Articles by admin

There are some things in what he says that I really like.  There are some things that cause a certain unsettling feeling.  What do you think?

Explaining Emergent Churches - Inner Compass from Calvin College on Vimeo.

For those of you looking for an old post from www.kvile.net/words, well its gone for now.  We were hacked and I was forced to remove it.  Hopefully I will be able to get the posts from the blog back online sometime soon.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

So how in the world do so many people have so much time to sit and blog about all sorts of things (let alone tweet on twitter and do whatever it is you do on facebook and all those other social networking sites)?? I can barely keep all the balls I’m juggling in the air, let alone write a post (present post excluded )!! So where does time go? It flies away from you and before you know it you find you’re getting grey-haired and find it takes longer to do everything! (Okay, so I’m not that old yet, but it feels like it somedays). I’d like a couple more hours in my day please… guess it doesn’t work that way. They say you can’t find the time, you have to make the time. I say you can’t find it and you can’t make it, you have to portion out the time you have… each day, month, and year. There are a few constants in life: one of them is a 24 hour day - the sun is going to rise and it is going to set - so you can portion out the right amount to each thing that demands your attention. The trick is to portion out the right amount to the right things (for me that means blogging gets a very small, almost non-existent portion right now). 

To quote someone wiser than myself: “Time is slipping away, slip slip slipin’ away.” Let’s be wise with how we portion it out.

If Christian theology is the study of the fundamental ideas of the Christian faith, then from where do these ideas come? Many within Protestantism have argued for the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral. That is, Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience as sources for knowledge of God and the Christian faith. The fundamental question here is by what authority can we affirm or deny anything as a source of knowledge about God? In other words, what criteria do we use to establish criteria (i.e. sources) for knowledge of God? In asking this question it seems that we come to an epistemological question rather than a theological one: how do we know what we know?

Prior to post-modernity the answer to this question would have most certainly been grounded in some sort of foundational body of knowledge, whether actual or hypothetical. In other words we would be able to through our senses or mind logically reason our way to a criteria. Historically, Thomas Aquinas asserted that the existence of God was logical and practically self-evident, but most contemporary theologians would not make that same assertion. In absence of this foundation, some assert that our faith is the basis of our knowledge; I believe therefore I know. A sort of “Kierkegaardian leap of faith”, if I may be so bold as to use that phrase, although most likely not the same as something Kierkegaard would have argued for himself. On this basis it seems that many assert that we can know.

I myself remain unconvinced that we do not start our knowing with some sort of body of knowledge. Even the modern hermeneutical problem of individual “presuppositions” forming a “preunderstanding” through which we understand everything (thereby mitigating any idea of knowing truth since we all have different “preunderstandings”) seems to be simply a replacement of the Cartesian ideas and categories by which we gain knowledge (see Thomas Howe’s Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, page 205). In other words, we know because we have some “preunderstanding” that mediates our knowledge. Faith, then, it seems is not grounded in nothing, but in something. So we are unable to escape the problem of first principles or foundations for knowing.

As the reader is painfully aware, I have not come to any conclusions. Yet I do not walk away from the idea that I can know something and can know something about God. Why? In using the best rational logical ability in light of the evidence I am presented with, I am led to believe that God exists and the Bible is his word to humanity. These arguments are outside the scope of this article, but it is important to note that I believe that every person alive does exactly what I have done, whether intentionally or not. That is to say that we all use our minds and in light of the evidence we see we believe something and live accordingly. No one can do otherwise. Even the skeptic has done this, the skeptic has examined the evidence and chosen to believe that nothing can truly be known and they live accordingly.

So how can we know anything about God then? Well, not supposing to solve the epistemic and ontological questions, we know something about God because of the evidence we have at hand. In other words, through his creation and through his word.

What does anyone have to say that has not already been said in the arena of theology, philosophy, and life? Ecclesiastes tell us that there is nothing new under the sun. So why should we continue to write?

First, my experience has been that just because something has already been said, doesn’t mean that the people reading (or listening) haven’t heard it before. Second, it seems that just because something has been said, doesn’t mean that it has been understood. So, sometimes we need to say it again, in a different sounding way, so that the reader (or listener) can understand. Further, it seems that just because something has been said, doesn’t mean that it was correct. True, if everything has already been said then the truth has already been spoken to correct what was wrongly spoken. However, that doesn’t mean that the people listening have heard what is correct. In fact, many readers (or listeners) may be subscribing to a incorrect idea simply because they have not heard (point 1) or have not understood (point 2) what the truth is. So it seems that writing (and speaking) is necessary, even if the content has been said before.

Welcome to a new segment of this blog I like to call Lyrical Theology. Let me first say that everything written here is intended to be humorous and not taken seriously. It is a moment for me to apply exegetical and theological analysis in a light-hearted way (hopefully entertaining and informative). The lyric’s author’s views are not necessarily the views of this author. Now on to our first installment, A theology of T.I. via his Billboard.com #1 hit “Live Your Life”.

The song begins and ends with the curious chorus as follows:

“Mia hee, mia haa, mia hoo, mia ha ha.
Mia hee, mia haa, mia hoo, mia ha ha.
Mia hee, mia haa, mia hoo, mia ha ha.
Mia hee, mia haa, mia hoo, mia ha ha.”

The position of these lyrics form what narrative critics call an inclusio. Usually an inclusio is used to emphasize a theme by framing the narrative. Here we see the important theme of what I like to refer to as, mia h. The author clearly is attempting to convey the importance of mia (most likely intended to mean “my” from the Spanish language) with consonantal sounds beginning with h. Curiously enough, hii and huu are absent. Is this the work of a later redactor who was opposed to the letters i and u? Perhaps we will never know.

The song moves on with the words:

“You’re gonna be a shining star, in fancy clothes, and fancy ca-ars.
And then you’ll see, you’re gonna go far,
Cause everyone knows, just who you are-are.”

The listener is informed that they will become a shining star. Those subscribing to a more literalistic interpretation might be led to believe that some sort of physical transformation will suddenly overcome their body and they will become a star that shines. However, given the impossibility of such action (no known physical transformation of this kind has ever been recorded) combined with the fact that most stars do not have clothes or ca-ars, leads this author to postulate that the words are to be taken metaphorically.

Keeping this in mind we see that the author, T.I. is suggesting that his listeners are going to become metaphorical stars that have fancy clothes and ca-ars. The repetition of the adjective fancy suggests this is important, it is not simply clothes and ca-ars that the listener will have, it is instead fancy clothes and ca-ars. In all likely-hood this is because a metaphorical shining star could not possibly have non-fancy clothes and ca-ars.

This shining star is going to go far. The grammatical construction leads us to conclude that the reason the listener (shining star) is going to go far is because every one knows who the listener is. Now the text is not conclusive as to how one fact leads to another; that is, how the fact that “everyone knows who the listener is” will cause the listener “to go far.”

This section, when seen in light of the inclusio, suggests that the consonantal sounds of the listener (or possibly the author - depending on to whom mia is referring) causes the listener to become a fancy clothes wearing and fancy ca-ar driving shining star that is known by all and will go far. In the theology of T.I. it is critically important, in the mia h theme, that the listener utter the consonantal sounds haa, hee, hoo (but not hii and huu). Presumably being a shining star with fancy clothes and so forth is of high importance as well to this author. A practical conclusion from this section of the text is that we must practice uttering his consonantal sounds until we attain to the perfection of such utterance. Perhaps then, and only then, will the listener truly become a shining star with fancy clothes… and fancy ca-ars.

The remaining lyrics of the chorus are as follows:

“So live your life, ay ay ay.
Your steady chasing that paper,
Just live your life (Oh!), ay ay ay.
You got no time for no hata’s
Just live your life (Oh!), ay ay ay.
No telling where it’ll take ya,
Just live your life (Oh!), ay ay ay.
Cause I’m a paper chaser,
Just living my life (Ay!), my life (Oh!), my life (Ay!), my life(Oh!),
just living my life (Ay!), my life (Oh!), my life (Ay!), my life(Oh!),
just living my life”

The chorus is very important to the meaning of any song, since it is typically repeated several times. In this case it is repeated three times. In it a clue is given that sheds more light on the identity of the author. While we know that T.I. has written this song (hence the theology of T.I.) in this section he identifies himself as a “paper chaser.” Hidden amongst all the ays and the ohs, we find that to “live your life” involves “chasing paper.” Context is extremely important to tell us what sort of paper it is which he chases. Is it possible that T.I. is secretly a paper boy that can never seem to keep track of his “papers” that he has to deliver? Or does T.I. enjoy chasing down paper to bring it to the recycling center? If we follow the lead of his earlier inclusio we may come to the conclusion that the paper has something to do with the mia h, his consonantal sounds haa, hee, and hoo (excluding hii and huu). However, there seems to be no logical connection. Maybe the clues that will lead us to the identity of the paper lie further on in the passage.

“Never mind what haters say, ignore them ’til they fade away.
Amazing they ungrateful after all the game I gave away.
Safe to say I paved the way, for you cats to get paid today.
You still be wasting days away, now had I never saved the day.
Consider them my protege, how much I think they should pay.
Instead of being gracious, they violated in a major way.
I never been a hater still I love them, in a crazy way.
Some say they sold yay and know they couldn’t even work on Labor day.
It ain’t that that black and white, it has an area that’s shaded gray.
I’m West side anyway, even if I left the game and stayed away.
Some move away to make a way not move away cause they afraid.
I give back to the hood and all you ever did was take away.
I pray for patience but they make me want to melt they face away.
Like I once made them scream, now I could make them plead their case away.
Been thuggin’ all my life, can’t say I don’t deserve to take a break.
You rather see me catch a case, and watch my future fade away.”

T.I. lists the accomplishments he has made: He gave game away, paved the way for cats to get paid, he saved the day, he loves the cats in a crazy way, he has left the game and stays away, he gives back to the hood, he prays for patience, he made the cats scream, has “thugged” all his life, and now watches his future fade away. This lends itself to the conclusion that T.I. is a patient, philanthropic, slightly psychotic, time traveling, horrific veterinarian thug who used to work for Milton Bradley. Presumably this is all due to his uttering of the consonantal sounds and chasing paper. Yet it does not identify the nature of the paper which he is chasing. It is unclear from this verse if the accomplishments that T.I. has made are prescriptive or simply descriptive. It is outside the scope of this article to decide this, perhaps further work by theologians will shed more light on this matter.

“I’m the opposite of moderate, immaculately polished with the spirit of a hustler and the swagger of a college kid.
Allergic to the counterfeit, impartial to the politics.
Articulate but still would grab a nigga by the collar quick.
Whoever having problems wit, they record sales just holla Tip
If that don’t work and all else fails, then turn around and follow Tip
I got love for the game but ay, I’m not in love with all of it.
I do without the fame and the rappers nowadays are comedy.
The hootin’ and the hollerin’, back and forth with the argueing.
Where you from, who you know, what you make and what kind of car you in.
Seems as though you lost sight of whats important with the positive.
And checks until your bank account, and you’re about poverted.
Your values is a disarrayed, prioritized are horribly.
Unhappy with the riches cause you piss poor morraly.
Ignoring all prior advice and fore warning.
And we mighty full of ourselves all of a sudden, aren’t we?”

Again this verse gives us more information about the author. He walks like a student yet in his inner being remains a thief. He has allergies and refrains from getting involved in government. Some of the words require further word studies to be thoroughly conclusive about their meaning; words such as: wit, holla, and Tip. This author is not convinced that they add much to the overall meaning of the passage; in other words, they are not all that important for interpretation. The text can still have authority without being error free here. We learn that he enjoys working for Milton Bradley, but not the company itself. He likes his anonymity, but still enjoys watching comedians, especially those who argue. The remaining few lines are known to have textual errors and will not be considered in this article. Unfortunately, at this point the identity of the paper is still mystery.

“Got everbody watching what I do
come walk in my shoes
and see the way Im livin if you really want to
got my mind on my money

and Im not goin awaaay

So keep on getting ya paper and keep on climbing
looking in the mirror and keep on shining
till the game ends till the clock stop
we gonna post up on the top spot”

This last verse sheds much light on the identity of the paper. He notes that his mind is on his money, so potentially paper is money. However, in many cultures money is made of precious metals, or at least backed up by them. So it is not clear that the paper must be money. Yet further contextualizing leads us to recognize that T.I. lives in the United States. Therefore his paper that he chases must be money, because in the United States, that is all money is… paper.

So in the theology of T.I. we find that following the theme of mia h, we must utter his consonantal sounds (haa, hee, hoo, excluding hii and huu) and chase paper around. I hope that you will continue to practice this theology that you also may become a patient, philanthropic, slightly psychotic, time traveling, allergic, outwardly studental yet inwardly thiefic, indifferent, horrific veterinarian thug who loves the work he used to do at Milton Bradley, but not Milton Bradley itself.

I hope that you have enjoyed this first installment and I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions on how to improve this segment.

Lyrics obtained from: http://www.metrolyrics.com/live-your-life-lyrics-ti.html (some spelling corrections have been made).

How can anyone know something about God?

This question has been asked throughout history. It seems that the question must always be asked of each succeeding generation, some agreeing with previous one, others disagreeing. Yet, as the Qohelet says, there is nothing new under the sun.

So let’s start at this question by seeing if we can use our own reasoning and the natural world (sometimes referred to as natural theology or general revelation) to attain knowledge of God. A brief (very brief) historical overview is necessary here.

The early church was divided in how knowledge of God can be obtained. Tertullian contended that philosophy (human reason) has nothing to do with faith (What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?), while Clement of Alexandria argued that philosophy paved the way for Christ (Gunton 2001, 154-157). The Middle Ages seemed more confident in its use of reason. Thomas Aquinas felt that reason alone could prove the existence of God - yet only a few, after a long time and with an intermixture of error, would know God (Gunton 2001, 159-160). Reformer, John Calvin argued that each person held a sense of the divine within themselves, yet knowledge of God through nature is “insufficiently effective,” thus Scripture is necessary (McGrath 2007b, 101; Gunton 2001, 35).  Karl Barth argued that since God self-reveals himself, special revelation was the only way one could know God (McGrath 2007b, 146-147) Hans Kung disagreed, arguing that this view diminished the glory of God in creation (LaCugna 1982, 59-60). Finally, Jurgen Moltmann argued that natural theology gives understanding as opposed to blessedness (i.e. salvation) (2000, 66).

Have we found any answers? Well obviously this overview is much to brief to deal adequately with each theologian’s argument, but we find that none seem to argue that through our reason and the natural world we can completely understand God. (I have not included here any liberal or process theologians to simplify the discussion, not out of plain disregard for their positions or contributions. Many would argue that there is nothing outside of our reason and the natural world to give us understanding, but that discussion is outside the scope of this post.) Some argue they are of no use, others demonstrate they are extremely useful, but almost no one argues that apart from some divine revelation we can thoroughly know God.

So it seems we can know God partially through our reason and the natural world, from where then do we come to a more fuller understanding of God? We can examine this more fully in part II.

Gunton, Colin E., Stephen R. Holmes, and Murray A. Rae, eds. 2001. The Practice of Theology: A Reader. London: SCM Press.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. 1982. The Theological Methodology of Hans Kung. American Academy of Religion Academy Series 39, eds. Carl Raschke and William Gravely. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

McGrath, Alister E. 2007. The Christian Theology Reader. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Moltmann, Jurgen. 2000. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

I have recently come to hear William Chillingworth’s famous statement, “The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.” Can Protestants agree with this statement? It is difficult to answer this question at face value, for what is needed is a definition of terms before one can conclude in agreement or disagreement.

First, what does the “Bible alone” mean? For the Bible is never alone, in that an interpretation must always be made. With regard to the general Protestant era (Luther up to the present), we have a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. Do we interpret as Luther did with differentiating between the literal and historical and the spiritual and prophetic? Or do we side with Zwingli and attempt to find a natural sense of Scripture? Or should we use modern rational approach, historical approach, sociological approach, or literary approach? Whichever way one goes, there is always an interpretation of the Bible to go along with the words of the Bible. While unlikely, if the by the “Bible alone,” interpretation of the Bible is to be included, we must then look at the next term: “religion.”

So what of this term? Is by religion meant the works of man to merit the righteousness of God? Or is it meant the structure of the Christian faith that the Protestants have built? Or is it simply the faith of Christ followers? If by “religion” is meant the faith of Christ followers, then to answer our question we still have one more term to examine: “Protestant.”

It is historically plain to see that there is no one “Protestant” faith or religion. If the mainstream Reformation wing is meant, then one can find tradition (as in the traditional method of interpretation), reason (as in the basic human faculty of thinking), and experience (as in theology interpreting our inner experience) all impact the faith of Christ followers. Only in the radical wing of the Protestant reformation do you find a total rejection of tradition.

It seems then the only way Protestants can agree with this statement is to define the Bible alone to include its interpretation, religion to simply mean the faith of Christ followers, and Protestant to mean those denominations derived from the radical wing of the Reformation. Otherwise the Bible alone is not the religion of the Protestants.

The question of gaining knowledge about God is an ancient one. Is there a god? Can we know about him/her/it? How can we know about him/her/it? What is he/she/it like? All these and more are questions which people have sought to answer for years. One small wave of discussion in the ocean of conversation concerning this topic is the idea that shared experience of all humankind leads us to a knowledge of God. Is there a shared experience among all humans that gives us common ground upon which to stand? Is there something that we all have in common that links humanity and forms a foundation upon which we can build our knowledge of God?

Augustine seemed to argue that indeed there was such a common ground. This common ground is our shared experience of frustration with the world. Things ought not to be as they are. We cannot put our finger directly on it, but we know there is something missing. This is summed up with his famous quote, (speaking to God) “You have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Karl Barth, similarly ,points to conscience as that shared experience among all men which brings us to knowledge of the righteousness of God. He argues in the opening of his work The Word of God and The Word of Man that such knowledge cannot come through our reasoning alone, nor can it come by communication from one man to another, but instead it is found seated in the depths of man’s conscience. All men have the experience of conscience, thus it appears (at face value at least) that this experience is common among men and able to give us knowledge of God.

Yet Ludwig Feuerbach’s critique of such an idea of shared experience challenges well this notion. Is this idea of conscience, or frustration and longing for fulfillment simply human awareness of itself and nothing more? Has anyone really spoken about God, or was it simply a projection of our own thoughts and fears?

So does shared experience lead to any common ground upon which we can find knowledge of God? Is this the right starting point for knowledge of God, the wrong starting point, do we need a starting point or can we obtain a starting point? What do you think?