Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Reflections on the Beatitudes
From Christianity Today's, "quotations to stir the heart and mind."
BLESSED are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3
Right at the beginning of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contradicted all human judgments and all nationalistic expectations of the kingdom of God. The kingdom is given to the poor, not the rich; the feeble, not the mighty; to little children humble enough to accept it, not to soldiers who boast that they can obtain it by their own prowess.
John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount
THE KINGDOM of God can only be received by empty hands. Jesus warns against (a) worldly self-sufficiency: you trust yourself and your own resources and don't need God; (b) religious self-sufficiency: you trust your religious attitude and moral life and don't need Jesus.
Michael H. Crosby, Spirituality of the Beatitudes: Matthew's Vision for the Church in an Unjust World
IT IS a theological mistake to seek suffering for its own sake. Nor does this beatitude mean that to live a pious life is to embrace the ultimate form of delayed gratification—suffering now in the hope that God will provide the reward once one is dead. The words of the Beatitudes are in the present tense: "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Daniel P. Sulmasy, A Balm for Gilead: Meditations on Spirituality and the Healing Arts
HUMILITY, or poverty of spirit, is not a matter of thinking low thoughts about ourselves. It is not a matter of groveling in the dust. It is simply a matter of knowing ourselves as we really are. And when we see ourselves as we really are, we will see that we are poor.
John W. Miller, The Christian Way
BLESSED are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:3
Right at the beginning of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus contradicted all human judgments and all nationalistic expectations of the kingdom of God. The kingdom is given to the poor, not the rich; the feeble, not the mighty; to little children humble enough to accept it, not to soldiers who boast that they can obtain it by their own prowess.
John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount
THE KINGDOM of God can only be received by empty hands. Jesus warns against (a) worldly self-sufficiency: you trust yourself and your own resources and don't need God; (b) religious self-sufficiency: you trust your religious attitude and moral life and don't need Jesus.
Michael H. Crosby, Spirituality of the Beatitudes: Matthew's Vision for the Church in an Unjust World
IT IS a theological mistake to seek suffering for its own sake. Nor does this beatitude mean that to live a pious life is to embrace the ultimate form of delayed gratification—suffering now in the hope that God will provide the reward once one is dead. The words of the Beatitudes are in the present tense: "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Daniel P. Sulmasy, A Balm for Gilead: Meditations on Spirituality and the Healing Arts
HUMILITY, or poverty of spirit, is not a matter of thinking low thoughts about ourselves. It is not a matter of groveling in the dust. It is simply a matter of knowing ourselves as we really are. And when we see ourselves as we really are, we will see that we are poor.
John W. Miller, The Christian Way
Friday, June 22, 2007
Is this 4real?
A couple in New Zealand wants to name their kid, "4real," and the government won't let them. Does this constitute a human rights violation?
I wonder.
Read this article for more on this strange, but interesting story.
I wonder.
Read this article for more on this strange, but interesting story.
A controversial topic, with an interesting spin.
I'm not sure I agree with David Brook's conclusions, but the issues and the ideas he brings up in this article are important...and make me wonder. What makes someone behave in one way or another when it comes to social mores? He offers only two options - we are either deciders or perceivers. What? What does he mean? I don't understand his point....aren't we who we think we are, what we believe, what we value? I think I do agree, however, that there are structural social conditions that tend to shape how people perceive themselves and others, form relationships, etc. Family is also a very significant determinant, but I wonder what the true answer to the issues he raises, is. Biblically. I will chew on this more, but your, the reader's responses, are most welcome.
Here is the article, pasted below, for your reading pleasure.
June 22, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
When Preaching Flops
By DAVID BROOKS
A little while ago, a national study authorized by Congress found that abstinence education programs don’t work. That gave liberals a chance to feel superior because it turns out that preaching traditional morality to students doesn’t change behavior.
But in this realm, nobody has the right to feel smug. American schools are awash in moral instruction — on sex, multiculturalism, environmental awareness and so on — and basically none of it works. Sex ed doesn’t change behavior. Birth control education doesn’t produce measurable results. The fact is, schools are ineffectual when it comes to values education. You can put an adult in front of a classroom or an assembly, and that adult can emit words, but don’t expect much impact.
That’s because all this is based on a false model of human nature. It’s based on the idea that human beings are primarily deciders. If you pour them full of moral maxims, they will be more likely to decide properly when temptation arises. If you pour them full of information about the consequences of risky behavior, they will decide to exercise prudence and forswear unwise decisions.
That’s the way we’d like to think we are, but that’s not the way we really are, and it’s certainly not the way teenagers are. There is no central executive zone in the brain where all information is gathered and decisions are made. There is no little homunculus up there watching reality on a screen and then deciding how to proceed. In fact, the mind is a series of parallel processes and loops, bidding for urgency.
We’re not primarily deciders. We’re primarily perceivers. The body receives huge amounts of information from the world, and what we primarily do is turn that data into a series of generalizations, stereotypes and theories that we can use to navigate our way through life. Once we’ve perceived a situation and construed it so that it fits one of the patterns we carry in our memory, we’ve pretty much rigged how we’re going to react, even though we haven’t consciously sat down to make a decision.
Construing is deciding.
A boy who grew up in a home where he was emotionally rejected is going to perceive his girlfriend differently than one who grew up in a happier home, even though he might not be able to tell you why or how. Women who grow up in fatherless homes menstruate at an earlier age than those who don’t, and surely perceive their love affairs differently as well.
Women who live in neighborhoods with a shortage of men wear more revealing clothing and are in general more promiscuous than women in other neighborhoods. They probably are not conscious of how their behavior has changed, but they’ve accurately construed their situation (tougher competition for mates) and altered their behavior accordingly.
When a teenage couple is in the backseat of a car about to have sex or not, or unprotected sex or not, they are not autonomous creatures making decisions based on classroom maxims or health risk reports. Their behavior is shaped by the subconscious landscapes of reality that have been implanted since birth.
Did they grow up in homes where they felt emotionally secure? Do they often feel socially excluded? Did they grow up in a neighborhood where promiscuity is considered repulsive? Did they grow up in a sex-drenched environment or an environment in which children are buffered from it? (According to a New Zealand study, firstborns are twice as likely to be virgins at 21 than later-born children.)
In other words, the teenagers in that car won’t really be alone. They’ll be in there with a whole web of attitudes from friends, family and the world at large. Some teenagers will derive from those shared patterns a sense of subconscious no-go zones. They’ll regard activities in that no-go zone the way vegetarians regard meat — as a taboo, beyond immediate possibility.
Deciding is conscious and individual, but perceiving is subconscious and communal. The teen sex programs that actually work don’t focus on the sex. They focus on the environment teens live in. They work on the substratum of perceptions students use to orient themselves in the world. They don’t try to lay down universal rules, but apply the particular codes that have power in distinct communities. They understand that changing behavior changes attitudes, not the other way around.
They understand that whether it’s in middle school or the Middle East, getting human nature right is really important. We’re perceivers first, not deciders.
Here is the article, pasted below, for your reading pleasure.
June 22, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
When Preaching Flops
By DAVID BROOKS
A little while ago, a national study authorized by Congress found that abstinence education programs don’t work. That gave liberals a chance to feel superior because it turns out that preaching traditional morality to students doesn’t change behavior.
But in this realm, nobody has the right to feel smug. American schools are awash in moral instruction — on sex, multiculturalism, environmental awareness and so on — and basically none of it works. Sex ed doesn’t change behavior. Birth control education doesn’t produce measurable results. The fact is, schools are ineffectual when it comes to values education. You can put an adult in front of a classroom or an assembly, and that adult can emit words, but don’t expect much impact.
That’s because all this is based on a false model of human nature. It’s based on the idea that human beings are primarily deciders. If you pour them full of moral maxims, they will be more likely to decide properly when temptation arises. If you pour them full of information about the consequences of risky behavior, they will decide to exercise prudence and forswear unwise decisions.
That’s the way we’d like to think we are, but that’s not the way we really are, and it’s certainly not the way teenagers are. There is no central executive zone in the brain where all information is gathered and decisions are made. There is no little homunculus up there watching reality on a screen and then deciding how to proceed. In fact, the mind is a series of parallel processes and loops, bidding for urgency.
We’re not primarily deciders. We’re primarily perceivers. The body receives huge amounts of information from the world, and what we primarily do is turn that data into a series of generalizations, stereotypes and theories that we can use to navigate our way through life. Once we’ve perceived a situation and construed it so that it fits one of the patterns we carry in our memory, we’ve pretty much rigged how we’re going to react, even though we haven’t consciously sat down to make a decision.
Construing is deciding.
A boy who grew up in a home where he was emotionally rejected is going to perceive his girlfriend differently than one who grew up in a happier home, even though he might not be able to tell you why or how. Women who grow up in fatherless homes menstruate at an earlier age than those who don’t, and surely perceive their love affairs differently as well.
Women who live in neighborhoods with a shortage of men wear more revealing clothing and are in general more promiscuous than women in other neighborhoods. They probably are not conscious of how their behavior has changed, but they’ve accurately construed their situation (tougher competition for mates) and altered their behavior accordingly.
When a teenage couple is in the backseat of a car about to have sex or not, or unprotected sex or not, they are not autonomous creatures making decisions based on classroom maxims or health risk reports. Their behavior is shaped by the subconscious landscapes of reality that have been implanted since birth.
Did they grow up in homes where they felt emotionally secure? Do they often feel socially excluded? Did they grow up in a neighborhood where promiscuity is considered repulsive? Did they grow up in a sex-drenched environment or an environment in which children are buffered from it? (According to a New Zealand study, firstborns are twice as likely to be virgins at 21 than later-born children.)
In other words, the teenagers in that car won’t really be alone. They’ll be in there with a whole web of attitudes from friends, family and the world at large. Some teenagers will derive from those shared patterns a sense of subconscious no-go zones. They’ll regard activities in that no-go zone the way vegetarians regard meat — as a taboo, beyond immediate possibility.
Deciding is conscious and individual, but perceiving is subconscious and communal. The teen sex programs that actually work don’t focus on the sex. They focus on the environment teens live in. They work on the substratum of perceptions students use to orient themselves in the world. They don’t try to lay down universal rules, but apply the particular codes that have power in distinct communities. They understand that changing behavior changes attitudes, not the other way around.
They understand that whether it’s in middle school or the Middle East, getting human nature right is really important. We’re perceivers first, not deciders.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Thoughts on the Incarnation
I love you, O LORD, my strength. The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.”- Psalm 18:1-2
Funny thing happens when you read something like this passage above and really start to let the voice of someone else become your own...it reminds me of a very interesting documentary on the human brain and psychology that I saw a while ago on PBS hosted by Alan Alda (that famous 80-90s actor, I believe). Anyway, there was one section in the documentary which absolutely floored me. Studies showed that human thought and emotions are actually very much a product of the things we DO and SAY, not the other way around. For example, people who were told to "smile" in an experiment, triggered neurons in the brain that brought out feelings of happiness and well-being. Seeing someone else smile, apparently elicited similar reactions. They conducted experiments on a whole host of emotions that were triggered by the external environment, facial expressions or words people spoke aloud.
The point they were trying to drive home was that as humans we are very sensitive to the words we hear, the things we see expressed in others (that we mimic almost unconsciously) and our social environment in general. It was revolutionary to realize that thoughts, feelings and ideas we have do not emanate from within so much as they reflect something that has been triggered from without...and that often there is a large element of 'choice' in the very feelings and thoughts we entertain.
Maybe this is why Jesus so often quoted directly from the Bible (Psalms and much of the Old Testament). In fact, almost everything he uttered had some basis on Scripture, even as I learned in an illuminating sermon today, "Seventy-times seven," the number of times to forgive someone (also the number uttered to Daniel in a prophecy in which God tells him the length of the Israelites exile before the coming of Christ.) Anyway, they were HIS words and thoughts, but they were also inspired by the voices and thoughts of those who predated him by hundreds of years...he seemed especially fond of quoting or taking on the words of King David, his distant ancestor...even til his death on the cross: "Oh God, oh God, why have thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 22)
So much for originality. No...but it's comforting to know that someone else has been there, done that, knows what it feels like to go through life and all the joys, pain, love and suffering that life often entails. I guess that was the point of the Incarnation. And I guess that's why his words, and the words of his forebears resonate so much with people today...for people with hearts that are alive and willing to be present.
Funny thing happens when you read something like this passage above and really start to let the voice of someone else become your own...it reminds me of a very interesting documentary on the human brain and psychology that I saw a while ago on PBS hosted by Alan Alda (that famous 80-90s actor, I believe). Anyway, there was one section in the documentary which absolutely floored me. Studies showed that human thought and emotions are actually very much a product of the things we DO and SAY, not the other way around. For example, people who were told to "smile" in an experiment, triggered neurons in the brain that brought out feelings of happiness and well-being. Seeing someone else smile, apparently elicited similar reactions. They conducted experiments on a whole host of emotions that were triggered by the external environment, facial expressions or words people spoke aloud.
The point they were trying to drive home was that as humans we are very sensitive to the words we hear, the things we see expressed in others (that we mimic almost unconsciously) and our social environment in general. It was revolutionary to realize that thoughts, feelings and ideas we have do not emanate from within so much as they reflect something that has been triggered from without...and that often there is a large element of 'choice' in the very feelings and thoughts we entertain.
Maybe this is why Jesus so often quoted directly from the Bible (Psalms and much of the Old Testament). In fact, almost everything he uttered had some basis on Scripture, even as I learned in an illuminating sermon today, "Seventy-times seven," the number of times to forgive someone (also the number uttered to Daniel in a prophecy in which God tells him the length of the Israelites exile before the coming of Christ.) Anyway, they were HIS words and thoughts, but they were also inspired by the voices and thoughts of those who predated him by hundreds of years...he seemed especially fond of quoting or taking on the words of King David, his distant ancestor...even til his death on the cross: "Oh God, oh God, why have thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 22)
So much for originality. No...but it's comforting to know that someone else has been there, done that, knows what it feels like to go through life and all the joys, pain, love and suffering that life often entails. I guess that was the point of the Incarnation. And I guess that's why his words, and the words of his forebears resonate so much with people today...for people with hearts that are alive and willing to be present.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)