Much of Euro-American culture, and especially its educated elite, has adopted two contradictory and equally useless attitudes toward miracles. The first, starting in mid-1700s, was a full-scale assault on the notion that miracles can happen. The second is a sentimental and vapid dilution of the term to mean anything really good or life-changingly beneficial. I’m not sure when this second attitude developed, but I’d be inclined to date it to the late 1800s as a defensive, and wrong-headed, rearguard action to preserve the language of miracle while emptying it of all meaning. In other words, having conceded the idea that genuine miracles are impossible, some Western Christians domesticated the notion of the miraculous in order to retain the language without its threatening implications. I think this is the wrong approach, and this post will critique the denialist approach, and propose a different definition of “miracle” which I think is more in keeping with its etymology, and with its pre-modern Christian usage. (more…)
For unknown reasons, the blog post which I posted last night was erroneously listed as published on 1 February, and thus buried under the previous two blog posts. The post was somewhat controversial, but I would be surprised if this was a deliberate strategy of marginalizing controversial ideas… Anyway, I link to it here so that people who missed it can find it more easily.
This is something of a rant. I have some pet peeves, among which is when people misinterpret the Bible to fit their pet concepts and models. Even if the larger point they are making is good, good ends do not justify bad means. I’m reading a book on prayer right now which I think illustrates this perfectly. I’m not quite halfway through it, and I generally have a high bar for what constitutes good writing on the subject of prayer (and a low tolerance for Christian cliches and platitudes). On the whole, I think the book is very good, and it has already helped me with certain issues in my prayer life. But some of what the book says about Jesus is just flat wrong, even if it’s with good intentions. And much of how the author draws from the Bible is deeply wrong-headed, even if I think the author has understood some important things about prayer. (Because of this mixed review, I will not name the author or the book in this post.) So I’m not condemning the book or the author, but I thought I would vent my frustration by using a few examples from the book to show how bad exegesis is a problem, even for a good end. (more…)
The Old Testament books of Kings are filled with wars between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, and make a strong object lesson of the futility, mutual recrimination, and other spiritual harms caused by schism, as both kingdoms turned away from God, whether to the worship of other gods in the north, or to a mere pretense of worshiping the true God among other gods in the south. This makes sense. What makes less sense to me is that the political divide was not an act originating from human pride and rebellious spirit, but in fact commanded by God. With certain things, I am tempted to ask God what he was thinking.
The US Supreme Court has announced it will finally decide the question of gay marriage for the whole country. This promises to be a landmark case as significant, and as controversial, as the 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. Both liberals and conservatives reportedly cheered the decision, and are readying their best arguments. Some might call me a cynic, but I’d be a whole lot happier if I thought any of the arguments on either side might be anything other than fallacious preaching to the choir, and each of the justices already knows where they sing. (If the justices on the Supreme Court are supposed to be non-partisan, why do they almost always divide the same way along the same partisan issues?) Here I present a couple common arguments on both sides, and why they don’t work. (more…)