For anyone who stumbles upon this blog:
I have several blogs that were all started on blogger. Since then I have seen the superiority of Wordpress, so I have imported all my blogs over to there and are no longer using blogger. To find this blog and the others, go to the following address:
www.biblepsych.wordpress.com
Also be sure to check out my other sites/blogs:
My Personal Blog
Burkhart Bible Studies
Reform & Revive
I hope this finds you well, and I hope to hear from you soon on the new sites.
--paul
Monday, July 14, 2008
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sleep Theology
Some of you out there my have heard me talk about this before, but I thought I would post this for all to see and enjoy.
Anyway, the question is thus: Every design of humans is purposeful for some greater reality; either to display some attribute of God's image, or to further man towards that ultimate end. That being the case, why on earth did God design us to sleep? I mean, Scripture is clear that God does not sleep, and it technically is not a necessity for humans to be designed this way. There are other ways for healing, regeneration (physical), and rest God could have put in man, so why sleep? Well, a whole myriad options exist:
(1) Sleep can act as a Spiritual symbol for salvation.
John Donne has a poem called "death be not proud" where he pretty much expounds on Paul's words: "O Death, where is your sting?" He tries to insult Death by declaring that if pictures of death (such as resting and sleeping) are so pleasurable, how much more so should death itself be? I think he is right in making sleep and death as symbols for each other; Paul does it continuously in the New testament. Anyway, I think it's interesting how our body's ultimate regeneration only occurs while we are asleep. This mirrors our soul's ultimate regeneration only actually occurring while we are spiritual dead. We don't "wake up" first before regeneration happens. It happens to us while there's no way we could bring it upon ourselves.
(2) Sleep is a fruit of trusting in God without anxiety
Psalm 127:2 says: "It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved sleep." Sleep here is contrasted to anxious working, so truly restful sleep is a gift of love from our Father for those who are willing to receive it and lay down their anxieties. Just like with so many other things, God stands, arms open inviting us into his rest if we would only lay down our arms and trust him. Ahh . . .
(3) To show us that we are not God
Psalm 121:4 says: "He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Humans sleep, God does not, and the world still turns. We need a break where God never does.
(4) To humble the pride of men
This is very akin to the last point, but worth separating, I think. Just think about it: No matter who you are in history- how powerful you are, how wise you are, or how strong you are - you must and will bend your knee and surrender your consciousness to a power greater than your own with no promise of waking up, else you will die.
(5) Sleep makes us deal with God
Sleep also makes us slow down and actually listen to God. Psalm 63:5-6 says: "My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food, and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips, when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night." In this case, sleep (or trying to get there) leads David to meditate upon God to experience a sweet satisfaction in his longing (see vv. 1-5) for Him. I think this principle also works the other way as well. Ever notice how those with the most troubled consciences (or the most reasons to have one) generally stay up very late? Perhaps this has a spiritual root, where the guilty try to stay up so late so when they go to bed, they will go straight to sleep and can avoid the place God has prepared to meet them and show them who they are in light of who he is. Oh the blessing they miss indeed!
Let us not take this same path of folly many do and avoid the quiet place God has prepared for us to meet him free of anxieties; to bathe in the love and rest of our loving Father with a clear conscience dressed in the warm blanket of Christ's righteousness knowing He is who He says He is and that we are who He says we are - both of which can be our greatest joy and ultimate satisfaction.
Sweet dreams to all,
--paul<><
Anyway, the question is thus: Every design of humans is purposeful for some greater reality; either to display some attribute of God's image, or to further man towards that ultimate end. That being the case, why on earth did God design us to sleep? I mean, Scripture is clear that God does not sleep, and it technically is not a necessity for humans to be designed this way. There are other ways for healing, regeneration (physical), and rest God could have put in man, so why sleep? Well, a whole myriad options exist:
(1) Sleep can act as a Spiritual symbol for salvation.
John Donne has a poem called "death be not proud" where he pretty much expounds on Paul's words: "O Death, where is your sting?" He tries to insult Death by declaring that if pictures of death (such as resting and sleeping) are so pleasurable, how much more so should death itself be? I think he is right in making sleep and death as symbols for each other; Paul does it continuously in the New testament. Anyway, I think it's interesting how our body's ultimate regeneration only occurs while we are asleep. This mirrors our soul's ultimate regeneration only actually occurring while we are spiritual dead. We don't "wake up" first before regeneration happens. It happens to us while there's no way we could bring it upon ourselves.
(2) Sleep is a fruit of trusting in God without anxiety
Psalm 127:2 says: "It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest, eating the bread of anxious toil; for he gives to his beloved sleep." Sleep here is contrasted to anxious working, so truly restful sleep is a gift of love from our Father for those who are willing to receive it and lay down their anxieties. Just like with so many other things, God stands, arms open inviting us into his rest if we would only lay down our arms and trust him. Ahh . . .
(3) To show us that we are not God
Psalm 121:4 says: "He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep." Humans sleep, God does not, and the world still turns. We need a break where God never does.
(4) To humble the pride of men
This is very akin to the last point, but worth separating, I think. Just think about it: No matter who you are in history- how powerful you are, how wise you are, or how strong you are - you must and will bend your knee and surrender your consciousness to a power greater than your own with no promise of waking up, else you will die.
(5) Sleep makes us deal with God
Sleep also makes us slow down and actually listen to God. Psalm 63:5-6 says: "My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food, and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips, when I remember you upon my bed, and meditate on you in the watches of the night." In this case, sleep (or trying to get there) leads David to meditate upon God to experience a sweet satisfaction in his longing (see vv. 1-5) for Him. I think this principle also works the other way as well. Ever notice how those with the most troubled consciences (or the most reasons to have one) generally stay up very late? Perhaps this has a spiritual root, where the guilty try to stay up so late so when they go to bed, they will go straight to sleep and can avoid the place God has prepared to meet them and show them who they are in light of who he is. Oh the blessing they miss indeed!
Let us not take this same path of folly many do and avoid the quiet place God has prepared for us to meet him free of anxieties; to bathe in the love and rest of our loving Father with a clear conscience dressed in the warm blanket of Christ's righteousness knowing He is who He says He is and that we are who He says we are - both of which can be our greatest joy and ultimate satisfaction.
Sweet dreams to all,
--paul<><
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Discourse on Desire & Darwinism: an Apologetic
I was at home typing all this out about two months ago. As I was nearing the end, my foot hit the power strip the computer was connected to and I lost it all. It was structured so much better than this and explained everything so much clearer. So after a couple months of being bummed out over it, I am now re-typing this out. Or rather, attempting to. This can also be found on my personal blog, but because this speaks to a created psychological drive in humans, I found it appropriate to post it here, too. Enjoy.
Proposition 1: All humans seek happiness.
Regardless of culture, gender, time in history, or even religion, this desire is universal. Even the Buddhist who spends his life trying to remove the desire for happiness can never remove the desire to have no desire, thus showing the cyclical nature of that philosophy. Even the Ascetic receives happiness for his casting off of earthly things, no matter the biblical warrant, or lack thereof.
Proposition 2: Every action of every human being is to this end.
The motive behind every action of every human is to this end, even those who kill themselves. I would argue that the drive to reduce misery (even through suicide) is very akin to that drive for happiness.
Proposition 3: This drive is unique to humans.
No animal acts in a natural environment for the pure sake of the pursuit of happiness. Every action of every animal is for a definite cause of some biological interest. Every animal action has a real purpose with tangible results beyond some emotional response.
Proposition 4: This desire is never really fulfilled.
As has been duly noted by men greater than me, Thomas Jefferson noted that we can attain many things, but "happiness" we can only "pursue." He never says we can actually attain it. No one in history (except Jesus) could have said honestly they had actually fully satisfied one's inner desire for happiness. Sure, we experience it in great measures, but a desire such as hunger can be fully satisfied; the desire for happiness cannot.
Proposition 5: Darwinism has no answer to this.
Here's the meat of the discourse. Long story short: Darwinism implies no previous purposeful design within human beings apart from what has been gained generationally by the experiences of our ancestors. Their experiences have learned what enables us to survive, and thus adaptations to this end or passed down and show themselves in our present physical, cultural, and psychological features. If this is true, then no desire humans have could have ever developed prior to the ability to fulfill it. To use the example above: Humans didn't acquire this universal desire for food known as hunger, until (a) a lack or deficit was noticed, and (b) a way to fully satisfy it was found. I'm arguing that every desire or drive in humans testifies to the existence of a full satisfaction thereof somewhere in the world. If Proposition 4 is true, then, that means Darwinism's only answer to the desire for happiness is that the desire itself preceded the object of that desire, because a full satisfaction of it cannot be found on earth, so how were our ancestors to know they were without it? The idea that the existence of a desire precedes it's object is very intellectually dishonest, and thus Darwinism is inadequate in accounting for this universal human drive.
Conclusion: Only Christianity has the adequate, satisfactory answer to it.
Christianity teaches that we have been created with a desire for happiness that testifies to the existence of that happiness, namely God Himself. He is what our hearts were made for and thus our hearts are never fully satisfied until they rest in Him. Christianity also teaches that this world has fallen from its original glory and is in a process of redemption wherein one can experience a certain measure of that happiness in the here and now that is merely a shadow of the full satisfaction to come. This is the idea popularly known as "the Already but Not Yet." Christ's Kingdom has already been established in the world, but it's full consummation has not yet happened, thus certain degrees of eternal realities we can experience now in the form of spiritual gifts, worship, a change in nature and will, and an ever decreasing dominion of the power of sin in one's life. These are all things that our being was created to find its utmost delight in and thus when our soul does that, it is more itself than it ever could be.
After coming up with this a while ago, I was surprised, impressed with myself, and humbled all at once when I found out that C.S. Lewis had these exact thoughts over sixty years ago. I stumbled upon this quote I'd like to finish with to sum up my entire point in this here treatise. He said:
Amen, brother.
Please, send rebuttals, criticisms, or arguments over any of the above propositions my way. I feel like there are some things I haven't adequately addressed, but I can't seem to find the holes in the arguments. Please find them and tell me, as I eager to develop this properly.
--paul
Proposition 1: All humans seek happiness.
Regardless of culture, gender, time in history, or even religion, this desire is universal. Even the Buddhist who spends his life trying to remove the desire for happiness can never remove the desire to have no desire, thus showing the cyclical nature of that philosophy. Even the Ascetic receives happiness for his casting off of earthly things, no matter the biblical warrant, or lack thereof.
Proposition 2: Every action of every human being is to this end.
The motive behind every action of every human is to this end, even those who kill themselves. I would argue that the drive to reduce misery (even through suicide) is very akin to that drive for happiness.
Proposition 3: This drive is unique to humans.
No animal acts in a natural environment for the pure sake of the pursuit of happiness. Every action of every animal is for a definite cause of some biological interest. Every animal action has a real purpose with tangible results beyond some emotional response.
Proposition 4: This desire is never really fulfilled.
As has been duly noted by men greater than me, Thomas Jefferson noted that we can attain many things, but "happiness" we can only "pursue." He never says we can actually attain it. No one in history (except Jesus) could have said honestly they had actually fully satisfied one's inner desire for happiness. Sure, we experience it in great measures, but a desire such as hunger can be fully satisfied; the desire for happiness cannot.
Proposition 5: Darwinism has no answer to this.
Here's the meat of the discourse. Long story short: Darwinism implies no previous purposeful design within human beings apart from what has been gained generationally by the experiences of our ancestors. Their experiences have learned what enables us to survive, and thus adaptations to this end or passed down and show themselves in our present physical, cultural, and psychological features. If this is true, then no desire humans have could have ever developed prior to the ability to fulfill it. To use the example above: Humans didn't acquire this universal desire for food known as hunger, until (a) a lack or deficit was noticed, and (b) a way to fully satisfy it was found. I'm arguing that every desire or drive in humans testifies to the existence of a full satisfaction thereof somewhere in the world. If Proposition 4 is true, then, that means Darwinism's only answer to the desire for happiness is that the desire itself preceded the object of that desire, because a full satisfaction of it cannot be found on earth, so how were our ancestors to know they were without it? The idea that the existence of a desire precedes it's object is very intellectually dishonest, and thus Darwinism is inadequate in accounting for this universal human drive.
Conclusion: Only Christianity has the adequate, satisfactory answer to it.
Christianity teaches that we have been created with a desire for happiness that testifies to the existence of that happiness, namely God Himself. He is what our hearts were made for and thus our hearts are never fully satisfied until they rest in Him. Christianity also teaches that this world has fallen from its original glory and is in a process of redemption wherein one can experience a certain measure of that happiness in the here and now that is merely a shadow of the full satisfaction to come. This is the idea popularly known as "the Already but Not Yet." Christ's Kingdom has already been established in the world, but it's full consummation has not yet happened, thus certain degrees of eternal realities we can experience now in the form of spiritual gifts, worship, a change in nature and will, and an ever decreasing dominion of the power of sin in one's life. These are all things that our being was created to find its utmost delight in and thus when our soul does that, it is more itself than it ever could be.
After coming up with this a while ago, I was surprised, impressed with myself, and humbled all at once when I found out that C.S. Lewis had these exact thoughts over sixty years ago. I stumbled upon this quote I'd like to finish with to sum up my entire point in this here treatise. He said:
"If I find in myself desires which nothing in this earth can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world"
Amen, brother.
Please, send rebuttals, criticisms, or arguments over any of the above propositions my way. I feel like there are some things I haven't adequately addressed, but I can't seem to find the holes in the arguments. Please find them and tell me, as I eager to develop this properly.
--paul
Saturday, February 03, 2007
The Theism Model of Relationship Development Dynamism: the Practicals
This post is supposed to build off of my last post, where I laid out my Theism Model for Relationship Development Dynamism and talked about the Invitation and Intimation Principles. Read that for the theory. This post is intended to use this theory and establish some practicals that can be used in everyday relationships, based on what principles they mostly use. I believe most people are pretty reasonable in these two drives, with most people leaning towards the invitation side of things. This means there are generally three different kinds of people: Balanced, Intimation Strong, and Invitation Strong. Some possible problems that may arise from different combinations of people are as follows:
Intimation Strong & Balanced - Most people get freaked out by someone getting so close to them so fast, and it ends up pushing them away. Even if that doesn’t happen, they can get a reputation for being pretty eccentric in their closeness to people that they’re really not that close to, realistically speaking. Sometimes these people will give random statements of encouragement, praise, or even blunt statements of rebuke; all of which are coming from a perceived level of closeness they have with the person they may not actually have. Most times these relationships stretch both parties and help them grow in healthy ways, but these are just some potential problems.
Invitation Strong & Intimation Strong – When these two extremes come together, strange tensions arise. The intimation person may say things about the invitation person that the latter finds offensive, because they haven’t allowed the former to hold that close of a place in their life. That’s what it’s all about with an Invitation strong person; they must call the shots and give the other person the place in their life to say certain things. The Intimation Strong person must be aware of the place they hold in the life of the other. These relationships can be one of the most fruitful of any combination, if these problems can be resolved. The Invitation person must become less sensitive to others, and the Intimation person must become more sensitive to others, and how comfortable they are with their pursuit of closeness.
Invitation Strong & Invitation Strong – These usually don’t happen. If they do, they look very boring and unexciting on the outside, but may hold a very close place in the hearts of those involved. You find this most often on the female platonic level; hardly ever on the romantic level, though I’ve seen it a few times. They look very weird on the outside.
Intimation Strong & Intimation Strong – Every relationship has some sort of boundaries inherent within it. These people have problems with proper boundaries of intimacy in most relationships. They usually end up playing off the other person who is generally the other extreme, or Balanced, meaning that the boundaries are set by the other person, not the Intimation Strong person. Potentially the most exciting, dynamic, and fruitful of all combinations, there are unique challenges they face if they are to get to that level of enough health to yield the most satisfaction. They need to be careful of boundaries, first and foremost. If one person crosses a boundary, a level of trust is broken that may not be able to be healed. This is why: If an Intimation Strong person for once has one of their boundaries crossed, that is generally a very foreign experience to them that pushes them far away. They are used to desiring closeness with someone more than the other person desires it with them; so when someone actually pushes harder than they ever have, it makes them feel claustrophobic and stifled.
I’ve learned recently that there is a definite level of health and excitement found in holding ones’ cards close to their chest, not revealing too much too soon. A certain level of “aloofness” or mystery is exciting and fosters a sense of mutual respect necessary for any real relationship to develop. Tension is good; vomiting all of one’s thoughts and emotions on the table before someone in an effort to seek intimacy is bad, and can have disastrous consequences (no, I am not speaking from personal experiences, haha). These relationships are usually the most “dynamic” to say the least, but can be the most satisfying and redeeming in one’s life. For Christians, these relationships are also the most “expressive.” What I mean is that every relationship puts forward a certain image of God. Some of these images are closer to reality than others. A benefit of double intimation Strong relationships is that they will scream out that image more than any other combination, thus people in those relationships must be very aware of the image of God they are putting forth.
Though it may sound like I am speaking primarily of romantic male-female relationships, I am not. I believe these principles can be applied to all relationships, including our relationship with God, as explained in the previous post. I think the most ready application of these principles is in male-female romantic relationships, but they need not be limited to them. Also, be fully aware that these primary drives and strengths of those drives in various people will change depending on the time in their life, environmental factors, and whether the relationship being cultivated is between two males, two females, or a male and female.
I hope these applications help in your everyday relationships.
--paul
Intimation Strong & Balanced - Most people get freaked out by someone getting so close to them so fast, and it ends up pushing them away. Even if that doesn’t happen, they can get a reputation for being pretty eccentric in their closeness to people that they’re really not that close to, realistically speaking. Sometimes these people will give random statements of encouragement, praise, or even blunt statements of rebuke; all of which are coming from a perceived level of closeness they have with the person they may not actually have. Most times these relationships stretch both parties and help them grow in healthy ways, but these are just some potential problems.
Invitation Strong & Intimation Strong – When these two extremes come together, strange tensions arise. The intimation person may say things about the invitation person that the latter finds offensive, because they haven’t allowed the former to hold that close of a place in their life. That’s what it’s all about with an Invitation strong person; they must call the shots and give the other person the place in their life to say certain things. The Intimation Strong person must be aware of the place they hold in the life of the other. These relationships can be one of the most fruitful of any combination, if these problems can be resolved. The Invitation person must become less sensitive to others, and the Intimation person must become more sensitive to others, and how comfortable they are with their pursuit of closeness.
Invitation Strong & Invitation Strong – These usually don’t happen. If they do, they look very boring and unexciting on the outside, but may hold a very close place in the hearts of those involved. You find this most often on the female platonic level; hardly ever on the romantic level, though I’ve seen it a few times. They look very weird on the outside.
Intimation Strong & Intimation Strong – Every relationship has some sort of boundaries inherent within it. These people have problems with proper boundaries of intimacy in most relationships. They usually end up playing off the other person who is generally the other extreme, or Balanced, meaning that the boundaries are set by the other person, not the Intimation Strong person. Potentially the most exciting, dynamic, and fruitful of all combinations, there are unique challenges they face if they are to get to that level of enough health to yield the most satisfaction. They need to be careful of boundaries, first and foremost. If one person crosses a boundary, a level of trust is broken that may not be able to be healed. This is why: If an Intimation Strong person for once has one of their boundaries crossed, that is generally a very foreign experience to them that pushes them far away. They are used to desiring closeness with someone more than the other person desires it with them; so when someone actually pushes harder than they ever have, it makes them feel claustrophobic and stifled.
I’ve learned recently that there is a definite level of health and excitement found in holding ones’ cards close to their chest, not revealing too much too soon. A certain level of “aloofness” or mystery is exciting and fosters a sense of mutual respect necessary for any real relationship to develop. Tension is good; vomiting all of one’s thoughts and emotions on the table before someone in an effort to seek intimacy is bad, and can have disastrous consequences (no, I am not speaking from personal experiences, haha). These relationships are usually the most “dynamic” to say the least, but can be the most satisfying and redeeming in one’s life. For Christians, these relationships are also the most “expressive.” What I mean is that every relationship puts forward a certain image of God. Some of these images are closer to reality than others. A benefit of double intimation Strong relationships is that they will scream out that image more than any other combination, thus people in those relationships must be very aware of the image of God they are putting forth.
Though it may sound like I am speaking primarily of romantic male-female relationships, I am not. I believe these principles can be applied to all relationships, including our relationship with God, as explained in the previous post. I think the most ready application of these principles is in male-female romantic relationships, but they need not be limited to them. Also, be fully aware that these primary drives and strengths of those drives in various people will change depending on the time in their life, environmental factors, and whether the relationship being cultivated is between two males, two females, or a male and female.
I hope these applications help in your everyday relationships.
--paul
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
The Theism Model of Relationship Development Dynamism: the Intimation and Invitation Principles.
Just recently, God has been teaching me so much about others and myself. This post is the fruit of these pains God has been taking me through. It’s a simple theory, but it can be used to help understand relationships of all kinds, spiritual and temporal. This can be used most effectively as a tool in finding one possible source of problems in these relationships, when they arise. Secondly, this theory can be used to describe the success of other relationships. As stated above, this theory is very simple, but the technical phrasings and jargon used is primarily to help standardize these ideas for the psychological world.
Anyway, I have noticed there are two components to every relationship we have:
(1) An invitation principle – this is the “developmental” part of a relationship. It’s the level with which one is slowly inviting the person into intimacy with them. If we use driving down a highway as a metaphor for relationship development, then this would be the speed with which one is driving down that road.
(2) An intimation principle – this is the term used to describe the level of intimacy we have with the person. In the metaphor, this is how far down the road you are; the mile marker, if you will.
What I have noticed recently is that every person has one of these drives that is stronger than the other. This can cause problems. Have you ever met a person that within 10 minutes of meeting them, you two are talking about the deepest aspects of your lives? Most likely, this person works primarily off of the intimation principle. They seek a bond first, and focus on really developing the relationship only after that intimacy is already established. Have you ever met someone that just seems like they have a wall up between them and everyone else in the world, except for a few people that are very close to them? Most likely, this person works primarily off of the invitation principle. They must slowly get to know you and slowly invite you into the most intimate parts of their lives. Relationship development comes first and intimacy comes along the way, as they invite you closer and closer to them.
My next post will be some practical applications of this theory, but now I want to discuss the “Theistic” side of the model for this theory. These two interpersonal principles act as symbols and shadows of greater realities God has placed in us humans to represent our intraspiritual principles as well. In plain English: we see these two drives show themselves in both our relationships with people, and our relationship with God; and how they show themselves in our relationship with God reveal their truest form and function in human relationships.
A quick foundation: There is a relationship firmly established in Scripture between the four stages of our salvation (wooing, justification, sanctification, and glorification) and intimacy with God. For convenience, I’ll provide only one verse for each, though there are more I could use. First, God’s wooing and drawing of us into conversion is shown in Hosea 2:14. Our salvation is connected to an intimacy and relationship with God in Hosea 2:20. This intimacy is also connected to our continuing sanctification as seen in Jeremiah 31:33, 34 (writing on our hearts). Lastly, our eventual heavenly glorification with Christ is found in the depiction of heaven presented in the latter part of verse 34 in the Jeremiah passage.
Now to the point of this: Hebrews 10:14 – the main apologetic for the Theism Model of Relationship Development Dynamism. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Using the connections we established scripturally above, one could perhaps rewrite this verse to say, “by a single offering he has brought into complete intimacy for all time those who he is slowly inviting into closer and closer intimacy with him.”
These drives exhibit themselves in the Christian walk in that in one moment, we are as close to God as we will ever be in this life, but at the same time, there is a real relationship development that must take place for this relationship to yield anything in our lives and serve its purpose. Thus, this model can show that the healthiest relationships that best represent God’s image in us are those that are intentional, purposeful, and leading to a real intimacy. Relationship development is only as good as the intimacy that it yields.
Intimacy yields the fruit, development tends to the vine. They must both be there for health. A relationship driven simply by intimation is reckless, and a relationship driven simply by invitation is fearful.
In light of this, I hope all who read this post take from it a sense of purpose that must be present in relationships. Please don’t be fostering relationships not allowing people into those intimate parts of your life, and don’t be giving intimacy to those that you clearly should not. Further, never become complacent with the level of intimacy you have with someone. In romantic relationships, guys do this most often; they feel like they have “won” the girl and after a while stop “fighting” and “pursuing” (synonyms for “development” and “invitation” I think), only to leave the girl to seek someone/something else that will develop that with her. The vine will wither and die. Though I have not exercised all of these principles well in the least, God has used these shortcomings to teach me where the line should be drawn, and I hope this wisdom will be helpful to those who read this far down.
Next post: more practical outworkings of the Invitation and Intimation principles.
--paul
Anyway, I have noticed there are two components to every relationship we have:
(1) An invitation principle – this is the “developmental” part of a relationship. It’s the level with which one is slowly inviting the person into intimacy with them. If we use driving down a highway as a metaphor for relationship development, then this would be the speed with which one is driving down that road.
(2) An intimation principle – this is the term used to describe the level of intimacy we have with the person. In the metaphor, this is how far down the road you are; the mile marker, if you will.
What I have noticed recently is that every person has one of these drives that is stronger than the other. This can cause problems. Have you ever met a person that within 10 minutes of meeting them, you two are talking about the deepest aspects of your lives? Most likely, this person works primarily off of the intimation principle. They seek a bond first, and focus on really developing the relationship only after that intimacy is already established. Have you ever met someone that just seems like they have a wall up between them and everyone else in the world, except for a few people that are very close to them? Most likely, this person works primarily off of the invitation principle. They must slowly get to know you and slowly invite you into the most intimate parts of their lives. Relationship development comes first and intimacy comes along the way, as they invite you closer and closer to them.
My next post will be some practical applications of this theory, but now I want to discuss the “Theistic” side of the model for this theory. These two interpersonal principles act as symbols and shadows of greater realities God has placed in us humans to represent our intraspiritual principles as well. In plain English: we see these two drives show themselves in both our relationships with people, and our relationship with God; and how they show themselves in our relationship with God reveal their truest form and function in human relationships.
A quick foundation: There is a relationship firmly established in Scripture between the four stages of our salvation (wooing, justification, sanctification, and glorification) and intimacy with God. For convenience, I’ll provide only one verse for each, though there are more I could use. First, God’s wooing and drawing of us into conversion is shown in Hosea 2:14. Our salvation is connected to an intimacy and relationship with God in Hosea 2:20. This intimacy is also connected to our continuing sanctification as seen in Jeremiah 31:33, 34 (writing on our hearts). Lastly, our eventual heavenly glorification with Christ is found in the depiction of heaven presented in the latter part of verse 34 in the Jeremiah passage.
Now to the point of this: Hebrews 10:14 – the main apologetic for the Theism Model of Relationship Development Dynamism. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Using the connections we established scripturally above, one could perhaps rewrite this verse to say, “by a single offering he has brought into complete intimacy for all time those who he is slowly inviting into closer and closer intimacy with him.”
These drives exhibit themselves in the Christian walk in that in one moment, we are as close to God as we will ever be in this life, but at the same time, there is a real relationship development that must take place for this relationship to yield anything in our lives and serve its purpose. Thus, this model can show that the healthiest relationships that best represent God’s image in us are those that are intentional, purposeful, and leading to a real intimacy. Relationship development is only as good as the intimacy that it yields.
Intimacy yields the fruit, development tends to the vine. They must both be there for health. A relationship driven simply by intimation is reckless, and a relationship driven simply by invitation is fearful.
In light of this, I hope all who read this post take from it a sense of purpose that must be present in relationships. Please don’t be fostering relationships not allowing people into those intimate parts of your life, and don’t be giving intimacy to those that you clearly should not. Further, never become complacent with the level of intimacy you have with someone. In romantic relationships, guys do this most often; they feel like they have “won” the girl and after a while stop “fighting” and “pursuing” (synonyms for “development” and “invitation” I think), only to leave the girl to seek someone/something else that will develop that with her. The vine will wither and die. Though I have not exercised all of these principles well in the least, God has used these shortcomings to teach me where the line should be drawn, and I hope this wisdom will be helpful to those who read this far down.
Next post: more practical outworkings of the Invitation and Intimation principles.
--paul
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Perception - The Theistic Origin Theory of Gestalt Psychological Perception
Seeing as it is so late as I write this, I know that I will not be satisfied one bit with how this very tough issue is explained, so I will surely have an update to this post quite soon.
Let's start with the Psychology:
Gestalt psychology, technically speaking, is a theory of mind and brain that proposes that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies. The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves.
In layman's terms, this is best explained by the old adage conerning all things "Gestalt": the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
What this means is that the human mind tends to organize everything we perceive into "wholes" rather than "parts," which means it will fill in gaps when necessary to bring about some sort of "wholeness" or continuity within what we percieve.
Long story short, the mind perceives more than is actually there.
Now, for the Bible:
-- "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).
-- "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45)
-- "Jesus said to him, 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.'" (John 14:9)
Now for the theory:
Being a Christian, I believe God created man very purposefully, so every psychological aspect of humans has intent behind it on both a practical and spiritual level. Thus, I'd like to provide a Theistic Origin Theory for Gestalt Psychological Perception. In other words, I'd like to provide a theory as to the origin of this type of perception in mankind, and that origin is from God (the Theistic being). So . . . why did God create us with these Gestalt tendencies?
As one can see from the three Scriptures above, I have taken just three ways in which God communicates Himself, His will, and His attributes. These Scriptures plainly talk of God showing Himself through things that the sum of their parts do not equal God. Nature (Creation), words on a page (the Scriptures), and a human being (Jesus) do not equal God when each is added to eachother, much less when each is taken individually. But, nonetheless, the Bible says this is so. Why can it be? Gestalt Psychological Perception.
My theory is this: God created us to perceive things greater than what we've been given so that He may be able to communicate to humans and reveal himself supernaturally to them in ways that were seemingly natural. That's why we can perceive there is a God just by looking at nature; the fingerprint of God on this world is greater than the sum of it parts. That's why God can speak to us anew through 1,500 year old words written on a page we may have seen a million times over; the whole that the Scripture wishes to convey is greater than the sum of its parts. That's why, God the Father can be fully revealed perfectly in an incarnated form as a human; the whole of who Jesus is, is greater than the sum of his parts.
We know this to be true, so let's rejoice in it; that God created us to have full ability and capacity to perceive and know Him, even in the most "common" of things.
I will add more Scripture as I come by it. Those three were just the ones that came to mind this second, but I will find more.
On our next episode: either
(a) Psychopathology - who's fault is it?
(b) Sleep theology - why do we sleep?
(c) Toilet Theology - why do we poo? (probably not this one)
I hope you get a laugh out of that,
--paul<><
Let's start with the Psychology:
Gestalt psychology, technically speaking, is a theory of mind and brain that proposes that the operational principle of the brain is holistic, parallel, and analog, with self-organizing tendencies. The Gestalt effect refers to the form-forming capability of our senses, particularly with respect to the visual recognition of figures and whole forms instead of just a collection of simple lines and curves.
In layman's terms, this is best explained by the old adage conerning all things "Gestalt": the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
What this means is that the human mind tends to organize everything we perceive into "wholes" rather than "parts," which means it will fill in gaps when necessary to bring about some sort of "wholeness" or continuity within what we percieve.
Long story short, the mind perceives more than is actually there.
Now, for the Bible:
-- "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20).
-- "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45)
-- "Jesus said to him, 'Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.'" (John 14:9)
Now for the theory:
Being a Christian, I believe God created man very purposefully, so every psychological aspect of humans has intent behind it on both a practical and spiritual level. Thus, I'd like to provide a Theistic Origin Theory for Gestalt Psychological Perception. In other words, I'd like to provide a theory as to the origin of this type of perception in mankind, and that origin is from God (the Theistic being). So . . . why did God create us with these Gestalt tendencies?
As one can see from the three Scriptures above, I have taken just three ways in which God communicates Himself, His will, and His attributes. These Scriptures plainly talk of God showing Himself through things that the sum of their parts do not equal God. Nature (Creation), words on a page (the Scriptures), and a human being (Jesus) do not equal God when each is added to eachother, much less when each is taken individually. But, nonetheless, the Bible says this is so. Why can it be? Gestalt Psychological Perception.
My theory is this: God created us to perceive things greater than what we've been given so that He may be able to communicate to humans and reveal himself supernaturally to them in ways that were seemingly natural. That's why we can perceive there is a God just by looking at nature; the fingerprint of God on this world is greater than the sum of it parts. That's why God can speak to us anew through 1,500 year old words written on a page we may have seen a million times over; the whole that the Scripture wishes to convey is greater than the sum of its parts. That's why, God the Father can be fully revealed perfectly in an incarnated form as a human; the whole of who Jesus is, is greater than the sum of his parts.
We know this to be true, so let's rejoice in it; that God created us to have full ability and capacity to perceive and know Him, even in the most "common" of things.
I will add more Scripture as I come by it. Those three were just the ones that came to mind this second, but I will find more.
On our next episode: either
(a) Psychopathology - who's fault is it?
(b) Sleep theology - why do we sleep?
(c) Toilet Theology - why do we poo? (probably not this one)
I hope you get a laugh out of that,
--paul<><
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)