The Good

I've been delving deeper into concepts of medical ethics of late through my work at CompassCare, and we ran into this question: how do we know what is "good" for the patient at any point in the engagement between doctor and patient?

Dr. Edmund Pellegrino, widely considered the father of modern medical ethics, developed a quadripartite notion of 'the good:'

1. the medical good (what is the clinically best thing to do)
2. the patient's good (as perceived by the patient)
3. the human good (considering the whole person and human telos)
4. the spiritual good (based on the patient's and doctor's beliefs)

These are ascending concepts, such that each submits to all of those after them.

In considering this question, "what is good?" I've been considering how Dr. Pellegrino's notion (which, by the way, lines up implicitly with traditional medical ethics) could be expanded to consider all social interactions.

Notably, the doctor/patient engagement is different from typical social interactions, because all the power in the relationship is on one side. Nevertheless, there may be a similar filter:

1. the normative good (what is culturally expected or appropriate behavior)
2. the other's good (as perceived by them)
3. the human good (considering the whole person and human telos)
4. the spiritual good (based on the beliefs of the self)

Notice that there is no consideration of what is good "for me," the self, except perhaps in the meanest of the goods, the normative good. The self is considered only generally in the human and spiritual goods.

What is our process for considering actions in relationship? When we ask ourselves, "What is the next best thing for me to do in this relationship?" through what criteria do we pass our decision?

What are your thoughts?

local church - a misnomer

Belinda and I are contemplating buying a house, and as I am happily an idealist, that has led me through a whirlwind of philosophical questions.

We talk about being like the Good Samaritan. Help anyone you encounter on your path who is in need. But in choosing what house to buy and where, we are quite literally choosing which path we're going to be walking on. I want to be in a place where I can be a blessing to the most people.

One of our top priorities is proximity to our church. While many committed church-goers would consider this in a move, it's usually in the context of balancing commute times between workplace and school and church and family. Our radius is a bit tighter than "anything within a 20 minute drive." We already live within a mile, and we want to get closer.

I'm committed to the ideal of a local church that is actually local--one which makes a bigger difference to it's direct neighbors than some additional traffic on Sunday mornings.  The question is, if your church picked up and left town, would it's neighborhood notice? And if they noticed, would they be sorry to see you go?

Bluntly, I don't think the answer to that second question is yes for us--yet.

The Sensate Culture

The following is a direct quote placed here for reference purposes only. The original can be viewed here:

http://satyagraha.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/pitirim-sorkin-crisis-of-modernity/

Sensate (Materialistic) Culture
The first pattern, which Sorokin called Sensate culture, has these features: 

• The defining cultural principle is that true reality is sensory – only the material world is real. There is no other reality or source of values.

• This becomes the ubiquitous organizing principle of society. It permeates every aspect of culture and defines the basic mentality. People are unable to think in any other terms.

• Sensate culture pursues science and technology, but dedicates little creative thought to spirituality or religion.

• Dominant values are wealth, health, bodily comfort, sensual pleasures, power and fame.

• Ethics, politics, and economics are utilitarian and hedonistic. All ethical and legal precepts are considered mere man-made conventions, relative and changeable.

• Art and entertainment emphasize sensory stimulation. In the decadent stages of Sensate culture there is a frenzied emphasis on the new and the shocking (literally, sensationalism).

• Religious institutions are mere relics of previous epochs, stripped of their original substance, and tending to fundamentalism and exaggerated fideism (the view that faith is not compatible with reason).

I cannot find a more fitting description of our current culture in the west. 

The American Spirit

One of the attractions we saw on our recent trip to Disney World is the Hall of Presidents at Magic Kingdom. Strikingly patriotic. However, as I sat and watched and listened, and particularly as I looked around the room I was as equally saddened as I was grateful. Steve Burns of StartedByAMouse.com writes this:

The different moments portrayed in the attraction show that the main characteristic of America is its spirit. The American people have had the spirit to keep pressing on, whether in good times or bad, in peace or in war. Along each side of the theater are statues representing these spirits of America: adventure, compassion, discovery, freedom, heritage, independence, individualism, innovation, knowledge, pioneering, self-reliance, and tomorrow.

As I walked passed those spirits the last one before the exit struck me profoundly: individualism. As much as I love my country, and I do love her, the fact that we celebrate individualism as an essential aspect of the American spirit nearly brought me to tears.

And I had to admit, individualism is an essential aspect of our culture, at least today. Lord God, have mercy.

Liberty - A Human Right?

Human Rights are difficult. Let me just be clear that this post is more of an exploration than a conclusion. I'm interested in your thoughts.

R N W brought to light the question of whether Liberty is really a human right based on the Wagner quote in my previous post. Wagner indicates that only those who are self-controlled can breathe the air of Liberty without getting drunk on it and being "morally slain." We see this throughout history and in our own culture. When given freedom to do whatever they wish, and unconstrained by an "inner law" based on a Judeo-christian ethic, the people become increasingly enslaved to their desires and passions. As Plato said so long ago, pure democracy always ends in tyranny, because a government must great tighter and tighter regulations to control a people who will not control themselves. That is exactly what Wagner is saying, and what C.S. Lewis prophesied in The Abolition of Man.

But what does this have to do with Human Rights? Should we selectively withhold Liberty from those who are not self-controlled? In a sense we do this already; it's called prison. But is Liberty still a Human Right?

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most profound documents of our time. A true game changer.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The founding fathers are saying here that Liberty is a right by God's law, and cannot be given or taken away by government. In a sense, even if we wanted to take away someones Liberty, we really can't do it. See China. Mao's revolution was designed to control the people by forcing them to think a certain way. But he couldn't do it. It didn't work. [As an aside, it's interesting to note that China is now partnering with very capitalistic organizations like... WalMart. Why? What reason would a still-communist China have to bring the largest corporation on the planet inside its borders? To control the people. Consumerism is the great opiate of America, and it may just work in China too...]


Back to Human Rights. Alexander Hamilton makes an interesting point about liberty, rights, and government in Federalist No.1:

It will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgement, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

This, in a letter that is arguing for the acceptance of the newly published Constitution. Hamilton argues on the same theme as Plato, which Wagner would later pick up, that the elevation of individual liberties above all else ends in tyranny.

I'm still circling the question. Is Liberty a human right?

Let's see what the Bible says. We know that mankind is depraved and rebellious, bent on evil (pursing not-God), and is thus deserving of Death (eternal not-God). In that sense, we have no "rights." Zero. The only human right before God is Death. There is nothing else we "deserve."
However, we also know that humans are created in the Image of God, and that Christ is the perfection and completion of that Image. This bears significant impact on the way we treat each other. God created you; in your face I see the image of my Creator. Therefore, out of respect for Him, I respect you. I respect your ability to make autonomous choices, and until proven otherwise, I respect your ability to control yourself. Liberty, I think is the right and responsibility of all humans to treat each other with justice. Liberty does not say, "Give me mine!" as secular humanism is teaching us today. Liberty is not an individual sport. True Liberty does not say, "I demand my freedom to do whatever I want. Respect me." it says, "I respect you, because God has made you free."

We must follow the example of Christ. He never stood up for his own "rights." Instead he freely gave them up and chose to wield his power on behalf of those who before God are powerless, without rights.

Liberty is Human Right. But to experience true freedom we must not demand Liberty for ourselves. Instead, we bow to the "inner law." We control ourselves out of deference to Christ and his image in others.

Thoughts?

Biblical Justice

Christ lived, died, and rose for me, a sinner powerless and without standing or station before a holy God. That is biblical justice: wielding power on behalf of the powerless. That is why I do my job and pursue excellence in it. That is why CompassCare exists. I am passionate about erasing the need for abortion because of what I believe about God.

Tyranny and the US Government

Complex, impartial, evolving thoughts mar these lines. Bear with me as I explore the designs behind the issues of our time.

I've come to believe that the current moral turmoil in our society are the result of a fundamental shift in transcendence (that being the thing beyond and above us which sets standards for life). As the result of enlightenment thinkers like Kant and later American influencers like Whitman, we have a war of ideologies. Kant declared that is is man's brain, his own ability to reason, which is the highest standard. We call this materialistic rationalism. There is nothing beyond that which we can see or perceive, and our ability to make rational judgement is itself that which makes us valuable as humans. It is no longer the image of God stamped on us that gives humans dignity, but our ability to make rational judgments. Whitman carried it further. We are all "leaves of grass," individuals whose transcendence goes no further than our own reason.

Now, government has a problem. How do you manage a population of individuals no longer self-controlled by a Judeo-Christian moral standard? In The Republic, Plato wrote, "tyranny naturally arises out of democracy." Why?  With democracy there is freedom, "And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases." With no moral standard which binds a nation together in common principles, the end of freedom is anarchy: "democracy...is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder." Yet, humanity will not tolerate anarchy. Chaos is one of five universal fears of humans. To avoid chaos, we give away our freedoms. In the case of the United States, we give freedoms to the tyranny of government legislation, which poses tighter and tighter restrictions on our actions.

Perhaps it is wrong to say we give freedoms away. They are taken from us by government, and by and large we the people seem completely unaware, being placated by consumerism and swayed by the compelling and entertaining media. 

Please express your thoughts. I intend to use this as a backdrop to explore some of the "issues" which are currently in the national discussion (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc).

When Helping Hurts

Chapter 3: What is success in material poverty-alleviation efforts?

I grew up in a church environment where I mistakenly understood my teaching to mean that God was only concerned with our souls and moral purity. I do not blame any of the spiritual authorities of my youth. Over the last 5 years God has corrected my mistaken notions.  The authors of When Helping Hurts express my current doctrine of Christ's redemption quite well:

Jesus is not just "beaming up" our souls out of planet Earth in Star Trek fashion; rather, Jesus is bringing reconciliation to every last speck of the universe, including both our foundational relationships and the systems that emanate from them.

This reconciliation of all things comes from Colossians 1:19-20, among others. And it has a direct impact on our understanding of the "solution" to poverty":

Poverty is rooted in broken relationships, so the solution to poverty is rooted in the power of Jesus' death and resurrection to put all tings into right relationship again.

I really appreciate that the authors put the responsibility for the condition of the materially poor on sinful individuals and the broken systems of our society.

DEFINITIONS

Poverty alleviation is the ministry of reconciliation: moving people closer to glorifying God by living in right relationship with God, with self, with others, and with the rest of creation.

Material poverty alleviation is working to reconcile the four foundational relationships so that people can fulfill their callings of glorifying God by working and supporting themselves and their families with the fruit of that work.

By defining poverty as a lack in these four relationships, the authors must produce a definition of alleviation that heals the brokenness.  Aside from this key aspect (which begins to become burdensome by its repetition: "Okay, OK! I get it already!"), they really define material poverty alleviation as "empowering people to earn sufficient material things through their own labor."

We were created to bring God glory, and we were created for good works.  "How we work and for whom we work really matters."
Side note: The motive thing really gets me.  Why do I want an engineering job?  Is it for me, or for God? James 4:1-3

"Our perspective should be less about how we are going to fix the materially poor and more about how we can walk together, asking God to fix both of us."  I want to particularly note the walking together. Relationships, real relationships with materially poor people, are what changed my heart in Egypt (of course through the power of the Word of God and his Holy Spirit). Relationships were particularly powerful for me when I encountered and was befriended by those who had nothing physically, but knew God far better than I might have ever dreamed of knowing him on earth.

A note on the american ghetto, which I have found all too true:

Living in the context of violence, some ghetto children correctly assume that they will not live very long. This can make them very present-oriented and give them little incentive to invest in their futures through such things as being diligent in school. And of course, a failure to get a good education contributes to their long-run material poverty.

In Detroit we knew a man in his late 20s who was trying to turn his life around. For the first time in his life, he was looking into the future and actually believed he might live into his 40s, and it sobered him. He said, "I don't want to be 45 and have people calling my cell for weed." Last I knew he was coming back to church.

Remember, the goal is for everyone involved to glorify God and to enjoy him forever, not just to increase people's incomes.

Next: Part II, general principles for helping without hurting.

When Helping Hurts

Chapter 2 :: What's the Problem?

In this chapter the authors address the question, "What is poverty?"

Through the research they present from the World Bank, as well as my personal experience in Detroit and Cairo, it seems that people who are NOT poor tend to define poverty in terms of material possessions, while those who are poor define it more psychologically and socially.  Here are some definitions throughout the chapter:

Poverty is the result of relationships that do not work, that are not just, that are not for life, that are not harmonious or enjoyable.  Poverty is the absence of shalom in all its meaning.

It is this lack of freedom to be able to make meaningful choices--to have an ability to affect one's situation--that is the distinguishing feature of poverty.

Poor people tend to describe their condition...in terms of shame, inferiority, powerlessness, humiliation, fear, hopelessness, depression, social isolation, and voicelessness.

The authors define poverty as a lack in one or more of the basic relationships of life: the relationship with God, self, others, and the rest of creation.  Brokenness in these relationships lead to a Poverty of  Spiritual Intimacy, Poverty of Being, Poverty of Community, and Poverty of Stewardship, respectively.

I know that I struggle with a certain poverty of being, a wrong view of myself that says because I have something material, I somehow have more worth than those who do not.  The authors claim that most North Americans struggle with this same poverty of being they call a god-complex.

When we define poverty as a material lack and try to meet it that way, we exacerbate our own god-complex, and contribute to the poverty of being of the poor... feelings of worthlessness and shame.

One author writes, "It makes me feel good to use my training in economics to "save" poor people.  And in the process, I sometimes unintentionally reduce poor people to objects that I use to fulfill my own need to accomplish something."

One of the biggest problems in many poverty-alleviation efforts is that their design and implementation exacerbates the poverty of being of the economically rich--their god-complexes--and the poverty of being of the economically poor--their feelings of inferiority and shame. The way we act toward the economically poor often communicates--albeit unintentionally--that we are superior and they are inferior.

I have other thoughts about this chapter, but they come in another post.

True Liberation

"For this revolution is not, in fact, concerned with liberating us from our poverty and misery, but rather from our wealth and our totally excessive prosperity. It is not a liberation from what we lack, but from our consumerism in which we are ultimately consuming our very selves. It is not a liberation from our state of oppression, but from the untransformed praxis of our own wishes and desires. It is not a liberation from our powerlessness, but from our own form of predominance. It frees us, not from the state of being dominated, but from that of dominating; not from our suffering, but from our apathy; not from our guilt, but from our innocence, or rather from that delusion of innocence which the life of domination has long since spread out in our souls." - Johann Baptist Metz, Christians and Jews After Auschwitz

I don't claim to know much about Metz, nor do I know to what "revolution" he refers.  But is this not the power of the gospel, to free us from self?  I say amen.  Let us be truly liberated.

From "Liberation from Wealth" posted by Boyd on Nonviolent Jesus

on poverty and dignity

Here are some interesting thoughts that I'm just kind of putting together right now--

I think one of the major problems that we face in trying to serve the poor (in any context) is cementing a feeling of a lack of dignity.  When I have nothing, it's easy to feel like I am nothing.  And when we give handouts without relationship, I think we contribute to that feeling of indignity.

[Aside: Interesting correlation between the words lack of dignity and indignation:  "the quality of being worthy of esteem or respect" and "anger or scorn aroused by something felt to be unfair, unworthy, or wrong"]. I don't think that needs explanation.

A few weeks ago 11 people from Shippensburg University in PA stayed in our house while they did an "Urban Plunge" in Detroit. Two of their work days they spent cleaning up trash from the street and empty lots in different neighborhoods and boarding up abandoned houses. I wonder what people think when we do things like that.

I was just walking down our street, coming back to our house from church. And I was noticing just how much garbage had accumulated unnoticed under the snow, and how dirty and littered the block looks now that the snow is gone.  I picked up a few things from our front yard as I walked in the door.  But if there was a large group of outsiders that came in for a day and cleaned up the whole block, how would I feel?  I would be grateful, in part, but I would also feel guilty for not taking care of my own neighborhood.  It would feel particularly bad if I saw people picking up trash in my own yard.  I'd feel belittled.  undignified.  I can only imagine what years of that kind of treatment from "rich, powerful" outsiders would do to my perception of myself.

And as I am sitting here thinking of these things, I am reminded of the desire (need) that God has put into every man to be the provider for his family.  It is a strong desire, and there is an equally strong sense of shame that men feel when they are unable to provide for their families.  And I wonder if that doesn't play a large part in why men are so quick to abandon their families in situations of poverty.  In some ways, if I stay to be with the people I love but cannot provide for, I live with a daily reminder of my own shame and failure.  I run, to escape my shame.

This has strayed far from a discussion of poverty.  But I think my desire is strengthening to serve my neighbors in a way that dignifies, that makes them feel loved and valued and valuable, not worthless or used, not the project that makes me feel better about all the good stuff I have.

love

LOVE: an unconditional commitment to an imperfect person.

Today Belinda and I had our first pre-marital counseling session with our pastor, David Whiting.  It was fun, which wasn't the adjective I had in mind on the way in.  Of course, it was not only fun, but also challenging and exciting and wonderful and a slew of other positive adjectives.

curiosity

remind me to tell you about that dream I had




In other news, this post appears at exactly the time I am to board a bus bound for Buffalo (after a connection in Cleveland).

web cam

I was recently given a web cam.  Christmas in March.

web cam - web = mirror + time delay

defining 'the power of conscience'

Here's more follow-up from this. 

Boyd said...

I welcome your comment, Inos and I don't regard your words as too harsh. I think I might have phrased it better and your criticism has compelled me to do so, for which I thank you. And let me assure you that I base my theology directly on the Bible.

First, I base my theology on the life of Jesus. He showed us in his actions the power that we should rely on in every circumstance. On the cross, Jesus showed us that we must be willing to die rather than kill, to break the power of unjust domination not by taking up the sword as Peter tried to do, but by willingly suffering death rather than resort to the weapons of war. 

“For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45). In taking up his cross, Jesus was displaying the injustice of the imperial political order of his time in the most powerful way possible, a way that has become the model for political protest down to our own times. Christians are those who are crucified for their active witness to justice, both “personal” and “political” justice. Jesus loses his life in this world by confessing the Human One (the Son of Man) before the imperial power. 

Why does he do this? His intention is to break the most primal structures of power and domination in the world and create the possibility for a new order in the world where no one dominates over another, but all live in equality and freedom. Gandhi and Martin Luther King probably had the most profound insight into the meaning and intent of the practice of Jesus – to found a world in which violence was ended in its roots, not just its effects. “It should be an essential of real education that a child should learn, that in the struggle of life, it can easily conquer hate by love, untruth by truth, violence by self-suffering.” Gandhi, “Satyagraha”.

Gandhi’s definition of “Truth-force” is as follows, “Satyagraha is literally holding on to Truth and it means, therefore, Truth-force. Truth is soul or spirit. It is, therefore, known as soul-force.” When I say “the power of conscience”, this is what I’m referring to. The power of “Truth-force” is what Jesus made real in every action he performed. To say that Jesus grows in us through the power of conscience means that when we act as Jesus acted, in our willingness to suffer the cross and to die rather than participate in the system of violence then we participate in the Kingdom of God. He grows in us in the sense that we grow more like him. And growing more like Jesus is the only theology I know. Thank you for helping me to clarify this.

 Check out the whole conversation here.

on dumpster diving

For a while now I've been working under the premise that dumpster diving is illegal.  Thus, taking perfectly good loaves of bread or boxes of brownies from local food outlet dumpsters or toys and artifacts from thrift store dumpsters I saw as an act of "civil disobedience."

I somehow contrived to justify theft in the name of "being a good steward of the earth."  Good food or any useful product should not end up in a land fill.  And so I counted it almost a duty to redeem these things from the trash.

Belinda and I went adventuring on Saturday, and ended up with a loot of toys from the dumpster at the local Goodwill.  We subsequently cleaned them and dropped them off for friends who are expecting their first child.  It was only Belinda's second dumpster diving experience (the first was for food), and her conscience got the best of us.

Aside: it's remarkable how much we justify our sin in our own minds.  We always find some justification, else we would either cease to sin at all or drive ourselves mad.  Adding a second conscience, a second mouth that speaks from a heart full of the Holy Spirit, makes justifying sin all the more difficult.  That's why accountability is so key to our growth and discipleship.  Romance forces accountability in some ways that are different than other close relationships.  As you open up your hearts to one another and experience life in increasingly closer relationship the darknesses of those individual hearts are exposed, particularly when they are in different places for each of you.  I think God designed marriage as the ultimate accountability relationship.  I'm also confident that married people should have accountability partners outside of their spouses (and of the same sex), but that's an aside to an aside.

Where was I?  Oh, yes.  Belinda's conscience was bothering her about the legality of our deeds.

And so I began to seriously ponder the way I had been acting.  God clearly commands us to obey our authorities, specifically in light of his sovereignty over their reign (Rom. 13:1-5, Prov. 21:1).  God does at times require disobedience to the law, when the law of the government contradicts the law or authority of God (Josh. 2, Acts 4:18-20). 

So, perhaps playing robinhood for the environment can be justified by saying that God has commanded us to be stewards of the Earth, and allowing good things to take up space in landfills is direct disobedience.  But the more I think about it, the weaker that argument seems.  Taking a few toys from a dumpster ever few weeks is not really changing the size of our landfills.  It seems more like petty theft with a "stick-it-to-the-man" flair.  As a well educated adult with some power over words, I think if my real concern was for providing those in need with useful things that others had discarded, I would write letters or petitions to the management of the stores which are filling landfills, perhaps proposing alternatives for edible or reusable products other than simply creating more garbage.  It would take more work and probably be a lot less fun, which I think is very telling in terms of my true motivations.

So, if I discover that dumpster diving is truly illegal as I have supposed, I think I may have to stop.  If anyone would like to convince me otherwise, I would be grateful.

This is where things get interesting.  I decided to do a bit of research into the subject, and this is one of the first articles I found.  While I don't agree with the motivation of the authors, the second certainly has a funny last name.  Here's the relevant excerpt:

IS IT LEGAL?

Dumpster diving is the deliberate art of gleaning perfectly usable items from commercial and residential dumpsters. It is legal in most areas as long as there are no signs posted against trespassing. To be sure, check your city ordinances, or just call the police department.

I have subsequently sent form emails to the local governing authorities, and await a response.  Perhaps I should have waited to post this until I hear back, but I wanted to get this out of my fingers.  And a reply will give me an excuse to post again.  You know, keeping up the average and all that (currently 1.7 posts/day for the last 30 days).

irony

So to be clear, this really isn't irony in the classical sense. Words change meaning with usage.

Of all the internet pages that I visit, my least favorite is one that I visit most frequently, probably third-most after my email and calender.

http://www.google.com/reader/next?go=noitems

more nerdiness

Last night I was walking home.

There is a long straight sidewalk in front of my apartment complex, and I must traverse the length of it.  Part way down the sidewalk, I began to notice the way that my steps occasionally placed my feet on the cracks in the sidewalk.  And I immediately began calculating the difference in frequency.  I imagined how I might plot the cracks in the sidewalk with Dirac delta functions -- basically pulses -- and my steps as a square wave from -1 to 1.  I could overlay the plots...

And I think I actually got that far before I realized how incredibly overthetop nerdy that thought process was.

As it turns out, I took five sets of steps for every 6 divisions of the sidewalk.

clipped signal

If a few weekends ago was amazing, so was this one, though for entirely different reasons (most of which were due to an awesome God and a very beautiful dragon).

WARNING: This is going to get nerdy really fast.

You know when you have a waveform of some kind, but the signal is amplified beyond your your instrumentation's ability to measure, it gets clipped.  Something like this:

I think this weekend I maxed out my ability to emote positively.  Like, somehow by Sunday evening I had exceeded my capacity for happiness.  That's not to say that I was in any way unhappy.  I was very happy.  But things that would have under normal circumstances made me happier could not.

And I'm not even an electrical engineer...

high school chapel - content part 1

This is a brief, high level version of the talk I gave, without all the antics appropriate for high school, and probably with a bit more mature language.

Who am I?
I am a combination for three parts:














Nerd, Christian leader, and social-activist hippie.

The topic is the incarnation, specifically what our response to the incarnation should or might be.
When we talk about the incarnation, I think we have to start with John 1. So what's going on here? We've got stuff about words, God, creation, maybe Jesus?
First, it shouldn't surprise us that words and creation are linked in this passage. Think back to the beginning. How did God create? [At this point, I was able to reference the lyrics to this song, which we had just sung, to get them to answer the question]. God spoke, then things started to happen. This tells us something significant about words. Words were not created with creation. They preexisted. They're eternal.
Keep that in mind while we go back to John 1. It's also interesting to not the Greek word translated "Word." It's "Logos." To the Greek philosophers, this word [logos] had a connotation of being the soul of the world, the essence of the creation.
Let's connect the dots. God speaks his eternal Word, which is in some way Jesus, which then accomplishes the creation and in a sense becomes the essence, the essential piece, the soul of that creation.
Now here's the crazy thing. "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." That's the incarnation.
Of course, all of that is a bit mysterious and magical, and I probably sound like I'm Buddhist when I start saying things like 'the soul of the world.' So, here's an image which has helped me put feet on the reality of the incarnation. [At this point there were like 6 students who knew who knew Tolkien by his picture, which made my heart happy. I used this Author/character image (with Tolkien and Frodo instead of Hamlet/Shakespeare) to help us relate to Creator becoming creation.] What's more amazing, is the manner in which our Author wrote himself into our story. He wasn't some super-human, hero figure. He came humbly. He gave up a lot. He was pretty normal:
he worked

he partied

he had friends

he loved his momma

he studied and debated

he paid his taxes

he observed the law

and he defended his Father's house (with a whip)

And that's not all.
Hebrews 4 says he was tempted in every way, just as we are. That is the beauty of the incarnation.
But despite all those normal man things, Jesus wasn't just a man, either. He was a bit abnormal. Check out the rest of the verse. He was tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. That is the beauty of the cross. But that's not what I'm here to talk about.
I'm here to ask the question, "How do we respond?" And after all this, I think our first response is pretty obvious.

Response #1: Worship.
Worship must be our first response to the incarnation. It was the immediate response of the shepherds, the magi, the angels. We stand in awe and worship the Creator who became creation, that the Logos might be our Lord.

Response #2: Be like Jesus.

More on that in the next post.

HT: Ortiz, Slippey