This past April 15, the Honors class, among others, enjoyed the Lenten Vespers Service hosted by the Jubilate Choir at Concordia. The theme was "Rejoice: Ways to Praise" and included sections encouraging dancing, serving, rejoicing, singing, and praying. Scripture readings were woven throughout the service and there was dancing did occur during the section about dance. The service was well done and I enjoyed the variety present in the service. The music style changed by section and the attempts to involve the audience were effective.

Again, as in the play "Adrift on the Mississippi," I found myself marveling at how aesthetics, one of the five ways of knowing, brings the other ways of knowing to life and provides a different perspective. Four out of the five ways of knowing were evident in this one experience. The aesthetics of the dance, singing, instruments, etc. stir emotion and cause us to reason the concepts conveyed in song; all within revelation. Aesthetics and emotion go hand-in-hand to provide a unique experience. It is also interesting to note how different modes of aesthetics stir different emotions to convey various meanings. The singing, dancing, instruments, spoken word, etc. each were a different form of aesthetics. For me, the emotions I felt corresponded to the theme of the section. I felt joyful during the dancing and a sense of calm and tranquility during the section about prayer.

All of this culminated into abolishing my once skeptical view that aesthetics and emotion especially are ways of knowing. Without emotion, many things would be just facts or ideas; we would not have feelings or "gut reactions." Aesthetics and emotion seem to tie together the other ways of knowing in that they provide a new viewpoint. For me, whenever I hear choirs sing familiar songs, memories and feelings come rushing. I do not think any other form of communication provides as unique an experience and emotions.

This past Monday evening, the Honors program students, after much organization and planning, hosted the Oxfam http://www.oxfam.org/ Hunger banquet at Concordia. The banquet was designed to awaken the participants and hopefully others to the plight of those living in poverty focusing on hunger. The participants checked in and randomly drew a slip with their character for the banquet. On this slip was the name, description, and income bracket of a marginalized person. If the participant chose a person with low income, they sat on the floor and were served rice with water. If the participant chose middle income, they were served beans and water. However, the middle-income group was provided with chairs and fancier glasses and cutlery. The 15% which drew a high-income position received a full meal with dessert. They were privileged to be seated at a table and were served. Kyle, David, and Amy did an excellent job at being MCs, providing background information on world poverty and hunger. After the meal, they also had a discussion with the participants as a capstone on the evening regarding their thoughts and feelings as a result of the dinner.

When the possibility of organizing this hunger banquet first surfaced at the beginning of the semester, I hadn't thought about how it ties in strikingly with the theme for Honors this semester. Many of the readings, activities, etc. in Honors have been related to the theme of hearing the voices of the poor and marginalized. This includes a large research paper each student in Honors is completing regarding various environmental issues which, many times, have the largest effect on the less fortunate. I appreciated this real-world example of world hunger and poverty, especially in the context of everything we have been learning in Honors. As I have seen from research for my research paper, knowledge and awareness are key elements in helping the poor and marginalized.

During my first 2 semesters in the Honors program, I was involved in a service project of 100 hours of service to Feed My Starving Children http://www.fmsc.org/ (FMSC). FMSC provides the opportunity for groups to pack nutritious meals to send to children in third world countries. After serving there, I realized that people do care about issues such as hunger and serve willingly, given the opportunity. This is precisely what the Oxfam Hunger banquet accomplished. By informing people, which included handing out cards to participants of other ways to get involved and help the cause, great opportunities are opened for help of the poor and marginalized. Additionally, there was an unexpected happening during the banquet. Some of the people who had rice and beans or the full meal gave their food willingly because they didn't like the food, didn't want or need the amount of food they were served, or just felt sorry for the people with only rice. This gives me a new perspective on wasting food that I don't want or like. It is so easy, because food is so abundant, to throw food away. I now will take heed concerning the amount of food I or those around me waste. 

This past Wednesday, Dr. Arand again shared words of wisdom centered on the questions, "What is the Christian care of Creation about?" "Who are we?" Why are we here?" How do we relate to creation?" Dr. Arand spoke about the need for Christians to tell the larger story to dislodge the misconception that Christians only care about going to heaven in the end. He continued to explain that humans have a common origin, life, promise, Lord, future, and longing with all other creatures. Thus, we must care for the environment as we are creatures as well. In the second part of his lecture, Dr. Arand spoke about our place in creation with the thesis, "God calls us to care for His earth as creatures among creatures." Dr. Arand tied everything together by explaining that "it is not humans' job to save everything but it is our goal to keep everything going until Christ returns."

Dr. Arand's lecture virtually followed the order of the LCMS document "Together With All Creatures" (TWAC) which we have been reading in Honors. The content of TWAC was truly brought alive in Dr. Arand's lecture with his many examples and connections with life. I also appreciate the ability to have knowledge of the Christian's purpose on earth should be and what his/her attitude should be towards the environment since this whole semester has had environmental issues weaved throughout. Dr. Arand also clarified what "subdue," "have dominion," and "cultivate" means which tied into the reading we had by Lynn White. This is one thing I noticed in White's article was that none of these terms were defined and were twisted to mean what worked for his argument. Dr. Arand had an excellent definition of these terms which serve to negate many arguments that Christians have a mindset of solely "using" the earth.

Expounding on the definitions Dr. Arand explained, I found new insight. Dr. Arand explained that "subdue the earth" in Genesis 1:28 means to take possession of the land possibly through agriculture. "To have dominion" means that everything under humans' rule should flourish. This is like a king or president of a country; their main goal is to ensure his/her "dominion" is sustained. "Cultivate" in Genesis 2:15 means that we should maintain the land's fruitfulness. Through all this, it is even clearer now that Christians are to sustain the earth and care for it. This is a special call to Christians because of God's words. I also had never thought of the seventh day of creation as a day for delight in the creation. Dr. Arand explained that God created everything for his delight. This, again, is additional proof that we are to sustain he earth, even if only for God's delight.

Also enjoy Dr. Arand's blog at http://cslmedia.org/arand/

(Much of this material is from notes taken during Dr. Arand's presentation and thus belongs to him.)

This past Monday evening I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Arand as well as listening to him give a lecture entitled, "Beam Me Up, Scottie!" Throughout the lecture, Dr. Arand's overarching theme was that humans, including Christians, look at themselves either as part of the earth or alienated from it. Next, these views were broken down into subcategories. Humans alienated from nature include humans above, over, and against nature while humans part of nature include them with, into and within nature. Dr. Arand assisted in writing the LCMS document "Together With All Creatures" through the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) and thus ended his lecture speaking about the place Christians should have in caring for the environment. He explained that it is fundamental that Christians be stewards of this earth as God designed. I look forward to hearing him expound on this in an additional lecture on Wednesday.

Last semester in Honors we discussed works by Francis Bacon, Descartes, etc. Recently we also read Lynn White's article, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Dr. Arand referenced each of these and I was amazed at how they all fit into his lecture. Dr. Arand mentioned White's article later in the lecture and used it to contrast the view of the problem stemming from Christians with Christians caring for nature. I found this to be extremely interesting after having written a paper on White's article which took a position on his argument. Dr. Arand expressed how Christians were slow to respond to accusations such as White's but explained how Christians must be involved in the care of the environment.

Dr. Arand spoke about Christianity having the best answer to our environmental problems and he is absolutely correct. In the beginning, when God created the world, he said it was very good. I thought about this after the lecture and realized the truth in it. God's original design was for humans to take care of the earth which is why he called it "good." I also found it incredible how all of the people we have studied in the recent semesters of Honors connect to the care of the environment. Dr. Arand's lecture helped me to connect all of these together and to environmental study. This is just one of many topics we have studied lately that have tied together much of my learning in Honors and I certainly see why Honors is so valuable for learning!

Earlier today I had the privilege of attending "Adrift on the Mississippi," a play that explores the oppression of blacks and the escape of some by the Mississippi River. The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in an article on February 10, summarized it this way, "The runaway slave who would go on to found Minnesota's first black Baptist church fled Missouri and paddled against the current up the Mississippi River, praying that he and his fellow runaways would not be captured or killed on their way to freedom."

The first act of the play begins with a scene of whites abusing slaves, specifically the local preacher, Robert Hickman. Robert receives 39 lashes for being out at night without a "pass." After this, Robert has the opportunity to join the army as contraband in order to escape this abuse. Robert meets up with another man in the same position as well as a family consisting of a husband, wife, and an older woman. Robert has left his wife there and these people get on a raft to travel upriver to freedom in the North. The second act is set on the raft as this group of people battles the river and endures plenty of conflicts with each other. Eventually, some gracious white people offer to pull them along. They eventually reach Minnesota and the story ends with Rev. Hickman going back to Missouri to bring his wife back to Minnesota.

Last semester, the Honor's class learned about the five ways of knowing, one of which is Aesthetics. Aesthetics, as one might guess, is all of the visual, audible, and written forms of communication. I was thoroughly skeptical about Aesthetics place as a primary way of knowing because it appears to be a layer to the other ways of knowing. Today, however, my feelings were shaken somewhat. The play really displayed how Aesthetics plays a major role in conveying information, feelings, and history, all wrapped into one package. Emotion also was masterfully written in to the play as I found myself empathizing with the slaves throughout the play. I can now see how Aesthetics and Emotion, when properly combined, really can cause a person to ponder ideas and come away with a changed perspective. The Honor's class also learned about various ways to mix the five ways of knowing together or keep them separate. The one I found most helpful was Interpenetrating Magisteria (IMA) which carries the idea of each way of knowing being a part of the others and interpreting the others. This play truly displayed how using IMA brings stories and ideas alive while affecting one's preexisting feelings and ideas. Each way of knowing serves to fill in the gaps of the others and paints a much fuller picture.

As I have mentioned above, I came away from "Adrift on the Mississippi" with a new perspective and thoughts. First, I was re-awakened to the plight that blacks suffered and what horrendous oppression they endured by the hands of the whites. It can be easy to forget or reduce in our minds these types of things, so this play was a good reminder to me of what hate does. It never ceases to amaze me what horrible injustice humans have opposed on others throughout history. I also saw an incredible statement of faith in God and resolve to be free in the play. In everything Rev. Hickman went through, he continued to share his faith and remain strong in the Lord. This serves as a reminder of how good my life is; it also reminds me to stay strong in my faith even through times of trouble that are minor compared to what the blacks went through. I am reminded to have great respect for blacks and to be careful not to hate anyone. I had the pleasure of speaking with Rev. Dr. Holst, President of Concordia, before the play. This conversation assisted me further in applying the play to everyday life. President Holst discussed how this play applies to anything we are slaves to. Whether this is money, possessions, food, etc. we can only become free if we trust God and run from our slave master just like Hickman and the others did in "Adrift." This play was an extremely enjoyable experience and I have great respect for blacks and their struggles.

Daniel Ondov

Daniel Ondov

Dr. Paul Hillmer

HON 110

November 8, 2010

The Philosophy of Nonviolence

Martin Luther King used non-violent protesting as a means to negotiation and spoke about it in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." He compared it to Socrates' philosophy, believing that it was necessary to create mental tension to release individuals from the imprisonment of half-truths that obstructed creative analysis and unbiased evaluation. He was convinced that the powers-that-be will not change imbedded beliefs unless pressured, and that such groups as the city politicians tend to be more immoral than the individual. King stated, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed" (2). King also had the complaint that the Church was not supporting him and in some cases was against him.

He also believed his philosophy of nonviolence did not create tension but brought to light hidden tension lying in the dark, comparing it to a boil that can only be healed when cut into and exposed to the light. He made the arguments that evil prospers when good men do nothing and if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. King used a quote from Thomas Aquinas that states that an unjust law is one that defies moral law. Many of the laws in that day defied moral law and thus were unjust.

As pastor and civil rights leader, King used six key points in the philosophy of nonviolence. First, he argued that even though nonviolence is commonly portrayed as cowardly, it is not. The nonviolent protestor, according to King, uses his mind to effectively convince the opponent that he is in the wrong. It is also requires great emotional and spiritual courage to stand up against injustice.

Second, the nonviolent protestor does not want to disgrace the opponent, but to seek his understanding and friendship. This principle worked in King's organized boycott of the Montgomery bus system after an African American woman, Rosa Parks, refused to give her seat to a white man. The boycott led the Supreme Court to render the Alabama laws of segregation on public transit as unconstitutional.

Thirdly, nonviolence is directed against evil, not the people who are committing the evil. The fight was not between two races, but between justice and injustice.

Fourth, nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliating. Retaliatory violence would only cause more chaos, trauma and hatred. After his house was bombed by violent white protestors during the Montgomery bus boycott, King reminded his angry people that they must love their white brothers regardless of their actions. Accepting suffering would lead to a change in heart and mind of the opponent.

King's fifth key point on nonviolence was that God is always on the side of truth. Therefore, the African American activists should keep faith that justice will happen in the future.

The sixth key point was most central to King's method of nonviolent resistance. He believed that nonviolent resistance prevented physical and emotional violence. The method of nonviolent resistance is powerful in that it can overcome all bitterness and hatred and replace them with love.

Several of these points are addressed by both modern and more historical writers. Walter Wink spoke about the "Myth of Redemptive Violence." He stated that "the belief that violence 'saves' is so successful because it doesn't seem to be mythic in the least." Wink most likely would agree with King's fourth and sixth point because Wink addresses both of these in his article, "Facing the Myth of Redemptive Violence." King spoke of how violence would just cause more of the same problems they were fighting and Wink explained that "violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It's what works. It seems inevitable, the last and, often the first resort in conflicts." Wink seems to think that because violence is used so often to settle disputes; it appears to be the best way to reach an end. However, King's philosophy of nonviolent resistance was just as if not more effective than violence just as Wink explains.

Charles Sheldon would also probably agree with King's complaint that those in the church didn't support the Civil Rights Movement and even opposed it. In his, "In His Steps," Sheldon spoke of a poor man who didn't receive any sympathy in his quest to find a job. The only Christian he could find was the local minister to comfort him. The church sometimes seems to sit by and watch rather than helping out. This is exactly what happened to King and the Civil Rights Movement.

Luther would definitely also concur with possibly all six of the above points because Luther used a similar philosophy during the Reformation when he posted the 95 Theses. In Luther's day, the issue was indulgences and they affected many of the poor, lower-class. Many couldn't read or just followed the authority figure in that day, the Pope. Luther probably would have agreed with what Thomas Aquinas said as well because indulgences defied moral law. They didn't have any merit from Scripture and no basis in history and is why Luther wrote the 95 Theses. Luther never was violent; in fact, he tried to stop people from rioting or fighting for the cause because he knew the dangers. Without very much violence and by mostly speaking against indulgences among other things, the Reformation was successful.

King's philosophy of nonviolence is a thread throughout history that many different scholars such as the ones mentioned here have used and/or would agree with. The oppression of a certain people such as African-Americans has happened many times in history and using nonviolence appears to be a good policy that is successful in many instances.

Daniel Ondov

Dr. Hillmer

Honors 110

10-04-2010

Discuss how Thomas uses the first principle (of non-contradiction) and the first condition (the ability of the mind to know the truth) together with his conviction of the harmony between faith and reason in Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles.

It can be extremely difficult to discuss the idea of truth in a postmodern society. Many people have their own, different definition of truth that they take pride in and the ways the meaning of truth is explained vary widely. Before diving into an argument, three "primary truths" must be accepted when speaking of the truth in order that there as little complications as possible. The first truth is that human existence is a fact. There is no way to dispute this because humans are here and are living creatures. The second truth is the principle of non-contradiction, which states that if two ideas are each a fact, they cannot be contrary to each other. The third truth is that the ability to know truth is present in the human mind. There is no way for a person to discuss truth without accepting these three primary truths as facts first. St. Thomas Aquinas, in relation to the primary truths in Chapter VII of his work Summa Contra Gentiles, wrote about the truths of reason and faith.

Aquinas makes a point to speak about this issue of being able to know the truths of faith and reason, also known as nature. His claim is that "the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God himself is the author of our nature." Aquinas is explaining that the human ability to reason comes right from the creator, God, because he created humans in the beginning. Aquinas takes advantage of the third primary truth, that humans can know the truth, by stating that God originally gave man the truth of reason. Humans can know the truth of reason simply because they are enveloped by nature, and God has given everyone the amazing gift of understanding this. On the other hand, the truth of faith is a fair amount more difficult of many people to accept. "The truth of Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason," Aquinas explains. Individuals often jump quickly to the conclusion that if faith somehow surpasses reason, it cannot be known and for that reason, cannot be a truth, since the mind IS able to know truth. Clearly, Aquinas is not trying to make this a point. The truth of faith can definitely be KNOWN; but the real question is whether or not it can be fully UNDERSTOOD by human's limited field of reason. There are many things that humans can know of or about, but that cannot be fully understood or explained. One good example of this is the mystery of life. Going into detail about this, however, will not be attempted.

Aquinas also speaks about the dispute that faith and reason are conflict with each other, in Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles. Here, Aquinas says that because faith surpasses reason, the assumption that faith contradicts reason is made frequently. Thus, both of these concepts cannot be looked at as truths. One or possibly both have to be false, and a large part of the globe would concur that faith, because it can be more challenging to comprehend, must give heed to reason. Aquinas believes, however, that "it is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contradictory to those principles which reason knows naturally." He says that both truths clearly come from the same source of Divine Wisdom since nature is "instilled into us by God" and faith is "confirmed by God." God is not contradictory, so neither can truths that he gives mankind be contradictory. Thomas Aquinas also says that, "God does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge." If faith didn't come from God, where else would it come from? Thus, if faith is from God, and God does not contradict the nature a person knows is true, faith and reason must be able to live in harmony. By using this argument, Aquinas deftly refutes the arguments against faith as truth in a way that leaves the reader with no room to doubt his point.

In the age of modernity, skeptics seemed to be the ones giving the majority of criticism of the truth of faith. Reason was considered supreme among all other truths in order that the world would be more stable and secure so that mankind would have some sense of organized structure. The world seems to be moving towards postmodernism, so the opinions of St. Thomas Aquinas may be viewed more positively by the open-minded people of postmodernism. There is a possibility that faith will not have to hide behind reason and science. Hopefully, it will be able to finally enter a stage that allows faith and reason to have equality within the truths that make up what humans call "knowledge." The world may be ready to let faith and reason exist together in harmony the way God designed it at the beginning of creation.

Consider the following sentence:

"This sentence serves no logical purpose."

Discuss how the sentence above illustrates postmodernism.

Postmodernism is quickly taking hold in today's world and is becoming a popular way of thinking. This new way of thinking presents a new way of analyzing everything for truth and validity. Postmodernism, some people believe, will be the popular way of thinking for many humans in the years to come. Most likely, Postmodernism will continue to gain popularity just as many similar movements such as modernism have in the past. This paper will first attempt to define Postmoderism clearly so that it may better be understood. The sentence, "This sentence serves no logical purpose" is, in a nutshell, a perfect illustration of Postmodernism and will be used to illustrate it in this paper. The ultimate goal will be to somewhat understand Postmodernism.

First, an attempt will be made to define Postmodernism. Merriam Webster states this as the definition: "A. of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature). B. of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language." Merriam Webster also states that the first use of postmodernism was in 1925 (Merriam-Webster). The beginning of this definition explains that Postmodernism is a reaction to Modernism and comes after it. By this definition, it is seen that Postmodernism could be somewhat summarized by saying that it rejects established truths and "reappraises" them. There is a slightly different take on this as well, as there is in any movement. "Rejecting objective truth is the cornerstone of postmodernism. In essence, postmodern ideology declares an end to all ideology and all claims to truth" (Leffel). This is a fundamental concept about Postmodernism; the belief that truth is relative and non-absolute. A person's belief system hinges on their own feelings as well as influence in the world around them. If this is true, then Postmodernism may not be truth and is relative to the person reading or hearing about it. In Postmodernism, everything is subjective and built on personal ideas. Postmodernism could be phrased this way, "Truth is relative."

To help make Postmodernism even clearer, an example can be used. The sentence "This sentence serves no logical purpose," is such an illustration. This sentence can be treated two ways. One is for the reader to read the sentence, see that it states that it serves no purpose, and move on with life without considering it. The other way to look at this sentence is through the prism of Postmodernism. When looked at this way, the sentence is quite ironic because it states an absolute truth, which Postmodernism attempts to do away with. This doesn't work in a Postmodern environment. A Postmodern person would look at the sentence and even though it states an absolute truth declaring it purposeless, he or she might perceive that it does serve a purpose, thus judging the sentence as a lie. Because a Postmodern person most likely doesn't believe in absolute truth, it makes sense to them to deem the sentence a lie. One person takes at face value as an absolute truth, the other, the Postmodernist, adds their own meaning to it by saying it has the purpose of stating that is has no purpose. Postmodernism basically attempts to take an idea, inject a localized person's truth into it, and then take meaning from it. Postmodern thinkers try to stay away from saying that absolute truth is obsolete or meaningless, but a truth cannot be absolute if someone's own personal interpretation is used to change its meaning.

One other interesting face to point out is that the statement "There is no absolute truth," is actually an absolute truth. This is where the problem of Postmodernism comes. It can be extremely difficult to make a statement like this one without violating what is trying to be said. This is why Postmodernism can be controversial as well as downright contradicting.

In summary, Postmodernism can be best understood by defining it clearly and using illustrations such as the sentence "This sentence has no logical purpose," to illustrate it. Postmodernism appears to be the next movement that is going to be popular for many people; in fact, it may already be more popular than is seen by just the author. Postmodernism is a difficult concept for a person to wrap his or her head around. Also, since there are so many different takes on Postmodernism, it may be good in one respect, but if it is taken to extremes, Postmodernism may be quite detrimental to our current way of thinking.