When thinking about environmentalism and environmental ethics, I typically approach the subject from a Christian perspective. We should protect the environment not just for human health, natural capital, aesthetic beauty, sustainability, or the moral considerations of animals, but also because "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
This handy technique saves me an awful lot of time when arguing about ethics or morality in general. When someone asks why premarital sex is wrong, I can simply say, "Because God says so." and smugly retreat into the background. I don't have to back up the assertion with facts about disease or unwanted pregnancy or emotional dependency or divorcing a teleological act from its natural conclusion or larger sociological implications. That's putting the cart before the horse: sin causes Bad Effects, but Bad Effects don't offer complete insight into sin.
Instead, my main task in investigating ethics or morals is to use the principles set forth in Scripture. "Did God really say...?" This is easier done in some cases (premarital sex, homosexuality, Baal worship, lying, cheating) than in others (just wars, politics, economics).
I realize this isn't very convincing to people who do not accept the authority of Scripture. "Who cares what your God says? I don't think he's real!"
Getting people to act ethically when they don't accept the authority of Scripture is the point of this post, with a specific emphasis on environmental ethics. How do we do this? Is it even desirable?
I. Appeal to self-interest and self-preservation.
1. Point out dire direct effects of products/services.
Lead paint causes birth defects in children. Let's use less of it. Mercury is toxic and comes from coal. Let's burn less coal. PCB's and Naphthalene and Arsenic and Radon and VOC's and particulate matter all directly adversely affect human health, so they should be regulated.
I know this technique seems totally obvious, but it really wasn't popular until Silent Spring and the creation of the EPA.
2. Point out indirect environmental effects.
No one will be able to eat any fish at all if we overfish resources to extinction. CFC's aren't terrible by themselves, but they deplete stratospheric ozone levels and indirectly harm human health. Carbon Dioxide isn't particularly toxic, but causes global climate change, which will be a Very Bad Thing.
I would like to take a minute to talk about Global Climate Change and how it relates to human self-interest. When we talk about self-interest, it's natural for our first tendency to be to think about death or disasters. In the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow', global warming causes hurricanes and floods and ice storms that freeze airplanes that are flying through them and wolves to escape from zoos that eat people.
But I don't think that escaped wolves will be our biggest enemy. Instead, Climate Change will be. You won't be able to grow the same crops you did before. What was once a fertile area is now inhospitable, while a place that was desolate is now really nice- and really undeveloped. People will have to move and adapt. It will be very costly, and maybe the gain in new fertile areas will offset the loss of others. But with a huge chunk of the Earth's surface dominated by human development already, it will be hard to change.
Imagine you are playing Civilization IV. You place your cities, roads, and improvements based on the conditions you see. If those conditions change, if a grasslands turns into a hill, a hill into a mountain, a mountain into a desert, a desert into a flood plain, it will be little consolation that there is no net change in your resource distribution, all told. You will be pissed that you built all those windmills where you would have built a mine given a second chance, and that if you had placed London three squares to the right, it would be making more beakers.
3. Relate environmental issues to sustainability.
This week in discussion, a classmate said, "The term sustainability is so broad, that we decided that sustainability is what you get out of it." I disagree.
Sustainability is providing for current needs in a way that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
This is related to human self-interest thusly: if we compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, everybody dies in the future. We can use coal to make electricity if we want, but eventually, we will run out of coal, and then we will have nothing to make electricity.
I will try another analogy from a computer game because I am feeling Super Dorky today. In the game 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic', you play an enterprising young Jedi Knight who battles evil robots. To help you, you can use things called 'stimulants' that temporarily make you harder, better, faster, stronger. Now you can use those stimulants anytime you want, but you probably want to save them for later in the game when it gets harder. If at some point in the game you were using stimulants faster than you were finding them, many people would be critical of that strategy. They would say that if you kept employing the strategy, you would get to the end of the game and die. The needs of the future would not be able to be met.
II. Appeal to other ethical considerations.
Beyond self-preservation, there are other ethical considerations that a vast majority of people view as intuitively legitimate.
1. Environmental Equity
Because poor or disadvantaged people disproportionally live on marginal land, environmental problems that damage that land therefore disproportionally hurt those people. This argument is often advanced about global warming. Poor people living in the land right by the desert are hurt by droughts that they didn't even cause. No one wants toxic waste in their backyard, so disposal sites are located nearest the people with the weakest political power.
2. Aesthetic Considerations
Forests are pretty. So are tigers. Dolphins, especially! I normally am very disdainful of these arguments because they are so subjective and an appeal to emotion. However, those of us who are not evil robots will give some weight to emotions. Our emotions and our consciences are trying to tell us something. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe!
Questions for the Reader
Can anyone else think of any other reasons why other people might follow environmental ethics? Can you think of ways that I can articulate religious justification for environmental stewardship without coming across as a crazy man?
On to the earlier reason for this post
Initially, I wanted to talk about another thing that was said in the environmental discussion. We were talking about the future of sustainability, and what an environmentally sustainable world would look like. We mentioned advances in technology and social/political organization. They were very "Hope is the Future Change Our Children Can Believe In" kinds of ideas. Apparently, we need to vote for Barack Obama to Unite the Clans, and he will use his Leadership to make the world Sustainable.
Then another person talked about economics. He said that businesses would change, and that there would be less Corporations, and more local, smaller organizations. You see, these Corporations, they...they sit in their Corporation Buildings being all...uh...Corporation-y, see?
So does it follow that there will be less corporations? I don't think so. Are we going to seriously argue that everything needs to be local? A community needs to grow its own food to be sustainable? Its own steel, its own smelters, its own semiconductors, its own manufacturing? That would be silly. If Kansas can grow wheat for both places, why not have Pittsburgh trade them some steel for its wheat? So comparative advantage is good, as is trade. That doesn't necessarily guarantee that corporations have to exist or be huge, merely that efficiencies can be found on large scales.
What about industries that are capital-intensive? What about reducing barriers to entry into markets? What does adding sustainability into the mix add to the equation? I would argue, nothing. This is where psychology comes into the mix. I posit that this person thinks that there will be smaller corporations because Environmentalism is a Leftist issue, as is Hating Corporations. Sustainability to Environmentalism to Liberalism to anti-Corporatism.
Questions to the Reader
Am I correct in identifying this person's thinking? When are we guilty of doing this ourselves? What happens to corporations in the future?
Friday, January 30, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Guitar Solos
In light of previous discussions around the apartment, and with the express purpose of writing about nothing I promised to write about, I'd like to do a little list of my Personal Favorite Guitar Solos.
In case you don't remember, I have been a proponent of the idea that some music is better than others. Though my hold on the idea is more tenuous in the wake of The Night Dave Lost Every Argument, it's important to note that if you disagree with my solo list, you are Objectively Wrong, and should make your own inferior list.
5. This is the catch-all spot for bad or silly songs that nonetheless have face-melting guitar solos. These songs have a very 80's feel that perhaps reminds me of my childhood.
"My Sharona" by The Knack.
"Blinded by the Light" by ELO.
"Jenny (867-5309)" by Tommy TuTone.
"Cold as Ice" by Foreigner.
4. "Sultans of Swing" by Dire Straits. Mark Knopfler remains one of the most underrated musicians of all time I tell you!
This song is a good illustration of one of the many great uses of music: shared cultural influence. Story 1: my roommate and I bonded almost immediately after I suggested we go see a band that night. He replied that he "don't give a damn about a trumpet playing band", and I finished off the lyric, "it isn't what you call Rock 'n Roll?" Story 2: When asked what I was eating at the cafeteria, I Knopfler-ed 'Creole. Creole.' It's the kind of inside-joke allusion that I do too often and no one knows what I'm talking about, but it worked that time.
3. "Nanook Rubs It" by Frank Zappa. I'd like to put a lot of Zappa on here, including "Sofa no. 1", or "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace", both of which are entirely instrumental. "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace" has the single blues-iest note I've ever heard, which he just sits on and slowly bends for about 13 seconds. But I'm trying to be consistent, and songs that are entirely instrumental just don't qualify.
"Nanook Rubs It" is as good an explanation of Zappa as anything, really. If you get it, you get it, if you don't, you hate it and you hate me and my musical taste. It's the absurd story of an Eskimo named Nanook who rubs yellow snow in the eyes of a fur trapper (who is strictly from commercial), and the solo manages to represent the anger and sorrow of Nanook for his favorite baby seal, as well as the 'vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people in the area: rub it'. It's just an excuse to jam out, and this lick is the kind of funky jazz that you blare in your car if you're trying to pick up chicks.
2. "Bell Bottom Blues" by Eric Clapton. I had a very hard time deciding between "Crossroads", "I'm Tore Down", "Layla", "Blues Power", "Cocaine", "Steppin' Out", and pretty much everything else.
"Layla" is perhaps the best-known, which is to its detriment; you can't be cool if everyone knows and loves you. Also, the song is helped immensely by its piano, and this is a list of guitar solos. Lastly, I am still livid from an argument years ago over whether the classic or acoustic version is better. Without that opening lick, piano transition, and screaming-desperate singing, the acoustic version has always seemed like just a novelty to me.
But I had to pick "Bell Bottom Blues" because I'm partial to solos that describe feelings better than lyrics ever could. The man is blue, but you get a better sense of that through the solo than when he sings "Do you want to hear me beg you to take me back? I'd gladly do it."
1. "Comfortably Numb" by Pink Floyd. According to legend, "Comfortably Numb" was finished by David Gilmore before it found a home in the mostly-Roger-Waters-led The Wall. Not only is it my favorite song off one of my favorite albums, but like "Bell Bottom Blues", it succeeds in creating feelings of isolation, fear, yearning for human contact, and a drug-fueled stupor. I would compare it to Raskolnikov's fever in Crime and Punishment, but that's a little grandiose, don't you think?
In case you don't remember, I have been a proponent of the idea that some music is better than others. Though my hold on the idea is more tenuous in the wake of The Night Dave Lost Every Argument, it's important to note that if you disagree with my solo list, you are Objectively Wrong, and should make your own inferior list.
5. This is the catch-all spot for bad or silly songs that nonetheless have face-melting guitar solos. These songs have a very 80's feel that perhaps reminds me of my childhood.
"My Sharona" by The Knack.
"Blinded by the Light" by ELO.
"Jenny (867-5309)" by Tommy TuTone.
"Cold as Ice" by Foreigner.
4. "Sultans of Swing" by Dire Straits. Mark Knopfler remains one of the most underrated musicians of all time I tell you!
This song is a good illustration of one of the many great uses of music: shared cultural influence. Story 1: my roommate and I bonded almost immediately after I suggested we go see a band that night. He replied that he "don't give a damn about a trumpet playing band", and I finished off the lyric, "it isn't what you call Rock 'n Roll?" Story 2: When asked what I was eating at the cafeteria, I Knopfler-ed 'Creole. Creole.' It's the kind of inside-joke allusion that I do too often and no one knows what I'm talking about, but it worked that time.
3. "Nanook Rubs It" by Frank Zappa. I'd like to put a lot of Zappa on here, including "Sofa no. 1", or "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace", both of which are entirely instrumental. "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace" has the single blues-iest note I've ever heard, which he just sits on and slowly bends for about 13 seconds. But I'm trying to be consistent, and songs that are entirely instrumental just don't qualify.
"Nanook Rubs It" is as good an explanation of Zappa as anything, really. If you get it, you get it, if you don't, you hate it and you hate me and my musical taste. It's the absurd story of an Eskimo named Nanook who rubs yellow snow in the eyes of a fur trapper (who is strictly from commercial), and the solo manages to represent the anger and sorrow of Nanook for his favorite baby seal, as well as the 'vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people in the area: rub it'. It's just an excuse to jam out, and this lick is the kind of funky jazz that you blare in your car if you're trying to pick up chicks.
2. "Bell Bottom Blues" by Eric Clapton. I had a very hard time deciding between "Crossroads", "I'm Tore Down", "Layla", "Blues Power", "Cocaine", "Steppin' Out", and pretty much everything else.
"Layla" is perhaps the best-known, which is to its detriment; you can't be cool if everyone knows and loves you. Also, the song is helped immensely by its piano, and this is a list of guitar solos. Lastly, I am still livid from an argument years ago over whether the classic or acoustic version is better. Without that opening lick, piano transition, and screaming-desperate singing, the acoustic version has always seemed like just a novelty to me.
But I had to pick "Bell Bottom Blues" because I'm partial to solos that describe feelings better than lyrics ever could. The man is blue, but you get a better sense of that through the solo than when he sings "Do you want to hear me beg you to take me back? I'd gladly do it."
1. "Comfortably Numb" by Pink Floyd. According to legend, "Comfortably Numb" was finished by David Gilmore before it found a home in the mostly-Roger-Waters-led The Wall. Not only is it my favorite song off one of my favorite albums, but like "Bell Bottom Blues", it succeeds in creating feelings of isolation, fear, yearning for human contact, and a drug-fueled stupor. I would compare it to Raskolnikov's fever in Crime and Punishment, but that's a little grandiose, don't you think?
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
More American Culture At a Glance
More off of the Youtube video of Beyonce's If I Were A Boy, this time from a user calling themselves 'FaceRider2008':
men dis girl is really sayn sumthng on how boys ack. not all but sum cuz there is sum gud guys out there but on tha otha had were they @. men she cudnt said it beta den me guys jus dnt how girls feels AT ALL
Is this a joke? Show me the 27-year-old man that wrote me this post. SHOW ME THIS!
men dis girl is really sayn sumthng on how boys ack. not all but sum cuz there is sum gud guys out there but on tha otha had were they @. men she cudnt said it beta den me guys jus dnt how girls feels AT ALL
Is this a joke? Show me the 27-year-old man that wrote me this post. SHOW ME THIS!
Saturday, January 3, 2009
More American Culture
McDonald's now has a commercial featuring a wedding cake made out of Chicken McNuggets.
I feel that this is much more threatening to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever could be.
I feel that this is much more threatening to the institution of marriage than gay marriage ever could be.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
An Acting Exercise
Remember when blogs first came out and everybody, including (incredibly smart, handsome, caring, intimidating) engineers wrote cloying messages like they were 13-year-old girls visiting Paris?
Yeah, me too!
But I think you'll admit that my writing has improved as a result of this little endeavor. At the very least, it's sparked conversations with friends on just how exactly it is possible to live your life as if the Earth were flat.
So I know it's a little early for New Years Resolutions, but I'd like to codify what I'd like to talk about in the future:
1. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Did you know my roommate thinks that St. Paul is dumb? It's true! But Paul's letter speaks to many important issues, ranging from social/cultural hot-button issues like homosexuality, to the role of religion in government. But that's just to get butts in the seats. The letter is also very clear when it explains how Christianity is supposed to work. As Luther wrote, "This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel."
2. Twilight. I fear for our nation's youth!
3. Movies that are Not Twilight. I would review Rachel Getting Married if I had seen it. Unfortunately, I was stabbed in the back on that. Et tu, Brute?
4. Meta-critiques of my own hubris and arrogance. (Hint: this post counts!) Who uses the word 'hubris', anyway? Insufferable pricks, that's who. How come I have to prove to everyone how much smarter I am, how much righter I am, how much better I am? When will my parallel construction end?
Yeah, me too!
But I think you'll admit that my writing has improved as a result of this little endeavor. At the very least, it's sparked conversations with friends on just how exactly it is possible to live your life as if the Earth were flat.
So I know it's a little early for New Years Resolutions, but I'd like to codify what I'd like to talk about in the future:
1. The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Did you know my roommate thinks that St. Paul is dumb? It's true! But Paul's letter speaks to many important issues, ranging from social/cultural hot-button issues like homosexuality, to the role of religion in government. But that's just to get butts in the seats. The letter is also very clear when it explains how Christianity is supposed to work. As Luther wrote, "This letter is truly the most important piece in the New Testament. It is purest Gospel."
2. Twilight. I fear for our nation's youth!
3. Movies that are Not Twilight. I would review Rachel Getting Married if I had seen it. Unfortunately, I was stabbed in the back on that. Et tu, Brute?
4. Meta-critiques of my own hubris and arrogance. (Hint: this post counts!) Who uses the word 'hubris', anyway? Insufferable pricks, that's who. How come I have to prove to everyone how much smarter I am, how much righter I am, how much better I am? When will my parallel construction end?
Friday, December 26, 2008
American Culture At a Glance
In the Youtube comments to Beyonce's "If I Were A Boy":
cuddels9x20x08 (4 minutes ago):
my ex could learn a thing or 2 from this song :(
cuddels9x20x08 (4 minutes ago):
my ex could learn a thing or 2 from this song :(
Saturday, December 20, 2008
John 21
It's a Saturday, I've grown tired of reading rather than writing, so I might as well finish off this gospel. I've very much enjoyed this little project, as it's helped me study the Gospel in depth, and even revise my position on some issues. I hope the (few) readers of this have been informed as well, even if they have simply been informed that their friend David is a religionist and science stopper.
If reading this Gospel has changed one view of mine, it is my treatment of the miraculous and the evidence we have for Christianity. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of my religion, I used to say that faith is all the proof we will ever have. Indeed, if God had given us stronger proof (say, a giant message scrawled in the sky) it would destroy the value of belief. It's easy to get a test right if you're told the answers.
But I'm beginning to reconsider this. We are told, ultimately, that faith is needed to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that this faith is created by the Holy Spirit. After all, when John runs to the tomb, we read simply that he saw and believed. But for those of us with weaker faith, we're given a lot of remedial help. Thomas puts his hand into Jesus' side and feels where the nails went through his hands. Jesus performs all sorts of miracles and John writes that 'these words are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'
So it's not like God hasn't been helping us out. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of Christianity, why not say that Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, healed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, had a loud voice from heaven exclaim 'This is my Son- listen to him!', walked on water, raised the dead, fed the 5000, calmed the storm, and rose from the dead himself? You might not believe that evidence, but that belief comes as a consequence of faith.
Anyway, on to the final chapter of John's gospel, which has lots of applications for the big-c Church, as well as simple reconciliation for all men.
********************************
Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish
1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.[a] It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3"I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.
6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[b] 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
********************************
This isn't really about catching fish, obviously. The disciples are about to become 'fishers of men'. They are about to start the Church. This section emphasizes that they do so ONLY by the grace of God- without Jesus' help, they catch nothing. This doesn't mean that there should be no outreach ministries or missionaries (quite the opposite), but it does mean that it is not worship bands or powerpoint screens that make Christians- it's the Holy Spirit. The best way to employ those outreach talents is to make them obedient to Christ.
*****************************************************
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
************************************************************************
This is the part of reconciliation I was talking about. Peter just weeks before had denied ever knowing Jesus. The fact that Jesus asks him three times if he loves him evokes Peter's denying him three times in the courtyard as Jesus was on trial.
Isn't this sort of mean of Jesus? I'm sure the last thing Peter wants to be reminded of is that time that he boasted of dying while fighting for Christ and then turning his back on him when Jesus needed him the most. On top of that, Jesus goes on to explain that Peter will die a pretty gruesome death! This is not the kind of reconciliation we see in the movies. We do not see:
Peter: I was whack.
Jesus: Let's hug it out.
To understand this, I think you have to understand Peter. He is the leader of the disciples, a bold man on the surface. But this boldness isn't supported all the time. Even though Peter has the ambition to see Jesus walking on water and asks Jesus to let him do it too, he is frightened by the wind.
From Matthew 14:
********************************************
During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29"Come," he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
**************************************************
Later, in Matthew 16:
***********************************
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
****************************************************
Finally, it's important to understand why Peter denied knowing Jesus in the courtyard. Not only was Peter very upset that Jesus wasn't going to be the kind of Messiah Peter wanted him to be, Peter was clearly scared for his own life. Peter is shocked and horrified when Jesus tells him in the garden that he has to die on the cross. I quote these passages trying to gain a little insight into the psychology of Peter. And I think it's not much of a stretch to say that Peter had a huge fear that many people share: the Fear of Dying.
This is why it's so important when Jesus says that Peter will die. He addresses the elephant in the room. But something has happened in the last few weeks that makes Peter able to lead the new church and suffer imprisonment and eventually death. That something, of course, is Christ's death and resurrection.
As Paul will later write, "Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
As proper a note to end on as any. E'en so, Lord Jesus, quickly come.
If reading this Gospel has changed one view of mine, it is my treatment of the miraculous and the evidence we have for Christianity. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of my religion, I used to say that faith is all the proof we will ever have. Indeed, if God had given us stronger proof (say, a giant message scrawled in the sky) it would destroy the value of belief. It's easy to get a test right if you're told the answers.
But I'm beginning to reconsider this. We are told, ultimately, that faith is needed to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that this faith is created by the Holy Spirit. After all, when John runs to the tomb, we read simply that he saw and believed. But for those of us with weaker faith, we're given a lot of remedial help. Thomas puts his hand into Jesus' side and feels where the nails went through his hands. Jesus performs all sorts of miracles and John writes that 'these words are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.'
So it's not like God hasn't been helping us out. When asked for 'proof' of the validity of Christianity, why not say that Jesus was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, healed the lepers, gave sight to the blind, had a loud voice from heaven exclaim 'This is my Son- listen to him!', walked on water, raised the dead, fed the 5000, calmed the storm, and rose from the dead himself? You might not believe that evidence, but that belief comes as a consequence of faith.
Anyway, on to the final chapter of John's gospel, which has lots of applications for the big-c Church, as well as simple reconciliation for all men.
********************************
Jesus and the Miraculous Catch of Fish
1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.[a] It happened this way: 2Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3"I'm going out to fish," Simon Peter told them, and they said, "We'll go with you." So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?"
"No," they answered.
6He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, "It is the Lord," he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[b] 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
********************************
This isn't really about catching fish, obviously. The disciples are about to become 'fishers of men'. They are about to start the Church. This section emphasizes that they do so ONLY by the grace of God- without Jesus' help, they catch nothing. This doesn't mean that there should be no outreach ministries or missionaries (quite the opposite), but it does mean that it is not worship bands or powerpoint screens that make Christians- it's the Holy Spirit. The best way to employ those outreach talents is to make them obedient to Christ.
*****************************************************
Jesus Reinstates Peter
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."
17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. 18 I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." 19Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
************************************************************************
This is the part of reconciliation I was talking about. Peter just weeks before had denied ever knowing Jesus. The fact that Jesus asks him three times if he loves him evokes Peter's denying him three times in the courtyard as Jesus was on trial.
Isn't this sort of mean of Jesus? I'm sure the last thing Peter wants to be reminded of is that time that he boasted of dying while fighting for Christ and then turning his back on him when Jesus needed him the most. On top of that, Jesus goes on to explain that Peter will die a pretty gruesome death! This is not the kind of reconciliation we see in the movies. We do not see:
Peter: I was whack.
Jesus: Let's hug it out.
To understand this, I think you have to understand Peter. He is the leader of the disciples, a bold man on the surface. But this boldness isn't supported all the time. Even though Peter has the ambition to see Jesus walking on water and asks Jesus to let him do it too, he is frightened by the wind.
From Matthew 14:
********************************************
During the fourth watch of the night Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. "It's a ghost," they said, and cried out in fear.
27But Jesus immediately said to them: "Take courage! It is I. Don't be afraid."
28"Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29"Come," he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
**************************************************
Later, in Matthew 16:
***********************************
21From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
24Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25For whoever wants to save his life[h] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.
****************************************************
Finally, it's important to understand why Peter denied knowing Jesus in the courtyard. Not only was Peter very upset that Jesus wasn't going to be the kind of Messiah Peter wanted him to be, Peter was clearly scared for his own life. Peter is shocked and horrified when Jesus tells him in the garden that he has to die on the cross. I quote these passages trying to gain a little insight into the psychology of Peter. And I think it's not much of a stretch to say that Peter had a huge fear that many people share: the Fear of Dying.
This is why it's so important when Jesus says that Peter will die. He addresses the elephant in the room. But something has happened in the last few weeks that makes Peter able to lead the new church and suffer imprisonment and eventually death. That something, of course, is Christ's death and resurrection.
As Paul will later write, "Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
As proper a note to end on as any. E'en so, Lord Jesus, quickly come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)