Philosophy Class at the Ball Park – Part 1
Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called [Ephesians 4:1].
When we watch sports we tend to express ourselves practically. For example, the wide receiver drops an easy pass in the end zone. It should be six points instead of the goose egg.
I’ve yet to hear a fan express his exacerbation with references to the wind velocity, or to geometry and theoretical calculus. The philosophy of football never gets mentioned either! Fans simply blurt out, “Catch the ball, you louse! Why do you think they pay you millions of dollars?” See. Their expression is practical, not theoretical. It is concrete, not abstract.
Inside the college classroom, contrariwise, no student would get by on such utterances. I mean, can you imagine the philosophy professor’s final exam question, which requiring essay input from his students to define Sartre’s existential atheism? One student writes, “It stinks!”
Think the student passed the class? Think again! Practicality has its place, like at the ball park. But practicality won’t fly in the philosophy classroom. Theory and abstraction rule inside those walls of academia. But theory and abstraction don’t grow well in the arid soil of football fans.
The Apostle Paul’s New Testament letters differ significantly in form, compared with the letters of other New Testament writers. Paul wrote using a “Gentile style”, while the others wrote using a “Hebrew style”. The Gentiles, more specifically the Greeks, were theoretical and philosophical. The Hebrews were more practical in their approach.
The letter to the Ephesian Christians affords an excellent example to illustrate the “Gentile style”, if I may be permitted to refer to the distinction by this phraseology. The Greeks enjoyed soaring to theoretical heights in outer space. Indeed, they never missed an opportunity to hear the latest ideas making the breakfast club circuit.
The Hebrews preferred to express themselves in practical expressions of day-to-day living, like, “Catch the ball, you pansy!” Considering the Hebrews provided the world with spiritual leadership rather than sports, this translated into, “Stop sinning!” or, “Pay your tithes!”
Because of the two different approaches—practical vs. theoretical—some folks over the centuries have drawn the conclusion that James and Paul contradicted each other. Paul insisted that Christians are saved by grace through faith apart from works of the Law. James insisted that faith without works is dead. Hmm. Paul insisted on grace, James on works. Mutually exclusive?
In theological terms (i.e., abstract theory) yes, grace and works are mutually exclusive. But once we put the shoe leather to theological doctrine, no, emphatically no!
We will pause here and continue the subject in our next study. In the interim let’s spend time alone with the Lord.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Numbers: Volume 4 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
When we watch sports we tend to express ourselves practically. For example, the wide receiver drops an easy pass in the end zone. It should be six points instead of the goose egg.
I’ve yet to hear a fan express his exacerbation with references to the wind velocity, or to geometry and theoretical calculus. The philosophy of football never gets mentioned either! Fans simply blurt out, “Catch the ball, you louse! Why do you think they pay you millions of dollars?” See. Their expression is practical, not theoretical. It is concrete, not abstract.
Inside the college classroom, contrariwise, no student would get by on such utterances. I mean, can you imagine the philosophy professor’s final exam question, which requiring essay input from his students to define Sartre’s existential atheism? One student writes, “It stinks!”
Think the student passed the class? Think again! Practicality has its place, like at the ball park. But practicality won’t fly in the philosophy classroom. Theory and abstraction rule inside those walls of academia. But theory and abstraction don’t grow well in the arid soil of football fans.
The Apostle Paul’s New Testament letters differ significantly in form, compared with the letters of other New Testament writers. Paul wrote using a “Gentile style”, while the others wrote using a “Hebrew style”. The Gentiles, more specifically the Greeks, were theoretical and philosophical. The Hebrews were more practical in their approach.
The letter to the Ephesian Christians affords an excellent example to illustrate the “Gentile style”, if I may be permitted to refer to the distinction by this phraseology. The Greeks enjoyed soaring to theoretical heights in outer space. Indeed, they never missed an opportunity to hear the latest ideas making the breakfast club circuit.
The Hebrews preferred to express themselves in practical expressions of day-to-day living, like, “Catch the ball, you pansy!” Considering the Hebrews provided the world with spiritual leadership rather than sports, this translated into, “Stop sinning!” or, “Pay your tithes!”
Because of the two different approaches—practical vs. theoretical—some folks over the centuries have drawn the conclusion that James and Paul contradicted each other. Paul insisted that Christians are saved by grace through faith apart from works of the Law. James insisted that faith without works is dead. Hmm. Paul insisted on grace, James on works. Mutually exclusive?
In theological terms (i.e., abstract theory) yes, grace and works are mutually exclusive. But once we put the shoe leather to theological doctrine, no, emphatically no!
We will pause here and continue the subject in our next study. In the interim let’s spend time alone with the Lord.
To further research this issue, I direct you to my book Numbers: Volume 4 of Heavenly Citizens in Earthly Shoes. To purchase my books please go to:
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B005PJ761C
https://sites.google.com/site/heavenl...
No comments have been added yet.
