2007-12-22

Direct faith, lost in 1st century

Personally, I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the saviour of mankind. But while I believe this, it feels distant: I cannot associate contemporary, concrete confirmation to this belief. These words "Jesus is the Christ" are a theory for me, and I don't know how to apply it and live it out. Sure, I may live out moral advice from the Bible, but that says nothing about my faith's truth content, so does not remove the distance. To me, believing in Jesus as the Christ would be much easier to "do" when living in the first century: Jesus had lived only some decades ago, I could meet and ask eye witnesses about him, experience the miracles of the Apostles etc.. It was more direct then, without this distance. Believing would've been no problem: the justification for my faith would lay at hand, contrary to the situation in these days.

What creates this distance?

In general, everything that was added to the life and original message of Jesus increased the distance to him. Christian faith is direct only when it is about Jesus and Jesus alone. The added stuff that introduced the distance includes:

  • Time. Living 2000 years later is distance for sure. Time does not reduce truth, but visibility of truth and hence, directness. No eye witnesses are left, large amounts of doubts have been heaped, large numbers of Christian sects were founded and other confusing stuff happened.
  • Unexperienced content and bookishness. Knowing about something (and believing this knowledge to be the truth) is hard if I know this just from books and cannot or did not try it out myself. Nuclear physics is an example for that, and the Christian faith is another (at times).
  • Formalization. In the first century, there was no such thing as the "New Testament" as a book. The story of Jesus was something that had happened just ago. The Gospel was primarily a fact, a story - not a book, a collection of words or a religion. They wouldn't write "Gospel" with capital "G": it was no name, no formalization, no concept; but a good message about something just ago. When Christianity got its holy book, it got in danger to become a book religion instead of a real-life integrating relationship to God. The same is true, to a lesser degree, when Christians get a treasury of pre-made songs, song books, devotional books and other stuff. One could experiment with removing every pre-made worship material from a church, and grant the freedom to develop own songs, prayers etc. for worship.
  • Institutionalization. The institution that we call "church" was not present in the three years of Jesus service. Church simply was the collective noun for all believers. Institutionalization, esp. where it includes a clergy, adds one full layer of indirection to the faith in Jesus. Then, people do not believe in Jesus or have a relationship to Jesus, but they have a relationship to the church, and the church has one to Jesus (or at least says so).
  • Tradition, liturgy, Christian culture and religious behavior. Of course this creates distance, as it introduces new (binding) content which belongs in no way to the message of Jesus. One cannot use contemporary Christian culture to make Jesus attractive to unbelievers: cultural content adds just another layer of indirection. The best that culture can achieve is to "not get into the way".
  • Intellectualized apologetics. If this gets too much space, it creates distance because intellectualizing things always introduces distance. Example: establishing creationism as a concept. If you discuss the issue of creation intensively, you admit that it's not that obvious, clear and concrete. That is, you admit that you cannot show the truth of creation to people, you rather need to explain it.
  • Intellectualized theology. It must be possible to believe, justifiably, without western civilization. That is, western civilization with all its emphasis on intellectual matters creates distance. For example: thinking about the Christian faith generates new questions continuously, and these get more and more indirect / abstract. For example, people might discuss theories and concepts how to build churches in the 21st century. Wow, what a high-level question; that's really a good distance away from the life and words of Jesus.
  • Meta books. We need to get rid of many of these books about the Bible, as they add one layer of indirection. Rather, a good translation (which is an unavoidable layer of indirection) is the best explanation for nearly all cases.
  • Quarrels. These create distance, because everybody who quarrels (uses force to convince) admits that the truth is not obvious enough to convince people.
  • Insight-based faith. The conviction that believing in God and the Bible is an intellectual necessity creates distance because it admits that thinking is necessary to recognize the trith about God. That is, that God is not obvious enough to be recognized without multi-step logical deduction.
  • Sentimentality. Over-emotional faith is a phenomenon which indicates that the direct contact to content has been lost. As "over-emotional" means there is more emotion than content. So the songs in church service should probably be not too emotional, they should rather express faith content straight-forward.

How to remove this distance?

If there is a God, he's still alive, which means that the content of Christian faith is as concrete and as direct as it was in first century. Christian faith is immanently concrete and direct, we just need to find a way to justify that style of believing. Here are two contemporary approaches:

  • 24/7. The effort to reach a 24/7 direct relationship to God is a way to cope with the distance of believing in Christ in the 21st century. However, it turns out that such a relationship cannot exist in the sense that one's day is filled with direct experiences with God.
  • History. As a counter movement to the 24/7 model, people may assign special importance to the historic facts of the Gospel. Because, there is no Christian faith without the historical fact of Jesus life, death on the cross and resurrection. Though the historical facts are necessary for the Christian faith, the importance assigned to them by Christians differs. As such, facts are a very concrete and direct basis of faith, if one stays away from Dealing with these facts does not necessarily create a distance if one stays away from. Sadly enough, people tend to intellectualize history as it is very difficult or impossible to deal another way with the complex problems of a historic proof for 2000 year old miracles. Again, intellectualizing stuff creates a distance.

The shortcomings of these approaches are apparent: there is no direct 24/7 contact to God, and the intellectual approach to Gospel history creates new distance while removing it. A third way is proposed here: Remove what creates distance, experience God today for real, and use an unintellectual approach to history. This combines the effective elements of the two above ways with counter-measures against the distance-increasing mechanisms (which were mentioned at the beginning of this article).

Arriving at proximity

My hope is directed towards the day when I will have "arrived". A person is "arrived" when nothing remains to be done which he or she sees as an unavoidable necessity before leaving this world. Arrived persons have plenty of time for others: they are free to give away the rest of their life as a present to other people, as they don't need it for themselves anymore. Arrived person know that their life is meaningful and that its purpose is fulfilled, and that this is case independent of what will happen in the rest of their life.

In my case, one project is left before I am arrived: to find out the truth about God. A more careful verbalization would be: to find contemporary, experience-based confirmation of what I believe about God and Jesus. And yes, that includes searching for real, contemporary miracles. To me, being arrived means to have this direct, justified, confirmed faith I wrote about above. I like that day and that it's coming nearer every day :-)


Start date: 2007-12-02
Post date: 2007-12-22
Version date: 2007-12-22 (for last meaningful change)

Xmas post

So, here's my Christmas post. I don't think that the sight was any better when Jesus was born in a cold, filthy stable and laid into a feeding trough.

"You know how much love our Lord Jesus Christ had. He was rich, but he became poor for your sakes. Because he became poor, you can become rich." (The Bible, II Corinthians 8:9, Bible in Worldwide English)

First image was taken by peeveeads and published on Flickr under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic Licence.
Second image was taken by focus2capture and published on Flickr under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic Licence.


Start date: 2007-12-22
Post date: 2007-12-22
Version date: 2007-12-22 (for last meaningful change)

2007-12-18

Amphibienfahrzeug als Expeditionsmobil

Für meine mobile Wohnung und Weltreise plane ich zur Zeit fleißig an einem geeigneten Basisfahrzeug. Das treibt manchmal komische Blüten. Vor einigen Wochen z.B. habe ich einen ganzen Abend damit zugebracht, im Internet nach einem Expeditionsmobil als Basisfahrzeug zu forschen. Gerade räume ich meine Dokumente wieder auf, und dieser Abschnitt fliegt raus. Vielleicht kann ja jemand anders (... reicheres) damit etwas anfangen. Also, hier meine Ergebnisse.

Mit einem amphibischen Expeditionsfahrzeug sind überflutete Brücken usw. kein Hindernis mehr, und Flüsse und Küstenlinien können als perfekte Verkehrswege in unwegsamstem Gelände verwendet werden, z.B. im Regenwald. Außerdem kann so die gesamte Welt außer dem Übergang nach Amerika selbständig bereist werden, nämlich wo nötig durch »Inselhopping«. Dadurch kann man auch interessante unbewohnte Inseln erreichen.

Einführung: amphibische Fahrzeuge

Ergebnis: ZiL-4906 als Basisfahrzeug

Weltweit wurden nur sehr wenige amphibische geländegängige Lkw gebaut, und von diesen sind manche völlig veraltet, wurden durch Demilitarisierung unbrauchbar (z.B. M520 »Goer«) oder sind im Straßenverkehr nicht brauchbar (wie M520 »Goer« wegen Überbreite, oder Alvis Stalwart (siehe auch englische Version) wegen fehlenden Differentialen. Es wurden im Wesentlichen zwei brauchbare, erhältliche Basisfahrzeuge gefunden:

Weitere amphibische geländegängige Lkws

Es wurden damit alle amphibiousvehicle.net gelisteten Modelle auf eine Eignung als Basisfahrzeug für ein amphibisches Expeditionsfahrzeug durchgesehen.

Startdatum: 2007-06-01
Publikationsdatum: 2007-12-18
Versionsdatum: 2007-12-18 (für die letzte bedeutsame Änderung)

2007-12-12

Without Cologne Cathedral

The next, last and only "project" I really need to get done in this life is "Second Acts", which deals with finding God at work in this world today, as a confirmation for my faith in God and Christ. For the project, cf. also my mindmap-style project plan in article "My vision for my life, as a mindmap". Currently I can do just some thinking, planning and preparations. Here's one thought:

One of the crucial issues of this project is how to determine the truth content of religions, religious experienced and claimed or supposed-to-be experiences with God. Sunday 2007-12-09 I was in Colone with some friends, and we also did a short visit to Colone Cathedral. The best result of which is an inspiration I got there and typed into my handheld computer. It is a candidate for a criterion to determine the truth content of claims about God:

Remove all outer forms from a religion or style of devotion, and what remains is authentically the work of God.

That's because all outer form is authentically the work of humans, and it tends to obscure the work of God. Cathedrals, music, solemn speech and so on is human work. This criterion does not require to abandon all form in order to be the faith "where God is authentically at work". We may have forms, as forms can be nice, like worship music. But forms must never ever be our reason for believing some claims about God to be true. Therefore, experimenting with abandoning forms temporarily will make it apparent on what basis our beliefs rest: hopefully on something that God does, and that becomes visible as the content of the forms.

I'll give one example how to apply this criterion. It's an extreme one: what remains as the authentic work of God if you substract all outer forms from a  Sunday service in Colone Cathedral? Watch the little video clip I made in 2007-06 in the Freiburger Münster ... I wanted to show you one from an evening mass in Colone Cathedral from 2007-12-09, but that material is not adequate here ;-). So, look at this illustration and imagine that every impressive outer form, even every intentional, human created audible or visible or touchable form, is removed. What remains? I'm not sure if anything would remain in this concrete case. What do you think?

video

Start date: 2007-12-09
Post date: 2007-12-12
Version date: 2007-12-12 (for last meaningful change)

2007-12-11

What we term intuition

With a friend, I had an interesting talk recently. It was about intuition and what it is. I bluntly admit that she's an intuitive person, while I don't have this ability or, at least, did not yet discover it. During that talk, I discovered my own current opinion regarding intuition. It's summarized in this thesis:

"Intuition" is a term that is applied, as an abstraction, to all unconscious, unknown cognitive processes with surprising and correct results.

Here are some implications and explanations of this thesis:

  • That these cognitive processes are unconscious and unknown implies that they are hard to perceive. That's because they are very fast, so much faster than verbalized thinking. Which makes intuition a precious ability that shows a high level of intelligence and is especially valuable for coping with time-critical situations and scarce time ressources in daily life. Because it is fast, intuition is efficient.
  • Because it is unconscious and so fast, intuition is not at all exhausting.
  • Because intuition is based on unconscious and unknown processes, it is not open to conscious optimization or error correction.
  • Because these processes are (at first) unconscious and unknown, the process of intuition is not open to communication. Humans can communicate the results: they can say what they intuitively feel about or would do in a situation. But they cannot reveal how they arrived at this result, as they don't know. And without reasons for them, people cannot argue about the results or try to arrive at better solutions in discourse. As such, intuition in all its splendor is an impediment to human communication.
  • Though intuition is the result of unconscious and unknown processes, these processes can perhaps be made conscious and be explored. Then, intuitive results would be open to communicate about, being no longer an impediment for getting to know each other better. According to my experience, exploring intuition is possible by close self-perception of one's own cognitive processes. A good training is to trace the asscociative chains while they occur in ones brain. With some training, one is then able to assign perceived associative chains as reasons to "spontaneous" thoughts. And with some further training, I believe, one can trace other intuitive results to their roots.

Start date: 2007-12-10
Post date: 2007-12-11
Version date: 2007-12-11 (for last meaningful change)

Is one hour long?

One should not think that five minutes (or five bucks) are not worth thinking about. As such, five minutes or five bucks are really not much and not worth to worry about ... but one must not forget about their repetition, about the grand total of these little things. Spending five minutes or five bucks repeatedly for a certain thing or activity is indeed much: then, one hour is long, making up 1/16 = 6,25% of the wake part of each day, i.e. 6,25% of your life!

From this perspective it becomes clear what makes up a lifestyle: repeated activity. For example, having a family is a lifestyle because it introduces repeated activity that takes up maybe 40% of each day. That's a considerable amount: 40% of the (current) life, i.e. all available free time. Though it is possible to live different for a short time, you'll live in the long run according to the demands and triggered repeated activity of family life, and that's what makes up the lifestyle in this case.


Start date: 2007-08-01 (circa)
Post date: 2007-12-11
Version date: 2007-12-11 (for last meaningful change)

2007-12-08

To be or to be myself

I thought that only Islamic culture is based on shame and honour, so I was somewhat shocked to see the the culture of my personal life share these characteristics to a good degree: it's my western shame culture. That was an interesting observation that I recently made: my life does not feel well because I am ashamed for oh-so-many of it's circumstances, situations and things.

Some examples:

  • My tiny chaotic flat (see image) with its "kitchen" and "special" style of nutrition ... there was a time when I was proud to live that way, but that time has gone. It is indeed a problem that I cannot invite people without belieing all these social expectations.
  • My theoretical approach to life, including my blog and my opinions; there is the need to justify myself for these before practically gifted people and before those who do not share the interest in the theoretical penetration of life.
  • The jobs I do ... so far away from what I have learned and from the gifts I have that I feel the need to justify myself whenever somebodyasks me casually what my business is.
  • My rather low quality equipment, be it computer (six years now!!), clothing or "furniture". Regarding clothing, I wonder whether punk people have their outward style as a mode of coping with the fact of tattered clothes. Might be ... I sometimes experiment in that direction and I like it.
  • And finally ... my world tour plans and the reasons for these. Again something wherefore I need to justify myself, this time before security oriented, socially integrated people.

As I that, this doesn't feel well. I needed to get rid of being ashamed, or life will not feel well. Me thinks [sic] that I've found a simple solution to that: rethink if you want to be different, and if not, start to be yourself. That does work, indeed: there's no reason why I sould be less convinced of my lifestyle than others are of theirs. So, basically it boils down to this: this is me, and this is my style, and if you cannot cope with that, that's your problem, not mine.

To me, being myself is something like: I am a nerd or geek (depends on defintion) and I will stay this and live this and you guys need to cope with that. What motivated me further is that I deeply respect people who live out their identity, who are themselves: my father, my mother, my brothers and my friends. And, of course, Jesus, who is probably the best example of living out one's own identity.


Start date: 2007-11-22
Post date: 2007-12-08
Version date: 2007-12-08 (for last meaningful change)

Der Anlasser

Verliebtsein ist wie ein Anlasser. Ein Anlasser bringt den Motor zum Laufen. Und Verliebtsein bringt die Liebe zum Laufen. Beides funktioniert ganz prima; so fällt es Verliebten z.B. nicht schwer, sich zu interessieren, zuzuhören, füreinander da zu sein.

Der Motor beginnt sich also zu drehen. Aber ein Anlasser ist nicht zum Dauerbetrieb: man fährt auf Kraftstoff. Ebenso beim Verliebtsein: es ist normal dass diese Faszination nach zwei Jahren verschwindet, und die Liebe muss mit Kraftstoff weiterlaufen.

Was für Kraftstoff? Tiefe Freundschaft ... mit aller Hilfe vom Heiligen Geist. Freundschaft braucht Zeit und Arbeit, entsteht aber aus dem Nichts: beim Zuhören, beim Beobachten, beim Reden, beim einander Erkunden, beim Zeit haben, beim Helfen, beim füreinander Einstehen, beim Reisen, beim Bibel lesen, beim Sport, bei Ehrlichkeit, bei gemeinsamer Arbeit, beim Vergeben, beim Echtsein, bei Konfliktbewältigung, in Gefahren, beim zusammen Beten, beim Dienen, beim Bedientwerden, beim Bewundern, beim Bewundertwerden, ... ... ...


Startdatum: 2007-12-04
Publikationsdatum: 2007-12-08
Versionsdatum: 2007-12-08 (für die letzte bedeutsame Änderung)

2007-12-07

convert -lat 30x30+20%

Today, some funny image happened to me when trying to improve the contrast of some digital facsimile scans for a neighbor of mine. Dear neighbor, can u guess in a comment the worksheet number where this image belongs to? And to the other guys and gals ot there: what might that be? Jus' crazy, isn't it. Here is how I made it, with the "local adaptive threshold" option of the nice free software tool "convert" from ImageMagick:

convert -lat 30x30+20% infile.jpg outfile.jpg


Start date: 2007-12-07
Post date: 2007-12-07
Version date: 2007-12-07 (for last meaningful change)

2007-12-03

Called, the third way

As far as I can see, there is much confusion when it comes to "being called by God", "getting a vision from God" and "serving God". In oh so many cases we seem to expect concrete hints and commands from God when it comes to these. Here, an alternative approach to calls, visions, service and plans is developed, in harmony with my general view that God's concrete intervention in our lifes is really the special case [see previous article "The third way of life in this world"]. As usual, you're really welcome here to discuss these thoughts and to add your own.

Exceptional character of calls and commands

Both from personal experiences and biblical confirmation it seems to me completely bogus to think that God regularly contributes to decisions and projects in our lifes. In nearly all cases, he does not, not even to the most important! Some proof material:

  • Paul. God did not concretely interfere with Pauls decisions, except of the initial call to mission [Acts 13:2 BWE] and the call to Macedonia [Acts 16:6-11 BWE]. Paul had to do all the plans and decisions himself. And he did, and did not give up, independent of the results! He knew that he was right, from the general will of God, not from the results.
  • Deciding whom to marry. That's a decision with huge implications, yet according to Paul, a widow may marry any man she wants, if only he is a Christian [I Corinthians 7:39 BWE]. So God seems to guarantee no definite guidance: God wants the spouse to be also Christian, and that's it.
  • Deciding if to marry. Paul viewed his state of singleness as God's gift [I Cor 7:7 ESV], yet he also spoke about his right to marry [I Cor 9:5 ESV]. So a gift is not necessarily an obligation or a command from God, but rather a possibility.
  • The great many without concrete callings. It seems that nearly all peple in NT times never experienced concrete calls and commands from God. Rather, they lived as they saw fit, within the general, timeless will of God. Some examples:
    • Luke. He travelled with Paul at times, and even wrote two bible books, seemingly without a concrete command from God to do so [Luke 1:1-4 BWE].
    • Priscilla and Aquila. They took Paul in and worked together with him in their business [Acts 18:2-3 BWE], travelled with Paul for some time [Acts 18:18 BWE] teached Apollos when necessary [Acts 18:26 BWE]. Bible does not mention concrete calls and commands from God, and they did not need: they just did what seemed appropriate and good to them.
    • Timothy. Initially, he was not called by God. Instead, he started to travel and serve with Paul because Paul met him by chance, and wanted him to accompany him [Acts 16:1-3 BWE].

Basically, it seems that God wants people most of the time to care about their lifes and decisions themselves, without immediate calls and commands from God. We make God too small when we think his main business is caring for our everyday life; instead, that's our business, while God offers forgiveness, eternal life, truth and character transformation. Which helps us also in everyday life, but as mediate, general gifts.

Of course, the Bible is filled with stories about God's concrete deeds. This can lead to the expectation that our life will be willed with these, too. But one should see that the Bible probably collects some extraordinary events from many thousand years and many thousand people, so that it's content is not representative for one day of one person.

Even in the global view, it is no problem if calls and commands are just the extraordinary case. For each person that would mean God did not plan what concrete good works a person should do; compare Eph 2:10 ESV and Eph 2:10 BWE for the difference. Instead, people shall think about good works themselves and choose them. And globally that would mean that every important good work gets done, by the statistical distribution that's implied when 200+ million Christians do something good. Furthermore, this world has so much more problems than Christians have capacity to do good: therefore it is also unimportant, to some extent, which good works remain un-done, i.e. how resources are distributed to needs.

Implications of this understanding on daily life

  • Do not calculate God's intentions from what happens. If one tries to determine the concrete plans of God with one's personal life from what happens, one will nearly never hit God's ideas. Of cause it is always correct to infer that God wants to sanctify me ... that conclusiuon is justified even independent of my circumstances. But whether or not God wants me to go into mission, buy this or that, leave one church or join another, follow this or that strategy in church etc. can hardly be determined from circumstances in the sense of a concrete call or command. Instead, one can collect wisdom from the Bible, experiences and hints from fellow Christians etc., and use that as the basis for such decisions. We should not call that a direct call or command from God, but perhaps "wisdom".
  • Just act rightly. God just wants us to do right permanently, and that's all he wants when we have no concrete call. That is, act rightly also in difficult times and also if nothing changes to the better.
  • Sermons as a human activity. People choose the texts, people preach what they found out about these texts. Sermons are not filled with immediate words from God, spoken to a concrete church at a concrete time. Iinstead, sermons are a repetition of what God revealed to be general, unchanging truth.
  • Visions. Just as sermons, visions are human, in nearly all instances. Human visions are justified if compatible with the general will of God. Take Nehemia for an example: in his view, he yould not trace his vision back to a divine origin [Neh 1:1-4 ESV; 2,5 ESV]. Somebody who serves God should therefore not think that God placed exactly him in exactly that position, except if a real, direct call is implied.
  • Open doors. If it is true that concrete calls and commands are the exceptional case, our conception of "open" and "closed doors" should be re-thought. Perhaps, open doors are mostly a natural phenomenon of life, someting like accidental entropy decrease. This can be checked by looking for open-door experiences in the lifes of non-Christians.
  • Being led in the job? God wants to care for our basic material needs [Mt 6:31-33 BWE]. However, to think that God helps people in a rich western culture to find a good job would imply that he does not help the African people to find equally good jobs. Which would be unjust, and therefore cannot be.
  • What is walking by the spirit? You do not need to keep some "free space" in your life and keep listening to the Holy Spirit (in order to hear concrete commands). Instead, living out what God showed you about holiness by his general truth in the Bible already is living with the Holy Spirit. There is not necessarily a further, more concrete callin in your life.

Dealing with success

Some people claim that God gave the "responsibility" to build his kingdom to us human beings. The view on calls and commands as shown above implies the same when it comes to human initiative: yes, God wants our initiative. Responsibility however also implies that we must fulfill our duty, i.e. we have the responsibility to succeed.

I do not share this view. If God would guarantee the possibility to succeed, it would be justified to think that he expects us to succeed also. However, God does not guarantee this possibility: concrete calls and commands (which could imply such guarantee) are not the regular case, and it seems to me also that most events on this planet are not within a "globally coordinated plan" of almight, transcendent God; as, life is characterized by a free, self-controlled state, not by being part of a big machinery. (But that's my opinion, you don't need to share this.)

This opinion seems to get support from my observations: in many cases, success depends on external circumstances that we cannot affect. Success does not depend on ourselves or God, but on "the situation", including the reactions of the people whom we serve. Whereever our plans succeed it is because we happened to be in a behavior setting that favored our plans. (A behavior setting is a set of outer circumstances that favor some behavior; for a good overview of the theory, see [dissertation of Uta Pankoke-Babatz] (German), pp. 19-50). Even Paul hat not success in everything he did. Cf. also an insight of Solomon: 

"Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all." [Ecc 9:11 ESV]

To sum this up: this view of initiative and success is, basically, a conception of "free will" without the implication that humans have the responsibility to "do right" / to succeed. So this is a conception of free will that does not capture men into the bondage of heavy responsibility.

What should be the practical implications of this view?

  • Take the pink glasss down. It might be that we have only contact with "successful" Christians. This will make us think that all Christians are successful, because God would guarantee this. However, there are also unsuccessful Christians out there. For biblical examples cf. [Heb 11:35-38 BWE].
  • You can serve God in freedom. If success is not our duty, serving God is really an enjoyable activity. Because we can enjoy the fact that God does not judge ur work by its effect or sucess. Instead, a totally effectless work gets just the same friendly acknowledgement from God as a successful work, if both share the same holy motivation and moral quality behind it.
  • Don't blame God. If God's concrete interaction with our lifes is the rare case, he is not to blame for bad situations in personal life and in the life of churches. These are not due to God's concrete intentions / interventions, but rather a product of human activity and chance. As chance is involved, bad situations are also not one's own fault only; therefore it is not generally justified to doubt one's gifts and abilities in these situations.
  • Take yourage and fight through. Nehemia had a troubled time when following his vision to re-build the wall of Jerusalem [Neh 4:1-23 ESV]. Success is not the natural companion of good works; so if we have a troubled time, we need not think that our work is not good or even against the will of God. It*s just that God does not always support us to the utmost when we do his will, so that things work really smooth. Nehemia had the courage to fight his way through in a hostile world. As he did, we should do.

Hidden coordination

Currently, it deems on me that things might not be that simple as put in this article. There might be concrete intervention from God, resulting in some open and some closed doors and some success, but this intervention might be hidden. One example might be Nehemia, whom I mentioned so often in this article. By re-building Jerusalem's wall, he fulfilled a part of a prophecy given to Daniel [Dan 9:25 ESV]. It is not mentioned however that he knew this; nonetheless, God just integrated his actions into fulfilling prophecy. The prophecy given to Daniel did not say that Nehemia would succeed, it even mentions that Jerusalem will be re-built "in a troubled time" [Dan 9:25 ESV]. Which could've meant that Nehemia would only have half success, and the wall would be finished by somebody different. So, yes, it is possible that human acitivity is integrated in a great, hidden plan of God, but this cannot justify the fundamentalist idea that "nobody can stop me because God Almighty is directly behind me and will make me succeed".

Another example for God's hidden coordnation cold be prophecy in the sermon, where the preacher unconsciously hits to the point what a person needs.

In a nutshell

Christian living is more about the how, not about the what. Keep close to Jesus, walk by the Spirit, and for the rest you're free and under the favor of God. View your actions as essentially human activity in obedience to God's general will, except where God's immediate instructions surprise you.

Augustine put it thus: "Dilige, et quod vis fac". Which is: "Love [God] and then what you will, do." The full quotation is actually this:

Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.

[Epistulam Ioannis ad Parthos, Homily VII on the First Epistle of John, 8]


Start date: 2007-11-18
Post date: 2007-12-03
Version date: 2007-12-03 (for last meaningful change)

2007-12-02

Sanctification is a brush

Sanctification is when God educates us to better resemble his holy character. What conception can we have of how God does this? One possibility would be to think that all-knowing, almighty, transcendent God has a plan of 1000+ steps for each individual's character transformation, and executes it step by step. There would be a big heap of mutual dependencies between people, as God would use other people in many cases for an individuals's education. So this would result in an awfully compley full linear upfront project decomposition, only possible for the almighty. But is sanctification really that way?

The other extreme would be to think that God simply exposes individuals to the truth. And everytime the truth touches somebody, it changes something or removes some dirt from his life. It would not be important in what order things are changed or the dirt is removed. I favor this alternative, and I would compare it to a brush: everytime the brush is moved over dirty clothing, the clothing is touched and some of the dirt is removed. It is totally of no interest in what order the dirt grains are removed, but that everything's clean in the end.

How about a real world analogy? A friend of mine is a gifted special school teacher (in preparation service), and some days ago we discussed a project she introduced in her math class. She calls it the "Zählwerk" (that's "mechanical counter", but actually the name of a depicted house, so better "counting station"). Regarding the concept, she explained to me that the pupils work through a set of worksheets, independently, and that they should train work practices while doing that. For example, to deal correctly with sorting work sheet templates away, handling reference material like a math lexicons, giving mutual support when difficulties arise, etc.. I'd like to see that as a good example for, say, "brush-style education": it's not about executing steps, but about training in good practices, again and again and again. You may see from her nice example that "brush-style education" has no regard for any "order of steps" for learning the work practices, rather, many things are taught in parallel. Interesting enough, teachers are generally held to have a set goals for each individual lesson, and a set of goals to reach these goals. But bush-style education is so much simpler, and, I think, more effective.


Start date: 2007-10-01
Post date: 2007-12-02
Version date: 2007-12-02 (for last meaningful change)