Is Mary's Song in tune?

Historic Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been adored and ignored. Catholics and Christian Orthodox religions worship her. Secular and non Christian religions honor her. Protestants do not think about her often.

Yet her story is infamous and impossible to ignore. A popular account of Mary is found in the Scripture known as Mary's Song. Mary recognizes and treasures the blessing God bestowed on her as the Mother of Jesus.

Let's take a moment and see how Mary was blessed.
1.   She was pregnant out of wedlock at a very young age
2.   She had to travel many days because of a corrupt and greedy political system
3.   She had no decent place to stay
4.   She bore her baby in a stall and had to place him in an animal's food box
5.   To escape a jealous ruler, she became a refugee in Egypt for several years
6.   She saw her son rejected by the important people in her community
7.   She witnessed her perfect son, sent to earth by God, suffer great injustice
8.   Finally, she witnessed the most hideous death humanly possible

Now, tell me again why she felt immensely blessed.

In her song she identifies three reasons for her blessedness.
1. she saw something beautiful to live for
2. someone supremely important knows her intimately and includes her in His story
3. God can be counted on to deliver on His promises, regardless of what others do

Miracle birth is a motif or theme throughout God's story, but everyone else was desiring a child from being barren, and Mary was young and a virgin. Why was her blessing of a birth so much more difficult?

What if God had honored Mary's heart to "make them stop" as the political system crucified her son?
God's answer to Mary's questions as to why it must be this way was not found in the moment.
You and I would be destined to eternal damnation, that's what.

Mary's blessings was that she was favored by God. Blessing has nothing to do with temporal and and visible circumstances. Mary's blessings was not in how God improved her situation, but that He used her in His-story.

The Bible says Mary clung to (treasured) God's blessings and pondered them in her heart. I use the word ponder often because I was so impressed years ago that "Mary pondered these things". Ponder is from the word symballousa, which means to place together for comparison. Its like focusing on a piece of a puzzle. While you are looking at the piece, you are really looking for how and where the piece fits in the whole puzzle.

Mary's Song has a beautiful tune. We just have to listen.

I think Christmas is a good time to ponder Mary's pondering, don't you?

Can you learn from a video?

This is a short video of the argument for the existence of God. I am curious as to whether you think it is effective. With the popularity of YouTube, can we really learn from video instruction?
Watch it and see what you think.

Leibinz Contingency Argument

You may have come to a quick answer, "yes" or "no". On the other hand my question may have raised more questions for you, like

what do you mean by effective?
what is it the presenter wants from me?
would some people get what he is saying better than others?

Obviously, the sponsor of this YouTube video wanted you to learn something. But what is learning anyway? Is it obtaining new knowledge? or is it being transformed by new knowledge?

The science of teaching is called pedagogy. Educators know that teaching must stimulate learning. Animation in the video presentation is pretty good. Learning involves inquiry and the presenter uses questions to answer questions. The points being made are concise and thoughtful, rational and orderly.

So, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. Did you obtain new knowledge? Are you different? What is the likelihood that people you know would learn anything from the video? be transformed by it? If you feel that they would, then adherence to good pedagogy is effective. If you feel that the video was interesting, but I am not sure I am smarter or different as a result of it, then what might we learn about learning? I'm not sure i know many people who would be smarter or transformed by the video.

Let's explore this issue by linking pedagogy (effective teaching) to some of my more recent blogs. First, knowledge has two meanings. One is from Greek word "eido" which means knowledge I gain though my physical senses. This is mainly a cognitive activity. The other word is "gnosis." This knowledge is what we get through experience that doesn't rely on our physical senses. This kind of knowledge is more affective or based on emotions.

Let me illustrate.

If you have a friend you know is smart, how do you know? You may know that he graduated from college and made really good grades. You may know his IQ is very high. He may win the trivia games at parties. This is "eido" knowledge that your friend is smart. You have information that you acquired through your mind.

However, you have been with this friend many times when choices needed to be made. You benefited from his right choices. He had answers to your questions that made your life work better. You could feel comfortable that he is smart. You could depend on him to know what to do. This is "gnosis" knowledge that he is smart. You have experienced him being smart and so you "gnosis" know. You trust him for direction in your life and you feel good about acting on his advice.

To gain more "eido" knowledge and learn how smart he is, you must receive information though your senses that connects with your mind. At some level you have knowledge, but you are not likely to act on that knowledge except in superficial ways. You are not likely to trust him with important decisions that affect you. Through your experiences of being involved with him when he exercised his smartness, your emotions were affected. This provided you with "gnosis" knowledge of your friend. You become different or transformed as your "eido" and your "gnosis" knowledge work together to gain knowledge of how smart you friend really is.

Now, back to the video, was it effective? Well, it might have been effective at providing you with a rational for why God exists ("eido" knowledge), depending on whether your mind is capable of handling the information. Further, if the question is not salient to you or relevant to you, if it makes no difference in your life that this argument provides a rationale for the existence of God, then you likely would not attend to the information in the video enough to learn what is being presented. So, to gain "eido" knowledge about the existence of God, you would have to have the mental ability and the motivation to learn what is being presented.

However, even if you are able and motivated to learn (gain "eido" knowledge) what the presenter wishes you to know, what must happen for you to be transformed by the knowledge. That is, what would cause new knowledge to make you different? Based on the knowledge of knowledge, you would need "gnosis" knowledge, an experience of rationale for the existence of God. Emotionally experiencing the argument makes you trust the knowledge gained by the argument. This is the key to good pedagogy.

Wait, I am not sure that all educators accept that teaching is more than giving someone information or "eido" knowledge. In fact, while educators speak about "experiential learning", my "gnosis" knowledge of teachers leads me to believe that most see pedagogy as obtaining information through cognitive processes. For clarity purposes, maybe we should call instructing in a way that the student obtains both "eido" and "gnosis" knowledge TRANSFORMATIVE PEDAGOGY?

Certainly worth pondering, for some of you anyway ....

Maybe U just hug'em?

We have debates, discussions, arguments, disagreements, whatever you want to call them all the time with other people. Some times they are close to us like family and friends and sometimes we just know them as acquaintances. Social media has increased the frequency and the access to argument and conflict. Most of the time we just don't get anywhere with it. We leave thinking, "they just don't get it." We may even think they are "stupid", a screw is loose upstairs, the elevator doesn't go to the top.

If we step back a bit, what is really going on. I have blogged about knowledge, truth, and faith and this blog fits into that stream of consciousness. What generally is happening is that we cannot come to the same conclusion, given we both have really good reasoning for our conclusion and can easily see flaws in their logic.

In reality, most people can put together decent rationale for their arguments and are somewhat offended when their capability is drawn into question. It is obvious there is real conflict, but while it appears to occur in the conclusions, it is not so obvious the conflict exists in the core assumptions from which the conclusions are derived.

Here is an ageless example. One of the main, if not the key, disagreement about Jesus is whether He is God or not. One reason for Islamic Jihad against Christians is because the Trinity violates Islam's belief there is only one true God worthy of worship. Claiming Jesus is God is blasphemous. The core assumptions behind this conflict came way before Mohammed wrote down the pillars of Islam. From the first Christmas the claim that Jesus is God was challenged. By Easter it was the chorus of the Gnostics. Who were these people and why did they not come to the same conclusion that the Apostles did?

There was a prevailing core assumption among Gnostics that matter and spirit could not coexist. Since God was spirit and Jesus was human, then Jesus could not be God. The Gnostic worldview actually came from the two Greek words for Knowledge, eido and gnosis. Eido is knowledge we gain through our physical senses and gnosis is knowledge we gain through experience not involving our physical senses. Gnosis knowledge then applied to knowledge of God or spirit world.

This is the basic worldview distinction that exist today and are core assumptions that determine most everything else we believe. If this binary option underwrites much of our conflict, how will we ever resolve conflict? We will never agree on conclusions if we start at different places. We will never prove Jesus is God through physical senses. At some point it is self evident to us that He is who He says He is or he is not. 

That is what we call faith. Faith is the core assumptions we hardly think about, find self evident and that we cannot prove. "Faith is the evidence of things not seen." I blogged previously that faith comes from the interplay and synergy of eido and gnosis. Maybe that is a good way to think about why we believe what we do. What seems crazy to me is not that some people are stupid and I am not, but that we rely on the debate of conclusions, ignoring the conflict in core assumptions from which disagreement comes.

We can continue the futile wars of logic, or we can debate something we cannot prove, or we can just hug 'em. That is the choice we can make ....

"Christian Morality": an oxymoron?

There's always a surge in reference to "Christian morality" in Presidential election cycles. This year has been no exception. The heat is on due to the ever increasing assault on traditional values of marriage, life, Christmas, democratic capitalism, and God Himself. Churches, apologists, and lay theologians have come from everywhere to protect what I often hear called "Christian morality."




This phrase has generally bothered me. My personal spiritual growth involves an understanding what Jesus talks about when He says "The Kingdom of Heaven is like this ...." I've never heard Him follow this with - conform to a particular code of conduct.

In fact Jesus tended to have His harshest words for the Pharisees, the greatest moralists of His day. Paul goes to great length to emphasize that anything added to the resurrection misses the point of the Gospel of Grace, especially morality. So what is the genesis of the notion of "Christian morality"?

I don't know!!!

But I do believe the term is an oxymoron. That is, the two terms used together contradict themselves. For them not to, they must take on a different meaning than originally intended. While Jesus referred to the Kingdom, not to Christians, there was some early reference to disciples of Jesus as Christians, Throughout the past 2000 years, the term Christian has been contaminated to refer to people who have a particular cultural or political persuasion. CS Lewis says that the term Christian has been applied to people who act like disciples of Christ. John Wesley preached a sermon called "The Almost Christian" to describe those who had all the values and behavior of Christians, but did not have the faith.

Morality is a term that technically refers to the notion of the right and wrong code of conduct for a society. Morality differs from laws in that law establishes a formal punishment system for violation whereas morality ostracizes (questions the legitimacy) rather than penalizes offenders.

Often morality is confused with culture. Culture technically describes behavior that is normal or expected and aligns with society's values. Doing the wave at a football game is cultural, not moral. But it is easy to see how most people combine morality with cultural norms and compile a behavioral code of conduct that everyone in a society must conform to or be rejected by the society. So morality is really a social exchange established by a society where individuals trade their behavior for acceptance.

When I put codes of conduct next to what Jesus says about the Kingdom, I get contradiction. The Gospel of Grace is not a behavioral code of conduct. In fact Jesus often references the same behavior that is acted out from two different motives. He says charitable giving or prayer or fasting with an social exchange focus may gain approval of people (morality), but is not what it means to be a Kingdom dweller. Jesus says the work of God is to repent and believe (trust a completely different mindset), not adhere to codes of conduct.

I certainly have no issue with wanting everyone in society to adopt what we see as a code of conduct that produces the best society. But by pushing a "Christian morality," we testify to a dying world that being a disciple of Jesus is just a code of conduct that competes with other moralities. This is not light to a dark world, its just someone's preferred criteria for exchange. The end game of pushing a particular morality is making "sinners" feel judged and condemned. Not the point of the Cross.  

It may be the reason that the church has become irrelevant to the millennial and even more so to pre-millennial. I somehow believe that these rising generations would fall in love with Jesus, but its hard for them to date Him when their parent, "Christian morality," demands otherwise.

"core assumptions"

All knowledge is not true but we act on knowledge we trust is true. We spend great amount of time collecting data and analyzing it to insure our actions are the best for us to take. Of course we are subject to many self-serving biases, such as confirmation, stereotype, and attribution, which can lead us to erroneous conclusions for our action.

However, at the heart of your thinking, feeling and acting is what is called "core assumptions."  These are beliefs you hold dear because of what you trust to be absolutely true, giving you the faith to act on them. We might say that “core assumptions” are what you believe, but you cannot prove, and do not debate, but use to prove everything else you believe. It doesn’t matter how smart or clever you are, you have basic beliefs that all of your rational conclusions emerge from. 

No one really knows where you get your core assumptions, but some experts believe that you are influenced in your formative years by people, culture, and experiences that made a significant impact, positively or negatively, on your development. Core assumptions are the basis for your worldviews that influence how you feel, think and act using filters and biases built into your human nature.

In proving theorems in science, which is the process many use to finding truth, scientists start with core assumptions. In faith they believe something from which they use rational arguments to build further conclusions. Mathematicians call these self evident truths “axioms” and “postulates”. The reality is that regardless of how logical the scientists are and how strong they believe their assumptions, if the initial assumptions are not absolutely true, the conclusions reached are flawed. Darwin confessed in developing the theory of evolution that if his core assumption is ever determined to be wrong, then his theory does not hold to be true.

There are many things in your life you assume to be true that seem self evident. Some people have confessed that they trust that the father they know is their biological father and they were born where they are told is their birthplace without DNA tests or eye witness accounts. The reality of life is that each of us adopt core assumptions that we can’t get or need absolute proof. Often we are not fully conscious of what makes our core assumptions because they are so dearly and closely held that we never question them.  You will be amazed when you compare what you demand proof of, like the existence of God, and at the same time accept knowledge to be true that you never question. Accepting knowledge as true without the burden of proof and refusing to accept knowledge because we do not have 100% proof is a significant problem in worldviews. Either can leave us with core assumptions that hold us back from living an abundant and virtuous life.

Experts in decision-making have found that we all are subject to what is called “bounded rationality”, regardless of how smart we are. There comes a point when we have to decide and act because we can never get all the facts and even if we could, our minds are limited and flawed, incapable of correctly exploring all the possible decision paths to select the best solution. Deciding and acting on decisions ultimately requires us to have faith is something we have not been able to prove.

I can't prove what I just said, its one of my core assumptions .... 

Maybe life is more than knowing your ABC's

Lets pretend I want to gain favor with you, so I plan to buy you a present for your birthday. I heard you mention to someone that you needed a sweater and so I asked you what color you liked the best. It may seem straightforward that I would likely then buy you a sweater this color? But is life ever that simple? 

I now have knowledge of the color you say you like best. But can I trust that this is really the color you like best? Can I believe what you said? If I know you to be someone who listens well and is always honest, then I probably will believe that what you said is true. If I know you to be a person that jokes around or doesn't pay attention well to what is being asked or can’t make decisions well or normally lies, then although I have knowledge of what you said, I am not sure I can believe that this is true. I might look around and even ask others to get for myself some evidence to whether this is true. In the end, the question for me remains, should I buy you the sweater or not? 

If I believe what you say and aspire to have relationship with you, I act in faith, trusting I will please you. If I cannot trust you, then I do not have faith to buy you this sweater and I hold back on serving you in a way that could bring us closer together. This is of course a very simple example, but one that repeats itself over and over in many ways. 

I know what you said about yourself, but can I trust it to be true, and then have the faith to act on what I know.  It defines all of our relationships, even our relationship with God. Living life is a constant flow of knowledge, truth, and faith working together to influence what you do.

I have been posting some blogs aimed at gaining an understanding of worldview. At the heart of living your life well is your worldview of truth, knowledge and faith. Have you ever wondered why advances in science and technology have not had any impact on corruption, broken marriages, war, crime, the mysteries of death, and many other ills in our world that make life miserable for so many? Access to knowledge is at the highest level in the history of the world and growing rapidly every day. Knowledge has provided communities with benefits of economic growth and higher standards of living, but there is still so much fear and anxiety, guilt and shame, depression, and sadness. 

What is it about knowledge, truth, and faith that can help you understand this better? Many worldview courses explore topics that form the pillars of your life, like work, economics, family, government, and religion. Yet, living an abundant and virtuous life involves more than just getting more information on these subjects. 

You need a framework of knowledge, truth and faith to transform your worldviews. 

Christmas: radical recruitment

I heard a pastor say today that God did not send Jesus to earth as a recruiter. There are several examples that he must have been trying to bring to mind to make his point. We are in the middle of colleges who are in a competitive struggle to recruit high school football players that will help them win. We hear a lot about the emergence of new jobs where there is a shortage of skilled people from which companies can recruit potential candidates.

In these instances the idea of recruitment presupposes that the recruiter is looking for the best, looking for those who can be stars, who can make the organization a winner. I guess the pastor was trying to say that God did not send Jesus to find those who could help Him win, who had it all together, the most competent, the smartest, the best.

That is a good point we need to hear, but it struck me that this idea of recruiting did not mean God was not involved in recruiting. I think its stinkin thinkin to consider that Jesus' coming to earth as a babe, to live among us, suggests God is not recruiting. But rather that God is a radical recruiter. He sends His Son to us as a babe, seeking out candidates that do not have it all together. He violates all cultural norms to recruit a woman caught in adultery. He seeks out a tax collector who was the most despised by the masses. When he encounters those who appear to everyone else to be winners, He tells them that to join His team they have to be born again because their birth has given them pride or He tells them they have to give all they have away because their riches are an obstacle to His Kingdom.

I think what is radical about Christmas is not that God is not recruiting, but the kinds of people He wants to recruit. Are you "sick", incapable, in need, sad, oppressed, guilty and in shame?

Then HE WANTS YOU !!

Now that is radical and when that message is received, it makes for a great Christmas gift!!    

Becoming "radicalized"

Becoming "radicalized" is an often used phrase these days referring to Islamic Jihadist that are so committed to their faith that they commit atrocities in the name of Allah. More often than not this commitment involves losing their own lives. However, dying is not considered a loss because by dying, they are promised an eternal life that has a significant appeal to them. What makes this trade radical?


Many pundits have tried to explain the rise of Islamic terrorism to poverty and hopelessness. Yet, when examined closely we see educated professionals becoming "radicalized". We see women becoming "radicalized." We see mothers of new born children becoming "radicalized." We scratch our heads wondering what is it with becoming "radicalized?"

Let's step back from the emotion of these acts and the cultural biases that we all have in trying to understand anything and see this from a different perspective. Maybe Islamic Jihad is not so radical. The idea that life in this form is not the ultimate and a person can take an action in this life to insure an eternal destiny in an afterlife is quite appealing. Why wouldn't we all be drawn to a religion that we can control what happens to us for all of eternity by what we do today?

Oh, maybe we are, Culturally relative legalism is normal for the human condition, not radical.

Maybe trusting Christ for our redemption and eternal life because of what He did for us, not we do for Him is what's radical. Maybe living from a faith that doesn't depend on what we do is really becoming "radicalized"?

This is certainly worth pondering .....

Footnote: For those who don't like pondering - while normal human acts of self-righteousness destroys life, the radical works of redemptive grace restores it  

Heck, may still require pondering, oh well!