i need some help...

t4stywh34t
1 Comment »


the globe
Originally uploaded by Mr. Imperial

I need some help. We are printing five pictures from our Spring Break vacation (yes, we're slow). We need you to vote for your favorites! Click on the photo above and peruse the set entitled "Disney Finalists." Comment either here or there on your choices.

the post in which you think i'm a nerd

t4stywh34t
1 Comment »

Granted, not that kind of nerd. Still fairly low in the nerddom hierarchy, but since this involves science fiction, nerd is nerd I suppose.


When I was growing up my family (or at least Rob and I) regularly watched Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm not sure why it appealed to me, but then again, as I've lately been revisiting '80s movies I loved as a kid, I'm finding there's not much logical qualification for what I did and didn't like back then. At any rate, via a Netflix trial I decided to re-plunge myself in Star Trek by starting over again at the first season. Memories of later episodes are coming back, and brief glimpses of understanding at why I liked the series, but I must say that this feels enough like watching the series for the first time, and I'm more impressed now than I ever was as a kid. As a kid, Star Trek was about exploring space, seeing what interesting predicaments the crew could get into, really digging the holodeck episodes (look it up), etc. Now I see quite a bit more. I never realized that just about every episode was built on the exploration of some moral gray area and seeing how the crew handled it. I'm serious; the technology and space stuff is only a facade for the exploration of our moral humanity, though the technology and space stuff obviously factor in. Is it okay to steal a space ship from the Federation if it means saving your planet from being destroyed? Is an eye for an eye the best means of retribution and revenge? Can a sentient non-human yet human-like being (an android) be counted on for needing to make a decision based on more than just logic? Is it better to utilize absolute power to give people what would make them happy or to refrain from such use to give them what they need?

If, at the end of the day, Star Trek is just Star Trek to you, that's okay. No skin off my nose. But I encourage you to give it a different look...just about every episode so far has thoroughly intrigued me, and though it's not making me into more of a science fiction geek, it is making me reminisce of days when it was okay to cloak moral commentary with phasers and Klingons.

, ,

the other big news

t4stywh34t
3 Comments »

The other big news I have been holding off on making fully public is my decision to become Anglican.


Some of you already know this, and some of you have probably sensed it, but at this stage in my life, I no longer feel like the Wesleyan Church is the place for me.  So, as of a couple weeks ago, I announced to them that I would be going the way of the Anglicans, and I was also enrolled in preparations for confirmation.

This decision was a long and interesting one, as I have been weighing both the pros and cons of the shift.  Though my main Wesleyan ministry experience was not a good one, I have been assessing how I view things both here in the States and abroad (i.e., Australia), and though overseas is more promising, I just can't invest in the Wesleyan denomination in the US at this time.  There are generally two realms of thought on these matters: stick with a denomination and attempt to be an agent of change, or slip out gracefully and possibly reinvest later.  After two years, I have decided that the second is the best option for me.  I am in no way burning bridges with the Wesleyan Church; I may indeed return one day.  But historically, ecclesially, and sacramentally, at the present, I am Anglican.

Usually at this point in my explanation to people someone will inevitably bring up the whole Henry VIII thing..."How can you put confidence in a church founded on divorce?"  The short answer is, I don't, because the Anglican Church wasn't founded on a divorce.  Yes, that was a political impetus for formal separation from Rome, but that wasn't the beginning of the Anglican Church.  Look here and here for a couple quick reference sites.

I'm definitely open to dialog on these decision, so if you have questions, feel free to fire away.

a reminder

t4stywh34t
0 Comments »

'Tis hard for man to rouse his spirit up-

It is the human creative agony,
Though but to hold the heart an empty cup,
Or tighten on the team the rigid rein.
Many will rather lie among the slain
Than creep through narrow ways the light to gain-
Than wake the will, and be born bitterly.

George MacDonald

tiltshiftreds

t4stywh34t
0 Comments »


tiltshiftreds
Originally uploaded by Mr. Imperial

This was made testing a new app for Adobe AIR called TiltShift Generator (http://labs.artandmobile.com/tiltshift/). Do a quick Google search for "tilt shift photography" to see the science behind it. Makes stuff look miniature!

some very, very difficult decisions

t4stywh34t
1 Comment »

Cherith and I are staying in the US next year.  While I was very, very, very excited to be accepting into Durham's post-grad studies program for Religion/Theology, I have also come to realize the brutal hinge-pin concerning UK PhDs...money.  In the UK, thanks to new immigration laws, the people who generally proceed from the US are those who are 1) offered fantastic scholarships or 2) can afford to drop a huge sum initially with the hopes that more scholarships can be sought and more money can be earned once there.  As you might have guessed, I fall into neither of those categories.  I was not offered either of the scholarships I applied for, so what remains are scholarships I'm eligible for once there.  On the other hand, Cherith and I are poor :-).  Relatively speaking, of course.  Coming out of this degree is not going to be easy on our bank account (though it could have been, which is something I will not soon forget - ask me to tell you the story one day [not over FaceBook or Blogger]), and I foresaw such a circumstance long ago when I deliberated concerning applying to other programs.  That being said, I also came to this conclusion knowing that I can defer my enrollment to Durham for a year.  So in the off chance that my name comes up for consideration again for scholarships, and/or we can save a ton of money, that door is still open to me.


So, in all likelihood I will be taking another year-long break from academia proper (though obviously still working on many things) and looking for some sort of employment.  I've applied to a library job at Duke University, and there are a few jobs in this area I'm going to look into.  I'm sad that my goals are looking slightly more distant now, but that's just part of life.  We'll see what opportunities the next year holds.

I recently made another decision that was also difficult.  But that's for another blog post...

,

why so many atonement theories are bankrupt

t4stywh34t
5 Comments »

In my 2 Corinthians class, we have been discussing various interpretations of Paul's soteriology/theology of atonement.  One of the books we read, Paul on the Cross by David Brondos, highlights the deficiencies of several "popular" (though I'm not using that word in a derogatory fashion, simply trying to connote something that has held the most weight for the longest time) readings of Paul particularly on Jesus' death and resurrection.  That we should be reading such is ironic, especially since Dr. Reese didn't think about these readings' proximity to Holy Week beforehand.


What really stuck out to me concerning this book is that, despite many areas where Brondos lacks in his historical and exegetical analyses, he is not afraid to ask questions which have, to this point, generally been assumed or worked around.  Questions such as, "Did Jesus have to die, and why?" have really plagued the development of biblical soteriology throughout the centuries, generally with the result of working backwards from logical conclusions to the text rather than the other way around.  Brondos asks what it means for Jesus to die for (ὑπερ) us or for our sins; what about Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are actually salvific? Is it proper to ask questions of mechanics concerning the atonement (i.e., how salvation is brought about)? All of these are formed under the general concern for what, specifically in Paul, we have inducted from Scripture and what we have deducted.

A classical penal-substitutionary theory of the atonement holds that Jesus had to die to ransom us, or to pay back a debt we owe though cannot pay back.  Did Jesus really have to die? Is God under any compulsion to act? Judaism says "no"; God acts as he pleases.  Who is this ransom paid to? The devil? Surely not! The Father? Yet what kind of Father would make his son die, and why should he to pay back our "debt"?  What kind of logic is really involved here?

Were blood sacrifices really required in the Old Testament for the remittance of sins?  Didn't the Law make exception for those who couldn't bring lambs? Or even birds?

And what about a participatory understanding of the atonement?  How can we actually (whether ontologically or spiritually) be said to "participate" in his death and resurrection?  Well...ok.  I have to stop here.  I tend to agree with Brondos on much, but here he lost me.

Essentially Brondos now shows that we basically imitate Christ through our lives, and minimally through the sacraments.  What about divine participation?  What about Augustine, Irenaeus, Athanasius, or the Cappadocians? Though Paul may not explicitly evince the possibility of "divine participation" (which, admittedly, is what he is looking at - Paul - despite also bringing Hebrews into the discussion at one point), I don't think what Brondos does is quite fair.  He looks at overarching atonement theologies, pointing out their faults just through looking at Paul, and though Paul is of course a main influence in the development of any NT theology, one also has to factor in other writings of the NT.  What does Peter say about divine participation? How does he connect the seemingly-impossible event of the Word's incarnation with our salvation? Why is it "unbiblical," as Brondos attempts to show, that to a large extent our salvation comes from the Word's assumption of humanity in order to heal us rather than simply Christ's "life plea" to the Father for our salvation?

I think here, we lose part of the wonder of Jesus' death if we look at it only under the lens of the "logical conclusion" of Jesus' life lived for our sake.  Maybe I want to out-Brondos Brondos here...God's love for us went beyond living a holy life to plea for our salvation: the Word became flesh that we might become divine.

Of course, none of this comes to fruition until the Son is raised, and the Holy Spirit is given.  So we wait...

,