How I remember September 11, 2001.

Nothing special here.  Just posting how I remember the day. I posted this on someone else's blog in response to the question, how do you remember 9/11?  And thought I would put it on here as well.

Having worked the swing shift the night before, I was asleep in my dorm room on Offutt AFB. My girlfriend from NJ called, waking me up, and alerting me to what was happening. "I have to go to work" I said, after struggling to understand her, and then making sure everything was ok on her end.

Five minutes later a sergeant banged on my door to wake me up and give me a ride to the unit.

But there was nothing for us to do. We were an intelligence unit, but what did we know? It wasn't an Air Force Intell kind of thing. After standing around for a few hours, staring at the TV like every other American, our commander sent us home. (I doubt many would do that, but he was different.) Not just for the day, but for several days. "Go spend time with your families" he said, "we will be called on soon enough."  Unfortunately, he was right.

I was standing on the lawn in front of my dorm room when Air Force One touched down later that day.

It is funny the small things you remember though.

September 11th was a Tuesday. The reason that always comes back to me is because I distinctly remember having Monday Night Football on in the background at work the night before. And oddly, I remember the details of the game in a way one rarely remembers the details of an unimportant game that they don't really have a rooting interest in.

The Giants were playing Denver in the first game at the new Mile High stadium. The Giants were looking good, but then Ed McCafree, of the Broncos suffered a season ending injury. That motivated the Broncos and it was all Denver from there on out, but of course the win was bitter-sweet as they had just lost a key player for the season.

I suppose I remember it in part because it was one of the last news worthy things (even if just for entertainment purposes) that happened prior to 8:46am est the next day.

It seems odd, reflecting back now, to think of all the things that were of such importance that Monday night. And then were not.

Beleving : A Short History

One of my friends, Mike, sent me this link: Biggest Intellectual Fights of All Time with the following question.

David,

I had a conversation with the guy who sent me it. I asked if he agreed with me that the Socrates part was slightly mistaken. I explained that the Sophists believed truth was not absolute but established by persuasion or argument (or truth is constructed by language as Post Modernists would say, basically the same thing as there is nothing new under the sun.) The headline reads something like "Socrates vs. the Gods, logic wins". It seems that logic lost if people can just make up whatever truth they want.

He went on to say that our senses can deceive us and truth can't really be known.

Thoughts? How would you take that conversation? It went out ok, I learned from him and hopefully he heard some of what I said. Hit me back when you can.

Peace

This is how I responded.

Mike,

There used to be powers that controlled what people thought. In centuries gone past, the perception was that to run afoul of the church seriously put one in danger of hell. Something similar happens today in terms of being "politically correct". To run afoul of these norms has dire political or professional consequences; though many feel free to ignore these norms and live outside of their power, some for the better, others for not. (Commitments to a particular religion on the good side, but sexest or racist jokes, the KKK, and things like that on the bad side...) Cultures in every age have always had their norms and ways of controlling people, and conversely those that chose not to be controlled; sometimes for better, "the earth really is round", sometimes for worse, "sex whenever, wherever is a great idea"

I think logic and science still play a huge role, but their scope has shrunk. In answering questions like "what should we do about terrorism, or the global financial meltdown?" you will probably use logic, and quite possibly some kind of economic, or political science.

Unfortunatly, the church at the time of the enlightenment had WAY overstepped it's bounds, beveling itself to be the sole owner of ALL truth. Imagine if the church had embraced science and logic as complimentary to theology and philosophy. It didn't and we reap the consequences to this day. Eventually it did, but by then it was too late. Today the church continues to use science and logic when most people have quit using these tools to determine spiritual truth. (more on that in a second)

Science and logic eventually replaced the church as lords of authority. Unfortunately, many in that community make the same mistake the church did, and imagine that those gods can control all knowledge. However, most people in today's culture recognize that not everything falls under the authority of science and logic. Consequently, when it comes to religion and spirituality, people feel free to believe whatever they want. Convincing people to accept a particular authority in these areas requires spiritual authority, not usually the authority of science and logic.

Sincerely, David

Praxis and Theology

My friend from Fuller, Kyle, said this over on his blog: I wish I lived during an era when doctrines meant something. When deliberate theological reflection was imperative and ubiquitous. When it was taken seriously, by clergy and laity, because it was believed that right thinking engendered right living and right living engendered right thinking.

I responded with this: I think that one of the reasons for the perceived dichotomy of theology and praxis, is an actual dichotomy. Not that there should be one, but church history shows us some of the many reasons that a dichotomy developed.

While I appreciate this post, I think the responsibility of changing people's perception lies with you and I and other theologians, because the way past theologians debated and conducted themselves was wrong, and to some degree, rightly led to this dichotomy.

Theologians, particularly those that disagree, need to pastorally model a type of discourse and love that simultaneously elevates our unity, and our differences. There is nothing wrong with saying, "I think your dead wrong here and here, and further more the negative implications of your position is thus and such." While at the same time modeling a respect and love for our fellow human, our fellow Christian, that only the Holy Spirit can enable.

You can add to the conversation here.

The Unpretentious Dead

I think I found another aspect of Islam that I appreciate, though I would like to know more about the thoughts behind it.

Some Muslims, namely those of the Wahhabi sect, find it appropriate to bury the dead, no matter how great and powerful in this life, in an unmarked grave, as was the case for King Fahd of Saudi Arabia. (Read story here). You have to hand it to any King willing to be buried in an unmarked grave. There certainly haven't been many of those throughout history.

I like the unassuming manner of this, though I would be concerned if it led to a disregard for history. Fortunately, I think most would agree that by and large the Muslim has no problem remembering her history.

Moral Authority?

Today in class, we were talking about, among other things, the loss of moral authority that modernity took from the powers that be; society, government, church, etc…

I wonder, did modernity take the authority from the powers, from the church in particular; or did the church forfeit its authority even before the enlightment?

If it is the latter, have we done anything to earn the authority back?

Should we even want the authority back?

Don’t misunderstand me. I do believe that God is the absolute authority over everything…but the church…I don’t know if it should have or want any authority. Which should not be misconstrued as me saying unequivocally I don’t think it should or does have moral authority. I am simply asking questions.

What do you think?
Does the church have moral authority?
Should the church have moral authority?

Fundamentalism, what would we be without it?

Are you a Fundy (fundamentalist) hater, or a Fundy lover?

Regardless of your oponion, you will probably appreciate one of the assigned readings from my church history class. It gives a great commentary on Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, Fuller Seminary, and our current setting. Incendently it also communicates the direction I am going in. Hope you will check it out, it’s by some guy named Rich. ; )

Our Sometimes Christian Heritage

(Note: this post has been edited a few times since it's origional posting, sorry for any confusion regular readers)

Some thoughts from my American Church/Religion History class.

Did we ever have a Christian nation?

Depends on how you define Christian. The morals people lived by, kind of Christian, (if you ignore that whole slavery thing) The theology they professed, also kind of Christian; again it depends on who you ask, the average Joe in the shop or field, or the intellectual’s at the Continental Congress. One thing is for sure, you can’t say that everyone believed one thing, or were even Christian, there were a plethora of opinions and beliefs well before 1787 when the constitution was written.

However, by and large the history of our morals are Christian-Judeo, something which didn't start to significantly change untill recently. BUT, we routinely get off track, especially in the area of social justice (which should include a pro-life stance), and particularly race relations.

Here is the ironic part.

The people that tend proclaim the fact that we were a Christian nation (mostly evangelicals), also have a pretty narrow view of what constitutes a Christian. (I’m not saying this is bad…or good, that’s another post)

Clearly, far from all of the founding fathers would fit an evangelical definition of Christian.

Now considering the fact that few evangelicals want to be known as ecumenical, it’s pretty ironic that they gravitate toward our sometimes deist founding fathers, and others who were hardly evangelical.

What ever we used to be, Christian or not, we aren't now; and were not going to be by passing laws that require people to act in a manner they do not believe.

(though we do need to pass laws that protect people that may be infringed on, or other wise harmed, which is why I support affirmative action, pro-life, and some environmental laws)