Sin as "How"

I've written on this topic before, in "How vs What", and would like to further explain how sin is truly a "how" equation instead of a "what".

I understand there to be a very limited number of "whats" in the realm of human experience. And I also understand all of those "whats" to be good. In order to arrive at this understanding, I need to examine and understand the underlying desires that drive my actions. I say this because, on the surface, there certainly seem to be "whats" that are sin. For instance, in the biblical narrative Cain's murder of Abel certainly appears to be a "what". Yet upon further inspection we discover that Cain's action was motivated by something deeper than simply wishing to eliminate his brother's existence. He wanted equality and justice. He felt that he had been wronged before God by his brother, "shown up" if you will, and sought to correct this. He wanted approval from God. That is in no way a bad thing. In fact, it is supposed to be a Christian's basest desire.

However, how Cain went about achieving this "what" was terribly wrong. In this sense Cain's action, on the surface a concrete "what", was really "how" he sought to gain his ends. The same goes for the original sin narrative in Genesis 3. Adam and Eve fell into sin when they tried to circumvent God's means for acquiring knowledge by some immediate means: the fruit.

So then, lets connect some dots. If sin is truly a "how" and not a "what" scenario, then sin is not a static being, but a dynamic series of methods. It is then not enough to want justice, or love, or God's approval, for in the wanting there is no righteousness. It is how you pursue justice, love or God's approval that determines righteousness or sinfulness. This then has tremendous implications for how we formulate our ethics, and demands of us an ability to hear and obey God's word, instead of relying on a series of principles that are supposed to govern our actions regardless of context.

But in another sense of the word, how do we do this? If our "how" determines our "what", how do we know the proper "how" concretely? The answer I think will take much more than a blog post to sort out, but I think I can sum it up here.

First, it requires a careful attention to God's word, and a properly humble approach to it, allowing it to inform you as opposed to you bringing your own ideas to it. It also requires patience, as God's methods may not seem direct to us. My imagination plays out a scenario in which a student informs a teacher that she does not need to know everything. The teacher responds that this is a good position to arrive at, but in order to properly arrive at this position, the student has to go through the process of learning that she cannot know everything, and only then can she arrive at a place of peace in not knowing everything. In the same way, God's methods may seem circuitous to us, but perhaps in order to reach the goal that both we and God are aware of, we need to experience things so that the goal will be good and not evil.

Forms and Meanings

I am writing this during a time of musical worship led by great friends of mine. That is an important caveat for what is to follow. 

I can't connect to it. Why? Am I too far gone into some long suffering plot of doubt and questions? I don't know. But here's my best attempt at understanding it.

We are singing a song that repeats the line "the Great I Am", and that is the line that gives me pause. What did God mean when He named Himself "nameless", the I Am, the Existent One. In difference to the pagan deities who claimed for themselves extravagant titles, the God of Israel declined to name Himself. Instead, He claimed that He was existence itself. Names cannot contain His being, so He declined to select one.

So then, what's wrong with an arbitrary selection of a title so that we can talk about God? Likely nothing. However, I understand it to be indicative of an absence in our worship, or perhaps a miss-direction. I think we have mistaken the Form of God's name for God's name itself. I think that God applies the meaning to a word about Himself, and when we worship the word instead of the source of the meaning that the word points to we are engaging in idolatry. 

I finally have more questions than answers. Have I confused the form that God has given me to engage Him with God Himself? Am I worshiping a word and calling it God instead of understanding that God has given no such name for Himself so that I would understand His all encompassing power and the inability of our faculties to comprehend Him? Do I exchange God for the forms and patterns of His interaction with me? Probably.

Yet there is an other side of this equation. Life is patterns of living cells. The cellular make-up of my genetic "code" do not exist as isolated individuals but a complex pattern of life that combines to make more life. And even though those cells do not disappear when I die (although they may change form), I, as an existential reality, have ceased to be because the pattern that caused me has ceased to be. By extension, is God a pattern, or a philosophical reality? Is worshipping the pattern of God really worshipping God Himself? I confess I do not know, and it is entirely likely that I never will. This is why Grace is the greatest meaning that I can think of. Though I try my best to understand, I never will. Yet this is precisely the point. I can't understand, and I will almost inevitably always be wrong, but for whatever reason God still extends His grace to me, forgiving and bearing with my foibles and failures. 

I may never be comfortable in a contemporary worship service. Grace isn't an excuse to do something that I know to be wrong. But as I have no other option at the moment, I choose community over isolation. Even though I have my reservations and doubts as to the validity of what perhaps amounts to idolatry, I will continue to live with my fellow human beings and identify with Christ's body, as flawed as it may be. 

"Still Darkness Waits"

An Old Poem:

Like first fruits born
Of a barren womb
Empty I came
So I was consumed
The dust drank up
The blood which called
For the harvest of men
For long since the fall

Still dreams persist
Long past grey dawn
Through a chorus of souls
Still I stumble on
Beneath watchful eyes
So deep and so worn
Like the end of the age
That sad, tired morn

By cross shaped trees
And blossoming tombs
I peer through the dust
Of my own upper room
And to my ears
A whispered fate
Your voice remains:
"Still darkness waits"

The Saturday Evening Post About Beer: "Bootlegger's Rustic Rye IPA"

Rye IPA's are something of an enigma to me, I've never been able to put my finger on how I feel about it. On the one hand, there's a great complexity to them, on the other hand, they ride a little dry for my liking.

Bootlegger's take on the genre is consistent to it's claim. The finish is what one would expect from a Craft Brewed IPA, and the Rye bit adds an interesting complexity. The flavor seems to start forward and work it's way back, with the aftertaste holding steady on the back of the tongue.

Final assessment, the jury is still out on Rye IPAs. This one was one of the better ones, and if you like 'em, find this one.

**

On Learning and the Quest for Questions

I'm gonna start this out ambitiously: The biggest problem that we face as academics and people trying to live responsibly is that we ask the wrong questions. What is more, we answer the wrong questions, and exert considerable energy doing so.

How we define "learning" factors into this equation considerably. We define "learning" as the collection of information, the assimilation of facts. If we are good at it, we may even delve into depicting what that information or those facts mean. The problem with this is our point of departure.

Our point of departure most consistently is one of myopic personal comfort or pleasure. We ask our questions seeking justification for some action or inaction of ours. This is what I mean by saying we as the wrong questions.

So let me propose this: Education should be learning how to ask the right questions. Teaching should not be the eschewal of knowledge and facts (embodied or otherwise), but explaining why asking the right questions will reveal so much more than answering the wrong ones.

Saturday Evening Post About Beer "Avery Karma"

This Belgian Pale Ale, despite having a relatively low alcohol content for a Belgian (5.2%), has a wonderful front end sweetness. This is followed by a somewhat floral/citrus middle and the characteristic hoppy aftertaste, which lingers for just long enough. The traditional red-ish caramel color conceals what is a surprisingly bright and lively ale, perfect for a hot spring day, and the lowered alcohol content means you can have two and still stand-up :)

Belgian Pale Ales are my favorite, and this one does not disappoint. While perhaps not as complex as some of the more pricey varieties, the flavor is pleasant and the price is right.

Overall Rating: 3 and 1/2 stars ***1/2

Saturday Evening Post About Beer

Sorry for the delay on this one: I've been sick...

Enough with apologies, here's the belated Saturday Evening Post!

:Young's Double Chocolate Stout:

The first thing that stuck out about this beer was the Chocolate. If you were to drink cold Hot Chocolate and a Guinness at the same time, you'd be getting close to this stout. Yet the initial sweetness gave way almost immediately to a smooth, creamy savor that lasted just long enough to appreciate the dark chocolate flavor, but not long enough to make me resent it. Flavor location was on the outsides of the the tongue initially, and then on the back of the pallet in stage two. What aftertaste there was was pleasant and varied little from beginning to end. Overall an excellent choice when in the mood for a stout.

Overall: 4 Stars - ****