Halloween

As a Christian, I sometimes struggle with how to celebrate (or not celebrate) Halloween. On the one hand, I have a great number of very good memories of Halloweens past. My mom loved Halloween and she always took great pains to make it a very fun opportunity for friends and family to gather and enjoy each other. Halloween was a big costume party that was a shared community event. I also recognize that Halloween was the eve of All Saint’s Day, a Christian celebration in honor of all the saints, known and unknown.

On the other hand, Halloween’s roots is actually Celtic, the festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in). Halloween

marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death. Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On the night of October 31, they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth. In addition to causing trouble and damaging crops, Celts thought that the presence of the otherworldly spirits made it easier for the Druids, or Celtic priests, to make predictions about the future.

Halloween was a very spiritual time of the year.

Does it bother me that any holiday celebration has pagan roots? Not really. I am not necessarily concerned that Halloween has pagan origins. My only concern is that Halloween may glamorize or trivialize death and evil. In fact, the older traditions did nothing of the kind. Rather, our modern skeptical worldview has created a Halloween where death and evil are celebrated.

We no longer think evil actually exists. Evil is seen as a state of mind rather than a real and hungry power. It is an aberration, a bump along the path of progress, a temporary hindrance to our human potential.

Evil is real; it lies in wait for us (Gen. 4:7, I Peter 5:8). And it should not be so quickly dismissed.

That said, our response to evil and death is very important. Do we cower in fear or do we acknowledge its reality with confidence and courage? Maybe Halloween is a time to thumb our noses at Satan. Tell him that I think all of his powers and strategies are "cute" and harmless like the little ghoulies in bedsheets. In a very real way, dressing up and decorating the house in a "scary" way mocks Death and Satan and, as a Christian, proclaims that they have no power of me or my life.

Preying on the Unethical Computer User

It seems that spammers have created yet another way to get unsuspecting people to do their dirty work. A new Windows "game", which shows a half-naked woman, temps people into undressing her more if they can correctly type in text shown in an accompanying image.

The trick of the "game" is that the text players are asked to decipher are security measures placed on various forums, email and account registration forms. The scrabbled text images are almost impossible for spamming spiders and robots to correctly input, thus, keeping spammers at bay. With the help of an unethical computer user, this technique works because "the average male e-mail user would want to see more".

Happy Halloween . . . I guess.

Doubt

Doubt:

1. To question or hold questionable; to withhold assent to; to hesitate to believe, or to be inclined not to believe; to withhold confidence from; to distrust; as, I have heard the story, but I doubt the truth of it....
2. To suspect; to fear; to be apprehensive of...
3. To fill with fear; to affright.

Particularly, in many religious traditions, doubt is equated with fear. In Christian circles, this can be interpreted as a lack or, even, opposition to faith. This can mean an abiding mistrust in the power of God to be present in our lives. It is the fear that, perhaps, God does not have our best interest at heart or, even if He does, He lacks the power to protect and guide us. Thus doubt may develop into a form of backsliding for the "committed" Christian.

While, I would not dispute the fact that an abiding doubt in God's faithfulness probably will lead to an unhealthy form of Christianity (or agnosticism or, perhaps even, atheism), doubt in and of itself is not a bad thing. Doubt, in the first sense, is an essential part of any honest approach to religious experience and spiritual awareness.

Doubt, in the first sense, causes us to contemplate, strive for understanding and even test the religious claims of our fellow sojourners and leaders. This form of doubt forces us to evaluate programs and movements in light of reason, faith and a commitment to truth. Forcing us to apply concepts and commands only after "owning" them for ourselves. Because I believe our Christian walk is, ultimately, a solo affair (in the sense that God doesn't judge us for the thoughts and actions of our community, only on our own choices in the context of our community), God expects us to be responsible for what we allow to enter our hearts and our minds. Doubt, as a sort of prudent skepticism, is the first line of defense against unhealthy ideas.

Doubt, in the sense of fear and suspicion, can only be harmful. This form of doubt is so often purely irrational and may stem from a variety of unhealthy and selfish impulses. This is where the first form of doubt may be useful (i.e. in helping to evaluate what can turn out to be unwise thoughts or courses of action).

In the second and third sense of the word doubt, we see the same power that faith has used in harmful ways. On that view, faith and doubt are both the attempt to convince ourselves of a certain outcome. Faith is the hope in something good; doubt the hope in something bad.

Davis Graveyard

On my way to Prov. Milwaukie (Med. Asst. Program), I passed, what appeared to be an old hearse on Tuesday. Well, being the big Halloween decoration nerd that I am, my wife and I had to go back check it out today. What a great display! Guess I'll have to start work for next year!

• Davis Graveyard website
• The Davis House blog

Redheads are Neaderthals!

It seems that we red-heads may just be descendants of Neanderthals. Apparently, a very similar mutation of the MC1R gene may have affected Neanderthals in much the same way as in modern humans, producing red hair and light skin color. This leads researchers to suggest that Neanderthals interbred with modern human populations.

Another reason to hate Ginger kids?!?

Quote of the day

"Rational people will go quietly, meekly, joyously into a gas chamber, if they are only allowed to believe it is a bathroom" (Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust, p. 203).

Forgiveness

I just came across this wonderful article on forgiveness over at the Good Samaritan Ministries blog, and it really got me thinking. I am currently working through some forgiveness issues of my own and I need to remind myself exactly what Jesus taught about the subject.

According to the current Wikipedia:

Forgiveness is the mental, and/or spiritual process of ceasing to feel resentment, indignation or anger against another person for a perceived offence, difference or mistake, or ceasing to demand punishment or restitution. This definition, however, is subject to much philosophical critique. Forgiveness may be considered simply in terms of the person who forgives, in terms of the person forgiven and/or in terms of the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some contexts, it may be granted without any expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is dead). In practical terms, it may be necessary for the offender to offer some form of acknowledgment, apology, and/or restitution, or even just ask for forgiveness, in order for the wronged person to believe they are able to forgive.

In a Christian context, forgiveness is a prayerful action in which we allow God to handle the situation. Forgiveness should not simply crossing people off our list of perceived offenders. "It is a choice, it is specific, and," the authors of the article insist, "it is emotional."

I'm not entirely sure I believe forgiveness should be emotional, at least as far as I understand the author. Because forgiveness is a choice, it really can't be emotional. Emotions flow, not from our perceptions but, from our rational understanding of the world. Emotions are the bodily response to situations and our philosophical "rules" devised to deal with those situations.

So, in a sense, the author is correct. If we have decided that "I" am not going to hold something against another person, then we can say that our forgiveness is emotional. I can now feel positively towards a person who is no longer offensive to me. He or she has offended God and God is the one who gets to decide what to do about it.

The trick is that we can't really forget the perceived wrong to us. God may be able to do so, perhaps, but we can not. This is where the rubber hits the road. How does one deal with a person who continually wrongs you, shows no remorse and, apparently, plans on doing it again? If we "protect" ourselves by putting up boundries, are we interfering with the forgiveness process? Are we somehow telling God that we can handle the situation?

For a Christian, forgiveness may be the highest form of worship because we do not presume to act on behalf of God. In the end, forgiveness is just another cross we must bear in order to truly be called children of God.

Sacred Sanctuary

At our church, it is customary to spend quite a bit of time before each service meeting with friends, talking about our week, our lives and our concerns. We talk about quite a bit about what the Lord has done for us, and what service we offer the Lord, but mostly we catch up on our daily life.

This got me thinking about my Mormon upbringing. In the Mormon church, there are certain ceremonies that are held at the Temple. People on the outside often make a big to-do about the secretive nature of these ceremonies. Mormons themselves are not permitted to speak openly of what goes on there. I submit that these ceremonies are secret because they are sacred. It's not that Mormons can't speak of these (I'm sure there are admonitions not to, but follow me here). Rather, because these ceremonies are indeed sacred, set apart, harm is done to the holiness and solemness of the encounter with God by publicly discussing what goes on in these sacred spaces.

In contrast, at our church, we take great pains (for good or ill, I'm unsure) to clearly avoid calling our "gathering place" a sanctuary. Rather, the space is simply called the auditorium. We tend to treat it like an auditorium too. It's a place of casual conversation, loud music and good-natured fellowship. It sometimes takes some time for people to transition from the horizontal into vertical worship.

I certainly do not want to press the point (because there is great value in a more casual church gathering), but it seems to me that something may be missed when people come to church and do not recognize the experience as "entering the sanctuary". When we bring our daily lives into a holy place, we may need more time to refocus our minds and hearts on the Lord. We may take for granted the fact that God wants to commune with us in a deep and real way. We may just distract others of the call God has for their lives for that very Sunday.

Just some thoughts . . .

Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 26:2)

Listen to me, Levites! Consecrate yourselves now and consecrate the temple of the LORD, the God of your fathers. Remove all defilement from the sanctuary. (2 Chronicles 29:5)

Halo 3, an Ethical Church Recruiting Tool?

As a long-time computer gamer and programmer, I have mixed feelings about the use of violent computer games as Christian recruiting tools. As reported in the New York Times (Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game at Church), Halo 3 has just become such a tool.

I tend to disagree with Daniel R. Heimbach, a professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, when he says, “To justify whatever killing is involved by saying that it’s just pixels involved is an illusion." There is a qualitative (and, one might argue, quantative) difference between blowing up a pixelized, 3D alien and tossing a real life hand grenade into the lap of a real life person. The only illusion here is the illusion that opponents in a computer game appear to be "alive". They are, of course, not. There's no difference between "killing" a monster (or another "person" for that matter), in a computer game and knocking down mechanical ducks at a carnival.

That said, I certainly do not discount the power of video games to desensitize, dehumanize and disassociate our actions from any real consequences. I can personally attest to the insidious way in which a computer game can subtly change the ethical perspectives of a player. I have no doubt in my mind that violent computer games can contribute to unethical and criminal behavior.

On top of those general observations, to use something clearly designed for mature audiences (at least 17 years old) to draw kids to church seems mildly irresponsible. While it is important to be all things to all people in order to help them come to Christ, I don't believe this falls under that mandate. Hey, if people want to play Halo 3, be my guest. I hear it's a great game. Hosting a Halo party sounds like a great outreach. I just don't see how it really is appropriate for kids.

Philosophy & the Christian Faith

After finishing Philosophy & The Christian Faith, by Colin Brown, I was surprised to see that the book is almost forty years old. Covering the history of the relationship between Christianity and philosophy from the Middle Ages to the mid-60's, this book touched on many issues we, today, struggle with. The tension between faith and philosophy has never been so well-focused for me before.

Starting with Medieval philosophy, Brown illuminates a tale of the endless quest for a philosophic harmony with sacred scripture. From Anslem's ontological argument (God was that which no greater can be thought), and Aquinas' cosmological and teleological arguments (God is the cause of the cosmos and the ultimate designer) we move through to Martin Luther, Pascal, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Feuerbach, until we reach Tillich, Buber and Schaeffer. Brown covers the 20th Century (until the time of the writing of the book) in fine detail.

For those of us who have a fair understanding of the history of philosophy, the final chapter (Postscript: The Christian and Philosophy) is the most illuminating and useful. While the Bible does not attempt to explain everything, nor does it tell us everything there is to know about God, it does raise innumerable philosophical questions. What does a Christian do with over a thousand years of thinking? How does that effect (or not effect) our lives today? For each of us, we have certain philosophical assumptions in our Christianity. We may even tenaciously defend our faith on philosophical grounds, despite the obvious observation that philosophical systems always turn out to be incomplete. The danger comes when we too closely ally our Christianity to these philosophies.

Sometimes when a philosophy is too closely wedded to Christianity, and that philosophy goes out of fashion or become inadequate, it is easy to fall into the mistake of believing that Christianity itself has been disposed of (p. 36).

In the end, this is what makes philosophy so interesting. Philosophy claims to posses the tools for explaining everything in a rational manner, to prove or disprove anything. But our faith, it seems to me, is beyond our ability to understand philosophically. Philosophy can only serve as an underpinning, not a substitution for our faith in God.

For someone who is interested in knowing where our current philosophic arugments for Christianity come from, this book would be an amazing read. It makes no pretense at going into any depth on any one subject, movement or philosopher, but instead it gives the reader a quick glance at the philosophic currents and cycles through the ages. It can be a bit dry (what philosophy book isn't?!?), but you might be surprised at how much you find familiar without even knowing its source.

Jesus, the Only Way?

I was considering the claim that Christians are arrogant for believing Jesus is the only way to God today. I've always recognized that there are a lot of things that can really only be done way, but I've never been able to formalize that thought as a counter-argument to Christian arrogance. Today, I may have found a solution.

Let's say someone says that Christians are arrogant for claiming that they are the possessors of the "only way to God" and I respond, in turn, that there are, indeed, many things that require only one solution. The most common retort would be to create an analogy: "Are you saying that there is only one way to get from Portland, Oregon to Washington, D.C.?"

I believe, if my understanding of "getting to God" is correct (i.e. a walk), then my surprising answer is yes, there is only one way to get to Washington, D.C.: You must move from Portland, Oregon. Whether you drive I-5 south and take a left in San Diego or take a more direct route by flying from PDX to Ronald Reagan Washington National airport, you still MUST leave Portland. If my understanding of Christianity is correct (it may not be), then leaving sin ("Portland", yeah, analogies suck! hehe) is the only first step possible. God is not a simple destination. Rather, God will meet you as soon as you do that one thing, the only thing possible.

I will have to give this argument some more thought. While I think it's essentially sound, there are some holes. To be continued . . .

12 Angry Men

It’s not often that I watch a movie and want to write about it, but 12 Angry Men was just too good not to think about. I love the long scene after the very bored judge gives his final instructions. You just don’t see movies anymore where the actors are required to concentrate on acting for a very long time; it was very immersing and play-like. Beyond simply entertaining (oh it was at that), the movie suggested a number of very interesting questions that I think are relevant for today.

First, is the issue of objectivity. All of the characters who immediately voted “guilty” had some kind of hidden agenda (except for Klugman’s character; we’re not sure why he voted guilty). We always bring something to any evaluation and our past always deeply influences our future. The genius of this movie was that it showed how each juror struggled with his past.

Secondly, the movie highlights a particular epistemological problem concerning doubt. While epistemology is not my favorite subject, the movie has brought some of those issues to mind. In this case, the jury was asked to determine if there was a reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt, and, if so, vote not guilty. In other words, determine the probability of guilt. A reasonable doubt was all that it took to acquit. In our every day lives, often use that standard to make judgements. Being in a state of doubt is not necessarily a bad thing.

The final important issue the film addresses is the issue of intellectual courage in the face of the crowd, or as the old man puts it "standing alone against the ridicule of others." This is not licence to rebel for rebel ion's sake. Rather, it is a call to stand up for what you believe in. I liked the way the Henry Fonda's character didn't question the others' motives, rather he questioned the facts, the interpretation of those facts, and his own ability to complete apprehend the truth of the matter. He maintained an open mind, not dismiss every possible option, but, rather, to find the truth.

Great movie. I'll have to put this on my "re-watch" list!