sense: found in the deep, or the shallow?

O poet, how deep is your pathos!
What engineer has developed words strong enough to carry the weight?
Is it true that only in the shallows the depths make sense?

“whence comes this commodity of sense? the great economists of the world speak of invisible hands. the great scientists and physicists speculate on 11 dimensions and life outside of earth. the great doctors know not when life begins. the great judges are still looking for a standard to decide between right and wrong. and am I to make sense of the universe of emotions that exist within? o sad is the man who makes himself a god and claims to have solved all mysteries. ha! he cannot hold back the ocean even if he moved Everest to block it. Yet One lives who spoke “no more”, and with little grains of sand He hedged in the ocean as if it were a little garden pond.”

Natural and Supernatural – part 2

Is there a difference between the leaf that fell from the oak tree in your back yard and the fire that fell when God stepped onto Mount Sinai to speak to Israel? Yes. It is the difference between the dust that floats in Saturn’s ring and the first passionate kiss a man gives his stunning bride. One is far removed from relationship, the other is integral in relationship.

The terms “natural” and “supernatural” are not inherently bad words. But they are inherently Greek ideas, not Hebraic. For some, that is a very large and troubling indictment. Allow me to explain. There is no word for “natural” in the Hebrew language. Not even close, let alone “supernatural.” The Hebrew saw reality as one realm composed of two inseperable expressions: Heaven and Earth, the former being invisible, the latter visible. The Greek saw reality as two realms: Heaven and Earth, both eternally separated, the former being an intelligible > spiritual > supernatural realm, the latter being a perceptual > physical > natural realm.

The danger of the Greek perception of reality (what some call platonic dualism, or more appropriately, hellenistic metaphysical dualism) easily becomes evident with the espousals of gnostic conclusions. Ontologically (that which relates to being), “the invisible realm became ethereal, abstract, insubstantial, intangible, impalpable, etc. Functionally, the invisible realm became uninvolved with the visible realm, having no practical relation with it” (Harrigan). When knowledge becomes abstract, man’s pursuit of the knowledge of God too becomes abstract rather than experiential.

Following this Greek line of thinking, the word “natural” soon implies existence apart from God. But for the Hebrew, nothing exists apart from God. This line of thinking also causes salvation to be thought achieved through knowledge and enlightment rather than repentance and faith.

We must be careful not to entertain the idea that we can gain much (if any) knowledge about God apart from relationship. This is not to say the Israelites knew nothing about God because Moses was the middle man. But it is to say the Israelites would have known nothing had Moses not been the middle man.

But why does this matter. Why should we be careful? Well, let’s take the event of the cross. If we are not careful, the event itself, the gasping and twitching gruesome body of the forsaken man Jesus Christ as he dies, will be painted over with flat gold, overshadowed by the theology of the cross. The event of the Cross cannot be dissected into natural and supernatural parts. Nor can the incarnation. Nor can Creation. Nor can Mount Sinai, and nor can, wait for it – the leaf falling from your oak tree. But for God, the oak tree would not exist, and the leaf could never fall. But He didn’t put his leaf on display, did He? Instead, on the tree He put his Son on display. And that’s the difference.

The Lemming Senate of 2010

I noted the incongruous Senator of South Carolina, Senator Graham in my last post regarding his support for Elena Kagan. But there are a few stars yet untarnished in the Senate of the U.S. One I set forth before you now: the Senator from Alabama, Senator Sessions. I have great admiration for the stand this man took on the senate floor today. While he may not be the silver tongued Daniel Webster of days gone by, his voice is as clear Senator David Crockett’s rifle, and for truth he threw his gauntlet. “We are not lemmings here,” Said the Senator. Let us pray they aren’t, for I know not if God will save the lemmings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“There is disagreement, I believe, between what the record, the facts, and the testimony show, and the white house spin, and even the Kagan spin. And I use that word carefully. So let’s therefore begin this debate in all seriousness. Let’s get to the bottom of these matters. There isa truth. We can ascertain what happened. Let’s find out what happened in these matters. Let’s get to the bottom of it. Some raise the questions of how many republicans will vote for the nominee? Another question to ask is how many democrats will vote against the nominee. I call on every senator to study the record and make an informed and independant decision. We’re not lemmings here. We have a constitutional duty to make an independant decision. So I urge my democratic colleagues to not just be a rubber stamp. Not to allow political pressures to influence your decisions, but make an independant and fair analysis of the nominee.” ~ Senator Sessions

And for those who don’t know about lemmings, here’s a 3 minute informative video:

The Judicial Ideology of Senator Lindsey Graham

A week or so ago, Senator Graham from South Carolina voiced publicly his support for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. I cannot help but note the oddity of the Senator’s reasoning however. The Senator supports Kagan, primarily because the people of America voted for Obama, and Obama selected Kagan, so why stand in the way? Senator Graham was not selected to pick a judge, Obama was. That, in my sum, is Graham’s position for supporting Kagan.

The oddity of it is this: the people also voted for the Senator, and the Senator has responsibilities too, to represent faithfully the values and honor Senator Graham ran his own campaign on. The Senator’s reasoning, as I see it, is a serious corrosion to the stability of the 3 branch system of checks and balances. And honestly, Senator Graham, if all the people of America were voting for Napoleon Bonaparte, would you stamp your approval on a French Europe? Certainly elections have consequences, but that doesn’t mean the few principled men left ought lay down their principles.