lady Macbeth, but to support and affirm her husband and to quietly correct him if necessary, but always in love. Without his wife, a man is ill-equipped to lead a family.

In marriage, the husband and wife should each defer to the other. This creates a self-sacrificial relationship which truly honors God. It shows the husband and wife to be equal in that they are each willing to defer to the other’s wishes and needs. If the relationship is to honor God, the husband and the wife should be willing to lay aside their own wants and needs for the wants and needs of their spouse. Like in O. Henry’s story The Gift of the Magi a husband and wife should be willing to give up that which they most prize for their spouse’s sake. Only then will they be truly one and therefore equal in the sight of God.

It has been argued that the "wives submit to your husbands" verses in the New Testament clearly state that men are superior to women. However this is not the case as this merely means that the men are to be the spiritual leaders in the family, not that men are in any way superior to women, even in the family. The partners are equal in that the wife depends on the husband for protection and leadership, while the husband depends on the wife for support. In a God-honoring marriage, the husband and wife will honor one another willingly because they seek to honor God most of all.

~Roccondil

Christians and Non-Christian Fiction

2007-02-04T08:37:00.000-05:00

This is in response to some comments related to this post by my internet friend, E. Stephen Burnett (aka, Dr Ransom). Just a disclaimer here, I have not actually read Harry Potter, but I intend to shortly.

The comments were saying that the representation of authority figures was not at all respectful. However is this not the way of the world? This is democratic philosophy in action, folks. It's a pragmatic "end justifies the means" worldview when a book portrays disobeying rules as necessary to the plot. However, from what I have gathered, Harry Potter isn't nearly as bad as some books that Christians don't complain about nearly as much.

A Series of Unfortunate Events portrays adults as either malicious, cold, or well-meaning but stupid. It also carries with it a philosophy of more or less relative morals. Yet I don't see Christians complaining about these books (which are also quite delightful in their writing style). Why? Because we aren't aware. We play up bad elements in Harry Potter, while ignoring them in Unfortunate Events because we don't see that they're there.

Now I'm not discouraging the reading of either of these series' in fact I'm encouraging it. My position is that we should read these kinds of books, but with a discerning mind.

~Roccondil

Call me Ishmael!

2007-01-30T22:22:00.000-05:00

This week I finished Herman Melville's classic Moby Dick. This tale, a combination of biblical imagery with whaling technique has some unique parts to it.

Throughout this novel there is biblical symbolism. There is Captain Ahab, a sermon on Jonah (a sermon that, incidentally, brought a family friend to Christ), and many other references. The White Whale is in some respects a representation of God (though not a complete one) and Ahab's pursuit is unwholy in that like Job, Captain Ahab is angry with God and thus comes his downfall. The book is summarized in the last chapter when Melville quotes the book of Job: "And I alone have escaped to tell thee."

Altogether a good read, just skim the parts on whaling.

~Roccondil

The Brothers Karamazov

2007-01-21T17:03:00.000-05:00

This week, I finished up The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky's classic work of psychology, philosophy, and other fun stuff.

The sons of Fyodor Karamazov we are introduced to are:

Mitya (Dimitri): The oldest of the Karamazov brothers. He is a former army lieutenant who acts on impulse.

Ivan: The next oldest. He is an intellectual who has ceased to believe in God and ridicules organized religion. He is a moral relativist.

Alyosha (Alexey): A religious man who has lived in a monastery and has compassion on those who are disadvantaged. His own innocence sometimes leads him to realize guilt in others.

Smerdyakov: The illegitimate son of Fyodor. He is silent and obedient and seemingly simple. Yet his character is quite dark.

This is an excellent book and a true classic. It ranks with Dostoevsky's other great work: Crime and Punishment.

~Roccondil

Just One more thing......

2007-01-16T12:08:00.000-05:00

I probably should have posted this in the summer but oh well.

I've been watching episodes of the 70s TV show Columbo. The main character, played by Peter Falk (the grandfather in The Princess Bride) is Lieutenant Columbo, a police detective in the homicide division of the Los Angeles Police Department. Columbo is an eccentric, sloppy guy with idiosyncrasies such as fear of heights, preoccupation with small details, and being easily distracted during conversation. However, these things are often a mask for the brilliant mind that lies underneath. Columbo guesses at who the murderer is and hounds them while making them think that they have him fooled. The criminal thinks that they are safe from him when in reality Columbo is figuring them out and leading them to a confession.

Columbo's character is similar to Porfiry Petrovitch from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and Father Brown from GK Chesterton's famous series of short stories.

This show is definitely worth your time to watch.

~Roccondil

Bishop Berkeley: If a tree falls in a forest.....

2007-01-16T11:58:00.000-05:00

A question that has been asked for a while is, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around, does it make a sound?" In fact, this was the very question asked by Bishop George Berkeley (pronounced BARK-ley) in the 18th century. His answer is that not only does the tree not make a sound, but a) it doesn't exist and b) neither does the forest. If no one is observing something, it doesn't exist. His reasoning has been summarized like this.

There was a young man who said, "God,
Must think it exceedingly odd,
When he finds that this tree,
Continues to be,
When there's no one about in the Quad."

But of course, Berkely doesn't leave us there, because obviously there are things unobserved by humans that do exist. So this is the reply:

"Dear Sir: your astonishment's odd,
I am always about in the Quad,
And that's why this tree,
Continues to be,
Since observed by, yours faithfully, God."

Berkely was trying to counter a school of thought known as empiricism which emphasized sense perception, saying that if something can't be sensed through physical means, it doesn't exist. So Berkeley was trying to show how God can't be sensed directly and yet He does indeed exist.

~Roccondil

Philosophy and Morality

2007-01-11T09:16:00.000-05:00

A statement that is often repeated in popular "armchair philosophy" is "There is no absolute moral truth." A similar statement that I recently ran into on the Narniaweb Forum was "Right and wrong exist, but are not absolute" which amounts to the same thing. In reality, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you say that morals exist but are not absolute, that is the same thing as saying that morals don't exist because something cannot be possibly everything because then it would be really nothing. If all morals are true, then no morals are true. It's a basic law of logic that nothing can have all possibilities.

So either morals exist, or they don't. Well I think that we can agree that they do, because even if you say they don't, when someone slaps you in the face, you sue for assault and battery. You feel hurt and you are trying to get justice. You have been wronged and you want your rights.

The discussion I was having also involved the question of God's existence, so I will tie that in. First of all, if God does not exist, then there is no right or wrong because there are no morals, simply survival of the fittest. Therefore in this view, Nazis and Soviets are justified because they prove themselves to be better able to survive than those whom they trample. But since there are morals, this statement is absurd. Therefore we can know God exists, since we have a sense of morality that is coherent and intelligible. If someone wants to deny the concept of justice, then please be my guest, because I still maintain that justice exists and is present in God.

~Roccondil

It's a New Year

2007-01-03T15:38:00.000-05:00

Well, it's a new year. The Earth has gone around the sun 2007 times since 1 BC. A new year represents a new beginning. We cast off the moorings of the old year in one day as we sing Auld Lang Syne. We make resolutions of what we hope to accomplish in the next year and think we're going to fulfill them.

In the spirit of the new year of 2007, I have a few small resolutions:

1. I'm going to try and post on this blog at least once a week on a relevant topic unless I'm out of town.
2. I'm going to read either Anna Karenina or War and Peace this year.
3. Probably the most important, I'm going to grow in the knowledge and Grace of God this year.

Those are good for starters, anyway.

Auld Lang Syne everyone!

~Roccondil

Ideas and Consequences

2006-12-30T11:05:00.000-05:00

I've recently been listening to a series of lectures by Dr. R. C. Sproul on Western Philosophy entitled The Consequences of Ideas. It is very true that ideas have consequences. All things that occur in human events happen because of ideas.

In the early 1700s a man named John Locke wrote several books and pamphlets on how he thought government should function. He believed that all governments should exist only at the will of the people they govern. These ideas spread to America where they were eagerly read and adopted by people like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. Locke's influence can be seen throughout the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Ideas have consequences.

We need to careful what we write about and what we say because we could have a greater impact than we know. It takes an idea to start anything. A painter has an idea and paints a picture; an author has an idea and writes a bestseller; a lawyer has an idea and sets the world into turmoil for one hundred and fifty years (referring to Karl Marx there). Ideas have consequences.

Happy New Year!

~Roccondil

Of Mice, Men, and Flies

2006-12-19T21:58:00.000-05:00

Over the weekend, I read two quite depressing, but at the same time quite good, novels.

The first was Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. This is a story about two men. One is Lennie, a gentle, childlike giant who doesn't know his own strength. The other is George, who looks after Lennie and tries to keep him out of trouble. Lennie's only wish is to tend rabbits because he loves petting small furry things. Lennie is a gentle man in a strong body. When he loves, he sometimes suffocates life and does damage. The ending is sad, but it is still quite a good story and a thought-provoking book.

The other book is Lord of the Flies by William Golding. In this novel, a group of English schoolboys is stranded on a tropical island. They soon form a government and try to keep a semblance of order. But soon they become savages, succumbing to the darkness within them and trying to kill one another in power struggles. Altogether, a dark book revealing the total depravity of man. Warning, this book is not for the faint of heart.

I highly recommend these two thought-provoking reads.

~Roccondil

What Child is this?

2006-12-16T12:54:00.000-05:00

What Child is this who laid to rest,
On Mary's lap is sleeping,
Whom Angels greet,
With anthems sweet,
While shepherds watch are keeping?

This this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and Angels sing,
Haste! Haste to bring him laud,
The babe the son of Mary.

This is probably my favorite Christmas carol. The tune (Greensleeves) is said to have been composed by Henry VIII for Anne Boleyn, his second wife.

But more important than the tune are the words. You see, the song asks a good question: what child is this? Who is Jesus? The answer comes in the second part of the verse, but I will actually post the answer as Michael Card puts it:

Immanuel!
Our God is with us,
The light has come,
The darkness cannot stand.
Immanuel!
Our God is with us,
And if God is with us,
Who can stand against us?
Our God is with us,
Immanuel!

God Himself has come down to earth as one of us.

~Roccondil

Reformed Theology and Eschatology

2006-12-10T13:45:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I attended a short seminar at a local OPC church on Eschatology. By now, I think most of those reading this blog know that I am reformed and Presbyterian, meaning that I think things should be done decently, in order, and correctly from a theological standpoint to the point where I sometimes act like the "frozen chosen."

But I need to back up here. Eschatology is the study of the end times, when Christ shall return. There are several schools of thought on it and while the speaker did mention those, he focused on how the end times relate to us as Christians. You see, we are living in the end times and have been since Christ's ressurection. We are living in the tribulation and the millennium simultaneously. Evil is restrained, but at the same time Christians suffer trials and tribulations. You see, the millennium is mentioned by Jesus as the Kingdom of Heaven. That's what those verses in revelation are referring to about Satan being bound. He is bound by the prayers and by the presence on earth of the saints.

Not only that, but the blessings of God are now. We have the blessing of communion with God. We can talk to God directly and can approach his throne with boldness. Granted, we are still sinners and are still being sanctified, but we are citizens of Heaven living on earth with all the rights and privileges that proceed from that. Granted, like any citizen outside his homeland, we don't enjoy those rights fully, but we still enjoy them and so we need to act like it. We need to act as citizens of heaven and not of earth. That's why Christ said to store up treasures in heaven. Granted, we are to be good stewards of our earthly goods, but we shouldn't put our hope in them.

After the seminar, I said to the pastor of the church, "Well, there goes 'frozen chosen.'"In addition, it's the death knell of any Sola Bootstrapa notions that we might have had. It's not faith plus works or anything like that because in a spiritual sense, we are already in Heaven. Not yet physically, but spiritually and so we need to act like it and be good ambassadors. An ambassador has to ber polite and gracious to those around him so as represent his country well. Being a good ambassador is not what saves us, but is a result of our becoming citizens of heaven upon conversion.

Well, so much for salvation by works.

~Roccondil

Faith and Trust

2006-12-05T22:39:00.000-05:00

I've been grappling with Sola Fide again (due to some conversations I've had with some Catholics) and here are some thoughts that I've had regarding this crucial concept.

First, I am the last to say that works do not demonstrate faith, however our works do not play a part in our salvation. The works of Christ are sufficient, as otherwise we could boast.

Works are the unworthy gifts that we give to God in thankfulness for his mercy and grace.

But faith is not merely belief. Belief is a mental acknowledgement of fact that, while good, is not sufficient for salvation. Too often we confuse faith with this mental exercise. No, faith is belief paired with trust. Trust is what causes us to step out of our fishing boats, as Peter did, and walk on water. We have faith and we step out in faith. True faith is an active faith. It is this active trust in Christ alone for our salvation that saves us. Once we start trusting in our works, we begin to sink, like Peter did.

Does this completely explain it? No, there is still mystery here and I do not claim to have fathomed this well to the bottom, but it helps us to know that we are secure in our salvation. As I've said before, it's not Sola Bootstrapa.

~Roccondil

The season is here

2006-11-29T20:29:00.000-05:00

Since returning from my family's Thanksgiving vacation, I've been slowly getting into the Christmas mood. Yes it's that time of year when all the kids dream of what they will receive, and when the older kids (that's 13+) grin with glee thinking of the looks on the faces of those who will receive their gifts. It's the time when we get out out the mistletoe, put up our Christmas Tree, and play those Christmas Carols. We drink peppermint cocoa as we head to the church for choir practice, as we go to people's houses for parties, and as we plan to visit relatives.

But in this midst of all this good stuff, we sometimes forget the reason. I am haunted by a song performed by the band Glad (A Capella, of course) called The Reason:

"There will never be another reason for the dawning of the day,
There will never be a moment in time when the heavens cease to say,
Glory to our God and King!"

We need to remember the reason: Jesus Christ, the Son of God who came to earth as a man so that we could be set free from sin. Yes, my friends, Christmas is about the cross. There's a reason why we date our calendars by the (albeit approximate) year that he was born. More than two thousand years ago, angels filled the sky singing the praises of the one who had been born.

Gloria in excelcis Deo!

This weekend do yourself a favor and go watch The Nativity, a new film about the birth of Christ. It is looking like it will be good.

Remember that Christ is the reason.

~Roccondil

Batman Begins

2006-11-27T20:30:00.000-05:00

Over this Thanksgiving weekend I saw Batman Begins for the first time and was very impressed. The storyline was engaging and I thought the characters were well-played and well-scripted. I also noticed a bit of the inverse ninja law in the film ( for information on the inverse ninja law go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormtrooper_effect#The_Inverse_Ninja_Law ).

Probably the defining line in this movie was, "It's not who you are inside but what you do that defines you." While this is a good message, a more accurate statement might be, "It's not who you say you are inside but what you do that shows who you are." Our actions demonstrate who we really are and show the world what we really look like inside. Maybe Calvin and Hobbes said it best:

Calvin: Hobbes, do you think we should be judged by our actions or what's in our hearts?
Hobbes: I think our actions show what's in our hearts.
Calvin: Rats.

If we say we are one thing down deep but act totally differently then we are lying to ourselves and to others. We are hypocrites and should be ashamed at our own dishonesty. In the movie, Ra's Al Ghul says that he wants justice yet he is willing to exterminate millions of innocent people in order to obtain his perverted view of justice becoming reality.

I also noticed the interesting use of fear in the movie. Bruce Wayne was able to conquer his fears and thus was able to save the city of Gotham, whereas fear almost destroyed the city. Franklin D. Roosevelt said it best: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Overall a very good movie.

~Roccondil

Thankfulness and Thanksgiving

2006-11-22T20:03:00.000-05:00

It's that time of year again! That time of year when we get together with family and friends to enjoy a good Turkey Dinner, Mashed Potatoes, and Pumpkin pie (with leftovers afterward). The time when we all watch football and the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. It's also a time when we thank God for the blessings that He gives us. Yet I wonder sometimes if we shouldn't be thanking God just on the third Thursday in November.

Psalm 100 says:

"Enter into his gates with thanksgiving,
And his courts with praise,
Give thanks to Him,
Bless His name,
For the Lord is good . . ."

We should thank God every day for his blessings to us. We are in His debt always. Cosimo De Medici, one of the patrons of the Renaissance once said, "I can never give enough to God to put Him down in my books as a debtor." So we should give thanks that God blesses us. Most importantly we should thank Him for his Free Gift of salvation Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus: By Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

~Roccondil

The Atonement

2006-11-16T11:30:00.001-05:00

In recent conversations and in the course of a recent project, I have been thinking about the atonement. In The New Bible Dictionary (second edition) atonement means "‘A making at one’ and points to a process of bringing those who are estranged [or alienated] into a unity." So in atonement we are once again at the pre-fall stage. We are reconciled to God through Christ. This is one of my most important reasons for believing that atonement is limited to those who are saved. Otherwise, those who are not saved are in a right relationship with God and are going to Heaven. Only through Christ can you be restored to this right relationship and thus rejecting Christ is refusing to be restored.

In fact, this is also why I, as a Reformed person, can believe in Free Will. Limited atonement affirms that God gives us what we want. If we reject God's atonement then it cannot apply to us. Remember that atonement is being at one with God. To say that atonement is universal is to say that all men accept Christ, which is obviously untrue. Those who maintain that atonement is universal misunderstand its nature. Of course Christ's blood is sufficient to cover the sins of all, but the question remains: is it efficient for all? It can cover the sins of all, but it doesn't because we reject the reconciliation that Christ offers.

There's my defense of limited atonement.

~Roccondil

Cheap Grace

2006-11-11T14:37:00.000-05:00

I've recently been reading The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian Pastor in Germany during the 1930s and 40s. While I don't agree with a lot of what he says (especially regarding Sola Fide) there was one part in the first chapter that struck me.

This first chapter is dealing with what Bonhoeffer calls "Cheap Grace:" that is loving the sinner without hating the sin. It's forgiveness without repentence. It's like what H. Richard Niebuhr meant when he said that in liberal theology today "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross." Grace is not cheap because we have to repent. I'm not advocating a Sola Bootstrapa (by the bootstraps alone) theology, rather I am saying that we have been bought at a great price. While Grace is a free gift of God, we must not forget that it was bought at the price of God's own Son.

~Roccondil

A Christmas Story

2006-11-11T10:18:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, I watched A Christmas Story. It's a kid's-eye-view of the festive season during the 1940s. Funniness and hilarity are rife in this film, especially in the voice-over narration of the kid's thoughts. The only real downside to this film is the language which can get quite nasty at times. Altogether a good film.

~Roccondil

The Great Divorce

2006-11-05T22:25:00.000-05:00

I recently read C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce. It is about a group of "tourists" from Hell visiting Heaven. We've all heard the saying, "Heaven's just a state of mind," but in this book it's Hell that's a state of mind. Those in Hell cannot understand Heaven because they are not willing to look beyond themselves.

Another interesting feature was the comparison to Dante's Divine Comedy. Here, the cosmic tourist (Lewis) is guided, not by Virgil but by George MacDonald who doesn't do as much explaining as answering questions about what Lewis has seen. In this book, Heaven is a greatness of soul and a oneness with God, while Hell is a concentration on self.

~Roccondil