How much would you sleep?

So, I took a random poll around college the other day, and was surprised at the varying results. For anyone who'd like to respond (in the comments section), tell me:

1. If there were no limits in either direction (greater or fewer), and no physical restraints, how many hours per day (24 hrs.) would you sleep?
2. Why?
   

New word with which to impress your friends: Metonymy

http://dictionary.reference.com/ defines it as:
me·ton·y·my
n. pl. me·ton·y·mies

A figure of speech in which one word or phrase is substituted for another with which it is closely associated, as in the use of Washington for the United States government or of the sword for military power.

So, I ran across this in my readings on Calvin and the Lord's Supper. I think there's something here. Calvin posits that the Scriptures frequently appeal to such types of speech. He gives, as an example, how the Holy Spirit appears at Jesus' baptism 'as a dove'. Somehow, it is beyond mere simile or even metaphor, but there is a substantive meaning and representation present.

In reading some of the Reformation historians, I get the sense that they are engulfed in a necessity to define everything. Everything must be explained, even if (especially if?) it is not directly addressed in Scripture. (Remind you of anyone? HINT: modern-day...starts with an 'e'...ends with a 'vangelicals'.)

I dare not suggest that I am directly representative of my culture, but I certainly have an easier time with mystery than some of the Reformers (and their contemporaries) did. In some cases, I find myself a bit puzzled by this need to systematically explain that which neither has nor demands a direct explanation.

This is not to sound unscholarly or anti-intellectual. Hopefully, it only expresses the acceptance of the limits of scholarship and intellect (ooo...how very postmodern of me!). Especially in grappling with theological matters, we may well need to employ the concepts of inference, non-propositional truth, poetic illustration, and yes, metonymy (dang, it's a hard word to type!). E.g., while I don't know if the disciples understood Jesus' words of institution at the first Eucharist, there may be a way that they understood it...and something tells me it had inherently more meaning than the words, themselves.

Then again, what are words? ...but that's for another post!

On Faith: Science, Experience, the Golden Calf and/or YHWH?

To be human is to employ some degree of faith. Whether we have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that my heart won't stop beating in the next 30 seconds, or that my beloved still loves me, we all exhibit some sort of belief toward ends that are not 'certifiably' (scientifically?) proven (or provable).

Evangelicals, because of our propensity toward marking the instant of spiritual conversion, tend to regard an individual as not having any faith toward God until one professes (read: cognitively assents to) such faith. Unfortunately, this begs many questions. If to be human is to utilize faith, is it altogether inconceivable that some manner of faith toward God is at work even prior to such confession?

Put another way, is the 'unbeliever' who believes that the sun will rise tomorrow exhibiting faith based only upon scientific and experiential probability? Do not I, as a 'believer', maintain that my understanding--that God indeed sustains all things (including the rising of the sun)--is universally applicable to believer and unbeliever alike (ala Mt 5.45b)? In such a way, is it ever appropriate to say that the 'unbeliever' unknowingly is exhibiting faith in the Sustainer God?

The breakdown of this line of arguing, it occurs to me, is that though faith may be exhibited, the understood object of faith has inherent meaning. The ancient Israelites, when faithfully thanking the golden calf for bringing them out of Egypt, were sinning against YHWH, even when Aaron told them, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.' (Ex 32.4)

So, then, if we can agree that to be human is to practice faith, but the object(s) of our faith is crucial, is the Savior God the initiator of faith in that he creates faith from faithfulness, or would it be more appropriate to say that he re-directs the pre-existent faith of all to its proper place: himself, as revealed through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

I believe that the subtle distinction here has something to contribute to discussions of the nature of revelation through to evangelistic strategy.

Jesusdale Mall

So, another megachurch is highlighted in my hometown of the Twin Cities. The article link (http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13808038.htm) will soon expire, but basically, the story is on the weekly attendance at a new, $24m local church building being 8,000. The article highlights (with intended negative responses, doubtlessly) that the church is waiting on its cup holders to arrive to install in chairs.

The evangelical church is so funny to me sometimes. We seem to spend oodles of time and money saying how different we are from the world, yet we tend to take the world's influences in all the wrong ways, then justify them because it's 'in the name of Jesus' (or, more appropriately, in the name of evangelism...but that's for another post). The article is jam-packed with references to all sorts of consumer-driven implementations in the church building: cup-holders, coffee shop, big-screen projection, etc.

When I first read the article, I was bit perplexed. I had been predicting that the age of the megachurch was on the wane...at least in the North Central US. I honestly believed that postmoderns (though very consumeristic) wouldn't ultimately stand for their spirituality to be so indistinguishable from their weekday lives. I really thought that the struggle with intimacy that oft plagues the megachurch would eventually erode it away in a culture that longs for belonging, especially tribal (small group) belonging.

But, this new church has proven me wrong. ...but it won't stop me from praying for such things to happen!