Today is our 10 day anniversary!
Also, my wife
1 hogs the bed.
She wakes up in the middle night telling me to scoot over because she doesn’t have enough room.
This may be true.
I guess I shouldn’t be blaming my wife.
Rather, I should be blaming that pesky pillow that she puts on the other side of her who selfishly takes up 1/3 of the bed, leaving me about half a butt-cheeks worth of room and my leg hanging off the side.
Curse those pillows (you need to say “curse those pillows” with the same voice as Christian Bale’s ‘batman’).
Ok, so as my wife sits next to me as I type this and gives the standard “I’m laughing but embarrassed” laugh that I have seen in so many other wives, I am less thinking about that absurd pillow and more about the fact that I have consistently referred to my wife as “my wife.” It’s such a weird thing.
We are currently sitting in the Detroit airport and the lady at the check-in desk asked for volunteers to change flights – new flight along with a voucher for another flight.
I went up to check out the options, and the lady said they only needed one more volunteer. Of course, I told her I didn’t want to travel without “my wife.” There it was again. I seem to be using it a lot. Don’t get me wrong. I really love saying it. There’s a certain finality to saying “my wife” that I enjoy. Not a “doomed” finality, but rather a certain sense of solidity and commitment, and a certain maturity to it that “girlfriend” or even “fiancé” doesn’t quite attain.
My wife, though, does other things than just use pillows as cuddling tools at night (I’m not as soft as a pillow, but I’m working on it. Cheese dinner, anyone?)
As we sit in the airport, she’s currently reading “Sacred Marriage”, a book given to us as a wedding gift. The tagline is “What if marriage is designed to make us holy rather than make us happy.” I’m excited to read it.
While she was reading that, I had my own reading material. I had cracked open C.S. Lewis’ “Pilgrims Regress.”2 Apparently it’s one of the first books, though I’ve liked it. It’s an unabashed allegory, and the main character “John” leaves home to explore outside his homeland. The first man he comes to is Mr. Enlightenment. Mr. Enlightenment tells John that there is no Landlord (allegorical character for God) and that the Landlord is a creation of the Stewards (priests). Mr. Enlightenment goes onto say that all the scientific revelations have proved that there is no Landlord and that anthropologists have determined that all these stories of various rulers are traceable to legends that are perfectly explainable.
Interestingly enough, this connects to another book that I finished last night: “The Physics of Star Trek”3. I love star trek, which comes from growing up in a house where good science fiction (and sometimes bad) is held with due respect. In the book, there are two different paragraphs which I’m going to quote below.
”However, a quantum theory of strings cannot be made mathematically consistent in 4 dimensions, or 5, or even 6. It turns out that such theories can exist consistently only in 10 dimensions, or perhaps only in 26!”(pg 146)
It doesn’t matter what “a quantum theory of strings” are – I really don’t understand it. The important part is that we live in a 4 dimensional world (space/time) and we cannot imagine anything beyond that. Yet, the only way that this physics concept works is in a world of more dimensions than we understand.
And a few pages later, the author continues – though speaking on a different topic.
“If we insist on interpreting quantum mechanical phenomena in terms of classical (generally understood) concepts, we will inevitably encounter phenomena that seem paradoxical, or impossible. This is as it should be. Classical mechanics cannot account properly for quantum mechanical phenomena, and so there is no reason that classical descriptions should make sense.” (149)
The point is this: science seems to accept the fact that there are things which exist in realities beyond our own understanding. Interesting.
When I had read the 2nd paragraph, I started thinking about the connection between the two paragraphs. If science finds paradoxes and impossibilities plausible in science, cannot we also say the same thing about Christianity? There are two specific applications that I have thought of, the first generally acceptable to all believers.
1) The Trinity: How can three be one? How can Jesus be both fully man and fully God? Is it possible that, because lives in more dimensions than ours or even outside of dimensions, that all these things can be true at once? Is it realistic and good theology to accept the mystery and not need to attempt to explain? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying we shouldn’t think about the character and nature of God or that questions shouldn’t be wrestled with. What I am saying is that the apparent contradiction may only be a contradiction because we live experiencing and sensing only a limited part of what is readily and creation - 4 dimensions rather than the whole of dimensions.
2) God’s sovereignty: How can we be under the sovereign power of God and yet have freedom to choose and be held accountable for our sin (see Romans 8-9)? I remember John Piper accepting both propositions as true, though they are contradictory. However, both are biblical truths. Though I accept both as true because both are stated in Scripture, the idea is supported by the physics argument that some things are currently beyond our understanding due to our own limited existence and nature.
These thoughts were confirmed by my physics-savy wife, who holds a BS in physics and a minor in Math from a prestigious physics university. In fact, she went on to say that the same argument has been made before by others.
In one breath I had been both validated and invalidated (though she meant it as an encouragement of my cogitations – she’s great for conversation). On the one hand, I thought of something that another smart person thought of. On the other hand, someone had thought of it first.
I am consoled by the fact that there is “nothing new under the sun.” So I guess no one has any original thoughts.
1. My wife: Mrs. Alison Perkins aka “the beautiful”
2. Lewis, C.S., "Pilgrims Regress." London. J. M. Dent and Sons, 1933.
3. Krauss, Laurence M., The Physics of Star Trek. New York. HarperPerennial, 1995.
