X-Treme!

Thanks for watching,

-Daniel K

Viewing the World.

Ever since I came to CCU, I've had a nagging fear in the back of my mind. You see, I have always viewed myself as a seeker of knowledge. Through high school, I prided myself on being able to achieve A's in my classes, on being able to compete with Hans in calculus class and John in English. I love to learn new things, from the correct usage of a semicolon to the formula for rotational volume of a solid to how the Persians defeated the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae.

When I began investigating Christianity, this didn't change. I remember the time Robbie gave a message in youth group and he mentioned angles. Afterward, I approached him and asked, "God is all-powerful and exists everywhere, right?" He answered in the affirmative. "Well then, why does He need angles? Does He just get tired or bored and so He employs them? Or what?" My hunger for answers found new food in Christianity, because it was something I had never formally learned about before. What is the Trinity? Why was Christ's death necessary? How is Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully God?

After a while of meeting with Robbie, drilling David, and interrogating Stephanie, I came to a place where I was ready to be vulnerable to the doctrines of Christianity. That is, I was ready to begin to show humility and think, "maybe I don't have it all right, and perhaps this Jesus character can help me with some things." This was when I began asking more crucial questions such as "What does it mean to be a Christian? How do you become one? What ramifications would that have on my life?"

I'm guessing most of you know the end of that story (or, rather, the beginning.) So I return to the statement I made in the first paragraph - the nagging fear I've had. Given my background, how my mind works, and my knack for asking questions until the fog is cleared up, I was afraid to go to a Christian University because of an observation I made regarding many Christians. The more I read Christian books, listened to Christian music, attended churches and the like, the more I saw this lurking intellectual fear of secularity among believers.

Christian parents don't want their children reading Harry Potter because they think it's about witchcraft. Pastors are afraid to concede that the Qur'an and the Bible teach similar lessons on few subjects. College students are uneasy about visiting Mosques or Buddhist Temples because they might get brainwashed. Worship leaders don't want to listen to the Beatles or Three Dog Night because they don't exemplify Christian values.* (please read footnote.)

As such, when I departed Nevada for Colorado in August of 2008, I was excited to be sure, but also a tad bit apprehensive. If I asked my economics professor to explain why communism seems to lead to bloodshed, would she respond that it was because communism was from the Devil? If I questioned my history professor on why she thinks America has lasted so long as a democracy, would she answer that it was because God loves America the most? If I was confused about a math problem, would my professors tell me to pray about it? I was concerned that intellectual fear would permeate my college experience.

I think the other day in my World Religions class was when I drove the last nail into that coffin of apprehension.

Since my time here at CCU, I have been relieved to be able to ask more and more questions of my professors and consequently tap into their vast reserves of knowledge and experience. I have seen trace amounts of intellectual fear here at CCU, but sparsely among students and never among the professors. On the contrary, I have been encouraged by multiple professors to explore and learn from such extra-biblical sources as the Qur'an, the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Ramayana. I have learned about the philosophies of Nietzsche, Hitler, and Lenin. I have studied the values of communism and capitalism as well as the shortcomings of the two.

And the other day in World Religions, Dr. Smith really put words to both my fear and my relief. We were discussing the two main methods of exploring religion. Dr. Smith explained that one could look at religion from without - from an objective, removed position. This position would mean studying the demographics of church attendance, the hand positions of people during worship, the movies and books and music that are sought out by the attendees. These dry, objective statistics would yield results, surely. Irrefutable facts about that religion. Yet at the end of the day, what have we really learned about that religion? The second method of studying a religion is from within - immersing yourself in the religion, not being afraid to seek truth and value from the beliefs, and not sitting in the seat of scoffers when faced with a religion's tenants or practices.

"We always study a worldview from within a worldview," Dr. Smith explained, "and the idea that the ultimate form of knowledge - knowledge in its purest form - comes from removed, objective 'science' is in itself a worldview with a definitive beginning and geographic location."

You see, the West is obsessed with natural science. Absolutely consumed by it. And we have this notion that our worldview is the ultimate one, the correct one, the quintessential one. Our view that objective 'science' is the way, the truth, and the life is simply that; our view. And maybe - just maybe - other worldviews out there deserve just as much credibility.

Here I raised the question that perhaps all of those "other" worldviews were simply steps leading us to this one, final, correct worldview. "What I mean to say is," I explained after being called on in class, "maybe this worldview that regards tangible, detectable results as the only way to find truth is the very pinnacle of worldviews, the capstone in human history."

Dr. Smith responded, "And you could certainly argue that. In some areas, this worldview does in fact seem to be at the top of the pyramid. For example, if you take your car to the mechanic, you don't want to hear that there is a demon in the engine. If you ask why the earth spins on its axis, you don't want to hear that it's because God is spinning it on His finger like a basketball. But I would caution you against using this natural science-based approach to all of life's questions."

Like the question of religion. Why does it exist? Or more perplexing, why has it always existed? From as early as we can research, after all, man has engaged in religious practices.

Dr. Smith ended by encouraging us in this way; "Don't assume that by holding a Christian worldview and a Christian set of beliefs, you are losing something in your studies. Don't be fooled into thinking that you cannot fully apprehend knowledge without first conforming to the worldview which proclaims natural science as god. In fact, I submit to you that in many ways, you only run the risk of gaining more because you don't limit your knowledge to what is tangible and testable."

I feel like this entry is getting long enough (and I've spent several days preparing it already,) so I will leave you with that. Expect more to come on this, though.


Thanks for reading,

-Daniel K




*Hear me say that I realize this is by NO means my opinion on ALL pastors, ALL worship leaders, or ALL college students. Such a sweeping generalization would be foolish and naive. I am merely pointing out observations I have made at one time or another over the past few years I have spent in Christian culture. I make it a point in my life to seek out Pastors, worship leaders, college students, etc. who are not afraid of "the world."

New Year.

I think New Year's Eve is my new least favorite holiday.

There. Do you see what I just did? I gave you the end point of today's post. You don't even have the read the rest of this blog, because you already know how it ends.

Still reading? I assumed as much.

You see, when I was a senior in high school, Mr. Rohrer was my AP English Literature teacher. A little while into the school year, we were reading The Curious Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in AP English Lit., when Mr. Rohrer decided to impart unto us some wisdom. We, his oh-so-intelligent class, were complaining about the fact that before the novella was even halfway done, the ending had been revealed. [Spoiler Alert!] You know early on that Jekyll and Hyde are one in the same, and that a potion turns mild-mannered Dr. Jekyll into the unruly and violent Mr. Hyde. The rest of the novella is spent reading through letters and journal entries which trace the circumstances which lead Jekyll to become Hyde.

Mr. Rohrer explained it as such;

A lot of people know when they pick up the novella that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are one in the same. Before they crack open the pages, the reader is aware that Jekyll creates a potion which turns him into Mr. Hyde. What matters is not so much how the story ends as how the characters get to that end. Thus, a majority of the novella is dedicated to describing how Jekyll became Hyde, and not working towards revealing that the two are one in the same.

Contrary to New Year's Eve, I think this is one of my favorite concepts. What matters in my life is not so much how it ends as how I get to that end. I already have a pretty good idea of how my life will end. That's not the kicker. The real mystery is how I get there. What leads me to my death? Is it greed? Love? Adventure? Apathy?

This may seem like a rather morbid way of thinking about things, but go ahead and take a minute or two to consider what you want to lead you to your death. Because [Spoiler Alert!] you're going to die, and I don't believe that's what's important here.

If I just give you the end; "I think New Year's Eve is my new least favorite holiday," and not the middle -- not what led me to that conclusion -- it all seems like a letdown, doesn't it?

Thanks for Reading,

-Daniel K