Repost - 7 REASONS YOU’LL NEVER DO ANYTHING AMAZING WITH YOUR LIFE

Photo: Matilde Zacchigna

7 REASONS YOU’LL NEVER DO ANYTHING AMAZING

WITH YOUR LIFE

http://matadornetwork.com/life/7-reasons-will-never-anything-amazing-life/

by RAYMMAR TIRADO

March 26, 2014

Commment

1. Because you haven’t failed enough

Because you’re comfortable in your mediocrity. Because you choose not to try.

Because it’s easier to talk about learning that new language than actually learning it.

Because you think everything is too hard or too complicated, so you’ll just ‘sit this one out,’ or maybe you’ll ‘do it tomorrow.’

Because you hate your job but won’t get a new one. Because it’s easy to reject rejection.

Because while you’re sitting around failing to try, I’m out there trying to fail, challenging myself, learning new things, and failing as fast as possible.

Because as I fail, I learn and then adjust my course to make sure my path is always forward. Like annealed steel, I’ve been through the fire and pounded into shape. The shape of a sword with polished edges and a razor-sharp blade that’ll cut you in half if you’re not equally hardened.

2. Because you care what others think about you

Because you have to fit in.

Because you believe that being different is only cool if you’re different in the same way that other people are different.

Because you’re afraid to embrace your true self for fear of how the world will see you. You think that because you judge others, this means that those people must, in turn, be judging you.

Because you care more about the stuff you have as opposed to the things you’ve done.

Because while you’re out spending your money on new outfits, new cars, overpriced meals, or nights at the bar, I’ll be investing in myself. And while you try to fit in with the world I’ll make the world fit in with me.

Because I will recklessly abandon all insecurities and expose my true self to the world. I will become immune to the impact of your opinion and stand naked in a crowd of ideas, comfortable in knowing that while you married the mundane I explored the exceptional.

3. Because you think you’re smarter than you are

Because you did what everyone else did; you studied what they studied and read what they read.

Because you learned what you had to learn in order to pass their tests, and you think that makes you smart.

Because you think learning is only something people do in schools.

Because while you were away at college, I was studying life. Because instead of learning about the world in a classroom, I went out and learned it by living.

Because I know more than any piece of paper you could ever frame from a university. Because smart is not what you learn — it’s how you live.

Because I might not have a degree, but I challenge you to find a topic that I can’t talk to you about cohesively.

Because I could pass your tests if I had to, but you couldn’t stand for a single second in the face of the tests that life has thrown me. Tests that are not graded on a bell curve or by percentages, tests that are graded by one simple stipulation: survival!

4. Because you don’t read

Because you read the things you’re required to read or nothing at all.

Because you think history is boring and philosophy is stupid.

Because you would rather sit and watch E! or MTV instead of exploring something new, instead of diving headfirst into the brain of another person in an attempt to better understand the world around you.

Because you refuse to acknowledge that all the power in the world comes from the words of those that lived before us. That anything you desire can be had by searching through the multitude of words that are available to us now more abundantly than ever before.

Because you’re probably not reading this article, even though you know you should.

Because the people that are reading this already know these things.

Because you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

5. Because you lack curiosity

Because you get your news from copycat members of the state-controlled media.

Because you’re unwilling to ask this simple question, “What if it’s all a lie?” and accept the possibility that maybe it is. That, just maybe, the methods of mass media are under direct orders to keep you distracted.

Because you call me a know-it-all but refuse to call yourself a know-nothing-at-all.

Because I thirst for knowledge, regardless of the topic.

Because while you’re busy playing Candy Crush, or Megapolis, I’m reading about string theory and quantum mechanics.

Because while you waste your time with Tosh.0, I’m learning how to edit video, build websites, and design mobile apps.

Because if we were to go heads-up in a debate, I would crush you. I would make it a point to defeat my own argument, from every imaginable angle, in order to understand everything you might be able to use against me.

Because I would dedicate myself to understanding both sides of the argument so thoroughly that I could argue your side for you and win, even after having just handed you a defeat in the same debate.

6. Because you don’t ask enough questions

Because you don’t question authority [and when you do you don't know how to deal with it - res]

Because you don’t question yourself.

Because you don’t understand the power of properly placed questioning in life, respectful disagreements, and standing up for what you know to be right in the face of someone telling you otherwise. Unable to question reality, stuck in a self-imposed survival strategy within aMatrix-style monotony.

Because I know that you’ll give me all the information I need to destroy you by letting you talk.

Because I study human behaviors, and you ignore everyone but yourself.

Because I watch how you say the things you say just as closely as I listen to what you say, and you say way too much!

Because control comes not from spewing your ignorance like some incurable case of logorrhea but from properly structuring the context of your questions.

Because I study the premise of your argument and destroy it from the ground level before you even get a chance to establish your ideas.

7. Because you can’t handle the truth

Because you refuse to admit that you don’t even know the things you don’t know.

Because there isn’t an article online that would make up for all the time you’ve wasted in life.

Because even if I told you everything could be different tomorrow, you’d wait until then to begin doing anything about it.

Because even when you think I’m not, I’m aware of my surroundings.

Because you think that since I have not acknowledged you, it means that I have not seen you.

Because you walk around with your head up your ass, oblivious to the world around you, blissfully ignorant of the reality that sits so close to your face that if you stuck your tongue out, just once, you would taste it and realize how delicious the truth actually is.

Because you would become an instant addict, unable to pull yourself from the teat of truth, finally able to understand your lack of understanding. And then you would see. Then you would know the only thing holding you back from doing something truly amazing is you.

This post was originally published at Raymmar.com and is reprinted here with permission.

* * * * * * * * * *

Reflections on Renewal

*Loving this post! These truths work for anything.... Our sucky life with all its complaints. Our visionless jobs and careers. Our go-nowhere-relationships that suck the life right out of us and keep us from growing up, or acting with the authority and leadership that God has given to us. Or has riddled our lives with the toxic poisons of tongues and putrid hearts from the people closest to us who themselves have no vision, or loving care, for our well-being. Or our boxed-in-theology that complains too much and doesn't contemplate enough. That allows others to tell us what to believe-and-do without questioning why it is that we are attracted to that philosophy (or theology).

That ultimately we are the only ones who are responsible to make the spiritual choices for our head, heart, and soul. And that we alone are the ones to blame for our life rotting away on the outer edges of nothingness. For not realizing that the Lord God of Creation has empowered us through His Son Jesus, and by His Holy Spirit, to be everything that we should be through His atoning love and sacrifice. That self-empowerment begins with personal confession of sin and pride. That newness of life begins with Jesus and His sacrifice of redemption. That all of life's hurts, and angers, and sufferings, can become more meaningful moments of spiritual victory and connectedness when God leads and directs in all things in our lives.

No... not right away. It'll take years and years of pain and restitution to be resolved and rectified. But with each small victory can come greater personal growth and satisfaction that God's will is all we will ever need. Not our own will. Nor someone else's will. But God's will. Not money, power, status, or success. But God Himself. Who is the real source for our freedom, purpose, and meaning of life. And with this choice will come health, and healing, and joy, regardless of life's miseries and brokenness. This is what is meant by salvation. And it is the number 1 reason why your life may not suck after all. And it may be the number 1 reason why your life may mean anything at all. All praise be to God, the Savior of our souls! Amen.

R.E. Slater

May 19, 2014

1 John 1

English Standard Version (ESV)

The Word of Life

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, andtestify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing these things so that our[a] joy may be complete.

Walking in the Light

5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he isfaithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Physics: Photos of Infinity and Birthing Nebula

COPYRIGHT ADAM BLOCK/MOUNT LEMMON SKYCENTER/UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
Wired Space Photo of the Day

In a Universe infinite-in-time and luminous-stuff, like stars, we would expect to see light from stars in every direction we look. This would mean the night sky would not be dark and instead infinity would glow. This isn't the Universe that we live in; but if we did perhaps this view towards the center of our galaxy simulates the feeling.

If every pixel detected the light of a star, this picture contains many millions of stars. To add to the hyperbole NGC 6522 (top right) and NGC 6528 (lower left) are two globular clusters with their own 100,000 suns. 

This is one of my favorite star fields. Few others pair globular clusters amid a sea of stars quite like this. It is a bit of a challenge to capture this area from the northern hemisphere since it is so low in the sky and requires steady, clear conditions.

NASA X-RAY: NASA/CXC/PSU/K.GETMAN, E.FEIGELSON, M.K
Wired Space Photo of the Day

Stars are often born in clusters or groups, in giant clouds of gas and dust. Astronomers have studied two star clusters using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and infrared telescopes and the results show that the simplest ideas for the birth of these clusters cannot work. This composite image shows one of the clusters, NGC 2024, which is found in the center of the so-called Flame Nebula about 1,400 light years from Earth. In this image, X-rays from Chandra are seen as purple, while infrared data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope are colored red, green and blue.

A study of NGC 2024 and the Orion Nebula Cluster, another region where many stars are forming, suggest that the stars on the outskirts of these clusters are older than those in the central regions. This is different from what the simplest idea of star formation predicts, where stars are born first in the center of a collapsing cloud of gas and dust when the density is large enough. The research team developed a two-step process to make this discovery. First, they used Chandra data on the brightness of the stars in X-rays to determine their masses. Next, they found out how bright these stars were in infrared light using data from Spitzer, the 2MASS telescope and the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope. By combining this information with theoretical models, the ages of the stars throughout the two clusters could be estimated.

According to the new results, the stars at the center of NGC 2024 were about 200,000 years old while those on the outskirts were about 1.5 million years in age. In Orion, the age spread went from 1.2 million years in the middle of the cluster to nearly 2 million years for the stars toward the edges. 

Explanations for the new findings can be grouped into three broad categories. The first is that star formation is continuing to occur in the inner regions. This could have happened because the gas in the outer regions of a star-forming cloud is thinner and more diffuse than in the inner regions. Over time, if the density falls below a threshold value where it can no longer collapse to form stars, star formation will cease in the outer regions, whereas stars will continue to form in the inner regions, leading to a concentration of younger stars there.

Another suggestion is that old stars have had more time to drift away from the center of the cluster, or be kicked outward by interactions with other stars.

Finally, the observations could be explained if young stars are formed in massive filaments of gas that fall toward the center of the cluster.

These results will be published in two separate papers in The Astrophysical Journal and are available online (papers 1 and 2). They are part of the MYStIX (Massive Young Star-Forming Complex Study in Infrared and X-ray) project led by Penn State astronomers.

Physics Update: Turning Light Into Matter

This shows theories describing light and matter interactions. Credit: Oliver Pike, Imperial College London

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html#jCp

Imperial College London physicists have discovered how to
create matter from light - a feat thought impossible when
the idea was first theorised 80 years ago.

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html

May 2014

In just one day over several cups of coffee in a tiny office in Imperial's Blackett Physics Laboratory, three physicists worked out a relatively simple way to physically prove a theory first devised by scientists Breit and Wheeler in 1934.

Breit and Wheeler suggested that it should be possible to turn light into matter by smashing together only two particles of light (photons), to create an electron and a positron – the simplest method of turning light into matter ever predicted. The calculation was found to be theoretically sound but Breit and Wheeler said that they never expected anybody to physically demonstrate their prediction. It has never been observed in the laboratory and past experiments to test it have required the addition of massive high-energy particles.

The new research, published in Nature Photonics, shows for the first time how Breit and Wheeler's theory could be proven in practice. This 'photon-photon collider', which would convert light directly into matter using technology that is already available, would be a new type of high-energy physics experiment. This experiment would recreate a process that was important in the first 100 seconds of the universe and that is also seen in gamma ray bursts, which are the biggest explosions in the universe and one of physics' greatest unsolved mysteries.

The scientists had been investigating unrelated problems in fusion energy when they realised what they were working on could be applied to the Breit-Wheeler theory. The breakthrough was achieved in collaboration with a fellow theoretical physicist from the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, who happened to be visiting Imperial.

Demonstrating the Breit-Wheeler theory would provide the final jigsaw piece of a physics puzzle which describes the simplest ways in which light and matter interact (see image in notes to editors). The six other pieces in that puzzle, including Dirac's 1930 theory on the annihilation of electrons and positrons and Einstein's 1905 theory on the photoelectric effect, are all associated with Nobel Prize-winning research (see image).

Professor Steve Rose from the Department of Physics at Imperial College London said: "Despite all physicists accepting the theory to be true, when Breit and Wheeler first proposed the theory, they said that they never expected it be shown in the laboratory. Today, nearly 80 years later, we prove them wrong. What was so surprising to us was the discovery of how we can create matter directly from light using the technology that we have today in the UK. As we are theorists we are now talking to others who can use our ideas to undertake this landmark experiment."

The collider experiment that the scientists have proposed involves two key steps. First, the scientists would use an extremely powerful high-intensity laser to speed up electrons to just below the speed of light. They would then fire these electrons into a slab of gold to create a beam of photons a billion times more energetic than visible light.

The next stage of the experiment involves a tiny gold can called a hohlraum (German for 'empty room'). Scientists would fire a high-energy laser at the inner surface of this gold can, to create a thermal radiation field, generating light similar to the light emitted by stars.

They would then direct the photon beam from the first stage of the experiment through the centre of the can, causing the photons from the two sources to collide and form electrons and positrons. It would then be possible to detect the formation of the electrons and positrons when they exited the can.

Lead researcher Oliver Pike who is currently completing his PhD in plasma physics, said: "Although the theory is conceptually simple, it has been very difficult to verify experimentally. We were able to develop the idea for the collider very quickly, but the experimental design we propose can be carried out with relative ease and with existing technology. Within a few hours of looking for applications of hohlraums outside their traditional role in fusion energy research, we were astonished to find they provided the perfect conditions for creating a photon collider. The race to carry out and complete the experiment is on!"

More information: Pike, O, J. et al. 2014. 'A photon–photon collider in a vacuum hohlraum'. Nature Photonics, 18 May 2014: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2014.95

Journal reference: Nature Photonics

Provided by Imperial College London

Green Report: Indonesian Island Hopes to Spark Green Power Revolution

A Sumbanese woman gathers grass to feed farm animals beside a field of small wind turbines
in Kamanggih village in Sumba island, Indonesia, which provide electricity to the local
community, March 19, 2014

Indonesian island hopes to spark green power revolution

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-05-indonesian-island-green-power-revolution.html

May 18, Technology/Energy & Green Tech

An Indonesian family of farmers eat cobs of corn outside their hut under the glow of a light bulb, as the women weave and young men play with mobile phones.

Until two years ago, most people in Kamanggih village on the island of Sumba had no power at all. Now 300 homes have access to 24-hour electricity produced by a small hydroelectric generator in the river nearby. 

"We have been using the river for water our whole lives, but we never knew it could give us electricity," Adriana Lawa Djati told AFP, as 1980s American pop songs drifted from a cassette player inside.

While Indonesia struggles to fuel its fast-growing economy, Sumba is harnessing power from the sun, wind, rivers and even pig dung in a bid to go 100 percent renewable by 2025.

The ambitious project, called the "Iconic Island", was started by Dutch development organisation Hivos and is now part of the national government's strategy to almost double renewables in its energy mix over the next 10 years.

Sumba, in central Indonesia, is an impoverished island of mostly subsistence farmers and fishermen. Access to power has made a huge difference to people like Djati.

"Since we started using electricity, so much has changed. The kids can study at night, I can weave baskets and mats for longer, and sell more at the market" she said.

While only around 30 percent of Sumba's 650,000 people have been hooked up to the power grid, more than 50 percent of electricity used now on the island comes from renewable sources, government data show.

As more communities gain access to power for the first time, the Iconic Island project envisages entire communities skipping dirty, fossil fuel-based energy altogether and jumping straight to green sources.

Hivos's field coordinator for Sumba, Adrianus Lagur, said that the NGO hoped the project would be replicated by other islands in the same province of East Nusa Tenggara, one of the country's poorest.

"The idea is not to give handouts. We support the building of green energy infrastructure, but it's up to the people to manage this resource and keep it going," Lagur said.

National energy crisis

Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country, with around 250 million people, and is Southeast Asia's biggest economy.

Sumbanese grandmother Elisabeth Hadi Rendi attends to her pigs, the manure from which is
fed into a mini bio-gas system generating methane - enough to supply her household
cooking and  lighting needs in Waingapu town on Sumba island.

Yet it is one of the region's most poorly electrified, partly because it sprawls over 17,000 islands of which more than 6,000 are inhabited. Spreading infrastructure over such a vast area is no easy task.

Despite enjoying economic growth of around six percent annually in recent years, Indonesia is so short of energy that it rolls out scheduled power cuts that cripple entire cities and sometimes parts of the capital.

To keep up with growth, Indonesia is planning to boost its electricity capacity by 60 Gigawatts (GW) over a 10-year period to 2022. Twenty percent of that is to come from renewable sources.

"Indonesia has been a net importer of oil for years, and our oil reserves are limited, so renewables are an important part of our energy security," said Mochamad Sofyan, renewable energy chief of state electricity company PLN.

Hefty electricity and fuel subsidies have also been a serious burden on the state budget and a drain on the economy for years.

But small-scale infrastructure, like mini hydroelectric generators—known as "microhydro plants"—and small wind turbines that power Sumba are not enough to close the national energy gap, even if they were built on all Indonesia's islands.

Massive hydropower and geothermal projects, which use renewable energy extracted from underground pockets of heat, are needed to really tackle the nationwide problem, Sofyan said.

"Indonesia has enormous hydropower potential because it rains six months of the year in most parts. So that will be a big part of the answer to the energy shortage," Sofyan said.

Indonesia, one of the world's most seismically active countries, also has the biggest reserves of geothermal, often near its many volcanoes and tectonic plate boundaries. It is considered one of the cleanest forms of energy available.

But geothermal is largely untapped as legislation to open up exploration moves slowly and the industry is bound in red tape.

Sumbanese women weave baskets uder a lamp powered by electricity from mini hydroelectric
generators—known as "microhydro plants" built beside a river dam in Kamanggih village in
Sumba island, Indonesia, March 19, 2014.

Pig poo power

Sofyan said there is also concern that Sumba's target to be powered 100 percent by renewable energy is unrealistic.

"In the long term, we see Sumba still relying somewhat on diesel generators. It will be powered predominantly by renewables, but I don't think it will be able to switch off the grid," Sofyan said.

Hivos admits its goal is ambitious, saying it is "inspirational and political" rather than technical but the NGO believes the target may be achievable even in the long term.

Nonetheless the Sumbanese are reaping the benefits of the green energy sources already available, which have lifted a considerable financial burden for many due to reduced costs for wood and oil.

Elisabeth Hadi Rendi, 60, in the town of Waingapu, has been farming pigs since 1975, but it was only two years ago when Hivos visited her home that she came to understand the power of porcine poo.

A Sumbanese resident checks a mini hydroelectric generator built beside a river dam in
Kamanggih village in Sumba island, Indonesia, which provides electricity to the local
community, March 19, 2014.

Pigs are commonly kept in Sumba, a predominantly Christian island in Muslim-majority Indonesia.

Each day Rendi shovels dung from the pig pens and churns it in a well, after which it is funnelled to a tank and converted into methane gas.

It has saved her household around six million rupiah (around $500) in two years, a significant sum for a typical Sumbanese family.

"We also make fertiliser from the waste to use in our garden, where we grow vegetables," said Rendi as she fed two ravenous, snorting pigs.

"We eat the vegetables and feed some to the pigs too, which will become biogas again, so the energy literally goes round and round."

Sister Rosemary Nyirumbe: Working to End Violence, Sexual Exploitation in Uganda

CNN Heroes Sister Rosemary Uganda

Sister Rosemary Nyirumbe: The Nun Working to

End Violence, Sexual Exploitation In Uganda

Ugandahttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/18/sister-rosemary-nyirumbe_n_5333247.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

The Huffington Post | by Antonia Blumberg

Posted: 05/18/2014 8:33 am EDT Updated: 05/18/2014 8:59 pm EDT

Sister Rosemary Nyirumbe recently appeared on The Colbert Report and said she felt like punching Colbert in the face for feigning indifference toward the missing girls in Nigeria.

In reality Sister Nyirumbe, has dedicated her life to counteracting violence in her native Uganda.

Sister Nyirumbe has spearheaded the Saint Monica Girls' Tailoring Center for nearly 15 years, offering shelter to thousands of women who come to learn tailoring, catering and other valuable professional skills. According to Pros for Africa, adevelopment partner of Saint Monica, many of the girls who find their ways to the center have suffered abduction, rape and torture.

Nyirumbe funds the school in part by selling bags the women make out of soda tabs. A 2013 documentary narrated by Forest Whitaker, 'Sewing Hope', tells the story of Nyirumbe's efforts to rebuild her country after 25 years of war under Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). On her Facebook page, Sister Nyirumbe writes:

For the last 30 years, I along with the other Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus based in Juba, South Sudan, have answered the call to serve the least among us from the heart of a bloody and violent civil war that decimated northern Uganda and South Sudan.

We openly defied Joseph Kony and the rebel soldiers and commanders of the Lord’s Resistance Army in their 20-year reign of terror. Since 2002, we have helped more than 2,000 girls who had been previously abducted by the LRA or abandoned by their families.

In an article on Unicef's website, entitled "Trauma to Triumph: Restoring hope in post-conflict communities," Nyirumbe describes the poor condition of many of the girls she serves at Saint Monica. This, she says, it what inspires her to continue her efforts year after year.

As communities work to rebuild amid the destruction of the past two decades, the diverse needs and challenges unique to post-conflict and disarmament have inspired much of the work I undertake as the Director of St. Monica Gulu Girls’ Relief. For these children, their rights have not only been violated, they have never existed. We are working, one day at a time, to restore their dignity and to give them the skills and support they need to move forward in life.

Sister Nyirumbe's humanitarian work earned her a spot in TIME Magazine's 2014 "100 Most Influential People" list, and in 2007 she was named a CNN Hero. Nyirumbe spoke at the TIME 100 gala on the women who admire her most in the video above, and about laying out Stephen Colbert in the video below.

The Colbert Report link here

Amazon link here

Book Description

Publication Date: January 17, 2014

For 25 years Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) terrorized Northern Uganda. They abducted children and forced them to commit atrocities against their own families and communities. Girls as young as thirteen were degraded to sex slaves for Kony's officers.

Now, the war is over, but the decades of brutal conflict have deeply scarred the people of Uganda. Child soldiers return to the very communities they committed violent crimes against, and the girls carry with them a constant reminder of their abuse: their captors' children. These girls and their children are often ostracized by their communities, and most lack the skills they need to provide for their families.

Sewing Hope tells the story of one woman's fight to bring hope back to her nation. Sister Rosemary Nyirumbe presides over Saint Monica's Vocational School in Gulu, Uganda. She lived through the horror created by Kony's LRA and now works to heal the wounds he inflicted on her people. She invites formerly abducted girls to Saint Monica's where they learn skills to provide for their families. Through vocational training, these young women gain independence. Through community with their fellow students, they find forgiveness. Through the restoration of their lost futures, they find hope.

Sister Rosemary Nyirumbe ~ Film Screening "Sewing Hope" DePaul

Carlos Bovell - The Culture of Biblical Inerrantism (or, Problems of Inerrancy for the ETS)

Guest Post: The Culture of Biblical Inerrantism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/03/guest-post-the-culture-of-biblical-inerrantism/

by Peter Enns

March 1, 2012

Comments

Today and tomorrow we have guest posts by Carlos Bovell. Carlos is becoming a leading critic of the evangelical notion of biblical inerrancy, but unlike other such critiques, his is not the rant of an outsider, but the careful, nuanced, and compelling observations of one coming from within an evangelical paradigm, drawing on his own experience.

His main concern is not simply the intellectual difficulties of this theological position, but the spiritual destruction that occurs in the lives of young Christians when they are given no viable alternative.

Today’s post reflects a bit on Carlos’s own journey and gives the background to his recently published edited book Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture (Wipf & Stock, 2011).

Tomorrow’s post will be an edited excerpt from his most recent book, Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (Wipf & Stock, 2012), a book where Carlos addresses head on the culture wars surrounding inerrancy.

Carlos is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and The Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. He is also the author of Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals (Wipf & Stock, 2007) and By Good and Necessary Consequence: A Preliminary Genealogy of Biblical Foundationalism (Wipf & Stock, 2009).

- Peter

---

Writing about inerrancy and evangelicalism has been part of my spiritual journey. I explored some of my thinking about this in my first book, Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals. Although I knew that these were only preliminary reflections, I felt that I had made a contribution to addressing the spiritual dangers of promoting inerrancy as essential to Christian belief.

Influential to me early on in my journey was reading some of Bart Ehrman’s accounts of his own struggles with the doctrine of inerrancy, which eventually led to his abandonment of Christianity. Despite my seminary training, I had never before read a firsthand account of someone grappling with inerrancy, and who, despite their best efforts, were not able to remain committed to it—at least not as it is presently articulated.

I resonated deeply with that struggle, even though I found his responses to be generally unsatisfactory.

About that same time I attended a meeting at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary where various scholars gathered to talk about textual criticism and its implications for the Bible. Since one of the plenary speakers was Bart Ehrman, I knew I had to hear what he had to say.

During the Q&A, I was able to ask a question of evangelical text critic and Ehrman’s interlocutor, Dan Wallace.

“Why do believers have to wait for people like Ehrman to publish books before we find out about all these problems with scripture, problems that scholars have known about all along?”

Bart Ehrman grabbed his microphone and joked, “Yeah, I would like to know the answer to that!” Everyone laughed. Dan Wallace answered by chiding Christian publishers for not making more of the textual issues known to readers in the Bibles that they publish.

I am sympathetic, but it occurred to me that lack of notes in study Bibles was not the main problem. In fact, textual criticism—though a key factor—is not really the issue, either.

The issue is inerrancy as an ideology - and inerrantism as a culture.

This ideology suppresses, or minimizes, questions that threaten the paradigm, such as those raised by textual criticism.

As the crowd began to disperse, a gentleman approached me and said, “So you’re not a believer, eh?” I was taken aback. I explained that although I used to put a lot of stock in inerrancy, I was now thinking it through and am no longer so sure it is viable.

He hesitated for a moment before giving me his full diagnosis. He informed me that he was a pastor and had met several people like me. In fact, he even had some in his family. He concluded: “Because you have these doubts now, you are not a believer. And since you are not a believer, even though you think you once believed, you have never been a believer.”

I admit, this may be an extreme example—one does not often encounter such confident transparency. But, in my experience, the principle behind this pastor’s reaction to my question opens a window to a problem that goes beyond textual criticism, to the very foundations of evangelicalism: inerrancy.

What is distressing is not so much the doctrine itself, but the collateral spiritual damage that comes in the wake of its uncompromising defense, even against those from within who voice concerns.

If questioning inerrancy is linked to questioning one’s faith, those with legitimate reasons for questioning inerrancy will either live with unspoken cognitive dissonance or speak up and risk losing much.

The idea for the edited volume, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture, was born out of a concern to bring into open discussion the theological and spiritual problems of inerrantism. The essays collected in this volume are written by a number of specialists in different fields, all coming from various bibliological persuasions.

I thought it would be helpful to illustrate for students how the doctrine of inerrancy can be viewed from more than one perspective and that scripture’s divine authority can be investigated through more than one discipline.

Such diverse collaboration is necessary. When inerrantist scholars gather to discuss the doctrine of scripture, they often walk away with a familiar set of pre-packaged answers. When inerrantists and non-inerrantists alike convene to talk about inerrancy’s problems, then there is potential to walk away with a fresh understanding entirely.

This is the opportunity I hoped to provide for students studying in inerrantist colleges and seminaries who may not be aware of the pitfalls of inerrancy, and who might benefit from knowing that the evangelical playing field is actually much, much bigger than what they’ve been shown.

- Carlos

* * * * * * * * *

Guest Post: We Believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Scriptures

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/03/guest-post-we-believe-in-god-the-father-god-the-son-and-god-the-holy-scriptures/

by Peter Enns

March 2, 2012

Comments

Today we have a second guest post from Carlos Bovell. Carlos is becoming a leading critic of the evangelical notion of biblical inerrancy, but unlike other such critiques, his is not the rant of an outsider, but the careful, nuanced, and compelling observations of one coming from within an evangelical paradigm, drawing on his own experience.

His main concern is not simply the intellectual difficulties of this theological position, but the spiritual destruction that occurs in the lives of young Christians when they are given no viable alternative.

Yesterday’s post reflected a bit on his own journey and gave the background to his edited work, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture (Wipf & Stock, 2011). Today’s post is an edited excerpt from his most recent book,Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear, a book where Carlos addresses head on the culture wars surrounding inerrancy.

Carlos is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and The Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. He is also the author of Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals (Wipf & Stock, 2007) and By Good and Necessary Consequence: A Preliminary Genealogy of Biblical Foundationalism (Wipf & Stock, 2009).

- Peter

---

Everywhere I turn, I hear evangelical leaders speak out about how vital it is to have a Bible that’s inerrant.

Well-intentioned or not, so long as institutions and denominations identify and advertise inerrancy as a component essential to evangelicalism (by listing it, for example, as a first or second tenet in their statements of faith), the popular perception will be that inerrancy is central to Christianity itself.

Is it any wonder, then, that in conservative circles a believer’s willingness to submit to inerrantism is seen as the flip side of submitting to Christ himself [ideologically]?

Conversely, being critical of inerrancy—or even bringing up the question—is seen as a slide down the slippery slope to apostasy, or that the slide has already been completed.

What one believes about the Bible is taken to be the foundation for the faith itself. And such a foundation can only be guaranteed by believing in inerrancy.

Hence, the inerrantist expectation is that those serious about their faith will—indeed, must—gravitate toward inerrantism. In conservative American evangelicalism and fundamentalism, inerrancy is an important symbol of social and spiritual belonging to God’s inner circle.

Some inerrantists claim even further that the Holy Spirit is actually guiding true believers to accept the inerrancy of scripture. To wit, the Spirit actively disciplines believers toward the result that they can learn to “take God at his word.”

If inerrant scripture is believed to be impugned in any way, the integrity of the entire faith construct becomes irreversibly compromised. Hence, the persistent need to defend scripture from outside “attacks” by those who question or deny inerrancy.

So, as I argued in an earlier book, inerrancy has become part of evangelicalism’s salvation equation. An inerrant Bible has become a cultural symbol for that person’s salvation. How often have I heard from proponents of inerrancy that I am being disobedient and “grieving” the Holy Spirit because I am critical of inerrancy.

Scripture is a core element in the life of the church, but we must ask whether conservative Evangelicals and fundamentalists are asking of it what it is not designed to do–be an article of faith.

Fundamentalism’s and conservative evangelicalism’s social identities have become wholly intertwined with this one doctrine. When inerrancy comes under serious scrutiny—even if in healthy and constructive ways—preserving its truth begins to take on a grandiose, all-consuming significance.

Inerrancy simply cannot be found wanting; everything (with respect to faith) literally depends on it.

“We believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Scriptures [(sic, bibliotry)].” When this starts sounding right among inerrantists, it’s time to do some rethinking.

- Carlos

* * * * * * * * *

Guest Post: Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/03/guest-post-rehabilitating-inerrancy-in-a-culture-of-fear/

by Peter Enns

March 5, 2012

Comments

Today’s guest post by Carlos Bovell, his third, is an edited excerpt from chapter 4 of his upcoming book Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (Wipf & Stock, 2012).

Carlos is becoming a leading critic of the evangelical notion of biblical inerrancy, but unlike other such critiques, his is not the rant of an outsider, but the careful, nuanced, and compelling observations of one coming from within an evangelical paradigm, drawing on his own experience.

His main concern is not simply the intellectual difficulties of biblical inerrancy but the spiritual destruction that occurs in the lives of young Christians when they are given no viable alternative.

Carlos is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and The Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. He is also the author of Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals (Wipf & Stock, 2007), By Good and Necessary Consequence: A Preliminary Genealogy of Biblical Foundationalism (Wipf & Stock, 2009), and an edited volume, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture (Wipf & Stock, 2011).

- Peter

---

Students often approach the academic study of the Bible, in seminary or graduate school, confident that they already possess a more or less accurate idea of what the overall intent of scripture is; their focus is deepening that knowledge.

Early confidence and enthusiasm all too often gives way to cognitive dissonance, even a sense of betrayal, when they begin to encounter what I call the “academic-apologetic dilemma.”

During their studies, evangelical students in research universities and divinity schools are presented with alternate models explaining how scripture works. In these settings, no explicit attention is given to how these new models are compatible with the students’ inerrantist models–which, of course, is perfectly understandable.

As students mature in their knowledge of the disciplines and begin seeing why the critical models are so widely accepted, cognitive dissonance can develop. This leads to an academic-apologetic dilemma: the academic model is intellectually compelling but thoroughly challenges and undermines the picture of the Bible presented to them by the evangelical inerrantist apologists of their earlier training.

My target audience for Rehabilitating Inerrancy is these “post-inerrantist” students caught on the horns of this dilemma. My main concern is to begin a discussion around the question, “How can students maintain a deep respect for scripture despite everything they have come to know about scripture?” In other words, how can their new and old worlds be in conversation.

The recent spate of inerrantist apologetics books is a theological sign of the times (e.g.,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). This certainly speaks to the tensions among evangelicals on this topic, but it may also signal that God is calling the present generation of bibliologists to work together to find a plausible, salient way of neutralizing the academic-apologetic dilemma.

Such discussions are unavoidable and absolutely necessary. In almost every imaginable way, the Bible we know today is simply not the Bible of the early, medieval, or Reformation churches. A lot has happened in our understanding of antiquity, that has invariably affected how we see the Bible.

This is particularly acute in Protestant traditions. Great stress was placed on the centrality of the Bible understood according to ways of thinking that were wholly appropriate in earlier times. It should come as no surprise, then, that those Protestant traditions that place a heavy emphases on inviolability of older paradigms of scripture will be precisely the ones positioned to experience the most profound changes.

The threat of such changes is prompting inerrantist leaders to voice publicly the fears of their representative traditions concerning ”attacks” on inerrancy. After all, few people like being told to change their ways. But when it comes to inerrancy, the run-of-the-mill, human resistance to change seems to morph into something like an eschatological intransigence.

The main fear appears is that any change in bibliological outlook quickly leads to heterodoxy. Even genuinely constructive attempts to re-conceptualize inerrancy are presented to laypeople and students as immodest and subversive moves towards apostasy.

Whenever inerrantist institutions try publically to respond to such concerns, they often adopt the rhetoric of fear. The cultural climate they precipitate stymies imagination and forestalls much needed conversation over conceptual developments in bibliology.

This culture of fear discourages evangelical leaders to move the conversation forward, since the backlash can be severe; they are not sociologically poised to offer guidance.

Thus the onus to foster the conversation is awkwardly placed on students or young faculty members, those living in the tensions between the academic and apologetic worlds and who feel the most pressure and enthusiasm for synthetic thinking.

Yet in order to be effective, students require the intellectual freedom to carry out their work. The same sociological forces that prevent evangelical leaders from joining the conversation also exert tremendous pressure on younger evangelicals.

There is a cycle of fear, and the question is how to break it.

What students decide to do with inerrancy now is bound to influence inerrantism’s future as a viable cultural force. And what inerrantism needs more than anything else is help conceptually transitioning from outdated bibliological assumptions, born in segments of Christian history that were not privy to the information that we have today.

There is a great need for evangelical schools and churches to begin genuine conversations surrounding inerrancy. Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear is aimed at describing some of the unhelpful dynamics at work within inerrantism in order to help move the conversation forward in constructive ways.

- Carlos

* * * * * * * * *

Carlos Bovell - Inerrancy at the Evangelical Theological Society

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/03/guest-post-inerrancy-at-the-evangelical-theological-society/

by Peter Enns

March 6, 2012

Comments

Carlos Bovell has writen three previous posts here over the last week (1, 2, 3–click any of these for his bio and publications). Today’s post recounts his recent experience at the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) which holds yearly national academic conferences in November and regional conferences in March.

Just in case any of you thought I was just making all this up….

- Peter

---

This past Friday (March 2, 2012), I gave a talk at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society—Eastern Region. My paper was a précis of the chapter on Old Princeton[*] in my new book Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear.

B. B. Warfield, "Old Princeton" Theologian

In it, I addressed Old Princeton’s twofold defense of the inerrancy of Scripture: 1) Inerrancy is a church doctrine; 2) Inerrancy is a biblical doctrine. My conclusion is that inerrancy is neither.

During the Q & A, one of the first questions I was asked was whether, in view of my comments, I thought Christianity should exist at all. Behind this question is the dynamic I’ve been talking about in my recent posts here:

"If inerrancy falls, then the whole of Christianity will fall with it. Without an inerrant Bible, there is no intellectual reason to be Christian."

The questioner was apparently concerned about my comment that Old Princeton’s defense of inerrancy was not “timeless” but obviously shaped by the historical context and intellectual climate of the nineteenth century.

We then observed how inerrancy today is also historically conditioned. This led to the consideration of whether Christianity itself is logically also merely historically conditioned – in other words, whether one could ever speak of a “Christianity” to be believed by all churches everywhere.

This is precisely how the inerrantist slippery slope works. In an academic conference, mind you, a constructive critique of Old Princeton’s defense of inerrancy leads to the question of whether Christianity should exist at all. (Incidentally, Old Princeton also taught something like this: Christianity’s fate is inextricably tied to the fortunes of inerrancy.)

Another question that I was asked was whether I believed in any truth at all that could be affirmed in any time and any place during the course of human history – in other words, is there truth of any sort that transcends any particular historical context?

In another setting, this would make for an interesting discussion. But keep in mind the slippery slope lurking behind this question.

What led to this question was my comment that inerrancy is not an adequate concept for describing the “trustworthiness” of scripture. I was questioned in response whether, if this is true, any truths can be held absolutely: “If you’re so skeptical about inerrancy, how can you be sure about anything ever?” The doctrine of inerrancy often acts within inerrantist culture as a gateway for knowing anything.

It is this kind of thinking that I have in my mind when I say over-and-over again that (i) the Bible is not an article of faith, or that (ii) inerrancy should not act as the foundation of faith, or (with New Testament scholar Dan Wallace) (iii) that inerrancy is not a [fourth] person of the Trinity.

Did everyone in the audience think as these questioners did? Probably not, but in my experience the views expressed represent the dominant culture of inerrancy in evangelicalism. It also represents the default line of argument when the inerrantist culture is seen to be undermined.

Certainly plenty of pastors and teachers treat inerrancy as if it were the be-all, end-all, of the Christian faith. But inerrancy is not a theological issue or even a spiritual issue; it is a cultural issue, a culture wracked with fear, I might add.

Those who heard my talk at ETS ended up asking me directly whether I could sign the Society’s statement of faith, which includes a clear statement of the Bible’s inerrancy. I responded that there may have been a time when I could do so in good conscience, but now I cannot. The response was tacit but unmistakable: “Well, there you go. You are asking me to go where I cannot.”

Inerrancy is a human theoretical construct and as such is both culturally conditioned and historically contingent. For too many evangelicals, including those academically trained, even raising this observation for discussion is only a few precious steps removed from undermining the entire Christian faith [in their way of thinking].

The intention behind the defense of inerrancy may be to protect the faith, but insisting that evangelicals take an uncompromising stance on a questionable position is spiritually crippling.

---

[*] ”Old Princeton” refers to the theological climate of Princeton Theological Seminary (Calvinist) from its founding in 1812 until about 1920, when the school took a liberal turn and from which Westminster Theological Seminary was founded in 1929 to continue the “Old Princeton” legacy. Best known among the Old Princeton theologians is B. B. Warfield, who remains among conservative Calvinists and evangelicals the nearly unimpeachable standard of a rigorous, intellectual, defense of inerrancy.

Peter Enns - evangelicalism: the best version of Christianity (or not)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/05/evangelicalism-the-best-version-of-christianity-or-not/

by Peter Enns

May 12, 2014

In recent months, in various venues, I have seen the following claim made or implied, in one form or another: evangelicalism is the best iteration of Christianity because it is most faithful to the Bible and most in line with the history of the church.

Several observations:

1. All Christian traditions say that.
2. To gain credibility this claim would need to be made with at least Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians in the room.
3. This triumphalist claim is consistent with evangelicalism’s polemical roots and history.
4. The claim marginalizes, if not ignores, the tremendous theological diversity in historic Christianity as well as in the church today (synchronic and diachronic diversity).
5. The claim assumes that this diversity is a problem with God.
6. Related to 4 and 5, the claim assumes something of the Bible, namely that it presents one detailed yet coherent spiritual narrative that can be teased out, systematized, and defended.
7. Not all evangelicals are comfortable with this rhetoric.

Rather than asserting the dominance of the evangelical narrative with such a reaching claim, I would rather see a defense of evangelicalism’s validity mounted along the following lines:

• Evangelicalism is our spiritual home and we value it. So we want to see how best we can maintain, respect, and nurture this community of faith.

• But we make no pretense whatsoever at embodying the best of the Christian tradition. Rather, we seek to be a good and faithful expression of Scripture and the Great Christian Tradition in our time and place.

• We, therefore, seek peace and collaboration with other Christians. We feel we can contribute to the larger conversation among Christians as well as learn from other traditions, keeping an open mind and heart to where corrections and changes are needed, but also seeking to circumscribe our faith in some meaningful way that maintains our identity.

For my tastes, a statement like that would be a refreshing, conciliatory, and even attractive way of defending evangelical borders rather than the all-or-nothing game public evangelicalism is known for, which often collapses into a defensive posture that only serves to build higher walls of isolation.

What would be lost if evangelicalism’s public figures adopted such a posture? Some would say evangelicalism itself.

What would be gained? Some would say needed adaptations of evangelicalism to insure its survival.

I’m sure some of you have opinions on this.