This past week my sermon dealt with the Canaanite woman seeking healing for her daughter and the exchange she had with Jesus. Jesus tells her that it is not right to give the children's food to the dogs, and the woman's faithful response is, "yes, but dogs do receive the scraps from the master's table." In relaying the message, I used the phrase, "It is not right to give the children's food to the dogs" multiple times.
What my not quite 2 year old daughter heard was, "The dogs do not get food." She was very distraught by this and sadly repeated--"The dogs don't get food!" She then began trying to remedy the situation by making sure our dog got food. She spent a significant portion of the day grabbing handfuls of dog food laying it on the floor in front of the dog and waiting until the food was gone, then grabbing another handful.
I think I am glad that the idea of not feeding the dog bothered her, and am a little proud that she took it upon herself to make sure the dog got fed.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Collision of the Cross
My wife and I have been reading Chesterton's Orthodoxy. It has been a slow go as we fight for time together when our daughter is sleeping--but we have made it through the second chapter, and it has already been a worthwhile journey.
In setting up his explanation for how he came to an orthodox faith in God, Chesterton describes the materialist who relies ultimately on logic as a mad person. One example is that a mad person might claim to be God--and the way one would work with such a person is not to deny that they are God but to point out that if they are indeed the creator of the universe, then what a small and insignificant universe it must be. Similarly, a non Christian who is worried that all truth claims meet the rule of logic limit truth possibilities to a small circle. The basic argument, which is too complicated for me to work out in a blog, is something along the lines that Christianity is more creative, less limited, and therefore more sane than materialistic rationality.
Chesterton's argument is not that the rational skeptic is not rational--rather rational skepticism is infinitely rational, it just happens to be a small and limited infinity. "Their position is quite reasonable, nay, it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny is infinitely circular... [it is] a base and slavish eternity."
All this is to set up what I believe to be the best use of the image of the cross that I have ever encountered.
This image of the cross having a collision and paradox at its center is why we can know things to be true that may not fit our limited reason. Like, "The one who loses their life for my sake will find it." This is not a rational statement, but in the cross it makes sense. Which is true that God is sovereign over all and knows everything before it happens or that God has given humans free will--they are both true. Sure it is paradoxical but it can be the case in the cross. Do we seek righteousness or surround ourselves with sinners--both, are we holy or imperfect--both are true, that is the shape of the cross.
"The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything becomes lucid." I love this image.
In setting up his explanation for how he came to an orthodox faith in God, Chesterton describes the materialist who relies ultimately on logic as a mad person. One example is that a mad person might claim to be God--and the way one would work with such a person is not to deny that they are God but to point out that if they are indeed the creator of the universe, then what a small and insignificant universe it must be. Similarly, a non Christian who is worried that all truth claims meet the rule of logic limit truth possibilities to a small circle. The basic argument, which is too complicated for me to work out in a blog, is something along the lines that Christianity is more creative, less limited, and therefore more sane than materialistic rationality.
Spiritual doctrines do not actually limit the mind as do materialistic denials. Even if I believe in immortality I need not think about it. But if I disbelieve in immortality I must not think about it. In the first case the road is open and I can go as far as I like, but in the second, the road is shut.
Chesterton's argument is not that the rational skeptic is not rational--rather rational skepticism is infinitely rational, it just happens to be a small and limited infinity. "Their position is quite reasonable, nay, it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny is infinitely circular... [it is] a base and slavish eternity."
All this is to set up what I believe to be the best use of the image of the cross that I have ever encountered.
For the circle is perfect and infinite in its nature; but it is fixed forever in its size; it can never be larger or smaller. But the cross, though it has at its heart a collision and a contradiction, can extend its four arms forever without altering its shape. Because it has a paradox at its center, it can grow without changing.
This image of the cross having a collision and paradox at its center is why we can know things to be true that may not fit our limited reason. Like, "The one who loses their life for my sake will find it." This is not a rational statement, but in the cross it makes sense. Which is true that God is sovereign over all and knows everything before it happens or that God has given humans free will--they are both true. Sure it is paradoxical but it can be the case in the cross. Do we seek righteousness or surround ourselves with sinners--both, are we holy or imperfect--both are true, that is the shape of the cross.
"The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything becomes lucid." I love this image.
I'm back!
Sorry I have been away for so long. I knew transitioning appointments would take a lot out of me, but never did I expect it would take me as far away from blogging as it has. But with renewed commitment to my blog I am back. I have been waiting for the opportunity to write a particular blog, but time and energy to do so have evaded me--until now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
