I never write posts because I have this desire for my blog to be organized, orderly, logical. I have thought about it for a year now and barely added anything because it seems so random to write about the ethics of Batman and then different atonement theories. But alas, I think I need to write, so I will throw those cares into the wind so that I can write... so that I can think.
I have mostly come to a truce with Christianity. In college, I knew that the Christianity of my youth contained certain doctrines that I could not accept if I wanted to remain intellectually honest. So, I have learned how to reject those doctrines while remaining orthodox (at some level) because of my Christian experience. So, I have rejected the wrathful and anthropological God who appears frequently in the Old Testament and occasionally in the New by saying that the Biblical descriptions of God are not univocal but are metaphorical. I have rejected the inerrantist's view of Scripture with all of their ridiculous epistemological claims, but have decided that Scripture is essential as the shared inter-generational, multinational text of Christianity and is inspired when the Spirit chooses to use it to speak to people. And I have rejected heaven and hell as places of reward and punishment, but accept them as the natural consequences of our sinful or godly nature when unrestricted by need and mortality. I have come to love God, admire Christ, pray for the Spirit, submit to the church, and make peace with my mind and the basic tenets of my faith. But there has been one major casuality: the atonement.
The atonement is a theological term that describes the "saving power" of Christ's death on the cross. I do not have any historical qualms with Christ dying on the cross or rising from the dead: I have a hard time explaining or understanding how the cross saves us. The basic Christian answers to this question are all rooted in the philosophical understanding of God and justice I have come to reject. And, having failed to find another way to make sense of the atonement in my philosophical understanding of God and justice, I don't know how to preach or teach about Christ or what Christianity is really all about. This is a problem for a pastor.
Ok, let's put this in the form of a dialogue between a Christian and not a skeptic, but a naive and insightful "seeker."
Christian: Do you know that Jesus died on the cross to save you from your sins?
Seeker: What do you mean "to save me"? I didn't realize I was in danger.
Christian: Well, the Bible teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that the wages of sin are death.
Seeker: So you mean that Christ died to save me from the effects of my sins.
Christian: Well... I suppose. And to help you stop sinning.
Seeker: Ok, sure. But first I want to think about this idea of Christ saving me from the effects of my sin. Your "wages of sin are death" seems to indicate that I would be immortal if I never sinned. Is that what that means?
Christian: Well, sort-of. I think "death" is really just a nice way of saying "hell." I think the Bible is saying that if you sin, you are headed to hell unless Christ saves you.
Seeker: Why am I heading to hell?
Christian: I already explained that: because you sinned.
Seeker: Yes, I know, I know. But why do sinners have to go to hell?
Christian: That's just how it is. God is a holy God, and He cannot tolerate sin or evil.
Seeker: But He can instantly forgive and cleanse people?
Christian: Yes.
Seeker: So why does He need Jesus to die on the cross to do that? Couldn't God just forgive people whenever He wants to?
Christian: No. You see, if one person sins, they have to be punished unless a perfect sacrifice takes their place.
Seeker: Says who?
Christian: Excuse me?
Seeker: That seems pretty arbitrary. Who decided that one person has to be punished unless a totally unrelated yet perfect other person takes his or her place?
Christian: That's just how it is.
Seeker: How do you know?
Christian: Faith.
Seeker: Ugh. Ok, well, let's think through this intuitively. If one person rapes an innocent little girl, then that person is morally guilty for it, right?
Christian: Definitely
Seeker: So if the rapist's mother had lived a perfect life, and she saw her son was about to be thrown in jail, she could kill herself for his sake and then he would no longer be morally responsible for his behavior?
Christian: Well, no human could ever be perfect.
Seeker: Perhaps that's true, but that's not the point. If she was perfect, would that work?
Christian: I don't know. I think maybe she has to be God, too.
Seeker: I'm just saying that I don't understand why God requires punishment in the first place. Why does He have to just "send" people somewhere? Why can't He just forgive them instantly? Why is He so intolerant of sin? What could possibly bother him so much that He couldn't associate with it? Doesn't that show weakness instead of strength?
(More on this later... perhaps).
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Batman and Deontology
As it turns out, I have some down time this Saturday afternoon, and I am energized to begin discussing the philosophy behind the Batman movie.
Like many great movies, what makes this one so wonderful is that the hero (Batman) is faced with the ultimate ethical dilemmas and it is beautiful to watch him struggle to maintain his integrity throughout the film. Now, I want discuss some of the more subtle layers of ethics in this movie with you, but before I can, you may need a brief philosophy background. You see, some "ethical dilemmas" don't make sense to certain people because there are different systems of morality/ethics. Consequently, you cannot fully understand an ethical dilemma until you understand the moral context from which a movie or piece of literature is functioning. Batman Begins and the Dark Knight both work within the framework of deontology, in keeping with the morality of the original Batman. If you don't need all of this background, you can skip to the "Back to the Movie" section.
Ok, blah, blah, blah. Let me get to the point. While there are hundreds of different ethical systems (from the Ten Commandments, to the principles of karma, to Ayn Rand's objectivism), there are three basic ethical families. They are consequence-based, motive-based, and action-based ethics. Consequence-based ethics believe that an action can be considered right or wrong based on the outcome it produces. Its motto is, "The ends justifies the means." This is a very pragmatic view which says that sometimes we must lie or harm others to save the most people or bring about the most good. Motive-based ethics (or "virtue-ethics") maintain that ultimately what matters is the intention of the actor. If someone has pure intentions but makes a mistake, that person is not considered immoral. The focus here is in developing a good heart or soul. The third kind (not necessarily the best - I actually don't adhere to this one) is action- or duty- based ethics. This ethical system argues that neither the result nor the intention determines if an action is right or wrong. Ultimately, what matters is that the action is in line with what's right. This morality suggests that we need to make ourselves do what is right because we know it is right. It is also called deontology.
My argument is that Batman is the Deontological Ideal. The first movie set the stage for this kind of moral framework. For example, consider the classic line between Batman and Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins: "It's not who you are on the inside, but what you do, that defines you." This is a blatant critique of motive-based ethics in favor of action-based ethics. Batman is committed to doing what is right because it is right. Now that we know this, let's consider deontology in a little more depth.
Immanuel Kant was the most influential deontological philosopher. Kant argued that there is a moral law which we all recognize subconsciously. This moral law declares that we should never act in such a way that we wouldn't want other people to act that way in the same circumstances. For example, I may be down on my luck and feel justified in stealing - but I certainly wouldn't want someone else stealing from me just because they were down on their luck (because maybe I needed whatever they stole too). Similarly, people shouldn't lie to get out of unpleasant situations, they shouldn't use their power to kill or eliminate people who inconvenience them, etc. Also, some later philosophers have suggested that people should always help others when they have opportunity, always be grateful, etc.
Kant believed that as moral beings, every human should follow this rule no matter how hard it gets. Why? Just because we have a moral duty to do it. Let's use telling the truth as an example. Sometimes, it will be easy to tell the truth - such as when we are asked to defend ourselves. In that case, we should tell the truth. But sometimes, it will be hard to tell the truth - it may result in us getting in trouble, in making us lose friends, in costing us something severe. In that case, we still should tell the truth. Now, what separates the moral from the immoral is not who tells the truth when it is easy, but who tells the truth when it is hard.
Back to the Movie...
The Dark Knight presents two deontological "heroes" at the beginning of the movie: the Dark Knight and the White Knight, Batman and Harvey Dent. Both believe very strongly in the rule of law. (Listen closely - you'll see that submitting to law is a key theme in the Batman movies). For Batman, there are two driving duties: you must save everyone you can and you must not kill anyone. We see at the beginning of the movie, to meet these ends Batman endures quite a bit of physical pain. Similarly, Harvey Dent is absolutely committed to bringing justice to every criminal, no matter what the consequences are. He faces threats against his life and against his career with the absolute integrity of a deontological hero. But later in the movie, both men will be pushed to see how strong their committment to duty really is.
Let's begin by talking about Batman. He faces a major challenge when the criminals pick up on the fact that Batman can't kill anyone. At one point, Batman tries to question Salvatore Morani (the guy Two-Face almost shot in the limo before killing the driver), but Morani tells Batman that Batman has limits - he won't kill, whereas the Joker has no limits. At a more important scene, Batman throws Joker off of the cliff but catches him before he hits the ground. How much the city would have been a safer place if Batman had just killed Joker! But that would violate his deontological principles, and Joker knew it. That is why Joker was laughing all the way to his death (because he thought he had corrupted even Batman), and why he acknowledges him as incorruptible when dangling from the rope.
However, despite all of the inconveniences and pain Batman had to experience throughout the movie, the most painful of all was undoubtedly losing Rachel Dawes. Both Batman and Harvey Dent loved Rachel, and when she was killed, they were both put under the ultimate test: could they still follow their duty to punish the bad guys by the book, to not kill anyone but to struggle for what was right, when they knew that the bad guys would get away and no one would be adequately punished for Rachel's death? And this is what separated the two characters. For Harvey, it was too much. Rachel's death made him give up on the duy to the law and take matters into his own hands. (More on this in a later blog). But Batman, who lost just as much as Harvey Dent, remained committed to justice. He didn't kill Joker when he could have, but was resolved to continue fighting the good fight - no matter how impossible or painful it gets.
And so, at the end, Batman is presented as the ultimate moral hero. His committment to morality gives him physical pain, has absolutely ruined his reputation, and has made him lose the woman he loved. He is committed to fulfilling his duty, no matter what happens.
Like many great movies, what makes this one so wonderful is that the hero (Batman) is faced with the ultimate ethical dilemmas and it is beautiful to watch him struggle to maintain his integrity throughout the film. Now, I want discuss some of the more subtle layers of ethics in this movie with you, but before I can, you may need a brief philosophy background. You see, some "ethical dilemmas" don't make sense to certain people because there are different systems of morality/ethics. Consequently, you cannot fully understand an ethical dilemma until you understand the moral context from which a movie or piece of literature is functioning. Batman Begins and the Dark Knight both work within the framework of deontology, in keeping with the morality of the original Batman. If you don't need all of this background, you can skip to the "Back to the Movie" section.
Ok, blah, blah, blah. Let me get to the point. While there are hundreds of different ethical systems (from the Ten Commandments, to the principles of karma, to Ayn Rand's objectivism), there are three basic ethical families. They are consequence-based, motive-based, and action-based ethics. Consequence-based ethics believe that an action can be considered right or wrong based on the outcome it produces. Its motto is, "The ends justifies the means." This is a very pragmatic view which says that sometimes we must lie or harm others to save the most people or bring about the most good. Motive-based ethics (or "virtue-ethics") maintain that ultimately what matters is the intention of the actor. If someone has pure intentions but makes a mistake, that person is not considered immoral. The focus here is in developing a good heart or soul. The third kind (not necessarily the best - I actually don't adhere to this one) is action- or duty- based ethics. This ethical system argues that neither the result nor the intention determines if an action is right or wrong. Ultimately, what matters is that the action is in line with what's right. This morality suggests that we need to make ourselves do what is right because we know it is right. It is also called deontology.
My argument is that Batman is the Deontological Ideal. The first movie set the stage for this kind of moral framework. For example, consider the classic line between Batman and Rachel Dawes in Batman Begins: "It's not who you are on the inside, but what you do, that defines you." This is a blatant critique of motive-based ethics in favor of action-based ethics. Batman is committed to doing what is right because it is right. Now that we know this, let's consider deontology in a little more depth.
Immanuel Kant was the most influential deontological philosopher. Kant argued that there is a moral law which we all recognize subconsciously. This moral law declares that we should never act in such a way that we wouldn't want other people to act that way in the same circumstances. For example, I may be down on my luck and feel justified in stealing - but I certainly wouldn't want someone else stealing from me just because they were down on their luck (because maybe I needed whatever they stole too). Similarly, people shouldn't lie to get out of unpleasant situations, they shouldn't use their power to kill or eliminate people who inconvenience them, etc. Also, some later philosophers have suggested that people should always help others when they have opportunity, always be grateful, etc.
Kant believed that as moral beings, every human should follow this rule no matter how hard it gets. Why? Just because we have a moral duty to do it. Let's use telling the truth as an example. Sometimes, it will be easy to tell the truth - such as when we are asked to defend ourselves. In that case, we should tell the truth. But sometimes, it will be hard to tell the truth - it may result in us getting in trouble, in making us lose friends, in costing us something severe. In that case, we still should tell the truth. Now, what separates the moral from the immoral is not who tells the truth when it is easy, but who tells the truth when it is hard.
Back to the Movie...
The Dark Knight presents two deontological "heroes" at the beginning of the movie: the Dark Knight and the White Knight, Batman and Harvey Dent. Both believe very strongly in the rule of law. (Listen closely - you'll see that submitting to law is a key theme in the Batman movies). For Batman, there are two driving duties: you must save everyone you can and you must not kill anyone. We see at the beginning of the movie, to meet these ends Batman endures quite a bit of physical pain. Similarly, Harvey Dent is absolutely committed to bringing justice to every criminal, no matter what the consequences are. He faces threats against his life and against his career with the absolute integrity of a deontological hero. But later in the movie, both men will be pushed to see how strong their committment to duty really is.
Let's begin by talking about Batman. He faces a major challenge when the criminals pick up on the fact that Batman can't kill anyone. At one point, Batman tries to question Salvatore Morani (the guy Two-Face almost shot in the limo before killing the driver), but Morani tells Batman that Batman has limits - he won't kill, whereas the Joker has no limits. At a more important scene, Batman throws Joker off of the cliff but catches him before he hits the ground. How much the city would have been a safer place if Batman had just killed Joker! But that would violate his deontological principles, and Joker knew it. That is why Joker was laughing all the way to his death (because he thought he had corrupted even Batman), and why he acknowledges him as incorruptible when dangling from the rope.
However, despite all of the inconveniences and pain Batman had to experience throughout the movie, the most painful of all was undoubtedly losing Rachel Dawes. Both Batman and Harvey Dent loved Rachel, and when she was killed, they were both put under the ultimate test: could they still follow their duty to punish the bad guys by the book, to not kill anyone but to struggle for what was right, when they knew that the bad guys would get away and no one would be adequately punished for Rachel's death? And this is what separated the two characters. For Harvey, it was too much. Rachel's death made him give up on the duy to the law and take matters into his own hands. (More on this in a later blog). But Batman, who lost just as much as Harvey Dent, remained committed to justice. He didn't kill Joker when he could have, but was resolved to continue fighting the good fight - no matter how impossible or painful it gets.
And so, at the end, Batman is presented as the ultimate moral hero. His committment to morality gives him physical pain, has absolutely ruined his reputation, and has made him lose the woman he loved. He is committed to fulfilling his duty, no matter what happens.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Blog Failure
Well, I feel that I have already failed on this blog on two accounts. First, I re-read the way my last entry sounded, and I didn't like it. The idea was fine, but the "attack" on atheism sounded too apologetic. I am not interested in being a Christian apologist, explaining why the "Christian worldview" is superior to all other views with a Schaefferian confidence/arrogance. But I am interested in analyzing the RELIGIOUS elements that lie beneath all philosophies, structures, fields, systems, and even institutional religions. Anyway, sorry if I communicated the wrong idea.
Second, I have just stunk at keeping up with this thing. So, I would like to get back on track. But before returning to my discussion of religions (which is important), I would like to have a little movie review on, "The Dark Knight" - which I just saw last night and which immediately jumped into my favorite movies list.
First, a brief critique: in terms of entertainment, the movie was a little lacking. There is a certain emotional effect you want to have on an audience, and to pull it off, a movie needs to fit in a certain timeframe. This movie was too long to have the maximally engaging effect. (You find yourself checking the time, and feeling like "This is a long movie.") Similarly, the movie probably could have been broken up into two movies. It brings you to an emotional climax, softly relieves it, and then attempts to climax again. From this standpoint, it was not as appealing as the first movie. But from a different standpoint, it's length was understandable and perhaps necessary.
The acting gets a mixed review. Heath Ledger had an absolutely stunning performance as the Joker. He re-invents the character on screen - a difficult challenge following Jack Nicholson - and everything from his walk, to his ticks, to his tone, to his philosophical unity was done masterfully. I hope he is awarded an Oscar, really. I rank Michael Cain as the #2 actor in the movie, playing Alfred's role very convincingly. Christian Bale (Batman), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), all acted sufficiently, but there was little that stood out to me as superb by any of their performances in this movie. I thought Aaron Eckhart played Harvey Dent with ease and grace, but he was less convincing in his transformation as Two-Face. Similarly, poor Maggie Gyllenhaal didn't stand a chance as Rachel Dawes. She's not Katie Holmes, and the scene with her death didn't have half of the impact it would have had Holmes participated in a second film.
But what makes this movie marvellous is the character development and philosophical themes. I haven't seen a movie that mastered such philosophical themes in a long time, and I don't think I've ever seen a film match this one's character development. To summarize, I think the major points of philosophical interest are: Batman as the Deontological Ideal; Joker as the Nihilistic Foil; the good and evil inherent to humanity; the amount of control we have over our fate and how we can respond to it; how good and evil may be interdependent; and some sociological commentary. I don't think each of these will get their own blog. But the following blog will be dedicated to, "Batman and Deontology" because it is so prominent and is important for understanding both the movies perspective and our relationship to it as viewers.
Second, I have just stunk at keeping up with this thing. So, I would like to get back on track. But before returning to my discussion of religions (which is important), I would like to have a little movie review on, "The Dark Knight" - which I just saw last night and which immediately jumped into my favorite movies list.
First, a brief critique: in terms of entertainment, the movie was a little lacking. There is a certain emotional effect you want to have on an audience, and to pull it off, a movie needs to fit in a certain timeframe. This movie was too long to have the maximally engaging effect. (You find yourself checking the time, and feeling like "This is a long movie.") Similarly, the movie probably could have been broken up into two movies. It brings you to an emotional climax, softly relieves it, and then attempts to climax again. From this standpoint, it was not as appealing as the first movie. But from a different standpoint, it's length was understandable and perhaps necessary.
The acting gets a mixed review. Heath Ledger had an absolutely stunning performance as the Joker. He re-invents the character on screen - a difficult challenge following Jack Nicholson - and everything from his walk, to his ticks, to his tone, to his philosophical unity was done masterfully. I hope he is awarded an Oscar, really. I rank Michael Cain as the #2 actor in the movie, playing Alfred's role very convincingly. Christian Bale (Batman), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), all acted sufficiently, but there was little that stood out to me as superb by any of their performances in this movie. I thought Aaron Eckhart played Harvey Dent with ease and grace, but he was less convincing in his transformation as Two-Face. Similarly, poor Maggie Gyllenhaal didn't stand a chance as Rachel Dawes. She's not Katie Holmes, and the scene with her death didn't have half of the impact it would have had Holmes participated in a second film.
But what makes this movie marvellous is the character development and philosophical themes. I haven't seen a movie that mastered such philosophical themes in a long time, and I don't think I've ever seen a film match this one's character development. To summarize, I think the major points of philosophical interest are: Batman as the Deontological Ideal; Joker as the Nihilistic Foil; the good and evil inherent to humanity; the amount of control we have over our fate and how we can respond to it; how good and evil may be interdependent; and some sociological commentary. I don't think each of these will get their own blog. But the following blog will be dedicated to, "Batman and Deontology" because it is so prominent and is important for understanding both the movies perspective and our relationship to it as viewers.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Religion - for Better or Worse
There is a new fad in atheism today. Of course there have always been atheists, and around the time of the Enlightment they really became outspoken, criticizing the religion from scientific and philosophical perspectives. But newer writers like Christopher Hitchens take a different tack: they criticize religion from a moral perspective. One of his newer books, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, details atrocity after atrocity committed in the name of religion. To summarize, Hitches believes that these two factors make religious ultimately evil: (1) it requires faith, which prevents people from being rational or makes them unwilling to compromise and (2) it is oriented toward conquest: religious people are not content to live life by themselves but must spread their beliefs - by whatever means necessary - upon others. And he brings compelling evidence: stories of Christians killing each other, of Hindu governments sending out thugs and murders, of Muslims thwarting world peace efforts, and on and on.
But Hitchens has one major problem: he doesn't realize how fundamental being religious is to being human. Or, I should say, he doesn't recognize how religious he is.
I would like to talk about different religions in this blog, but not by discussing Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. I think that all of this discussion misses the mark, and many people spend too much time looking at the particulars and missing the bigger themes. Instead, I propose a question: "What is religion?" Well, here are my thoughts. As humans, we recognize that there are problems associated with being alive - problems such as excessive pain, injustice, failure, mortality, boredom, purposelessness, unhappiness, etc. Religion tries to identify the root cause of these problems and offers "a solution". Now, I put solution in quotation marks because the word may give the wrong idea. The solution of religion is never just an activity you can perform, a prayer you can say, a belief you can affirm, or any other singular act. Instead, religion offers a way to view the world and tools for dealing with all of its problems. Whenever we are hurt, frustrated, depressed, or discontent with life, it is our religious perspective that tells us how to appease the pain. And so religion can mask itself as psychology, biology, politics, economics, or philosophy when really - upon close examination - it is religious.
And that is what I would like to do here. I would like to get behind particulars and jargon and reveal what the real - and fundamentally different - religions are in our world. And so, my project should reveal that different kinds of Christians may share the same title but be of completely different religions; that fundamentalist Jewish and Muslim terrorists set out to kill each other, but ultimately they share the same religion; and that many of us unconsciously subscribe to multiple religions, which causes us to question our beliefs frequently, live hypocritically, and unable to cope with major problems. I confess that the religion I preach and proclaim is probably not always - perhaps not even usually - the religion that drives me. Hopefully, this process with be helpful to me as much as to anyone else.
To conclude, I respond once again to Hitchens. Yes, atheism is free from blemishes because is a negation. It declares that certain solutions to the human problems are wrong. But it doesn't necessarily offer others. Unfortunately, humans HAVE TO believe in some solutions, and so we must be religious. Yes, we all hold certain faiths (which may be or may not be open-minded) and we all have a tendency to impose our beliefs on others. But atheists are as guilty of this as anyone else because they too must believe in something. In fact, in terms of numbers, the greatest mass murder in modern history was under an atheistic regime: the Soviet Union.
But Hitchens has one major problem: he doesn't realize how fundamental being religious is to being human. Or, I should say, he doesn't recognize how religious he is.
I would like to talk about different religions in this blog, but not by discussing Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. I think that all of this discussion misses the mark, and many people spend too much time looking at the particulars and missing the bigger themes. Instead, I propose a question: "What is religion?" Well, here are my thoughts. As humans, we recognize that there are problems associated with being alive - problems such as excessive pain, injustice, failure, mortality, boredom, purposelessness, unhappiness, etc. Religion tries to identify the root cause of these problems and offers "a solution". Now, I put solution in quotation marks because the word may give the wrong idea. The solution of religion is never just an activity you can perform, a prayer you can say, a belief you can affirm, or any other singular act. Instead, religion offers a way to view the world and tools for dealing with all of its problems. Whenever we are hurt, frustrated, depressed, or discontent with life, it is our religious perspective that tells us how to appease the pain. And so religion can mask itself as psychology, biology, politics, economics, or philosophy when really - upon close examination - it is religious.
And that is what I would like to do here. I would like to get behind particulars and jargon and reveal what the real - and fundamentally different - religions are in our world. And so, my project should reveal that different kinds of Christians may share the same title but be of completely different religions; that fundamentalist Jewish and Muslim terrorists set out to kill each other, but ultimately they share the same religion; and that many of us unconsciously subscribe to multiple religions, which causes us to question our beliefs frequently, live hypocritically, and unable to cope with major problems. I confess that the religion I preach and proclaim is probably not always - perhaps not even usually - the religion that drives me. Hopefully, this process with be helpful to me as much as to anyone else.
To conclude, I respond once again to Hitchens. Yes, atheism is free from blemishes because is a negation. It declares that certain solutions to the human problems are wrong. But it doesn't necessarily offer others. Unfortunately, humans HAVE TO believe in some solutions, and so we must be religious. Yes, we all hold certain faiths (which may be or may not be open-minded) and we all have a tendency to impose our beliefs on others. But atheists are as guilty of this as anyone else because they too must believe in something. In fact, in terms of numbers, the greatest mass murder in modern history was under an atheistic regime: the Soviet Union.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
This Blog
Welcome.
Thank you for visiting my site, and if you have dared, for wading through my somewhat lengthy posts. My name is Brian Bither, I am 22, and right now I am insignificant. This proves to be very advantageous. I grew up in a Evangelical Christian home with intentions of becoming an Evangelical pastor. However, as I entered college, I had an early religious crisis (most pastors experience this in seminary) and spent all my time studying philosophy and religion to try to appease it. Eventually, (in a crazy, roundabout way), I came back to religion, although with a different flavor. At the end of this process, I decided that I wanted to go into pastoral ministry, but the powers that be in my home denomination are not ready to approve me. (After all, I am a loose canon. Who knows what I'll say? I haven't gone to seminary yet.)
So what am I? I am a college graduate who is a part-time youth pastor, (soon to be) living and working in the city, thinking, writing, sharing, and barely paying the bills. But I treasure this time when I have enough education to criticize, theorize, and dream - but not so much that I have been welded into an already established way of thinking.
I desire for ANYONE to read and comment on my blogs, but the people whom I am the MOST interested in are those who are frustrated or disillusioned with religion. I have had several good conversations with friends who have tried religion and come away exhausted and justifiably ticked off. Perhaps we can try again. I will make an effort to post once a week; I hope you will occasionally indulge me.
Gratefully,
Brian
Thank you for visiting my site, and if you have dared, for wading through my somewhat lengthy posts. My name is Brian Bither, I am 22, and right now I am insignificant. This proves to be very advantageous. I grew up in a Evangelical Christian home with intentions of becoming an Evangelical pastor. However, as I entered college, I had an early religious crisis (most pastors experience this in seminary) and spent all my time studying philosophy and religion to try to appease it. Eventually, (in a crazy, roundabout way), I came back to religion, although with a different flavor. At the end of this process, I decided that I wanted to go into pastoral ministry, but the powers that be in my home denomination are not ready to approve me. (After all, I am a loose canon. Who knows what I'll say? I haven't gone to seminary yet.)
So what am I? I am a college graduate who is a part-time youth pastor, (soon to be) living and working in the city, thinking, writing, sharing, and barely paying the bills. But I treasure this time when I have enough education to criticize, theorize, and dream - but not so much that I have been welded into an already established way of thinking.
I desire for ANYONE to read and comment on my blogs, but the people whom I am the MOST interested in are those who are frustrated or disillusioned with religion. I have had several good conversations with friends who have tried religion and come away exhausted and justifiably ticked off. Perhaps we can try again. I will make an effort to post once a week; I hope you will occasionally indulge me.
Gratefully,
Brian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
