Oh Happiness There's Grace! Enough for us and the whole human race!

Bonhoeffer has so much in his writings, my mind is still thinking about his first chapter on cheap grace and costly grace. He ruined me. After I read that chapter, I applied that chapter to every Christian thing I encountered. I became overly aware of every time I presented the gospel and how I presented it. Because the truth is, we of course want people to accept Christ and be saved by Him, but out of our own desires and  sympathies for their soul we make the gospel something easy and pleasing. We make it cheap. Anyone can get it. Which is true. However, if I sharing only a portion of the gospel - the portion that is popular and easy to share - just to win a great number of souls to "heaven" then I'm not really sharing the true gospel. I'm sharing Chloe's heart. The outcome won't be true followers of the true Christ, but followers of Chloe's heart, which is an extremely scary thought. It reminds me of this devotion book I'm going through right now (My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers-read it). Chambers takes several days to emphasize the Christian's responsibility to be the Bridegroom's friend, all based on the passage where John explains that he rejoices to hear the Bridegroom's voice and ends with the famous verse -"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30 Christians fail to be the Bridegroom's friend when they stand in the Bridegroom's way and become necessities to a soul because they preach a false message or give commands out of what could be a genuine care for the soul. However, because the Christian is constantly giving direction to the soul, discipling it in a way that isn't God's order, the soul is following and worshipping them, and in actuality doesn't even know who God is.  So essentially we do the same thing when we preach the cheap "grace." I can most easily see this cheap grace when in my Jihad and Crusade class Pope's  and other church leaders proclaimed that God would forgive all of men's sins if they would go and fight "for Him" in pursuit of the holy city Jerusalem. But now I'm like afraid that every Christian song like David Crowder's "Oh Happiness" is a song of cheap grace. Or in his song How He Loves when he sings the line "if grace is an ocean then i'm sinking." Which these things are true, God's grace does abound. But I don't know, I guess I'm over thinking everything, which goes against Bonhoeffer anyways, since faith transcends intellect.
p.s. commented on Amanda's

Faith is not rational.

We ended class Tuesday with a discussion about the
rationality of faith. I agree with Dr. Talmage that “Putting it into categories
destroys the incarnation.” We can’t understand God by rational methods- that is
why following God is a journey of faith. Bonhoeffer (who is like another Kierkegaard to
me- some of you will understand the gravity of that comparison) agrees that
rational logic has no place in discipleship. The issue in question: didn’t God
give man the ability to be rational? Did he not make men rational creatures?
Looking at page 73,
“Man must decide for himself what is good by using his
conscience and his knowledge of good and evil. The commandment may be variously
interpreted, and it is God’s will that it should be interpreted and explained:
for God has given man a free will to decide what he will do. But this means
disobedience from the start. Doubt and reflection take the place of spontaneous
obedience… In short, it is a retreat from the reality of God to the
speculations of men, from faith to doubt.”
The issue for Adam and Eve in the Garden was not choosing
God or rejecting him. They already knew Him. However, because he gave them free
will, their decision was to sin or not to sin. They knew God- they knew he was
good, and he gave them only one command- not to eat from the Tree of Life. This
was a command to be followed with unquestioning obedience, but they doubted his
word. They decided to figure things out on their own, thinking in their limited
human knowledge that God was holding out on them. They rationalized the command
they had been given, and listened to the influence of Satan. They did not
choose righteousness, and so they set the precedent for generations to come-
rational thought. Thinking that our “knowledge of good and evil” is more
applicable than God’s command is the basis of rationality (which is the
possession of reason, and reason is “the mental powers concerned with forming
conclusions, judgments, or inferences”). The problem with this is that our
mental powers are faulty. We are not perfect, we do not have perfect knowledge,
and the One who does is requesting spontaneous obedience. Reading over this it
kind of sounds like we just need to be brainless Christians following blindly
an elusive voice from the sky… but that’s not it at all! I think it takes a
whole lot more maturity to listen to one who knows more than you, who can see
the big picture, and who has your best interests at heart than to run around
saying “lalalalalalala I don’t hear you! I wanna do it MY way!”
One last thought, because this is way longer than I wanted
it to be so everyone has probably stopped reading it by now so I’m just talking
to the air, but… Think of all that Adam and Eve missed out on because they ate
from the tree. They gave up a perfect life because they thought their way was
better. Obviously, I don’t have a shot at a perfect life, but I do not want to
miss God’s best for me because I am so determined to do things my own way. This
is why following him in obedience is so important. If we aren’t obeying then
how can we even say we’re following? We are just making choices and hoping He
blesses them. On that note, I love love love the quote from Luther on page 93! We won't understand... He is too big for us to comprehend and "his thoughts are not our thoughts"... so we must have faith.
But I digress…
P.S. commented on Joy’s “All of it Together”

Does HE know YOU?

In Class on tuesday, we had the discussion of whether or not it is ok to kill someone just because they are a bad or evil person. For example with the situation of Hitler. I didn't say anything in class, I just listened to the discussion. And I may be going off on my on tangent here, but it reminded me alot of the idea of capitol punishment. If someone went and intentionally murdered another person, then does that person deserve to die as well? This issue is definitely a debated one for sure. In the aspect of Hitler's case where he had thousands of Jews slaughtered. That is another whole issue! That is thousands of innocent people! Of course that is wrong! However, in view of Bonhoeffer, it was brought up that he is not as concerned about morality as he is on whether one has encountered Christ. In my personal view, killing (murder) is wrong. What Hitler did was very wrong, no doubt about it. I believe that Bonhoeffer was looking at something completely different. He was looking at a person's soul. Have you truly encountered God? Yes, some may say "I know God" but does God Know YOU? I think, just as Dr. Talmage mentioned, the crucial thing here is whether or not GOD knows You and if you have truly had an encounter with Him.

Ps i commented on Lane's post
  

Still On My Mind

Read Romans 13 before reading this post.

I'm sure a few others have mentioned this already. The Bonheffer discussion has taken residence in my subconscious. I'm not in a wrestling match with it, but it is following me around.

Samantha and I discussed another side of it last night. The circumstance of attack from another citizen is different than oppression from a leader. The argument should distinguish between the two.

I had a few thoughts about the actual scenario myself. Quite often it is possible to escape an attack without death of either party. Due to the fact that we don't often encounter these predicaments (I'd dare say that no student in the class has), we exaggerate them to be a "kill or be killed" situation. It doesn't matter who the person is, there is a point where any person will stop (physically through incapacitation, psychologically through pain). It is not necessary to kill in order to avoid death.

Another thought: the refusal to kill is not the same as pacifism.

I'm still not sure what to think. We are fighters. We want to survive, to kill, and to win. We're corrupt and we are tempted to find pleasure in justifying situations in which we can kill (e.g. Zombie apocalypse) or to outrightly sin.

Thank Christ for his sacrifice that covers all sins, even undefinable ones.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Lane's "Bonhoeffer"

The Worst

"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I AM the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
-Ezekiel 25:17

Yes, this is the very same line of scripture quoted in Pulp Fiction, but in the Biblical context God is giving a prophecy regarding the Philistines. Specifically, they sought to destroy Judah with malice and vengeance in their hearts, so the Lord swore to annihilate them. There are various verses in the Bible regarding the vengeance of the LORD upon those that seek the blood of his people and those that openly mock His name. You know, I honestly think that we, as Christians, must come to a point where we stop playing the whole "I'm a sinner, I'm only human, I can't fully change my ways" game that this culture is so accustomed to, because we have got to draw a line at some point between who we are the Bride of Christ and who is the enemy of God. We must remember that there is an enemy that wishes to rape and kill the Bride of Christ, and although God will have his vengeance upon the enemy a thousand times over, in this life and at the End of Days, we must fight him at every turn, resisting not just the sin in our own hearts but those that would wish to make us compromise our beliefs and openly defy the Spirit of God, for those people are literally abominations in the eyes of God-there's no getting around it.

I say all of this to address not just Bonhoeffer's decision to kill Hitler, but the all the drama surrounding Joseph Kony, a man that Invisible Children has declared, in no uncertain terms, is on the same level of evil as Hitler. If you've actually put in some legitimate research about the crisis and have done more than just watch the 30 min video, you would agree that Kony is (or was) worthy of being compared to Hitler in light of his human and heretical atrocities. You may remember that I even supported KONY 2012, shared the video on some of my Facebook groups and had at least two Bible verses to bolster my resolve, namely verses asking the Godly to seek justice and defend the oppressed. I no longer actively support the IC's efforts to catch Kony, but the question I have struggled with throughout all of this is: what exactly are the people of God supposed to do about Kony? We all have a sort of ministry that we live out on a day to day basis, but should part of that ministry really involve donating money and activity to a secular organization that works with a corrupt regime to catch a madman that hasn't truly been active in the region for several years? Do we pray that we catch Kony ourselves and put him to justice for his crimes against the Lord or do we stand back and focus our time in other places, letting him do evil and cause suffering while we focus on the typical homeless/foreign/unreached fronts?

It's not the same situation, but it is similar to Bonhoeffer's in that he was a theologian, a man of the scripture, who found himself plotting to kill not just a terrorist but the very ruler of the country he was born in. Bonhoeffer was a preacher, not a rebel; a lover, not a fighter, and yet he found himself compelled to not just teach his people and keep them from harm but destroy the source of the problem itself. It seems that we would have an obligation, as the church (salt and light of the world, living beings filled with the fire of God), to resist the evils of this world in every way possible, perhaps even going as far as to bring down the very same dark tower that causes those problems. If we call ourselves disciples, we must entirely focus ourselves upon Christ, who, while he did suffer and die on the cross, faced his death and those that befouled his church with a fierce resolution that few people will ever know in their lifetimes. What if we followed the same fierce example of Christ's resolution on the cross to face our sins and those that oppress the church? What if we actually took action, in His name and for His glory, against those that defied the name of the LORD and took that is rightfully His? The ancient Israelites did the same thing-why shouldn't we?

Notice that this is less of a definitive statement on what I believe, but a look into the questioning surrounding Kony and Hitler in the eyes of God. If we are to transcend the culture we live in and actually look at the Word of God says, we will discover what God actually thinks. We just have to be willing to do so, and we must do so before we can ever hope to expand God's kingdom in any mission front. Feel free to comment or complain as you wish, thank you for reading, I commented on Josh Spell's Heidegger's Miserable "Faith".

Bonhoeffer

Bonhoeffer is one of my personal heroes. I had already heard about him before we started reading him in class but my curiosity peaked when I saw him on the reading list for this semester. He has personally challenged me to get deeper in my knowledge of God and my knowledge of the Bible. He also challenges me to always live out what I teach, preach, or just say in general. We all need to learn a little from Bonhoeffer. He had personal convictions and he stood by them regardless of what would happen to him. Which as we know it wound up costing him his life. That's another thing I've spent so much time thinking about. When it comes down to it am I willing to die for a cause? Would I give up my life to share the good news of Christ with others? Would I stand by my personal convictions even if I knew it would cost me my life? Things I've spent so much time pondering the last couple of weeks.

I commented on Joy's post

All Of It Together

I must say it was a relief to hear that I was not the only one struggling with why we were reading what we were this semester. I understood the reasoning behind some of it but other pieces we read I just could not figure their purpose... I still am not sure on all of it to be honest, but I have definitely enjoyed the books we have read!

Bonhoeffer - I love the way he challenges me, I wish it was a book I owned, I may just have to go buy it after this semester is over (don't worry I borrowed it from the library instead!). He really challenges me to know my word better and what it says. To live out what I claim to believe in. He stood on his biblical convictions even though it ended up costing him his life.

The discussion that took much of our time in class was on his involvement with plotting to kill Hitler. I must say I am not sure I struggled with that aspect of him much (even though I believe I would struggle killing someone) because in the Old Testament God had His people wipe out entire nations. I must say I am not a pacifist. I agree with turning the other check but I also believe that the Bible teaches we are to stand with His people... I know that there are some in the class who take the stand of not killing. However, when the question was raised would you kill to protect your family? I am protective of my friends too. If I know they do not have a personal relationship with Christ then the answer to that question is easy for me. Let me ask this though, no this is not supporting pacifism, what would your friend or family member want you to do if they were ready to meet Jesus but the attacker wasn't? Conversely, what would you do if there was a large crowd of people who didn't know Jesus and an attacker who didn't know Jesus?... Playing with all the different possibilities in your head will make you sit down and figure out, at least contemplate, what your biblical convictions are on these matters.

PS -Rachel K

Heidegger's Miserable “Faith”

This semester, I have been extraordinarily generous with our texts. I've read them with an open mind; I've given allowances here and there to accommodate their ideas; and I've pushed aside my own thoughts, making an active attempt to see things through the authors' eyes. I have done so since the beginning. See the comment I left on Goldman's first post:

For our purposes here (understanding what Yeats wanted to communicate), it does little good to view this poem through our [Southern Baptist] evangelical lens. We should try and see the world from his eyes, if only for a second. - (25 January, 2012)

Also see what I wrote concerning Martin Heidegger back in February:

Hopefully, I have given the bloggers some biographical perspective that allows them to see the work and philosophy of Heidegger in another view, other than our 21^st century one, which often ignores historical context, and our evangelical Christian one, which often fails to wrestle with philosophers on their own terms.

Read my other blog posts and my other comments, where I have brought outside sources to shed greater light on our subjects; where I have been extraordinarily generous in my reading; and where none can accuse me of not having wrestled with the texts.

The professors know this as well. After reading my "Explication of Heidegger's 'Fundamental Question,'" not even Dr. Talmage can say I didn't wrestle with the man on his own terms, which I clearly defined and understood. I am an intellectual heavyweight. But now my generosity is spent.

Today, we came full circle when I asked the question, "What is faith?" Endo, Bonhoeffer and Frankl are taking us back to where we started: Heidegger's fundamental question: "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" In my paper, I wrote,

When one truly asks the question, it strips away all his securities and formerly held presumptions, and it makes him vulnerable to whatever he finds, whether he finds a real or pretended foundation for being or none at all (Spell 1).

And also,

To engage in metaphysics, one does not adhere to a set of fashionable "truths." Instead, he takes a leap of [uncertainty] without knowing where he will land. Though he may fall on solid ground, he may also fall into the abyss, but that is the risk all metaphysicians are willing to take (Spell 2).

A metaphysician is one who questions. To question is to will to know, and to know is to be able to learn; therefore, to question is to be willing to learn what knowledge he does not possess. Someone who is unwilling to learn and believes he already "knows" the answers of life cannot be a metaphysician, because,

A faith that does not perpetually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith is no faith but merely a convenience: the believer simply makes up his mind to adhere to the traditional doctrine (Heidegger 7).

Martin Heidegger's “faith” is synonymous to “doubt,” and I utterly reject it. His opinions amount to nothing. They lead only to a dark, knowledgeless abyss— it's dead empty! Why question? I will not expose myself to the possibility of unfaith, because I've made my mind to adhere to the traditional Christian doctrine, which is this:

Now faith [is] the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

So what if it's convenient? I've simply decided to follow Jesus. Undoubtedly, someone reading Bonhoeffer will say, "How can you have faith in Jesus, when faith means you're uncertain of where he leads you?" But I am completely certain where he leads me, because he makes it absolutely clear:

If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you (John 15:20).

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (II Timothy 3:12).

And again, "How can you be certain of that?" Because I've made up my mind to believe the traditional doctrine (see above). I have the greater faith: the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. The people of old received their commendation for their faith. Now we receive it for our skepticism. Preposterous! I am content with being a simple Christian, like the ones in Abernathy's 202 class. With them, therefore, I stand.

I have stared into the abyss and, weighing the dangers, have walked away from it. To the abyss with you and your miserable, corrosive “faith,” Martin Heidegger! You wolf! You Anti-Christ! You dim-witted, mini-Hitler! Begone with you and your whore, Reason! I'll have no part with either of you.

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. (Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569)

Meh

I am not really one for an argument. In fact I flea confrontation. A good discussion- I might participate in but it depends on the people involved. When entering into a discussion like the one we had in class together it is so very important to remember a couple of things:

1. Listen

2. Be respectful: do not allow emotions to attack one another. Raising voices often does not change anyone's mind.

I could give a lot more rules for pleasant discussions but I don't suppose many people want to have pleasant discussions when discussing something so emotional as other people's lives.

On the Topic of Bonhoeffer: I find it interesting given what I have read of "The Cost of Discipleship" that Bonhoeffer chose to be apart of a plot to kill Hitler, he didn't really seem to allude to many of his political philosophies within this work. Although, I suppose that makes lots of sense since this book is truly written for the church.

In class today, I think we were addressing more than one issue....

I would say the majority of the class and the Christian community accepts the notion of rebellion against an unjust ruler. The question is not whether or not rebellion against an unjust ruler when that ruler is asking a Christian to disobey God's commands because I can't think of anyone who would disagree with that idea. Further, however separately, if someone is trying to stab you, the Bible does not particularly advocate allowing that person to kill you. However, some people do read it this way.

The REAL question revolves around whether or not as a Christian it is right to kill an unjust ruler. And I think a lot of people were so distracted by the 12 million people in concentrations camps (a terrible injustice) to get at the deeper question. Yes, there are 12 million people in the concentration camps, but that does not mean the solution to their freedom is to kill the leader, necessarily or that after that leader has been killed that the action is just. Leaving Hitler alive could cause him to create a worse situation for the people in Germany, but killing Hitler could cause an uprising of a vengeful force....

In Nursing 252 "Professional Socialization" we had a 2 hour class about ethical dilemmas. The fact of the matter is the reason these kind of things are called into question is because they are ethical dilemmas, neither option is preferable. Both options will result in negatives, but the one making the decision must weigh the options and make a decision. Now, obviously in class we were discussing ethical dilemmas which can be found in hospital settings however, the principle does not change.

I'm not really sure if I said anything at all.....

Rant

Reading Silence for me has been a struggle in a lot of different ways. For me, it does not feel like an honors work. Instead, it feels more like a book I should be reading in intercultural studies. In fact I was telling Dr. Wilson this today. He said he might look into it. Nevertheless, Silence touches on a lot of things we have been discussing in terms of crossing cultures for extended periods of time: culture shock, loss of routine, potential persecution, appropriate boldness, building relationships, Type I and Type II cultural dilemmas, hot climate vs. cold climate, so on and so forth. As an individual bound for cross cultural work, I keep thinking that this story is real and that it is not merely a novel. I mean, the last book I read on crossing cultures in deadly persecution was Through Gates of Splendor by Elisabeth Elliot.

As Malory Green was saying in class the other day, I, too, have been wondering what I would do in their shoes. Would I trample? Does the concept of trampling the fumie even matter to me? Is that a social conditioning for me as a Protestant? Why don't the physical aspects matter to me? and should they or shouldn't they? If I trample, is it because I am bold in my faith? Don't we walk by faith and not by sight? Isn't the fumie just another sight?

Like Sara, I went through and circled the times I saw the word "face" in the text. A while back I read this novel by Ted Dekker called Blessed Child, which is about a boy named Caleb who while narrating says he walks in the kingdom while he prays. I remember that at the time, I wanted that. I wanted my prayer life to be that powerful that I was walking with God in the kingdom while I prayed, that I could see it the way Dekker describes Caleb doing. I kind of felt that way again as Rodrigues starts talking about the face of Christ. I have never really thought about what Christ's face looked like in certain situations. My thoughts on His face are simple. I imagine a stereotypical Jewish face of almost a sombre expression. I mean, we sing songs all the time about seeking His face, but do we actually do that? Am I so whole-heartedly seeking after the Lord that I even seek to know the details of His face though I am still in my humanity?

All in all, to me Silence is about prayer. One thing that does not seem to fall out of the plot is Rodrigues's prayer life despite the seeming silence of God. God speaks in strange ways: through people, through situations, etc. etc. I am guilty of not seeing things until later, and frankly, I look for His responses in ways that I can understand and comprehend, not necessarily the ways He chooses.

COMMENTED ON MALLORY'S

I am sorry. I am aware this is late.

I Will Never Be Silent

This book is so epic! Just the persecution aspect in itself is enough to change someone's life. When we accept Christ as our Savior we accept a call to be willing do what these people did. Not all of then obviously but the willingness to go and to do anything to share the good news of Christ. I personally want to be a missionary overseas so this makes me think a whole lot. If it came down to it would I be willing to die for the cause of Christ is a question I have been asking myself a lot lately. I think god is calling me to plant churches in India. The country is tolerant of other religions for the most part but there are radical Muslims in the country and intolerant people of other religious backgrounds so reading the book kind of puts me on edge. I know though that being called and accepting that as part of my requirements as a Christian there is no way that I could stay silent about God.

I commented on Susan's post

The Brother and The Bear

One section that I loved (which potentially may end up relating to my research paper topic) was The Brother, where Jesus sets a new standard for murder--but even more so for love. He seems to hint at controversial subjects, such as race, when he says: "The brother's life as a divine ordinance, and God alone has power over life and death... for the follower of Jesus there can be no limit as to who is his neighbor except as the Lord decides." In his time, he was taking a stand against Hitler's treatment of the Jews as well as the Civil Rights movement going on in America. I am hoping to somehow pull a Mitchell and relate this to Faulkner's "The Bear" and the statements it makes on slavery and racism. I believe that Faulkner was arguing against slavery--not because of the damage that the absence of it caused, but because it left a curse on the land. The degradation of their fellow man left the slaveholders unable to bear the guilt as time went on, for ultimately Ike realized the weight of his and his ancestor's actions: murder. Essentially, I believe Bonhoeffer was trying to warn his fellow countrymen about such actions to prevent the ultimate judgement of their souls.

I commented on Mallory's apostatizing thing...

Never Silent

I have so much to say, I don’t quite know what to say. Silence changed my life in so many ways, and I’ve only read it once. I know if I read it again, my entire worldview will shift once again. Sara and Kala brought up so many questions I hadn’t even considered, and the questions I already had weren’t answered. I think I could discuss this book continuously and still have more things to talk about.

In class the other day, we were discussing Kichijiro and his being compared to Judas. As we were discussing it, a passage on the last page caught my eye. It was where Kichijiro was begging Rodrigues, yet again, to give him the sacraments. And suddenly, Kichijiro became the character I most related to. He was consistently apostatizing and yet he consistently crawled back to beg for forgiveness. And I realized that’s me. That’s every one of us who says that we’re a Christian.

We are consistently sinning and consistently crawling back to God, begging for His grace and forgiveness. And we, just as Kichijiro, don’t deserve for God to forgive once, let alone time after time, and yet He always does. He never turns His back on us when we need Him, and even though we may not hear Him, He is never truly silent. He is always beside us, even as we suffer with these annotated bibliographies, and multiple other homework assignments.

Until tomorrow,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Rachel’s post Maundy Tuesday

Love or an excuse for self-weakness?

     I'm still struggling with the question, did the priest apostatize to out of love or self-weakness? Endo was a masterful writer to leave the me and others contemplating this question.
     Rodrigues seems at first like a hero. For the first time he saw Jesus as not a strong suffering man, but a man weak from exhaustion, that said, "It's ok I love you anyways". So he trampled on the fumie. Was this apostasy?  He seems not to apostatize to save himself but the people slowly dying in The Pit. He seems to have sacrificial love for the people. After all isn't that what were suppose to do? Love God then people?
     However this brings another question to my mind...What about other martyrs that have died, refusing to apostatize, even when the lives of others were at stake? Did they not love the other people and put themselves above others? I don't think so. In Matthew 10:33 it says, "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.". So what does this mean for the priest, or the people in the pit that have already apostatize. Are they condemned to hell? I don't think so either. There have been many martyrs that have apostatize during torture, but then recanted and returned to Christ to be living sacrifices, and eventually became martyrs. 
    But did Rodrigues do that? Did he continue to serve God with his life, or did he continue down a slippery slope? There are so many unanswered questions that Endo leaves me with. I still can't decide if it was love or self-weakness. 

Thoughts about Silence

Books like these bring up topics that people can feel uncomfortable talking about. It brings up conversation that is edgy and a delicate topic. Subjects such as these tend to just be swept under the rug. One thing that I think about is the persecution that still goes on today- there is probably so much that goes on that no one knows about. In Vietnam for example churches are stil in secret and underground. Followers of Christ are put in jail and are threatened with violence against themselves and thier families. If that happened here in the US it would have media attention and wouldn't be tolerated. This novel reminds me of the book Night.

Concluding Silence

I think what is staying with me about Silence right now is the discussion of making Christianity relevant to the culture it is being introduced to. This is a pretty elementary thing, but missionaries should know that you cannot waltz into a place declaring that the heathen need to be saved and turn them into westerns. Now, I am not trying to be insensitive to the work of the Japanese missionaries of Silence. In fact, they probably did this less than most. I bringing this up just for us all to consider the implications. I rant and rant on my missionary soap box. To a degree we do not have to change the gospel. After all, it has the power to pierce to the depths etc... but the only way it can stick is if we realize what is nitty gritty and necessary and what is culture. I just started a job at a Thai restaurant and there are many types of people there. Some are Buddhist, and quite honestly, really western Buddhists having lived in America for quite sometime and even have children older than myself who were born and raised in the states. Far be it from me to compare my struggles with the tortures of the people in Silence... I don't see them forcing me to apostatize but I do share similarities with the Silence characters in being in the Asian-esque. I guess right now I am in a neat place (how ever minutely) in the realm of Silence.

Commented on Rachel's

spotlight and silence

There have been two of many worthwile tasks that have consumed my time the last few weeks have been shooting for our silent(ironic?) film(which im pretty excited about), and Silence. Silence has brought up a question at the end of the book that everyone has probably asked themselves, and that is, what would you do in that situation? The truth is, I can't answer that question. I have a hard enough time answering why I deny Christ and let myself do what is easy, as opposed to what is right. Every time i sin, I deny What Christ has done for me. I would say that I have failed miserably in the respect that we are to love our brother as ourself. If I can't stand for Christ for my own sake, how will I be able to stand for Christ at the cost of others? Who is to say that by denying him and sinning, those consequences will not effect the people I love; was David any different when he took the census? At any rate, this is how my gears have been running after the last few discussions in class...



p.s. I commented on Nicholas Sean Hampton's post.

The Faces of God

In class we discussed how the Pastor's view of Jesus' face changed throughout his life. At first he saw Jesus as a powerful savior who rules over the Earth, to a man beaten and bruised with a face filled with suffering. This caused the pastor to see Jesus at one point as more like a man than the all powerful savior of the world. We do this in society today all the time. We pick and choose which attributes of God we want to focus on at different times and for different reasons. We may focus on the Jesus who is merciful and kind, or the one who is loving towards the poor and needy, the Jesus who is jealous of us, or the one that is full of wrath, and so on and so on. I believe it is wrong to only focus on one part of God. It is important that we know and understand all of him to truly understand how awesome and powerful He is. The pastor began to lose faith because he only focused on the suffering God at one time. He forgot that the reason Jesus suffered was to save all sinners in the world and to come. We Christians must strive to know all of God, in order to completely appreciate Him and know Him.

I commented on Samuel Weeks

-Susan Berner

Theology Major's Time to Shine!! Hazzah!

So, I get back from Christmas break, I step foot in the familiar classroom and see many smiling faces of which I haven't seen in nearly a month, and I get ready for some life-changing literature. The first week passes, and then the second. We go through the fundamental basis of Metaphysics, we journey through Elliot's wasteland, and then we get into Faulkner, and I found myself saying, "I know this is not a Christian Lit. class, but where's the Jesus in all of this? This is a Christian campus by the way!" However, Last week, the Jesus started to flow in abundance, first with Endo in "Silence", and now with Bonhoeffer's "Cost of Discipleship". The Baptist in me is giddy with excitement.

One thing that I noticed early on with Endo is the emphasis on Sacrifice. I found similar arguments in Bonhoeffer, especially in Chapter 6 with the Beatitudes. This is a passage about midway down the page on page 107 of Bonhoeffer:

"Jesus Sees his disciples. They have publicly left the crowd to join him. He has called them, every one, and they have renounced everything at his call. Now they are living in want and privation, the poorest of the poor, the sorest afflicted, and the hungriest of the hungry. They have only him, and with him they have nothing, literally nothing in the world, but everything with and through God."

The disciples had literally abandoned everything else in there life for this man who claimed to be God's son. It says in Matthew 4:21-22: "

"Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them,and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him."

Like we were reading with Frankl last week, meaning is split into 3 categories: Work, Suffering, and Love. The disciples left all three of these things. They left their jobs, where they probably would lose great wealth. Matthew in particular, as a tax collector, would lose considerable fortune. They also left their homes, left their riches, and left their families to follow this man. The disciples left what made up meaning in their life for a greater meaning: to serve and follow Christ.

I think it says a lot that there were only 12 disciples. There were not a great multitude of people who stayed commited to Jesus throughout his ministry. People do not want to give up their meanings and their lives for another person. Take for example the rich man who was told to sell his possessions to the poor in exchange for eternal life, and he refused. He was not able to give up his temporary meaning on Earth.

This leads me to a hard-to-swallow questions: Is society today willing to sacrificed for God? A harder question: Am I willing to sacrifice my possessions and what I want for Christ? Can I give up what is giving me temporary pleasure and meaning for something eternal?

My thoughts

Warning: this blog is random pondering with no real conclusion.

While reading Silence, I had no issues with grasping or connecting with the idea of persecution itself. I plan to one day serve as a missionary, and persecution is something I have to seriously be aware of and consider. However, the picture of Jesus and the relevance of said picture honestly baffled me. I am aware that I am coming from a protestant mindset, but no matter what I do, I cannot wrap my mind around the significance it holds for these people. All my life, I have pretty much been told that no one really has a truly accurate depiction of Jesus, and although I am not 100% certain of this fact, this makes it even harder to understand why there is so much importance placed on a picture that kind of looks like what we think Jesus looked like. To me, it looks almost as if they are worshiping the image of Christ rather than Christ himself. So while I feel in some ways that stepping on the picture wouldn't be a big deal, I also feel that in the context of Silence, trampling the picture would be wrong because it is, in that scenario, denying Christ. On the other hand, I feel as if it could be equally as bad to NOT step on the picture for the wrong reasons.

Can't Come Up With a Good Title

A few things have been eating at me for the past few days. After honors on Tuesday, I heard Dr. Schuler talking about the ones who say that Christianity can't survive Japanese culture, or any Asian culture, for that matter. He went on to say that the very ones who say that it can't are stifling the growth of the gospel in Japan. What I wanted to do here was back him up with a verse. Matthew 12:30 says "He who is not for me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." He's right.

Ben (just giving credit where credit is due) said it needed to be a Bonsai tree if it wanted to grow in Japan. I thought about it for a while and I remembered that Bonsai trees need constant care and attention, or else they die. Once you plant a Bonsai in a pot, you have to monitor it every day. This is true for all Christianity, not just Asian Christianity. It needs care and attention, like a plant, like a child, like a relationship, and like a functioning machine. This is because it is all these things. It grows, it lives, it creates bonds, and it does its purpose, which is to draw us closer to God, not just ourselves, but all of humanity. Well, that's just what I wanted to elaborate on. I know it has very little to do with the reading; it's just something I've been chewing on for a while.

Cody Martin

Commented on Samuel Weeks' "Shoes I Hope to Never Be in"

Only the Strong Survive

"If God sends us on strong paths, we are provided strong shoes."
-Corrie Ten Boom

I planned on commenting on Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship because so far I have really enjoyed it and I can tell it will continue to shape my faith much in the way C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity has. However, I am bound against my will to Silence, which is to say I have found myself tied to a post and forced to face the crushing black waves of life in such a way that I have no choice but to recomment on Endo's seminal masterpiece. One of the major conflicts in the novel, and I mentioned this in class yesterday, is between the idea that there are strong people and weak people, which in this case is Rodrigues and Kichijiro, respectively. Rodrigues, knowing that death faces him at any moment, forces himself to be strong and resolute with the sort of naivety and blind courage only a missionary can muster, because he knows that when he is captured he must not allow himself to break or he will apostasize and, in his mind, betray God and the Church he loves so dearly. Kichijiro, on the other hand, has no such commitments and lives sort of as a drifter, allowing himself to be susceptible to bribery and aggressive persuasion. As a result, he cracks easily and apostatiszes several times, causing him to repeatedly return to Rodrigues for absolvement, whereas Rodrigues himself only breaks when he hears God himself speak and when he realizes that he can no longer allow other people to suffer and die because of him.

So when and why should a man be strong? Is a man born with fortitude and conviction, or must he find such things from an outside source? Is it possible that God puts us in situations where we know we cannot stand on our own and can only be victorious if we turn to him. Oh, sure, we can survive something on our own merits, but there's a fine line between survival and conquest and I believe God offers us the latter. I bring this up because I too struggle with weakness and strength in my own actions and self perception. I like to believe that I can't be bent beyond my limits, so I take on things thinking I will succeed regardless. I also like to think that I can always be fearless and always stand firm and resolute no matter what, and I have always cited the Holy Spirit as the source of my strength. There are certain times, however, and today was one of them, where that breaks down completely and I realize how vulnerable and how weak I can truly be.

It's that point where you realize how little control of your circumstances you have, and all you can control is your reaction to it, especially in regards to the Lord. For example, today I could have let myself bend under stress when filming started to temporarily derail, but I found my composure in the Lord and His blessings, and I realized that, much like Rodrigues, I am not control, nor am I truly strong, but neither am I weak. I am called to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, and I have to leave control to Him and do what I know I have to do. Rodrigues had to face that realization in the "trample" scene-he had to make a choice, and he knew that if the grace of God was anywhere near as powerful as he proclaimed it was, he knew it would likewise cover him. Yes, to save the lives of those that were lost, Jesus would have (and He did) laid down His life-we don't need to be strong, nor are we bound to weakness. We are strong against the trials and temptations of this life, but weak in His prescence so that He may be glorified.

Thank you for reading, feel free to comment as you please, I commented on Josh Spell's Samurai Vs. Catholics.

Debating With Myself???

In all honesty, I have no yet finished Silence, but after yesterday’s discussion, I really want to. One thing that has stuck with me and is pushing me to want to read the story is one of the ideas that was brought up yesterday in class. The thought of a conflict between loving God and loving people.

For us, this is not a battle that we face often, if ever, and it is definitely not a struggle that we think about in our culture. We, 21st Century American Christians, have probably never had to make any decision where the options are: A) defame Christ with our actions to save others who had professed a love for Him at some point, or B) do not defame Christ and let the others be tortured with no hope.

My thought is merely that I cannot wrap my mind around the idea of this choice. Which is showing more love and devotion to Christ? Yes, trampling the cross to save others seems to be pushing Christ down. However, in Matthew, Jesus said, “...as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” This leads me to think that leaving people to be tortured is also pushing Christ down.

All day, these thoughts were going around in my head and I find myself at a common point with the honors alumni who spoke yesterday. Every time I think about this, I argue points with myself and my position on the issue changes...

PS I posted on Mallory Searcy's "Apostatize..."

shoes i hope to never be in

The Priest in silence is no doubt in what we might call "a pickle." The decision he is forced to make at the end of the book is one i truly hope i never have to make. On one hand, he maintains his faith and doesn't give in to the torture, and has to live the rest of his life knowing that the other christians were killed and he could have prevented it, and on the other hand, he publicly renounces his faith but in doing so saves the lives of the other christians. Now, the debate arises of whether what he did was right or not. If we looked at the situation biblically, then it would seem that what he did was wrong. All other things excluded, he publicly committed an act of denial of his faith. I would assert though, that if it was his life that was on the line, then what he did would absolutely be wrong. As christians, we are called to value our faith in Christ above our very lives; " to live is Christ, to die is gain." An important point to make however, is that he did so on behalf of other christians, an ironically Christ like act. He took the burden of that sin upon himself to save the others. Does that make certain forms of sin permissible if it is to the end that others may live? I'm not entirely sure i would say yes. If that question were to be answered yes, then by extension, a good enough end can indeed be justified by wrong means.

On the other hand, one could easily argue that that was not the priest's place to intervene. Although it seems callous and selfish, if he were to have allowed the other christians to suffer, then he would not have denied his faith, but at the expense of others. Some would say that this would have been the right decision because his chief concern should always be maintaining Christ as the utmost purpose and priority in his life regardless of all other circumstances. But then again, this option seems like he would have been allowing others to suffer and even die only so that he could remain without that sin, a seemingly selfish act.

The central question dealt with here is this: is it right to remain without sin and in doing so cause others to suffer and even die or commit sin so that others may live?

Truth be told, i have no idea what i would do, hence the title of this post.

p.s. I commented on Mallory's

Definition of suffering

The question that we looked at concerning the priest was whether you can love Christ and watch Christians suffer? (Decisions define suffering)The priest expected suffering, but it was as if he expected it too much. Did he even know what suffering is?
   All this talk about suffering and I can't help but wonder do I even know what suffering is. Looking at Christ for example, God allowed his son to come and pay the penalty for our sin, because He loved us THAT much. Whoa! It seems to me that it is more of a thing of sacrifice. God sacrificed his son for us. Where does suffering come in to that? Well, Jesus suffered for us on the cross. It was a very brutal suffering.
  Bringing this back to the priest in Silence, he was watching Christians suffer and therefore had to make the decision on whether or not he could love Christ AND watch Christians suffer. The priest "denied himself" for a spiritual martyrdom. He sought to die, yet he sought this too much.
   So, what does it really mean to suffer? I feel like real suffering is what Christ did for us on the cross. Its the ultimate picture of him suffering for us. A martyr? Maybe yes, but it was a sacrifice Christ chose to make because he loved us so much.
   The priest's decision on whether or not you can love Christ and watch Christians suffer was more of a display of martyrdom and a sacrifice.
   I feel like I'm rambling now, I hope this makes a little sense.
  P.s i commented on Anna's "Pursuing Truth in the Most Unexpected Places"

apostatize. hard to say, harder to spell.

For me the concept of apostatizing is one that I haven't been able to move past. I mean, I understand that it is denying Christ, but at the same time- it changes nothing about the belief of the person who says it, right? I mean, I know this is the limited worldview of mine speaking, but it seems like faith is a very personal experience. Conversion, decision to follow Christ- can that ever be taken away? I mean with the Japanese, these are men and women who love Christ with all their hearts and are tortured for it, and then finally give in. Is that a reflection of their love of Christ or is that a reflection of Japanese torture methods? Is it an example of eternally not following God- or a moment of weakness when physical ability gave out?

just some thoughts.

i Commented on Maundy Thursday

Realizing LOVE

The concept of spiritual martyrdom brought up in class yesterday intrigued me. While reading Silence I continually tried to reconcile “Whoever denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:33) and “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay day his life for his friends.” (John 15:13). However, Malory put into words a thought that had been on the tip of my tongue since the beginning of this dilemma. The only biblical precedent for sacrificing oneself for the good of others is found in Christ. He died for sinners- not just the repentant ones- all of them. Jesus was willing to risk separation from God for our salvation. I personally think his most agonizing suffering was when he was hanging on the cross, the weight of the world’s sin covering him, and God turned his face away because he could not look on our sin. “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Mark 15:34). At this point Jesus’ perfect connection with the Father was severed because God could not be in a relationship with sin. The agony embodied in this verse never fails to move me- truly this was the moment when unconditional love was realized. The priest spent the majority of his time in Japan seeing himself as the Christ-figure, a Savior, and exalting himself above the other believers because of his title. However, it wasn’t until he lost his title that he truly understood love. When he was willing to give up the symbols and appearances of religion that had constituted his faith by trampling the fumie, he was also sacrificing his knowledge of faith –all for the life others. He became like Christ when he lowered himself to the position of a sinful believer instead of a priestly martyr. Those others had already apostatized, so what was the point of risking his faith for them? This is where spiritual martyrdom comes in- Christ gave up his perfect relationship with Christ and died for those he knew would one day reject his gift of grace. This is where we see the theme that we are not saved by religious symbols but by faith. Undying, unwavering, incomprehensible faith. The priest’s faith is what gives him hope of redemption and resurrection. Although Endo doesn’t say, I think according to how the priest lived afterward, he did still have faith. “Sharing in the suffering of Christ” for the priest was not physical, rather it was mental and spiritual martyrdom of his previously held notions of religion, eclipsed by the realization of love in the figure of Christ.
“No doubt his fellow priests would condemn his act as sacrilege; but even if he was betraying them, he was not betraying his Lord. He loved him now in a different way from before. Everything that had taken place until now had been necessary to bring him to this love. ‘Even now I am the last priest in this land. But our Lord was not silent. Even if he had been silent, my life until this day would have spoken of him.’” (191 emphasis added)
P.S. commented on Anna’s “Pursuing Truth…”

Maundy Thursday

On September 25, 1992 I was baptized exactly 6 months after my birth, I had my first communion in first grade, my confirmation in 8th grade, and I still enjoy Holy Eucharist on Sunday. Although, there are major differences between the Roman Catholic faith that permeates Silence, and my own Episcopal/Anglican background I do think I really understood some of the struggles within the novel in a different way. This comes in part from the fact that I have seriously wondered some of these same questions since attending a private Bible church Christian school calls into question much of what one has always believed- but I digress.

I could write a paper about the sacraments and the beauty of the symbols, however, I will instead simply define the word, (as per Episcopalian Catechism, although I believe the definition is quite universal) "A Sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace". Let me debunk for a moment the misunderstanding that all 7 sacraments are necessary for salvation, this is impossible because one of the sacraments is ordination and one is marriage and clearly not everyone is a priest nor is everyone married.

The most beautiful picture of physical earthly representations of Christ to me is the Maundy Thursday service. At the end of this service the priest and altar guild strips the altar. In the dark during the reading of Psalm 55 every thing that would make the church look like a church is taken out. This service is supposed to incite the parishioners to imagine life without Christ and his sacrifice on the cross. As the lights raise, everyone is quiet and somber as they leave for the end of Holy week. In Silence, I believe as the stark reality of the church and Rodriguez's denial of Christ personifies the Holy Week experience both in the text of the Bible and exemplified in the liturgical worship.

PS Anglicans ARE Evangelical.

I commented on Anna's "Pursuing Truth in the Most Unexpected Places"

Pursuing Truth in the Most Unexpected Places

A new appreciation of honors has welled up in me. Never has the saying, “Pursuing the Truth, (the John 3:14 Truth) been as tangible to me as it was today. Honors always pushes me to develop a taste for great literature by reading great literature and Silence is one of those works. Over the past couple of days all my classes have tied in to my spiritual life. Verses I read in the morning were mentioned as I took notes in my afternoon class. How cool is that! The verse mentioned was Matthew 22:37-40, “Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” I wrote the verse in my journal Monday morning. I was trying to memorize it and I made up handy illustrations to go with it to help me memorize. I took it seriously enough however, little did I know it would take on a whole new meaning the next day.

You can imagine my excitement when the verse was mentioned in class today. You can also probably empathize with my disappointment as I started to understand how the verse applied to the Priest’s situation. The priest was almost caught between the two commandments. He was faced with the decision. Would he love God, and watch people die or would he, seemingly, turn away from God and love his neighbor? What a terrible situation. Eventually he chooses to trample despite the fact that he is risking eternal damnation. This of course leads you to the verse, “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (Luke 15:13). As I was talking over spiritual martyrdom with Amanda I realized, oh my goodness this is the very situation Jesus was faced with. Yes, it may seem obvious and we did talk about it in class but at that moment I truly realized what the Way the Truth and the Life faced. He faced abandoning God in order for me to have a chance at a relationship with God. He faced spiritual death in order for me to spiritual life. That is heavy. That is beautiful. Keep plugging guys. We'll journey through sources and sources, and pages and pages, but it's all worth it when things suddenly make sense in the most unexpected places.

Samurai Vs. Catholics

Fuedal Japan, 1637: three Catholic priests go to the "Land of the Rising Sun" to aid the struggling converts and to investigate the defection of Jesuit missionary Christovao Ferreira. Hostile to Western influence, the samurai afflict the Catholics with brute force, while the converts are unable to do anything except suffer the evils that befall them.

It seems to me that the samurai in Endo's Silence view Catholicism the same way Americans view kudzu: as an invasive agent to be rooted out and sent back where it came from. Here, the war between samurai and Catholics is not a war of equal powers but a war of attrition to see if Japanese Christians will outlast persecution.

As history would later show, they would not. The Shimabara Rebellion would come, and Catholicism, due to its foreignness, would fail to last in the "mud swamp" of Japan (though perhaps it may one day take a new form that is more palatable to the Far East).

Click to enlarge.

EDIT: I commented on Nick Hampton's "Debating with Myself???"

Silence

I read Silence in just a few days, however there are many things that linger in my mind. I was able to look through the class and know a few people who want to go over seas into full time ministry. It really hits home. The question stands, "How can one apostatize?" Would I ever do that? It hits hard. we want to say we never would, but truth be told we will not know unless faced with that circumstance. What about the people that the priest heard screaming? The only reason they were hanging still was because he would apostatize... I pray that our faith in God would help us make the right call, I know what I pray my answer would be. What do you pray your answer would be? It is one of those things I feel like we have to decided before hand to hold to, just like purity. You have decide before you get in a relationship to stay pure. Before being in a situation where you must decided to hold to your faith or renounce it you need to know where you stand. I could keep writing because these are only a few of the many questions I actually had. However, these were the biggest one that kept my mind running.
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20
Silence is a matter of perspective...

PS -Amanda G.

Finding the Why

Although I still have not completely finished Man's Search for Meaning, the central idea that Frankl brings about is one that has resonated with me for a long time. We are made who we are by the hardships we endure. Its a curious thing, but it really seems to me that this book brings secular legitimacy to James 1:2-4 "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing."

This is one of the hardest and most important lessons we will ever have to grasp as Christians. In some scenarios, we can take joy because we know that this temporary hardship will bring something better in the long run. However, in Frankl's situation, even that would be a stretch. I think that there are two sides of this coin. When we suffer, and the long term benefit is clear to us, then the struggle is simply to persevere through the suffering and take joy that the benefit is to come. On the other hand, when we reach those times in our lives when we genuinely dont see a light at the end of the tunnel, I would venture to say that the struggle then becomes simply to endure. In that act, in those times of absolute desperation when it seems like we're barely holding on, I believe that Frankl and James would both agree that in that act, you are strengthened more than any other time. To quote Nietzsche, it is in those times that we are driven to grasp our "why" and thus, our very meaning in life.

p.s. I commented on Susan's

Suffering and Equality

I know that everyone in the course of life is going to suffer. But are we supposed to suffer is the question. I believe that in order to truly experience life and to get the most out of it one has to suffer and suffer greatly. To not suffer would be the same as watching the KONY 2012 video and not feeling convicted or reading the crucifixion of Christ and not feeling the least guilty about a man that committed no wrong being murdered for no reason. Whether you believe that Christ is king or not you have to feel sorry about his death and the brutality of it.

Look at equality from the perspective of the Bible. Dr. Foley told this story in chapel yesterday. The one of a vineyard owner who hires some men in the morning, at noon, and in the evening. When time for payment came around he paid each the same amount. I think this is at least kind of similar to the chef in Frankl or at least that's what it made me think of.

I commented on Cody's

Why?

I cannot explain the plethora of emotions that I experienced during and after reading "Man's Search for Meaning", but I can say that I've recommended it to almost everyone who seemed remotely interested. Honestly, the biggest thing that I drew from the book wasn't a quote from Frankl, but a quite from Nietzche that he used on page 76.

"He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how."

Even though this is a very simple phrase, it just struck me deep. It got me thinking about people that I have met, and things that they have accomplished. Things that I never would have imagined possible, but they were determined because they had a "why". I thought about things that I've done that were only possible because of my "why", whatever it might have been at the time.  It also got me thinking about what my "why" currently is, and to be honest I was surprised at how long it took me to figure it out.  Of course, I'm not going to share my "why" here, because that would be too simple. Knowing my "why" might hinder the recognition of your "why", and we wouldn't want that, would we?

So what did we learn today? Secondary sources sometimes steal the spotlight? Socrates was on to something when he asked "why"? Ben is a terrible person for not sharing his "why"? All good answers. Tune in next week for the next exciting installment of "Why Me?" Starring Benjamin Folse, Evan Rachel Wood, Tim Curry, Helena Bonham Carter, Ewan McGregor and Kevin Bacon.

P.S. I commented on  Josh Spell's blog "Life is Beautiful" (Which is an AMAZING movie by the way, if you haven't seen it, you need to!)

P.P.S. I actually just recommended this book to another friend of mine while writing all of this.

Supposed to Suffer?

The night before honors, I was talking with Talmage in another class I have with him, and I made the comment that I "enjoyed" the reading. He looked at me funny in his Talmage way, eyes wide and mouth slightly agape, and said, "I can't say that I agree. I wouldn't say I enjoy this reading..." Realizing what I had said about the material, I had to backtrack. So, do not take me for one of the sadists that we read about in Frankl, but hear me out...or read me out.

I did "enjoy" the reading, or like the reading...whichever you prefer to use. I learned a lot. And after watching Twitter updates and Facebook updates, I felt like I was the only one that felt this way. Maybe I am emotionally incapable of feeling what I am reading, though I doubt this is the case. I cannot say that I suffered while reading it. Truly, it makes me sad. I see what is before me, the pictures are clearly in my mind. But it does not cripple me, it does not leave me hopeless. Yet I still felt somehow guilty that I had not suffered while reading this while so many did.

But the fact of the matter is, even Frankl writes in a way that he seems almost distant from it himself, at least emotionally. I believe this is a coping mechanism once more. I believe this book is one of his final acts of reconciling the past. He has come to the point that he can write about his experiences objectively, but I believe that is because he has approached a new meaning by the time he writes this.

I have spent a lot of time in 1 Peter here lately. He speaks on love and suffering in a big way, in ways I cannot explain, but ways I have been able to share with others. I cannot explain it, you would have to read it for yourself. But I am not hopeless, I am encouraged. Reading about the drive people had in their circumstances--circumstances I may never know, it gives me hope in a strange way. Man's Search for Meaning furthered some lessons I have been learning, not studying. And learning means something to me, far more than any amount of study will. Yes, there is a difference.

COMMENTED ON RACHEL'S

Jesuits are not to be eaten?

     I just want to start out saying I love this book. Three reasons why? Okay then, here it goes. One, it has revealed to me how "religious denominations" mean nothing. Two, I totally was thinking I was reading book about persecutions much more recent; aI was surprised to see how I could relate to people who lived further in the past. I didn't even know there were missionaries to Japan in the 1600's. Three, I love the action and thrilling pace of the book (I also love that this is something based on reality).

    Just within the reading the prologue my heart was already breaking. I felt as if I knew these people, we were close friends, and then I had to watch them die. Then as I read on I realized that these people are Catholics, Jesuits, denominations that I have never trusted( no offense to anyone). These people, these are the ones my heart is breaking for.
    I really found myself relating to Sebastian Rodrigues.  No, I'm not a monk, but I am do fill called to be a foreign missionary.  At first I was judgmental of Sebastian, thinking he's prideful and rude (especially when he complains about the potatoes). Then he talks about how he feels compassion for the Japanese, and how he is embarrassed at his weakness compared to the Christian Japanese' courage. I can easily picture myself transitioning the same way Sebastian does. So I can relate to Jesuit monk? I guess Jesuits aren't just for eating. (Candide humor)
  All and all I love this book and can't wait to finish it! I especially love that I keep turning a page, and reading something happening in the 1600's, I never knew such intense persecution of Christians existed in Japan at that time. This book keeps me reading, and I can't wait to hear discussion on it!

Man's Search for Suffering

I want to note what seems to be a recurring theme in Man's Search for Meaning. Frankl seems to be telling us that Without suffering, our lives are meaningless. We discussed that suffering accompanies meaning in our lives on Tuesday. If we do not suffer for our beliefs, then we have no meaning.

I was convicted of this when we talked about it in honors. Here we are sitting in comfy little America, watching Kony 2012 videos, and feeling like social activists by clicking 'Like' on a status. We 'support' our favorite candidates by checking a box, not getting out and promoting their cause. Maybe, if we can spare $10 a month, we might use it to feed some random child in a third-world country. At the end of the day, have we really acted upon our beliefs?

Now don't get me wrong, I do not disapprove of any of these things. In actuality, I like the fact that these things exist. I am merely pointing our that our meaning gives way to our complacency. We don't feel like taking the effort to act upon our beliefs. We have lost our passion.

I'm not going to tell you what you should do. I'm not going to tell you what should happen. You know that. It's just something I've been struggling with, not only this week, but for a long time now.

~Cody Martin~

P.S. I commented on Brittany Hilbun's post: The Just Martyr

The Just Martyr

Just taking it back to "Man's search for Meaning" I really wanted to talk again about our discussion on Martyrdom. First of all, you don't have to be murdered for what you believe in to be a Martyr. By definition, a Martyr is simply witness, and there is no greater witness to a cause then someone who dies for it. We consider these people to be revered and brave. Unfortunately, many people like to discount our zeal for the furtherance of the gospel (even to the point of death) not something special. We call Abraham a great hero of faith because he was obedient even to the point of almost killing his son. Yet, those who are not under the Christian persuasion would look at that with apaul. They would reply something along the lines of : "Well the 9/11 terrorist did what they did because they were trying to be great Knights of Faith, and they really believed what they did would give them a great reward and favor with Allah."

It is only now that I am finning to true paradigmn. Sure, these terrorist were Martyrs. He's a witness. But is he just in doing so? A Martyr in Cambodia who gets his tongue cut out and is beaten until dead because he won't stop telling people about the love of Christ is, and I say boldly a just Martyr. Can you really not see the difference? The Martyr from 9/11 willingly and intentionally took the life of thousands and thousands of people for his cause. The Martyr in Cambodia willingly let his life be taken for his cause.

Now what about Abraham? Yes, Abraham sought to willingly and intentionally cause physical harm to his son. But he did so knowing that God would provide, even if it meant raising Issac from the dead. Do you understand? He knew Issac would be okay regardless of the situation!

Unless someone can show me that the high-jakers truly believed with all their heart that all those people they murdered would be "okay" I will attest in every way that they were unjust. But, I don't see "kill all the infidels" as something to help any arguments against this.

Do I Trust the Jesuits Now?

I am interested to see where Silence will go. Not just because I like to read but because what I ‘m reading is not what I expected. I expected the book to be about persecuted missionaries in the early 1900’s or Japanese Martyrs –not Spanish Jesuits in Japan. Yes, now that I think about it, Jesuits probably did go to Japan, because they went as missionaries to many places around the world. But, because I am used to thinking of Jesuits in a bad light (The Conquest of the New World, Eat some Jesuits, etc) I was shocked to find that two Jesuits are the main character cast in a good light. They have been through a lot just to get to Japan. They are heroic figures and I am used to comical figures or enemies made out of them. I wonder where Endo will go with the book? Why does he set his story in this place? I appreciate the suspense. I am still inching around them carefully and probably over analyzing the two main characters. I Watch what they say and sometimes criticize. But I am not far enough in the book to say whether or not they are heroes in the end. I suppose I will see and, until then I will have to get adjusted to the characters.

Just to be honest in the beginning in case I sound like I have completely lost my mind, I have not read Man's Search for Meaning. I can't even say that I haven't finished it, because I haven't even touched a copy of the book.

However, despite not having read the book (because I'm guessing the summary of a wikipedia article given to me verbally before class doesn't even close to count) yesterday's class was probably the most thought provoking, potentially meaningful Honors classes I have been in, and I can't even really express in words why. What I can verbalize, though, is that the idea of the meaning of life is not something I struggle with. I know that my life's sole purpose is to honor and glorify God. The methods by which I am to do this are not always clear, but I have rest and contentment in knowing where my meaning lies. And honestly, I believe that this meaning is the ONLY meaning that will terminate the further search for meaning in one's mind, making it the only true meaning. That is not to say that work isn't important, nor is it to say that earthly relationships are not important, but there is still a level of searching when a person defines his life's purpose by one of these things.

I have wrestled with the idea that maybe my answer is too easy, and maybe there is more to it, but it kind of hit me today: it is not that the answer is too easy. The answer is too simple. It is in no way an easy answer.

P.S. commented on "What is the 'meaning of Life'".

Silence

The first chapter in Silence really creates a sort of gray whirlwind. The descriptions of the people in the overly crowded cities, the description of the christians being persecuted... It was all so grotesque and depressing. Why is it that we are not aware of these things? We don't think about it in our day today lives as we lay out on the beach, or cram for tests--but there are starving, dying people all over the world. There were people in the Holocaust who died horrible, inhumane deaths. For some reason, we are able to think about those things in the abstract and they won't affect us. Even when we see pictures, or commercials, or even movies we start to become numb. It's almost like we have to put part of ourselves in something before we can really start to struggle with it--and then ultimately care. In a way, struggling to read about Christians being tortured in Japan, struggling over the issue of simply recanting has made me come out with a true answer. It's like Talmage said about Man's Search for Meaning: don't read it unless you are willing to struggle with it. In that struggle I think we find meaning. Along the lines of what we were discussing last class, I think the meaning we derive from various struggles may not always consistently be the same thing, but in a way they feed into the greater meaning of life.

Commented on Life is Beautiful

Soup

Today, I decided to get some broccoli cheese soup. As I scooped the soup into my to-go cup I thought back to Man's Search for Meaning when Frankl discussed the cook and how he gave equally to all and how some "staff" treated some of the prisoners. I think that part of the reason everyone was so quiet on Tuesday (hopefully, had NOTHING to do with a lack of reading) was because 1. Dr. T was talking and I think everyone is a little afraid of him now since our discussion pre-SB and 2. Frankl has to be processed and digested. I find myself drawing back to the thoughts posed and reflecting further. Little things like the soup moment that could have passed completely unnoticed seem amplified. The faster we live and the more wrapped up in our selves we become the less we notice those little things and significance. Those who have been slowed and restrained often can better assess significance and meaning.

Concentration Camps and the Waste Land

My thoughts are very scattered tonight. Frankl was fascinating to me, I liked it. But I keep drawing these parallels between the Holocaust and The Waste Land because we're filming tomorrow. The fascinating thing is that Frankl seems to really believe that selflessness- or the outward focusing of the self towards something else, gives life meaning. This is true in a concentration camp- but it is also true in the Waste Land.

I play a character who imagines herself playing a game of chess, my costume includes a fur coat and pearls. And I see what Frankl means- that my life is meaningless whether in a fur coat or in a concentration camp- if i am focused on myself. T. S. Elliot would agree. "O Lord thou Pluckest me out."

I wish I could write more, but I'm cramming a paper for another class.

I commented on Adding to the Noise

Looking Into the Heart of Dark, the Silence (Od' Und Leer Das Meer)

"As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being."
-Carl Jung

Due to various time constraints, this particular blog won't be as long as mine normally are, but I still have some good stuff to say. I know that the students of Brit Lit II are currently reading Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and if you'll give me two seconds to talk about it I'll tell you it's one of my favorite books. Naturally, I've noticed some interesting parallels between that and Shusaku Endo's Silence. For starters, both protagonists, Marlowe and Rodrigues, choose to travel by water into a dangerous and hostile foreign land and rescue a former collegue that may have failed his duties and gone rogue (Kurtz and Ferriera). Their fellow seamen are strange and unsavory, and the actual waterway is dark, winding, and filled with militaristic dangers. There is a station in between their starting and ending points, where they encounter complications. There is an oppressive "ideal" regime (British King/Japanese Shogun) and the subservient savages that are acually quite misunderstood and underestimated(Congo natives/Japanese serfs). In HoD, Kurtz actually did turn rogue and became arguably more savage than the Congoese people he manipulated. I don't know if the same but opposite fate will be true of Father Ferriera, though, but I look forward to finding out.

Thank you for reading, I hope it was informative! Feel free to comment as you please, I commented on Susan Berner's The Second Phase: Relative Apathy.

The Second Phase: Relative Apathy

Frankl states in in "Man's Search For Meaning" that the second phase of a man's psychological state in a concentration camp is a sort of emotional death he called the phase of relative apathy. It's like experiencing so many emotions at once at such an extreme level that after a while, it's just too much, so instead a person can't feel anything anymore. On page 23 Frankl writes "The sufferers, the dying and the dead, became such commonplace sights to him (a prisoner) after a few weeks of camp life that they could not move him anymore." I cannot image what it would be like to see so many horrible things, and to go through so much pain that I couldn't even feel sorrow for those who were hurt, or long for my home anymore. I think it is a good thing that Frankl talks about these psychological problems people face in the concentration camps, because in all of the other stories I have heard about the physical problems and had to fill in the emotional and psychological parts for myself. However, the author of this story attacks it form a different angle in order to make people understand just a little more what it was like to be a prisoner in a concentration camp.

I commented on a blog title "What is the 'meaning of life'" but I don't know who wrote it!

Susan Berner

Just Open Your Eyes

The whole time I was reading this, the song, "Life is Beautiful" by Sixx:AM kept repeating in my head. It is, in my opinion, one of the more inspirational songs that I have ever heard. The song was written after a member of the band got addicted and one of his friends passed away from an overdose. He finally realized that life has greater meaning then sitting around and getting hooked on drugs every day. The lyrics are incredibly powerful.

"You can't quit until you try. You can't live until you die.

You can't learn to tell the truth until you learn to lie.

You can't breathe until you choke. You gotta laugh when you're the joke.

There's nothing like a funeral to make you feel alive.

Just open your eyes.

Just open your eyes and see that life is beautiful.

Would you swear on your life that no one will cry at my funeral?"

That is only the first verse and chorus. The words are true. We need to suffer in order to live. If everything was perfect then there would be no need for life. We grow and learn through our experiences. Suffering is painful and it is not easy, but there is also a sense of empowerment after the suffering has ended. Suffering will not end until we each pass into the kingdom of God where we will live eternally in Heaven where there is no suffering or pain. But our suffering and pain helps us to grow and find our purposes. It took the suffering of an entire country during September 11th for my cousin to find his calling in the army. Sometimes suffering is what pushes us to reach our full potential. I got my final push to be a veterinarian when I had to hold my beloved cat's head together in the car as we rushed to the emergency vet. It hurt me deeply to see my cat on the verge of falling into death. We do not suffer just to hurt. We suffer because we need it to help us realize the deeper meanings in life.

P.S. I commented on His Beloved's post, What is the "Meaning of life"

Adding to the Noise

>>>Finish the book before reading further; there may be spoilers.<<<

In Silence, it is noted that the hidden Christians, when found, must trample an image of Christ Himself to signify their submission to the country. Some do carry out the rejection of the image, while others take their punishment.

I have a problem with both of these actions. They are both centered around an idol. Even if they trample the idols, this is not truly trampling Christ or even His ideas.

Another thought: 1 Peter 2:20 suggests that one is to endure unjust suffering. As Christians, we are not to flee from the punishment (government/established law) nor succumb to the immorality. If we choose God over an unjust law, the law is still broken and we must hold ourselves accountable to the punishment. Even if our cause is just, we are not permitted to riot or undermine for change.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

[I commented on Joshua Spell's "Life is Beautiful."]

What is the "meaning of Life"

Frankl. Well, I actually enjoyed this. I feel the main topic of this entire reading is suffering/meaning.
 "If you do not suffer, you don't have meaning. So is our only meaning in this world to suffer? If that is the case, I WANT OUT!!! Ok, that was definitely a joke. True, we can not avoid suffering because everyone will have to go through it. It is a part of life. Some of the questions that we talked about really got me thinking. One specific question I just want to expound upon is "why would we say that meaning is not the same for everyone? Why can't "meaning of life" be defined in a general way?" We discussed that every person has a different meaning of life because we all have different goals. There is a basis from where one draws meaning. So no, every single persons "meaning of life" is not the same, we each have a different purpose, however we all have one thing in common and that is that we do have meaning. If we all had the same general meaning of life, I feel there would be no sense of hope.
   Speaking of a sense of hope, I also found the question: "Why does Frankl say that the prisoner who has lost faith in his future is doomed?" portrays meaning of life as well. If we lose faith in a future, we lose hope. If we lose hope, then we have no meaning in life. It becomes doomed. Nothing.
P.S i commented on

  

SILENCE! Night.

(I love the Achmed skit the comedian Jeff Dunham does, and I thought this title was slightly… calmer than “Silence, I kill you!”)
I was reading Silence and something that really stuck with me was how Sebastian describes the Japanese’s reception of Christianity-- I mean the common people, not the sadistic leaders. Sebastian says, “The reason our religion has penetrated this territory like water flowing into dry earth is that it has given to this group of people a human warmth they never previously knew. For the first time they have met men who treated them like human beings.” Early on in the passage, he says that the people in the village are poor farmers. I got the feeling that they had been really taken advantage of by their national leaders, and when the missionaries started coming over, they saw for the first time hope. Hope that there was someone who loved them unconditionally and who, most importantly, cared. 
That section left me wondering, is this how people feel now when we go out to minister to them? Are we bringing water to their thirsting hearts? This weekend is Cardboard City and earlier in the day UM students are going out to minister to the homeless in our area. This is such a great reading to be doing now. How many of the people we will see are in the same positions as these farmers and how many will feel hope for the first time in ages? Someone could come to know Christ just because you cared enough to sit and talk with them for a moment. In that moment, you could give them the biggest dose of kindness they've had in a long time. Food for thought.


P.S.: I commented on Rachel's "Soup"