Showing posts with label Theology Proper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology Proper. Show all posts

Thursday, January 19, 2017

The Hidden Question

In the early fourth century, Arius brought the proposition that the Son was begotten and not eternal, thus creating a divide between the nature of God and the Son.  This proposition and the ensuing controversy that followed set the young church on fire.  It is said that merchants on the street of Alexandria would debate with their customers the nature of God, and whether the Son was truly, fully God.

And thus the church was changed forever.  To this day, Arius is refuted in churches, attempting to revive the old debate that was, in every way it could be, won by Athanasius and the majority of bishops. Unfortnately, in the focus of the church to hammer out the nature of God and the relationship between the Father and the Son, instead of the focus of the early church.

There is a debate about the nature of God in the NT, but it contains almost nothing about the nature of God's being, but is strongly debating the nature of God's character.  Is God a force of karma, pouring out judgment on those who deserve it?  Or is God ultimately merciful, forbearing to the point of allowing his reputation to suffer so he can bring sinners further into love?

In understanding the character of God, we also understand our own goals as individuals and as societies.  If God is karma, we need to bring harsh justice onto those who do evil.  If God is love and mercy, we should be forbearing and allow people to take advantage of us because in the end it makes us all who we ought to be.

If we focus on the being of God, we neglect the question of character, God's and our own, in order to explore that which we ultimately cannot know.  The being of God is the more interesting question because it requires in depth analysis, some imagination and curiosity.  It is the question that our human nature wants to explore because it does not require us to change, it allows us to be who we are.

But this is not the focus of Jesus or the rest of the New Testament.  They are constantly telling us to change, to be more merciful, loving and peaceful, both as individuals and communities.  They are telling us that it is hard work and requires our whole focus.

We are so easily distracted.

The proper study of God is his nature as displayed by his actions through Jesus, not his being.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Ant-God

If God is infinite, then aren't possibilities more godly than fixed absolutes?
Jamie Arpin-Ricci

If your God doesn't meet you and love you where you are, then your God is too small.

If your God doesn't understand the motivations and addictions and needs of all sinners, then your God is too small.

If your God is constantly angry at the sins of others, but winks at yours, then your God is too small.

If your God doesn't know what it means to love in different contexts, different cultures, and different points of view, then your God is too small.

If your God only gives every human being one option to purely love, no matter what their context, then your God is too small.



Friday, February 21, 2014

Is God Love?

God claims to be compassionate, but in the Bible we see him be cruel.
                God sends the angel of death to kill all the Egyptians first-born sons
God claims to be forgiving, but we see him be petty.
                God kills a man for touching the ark of the covenant to settle it when he wasn’t the right person to touch it.
God claims to be gracious, but we see him be harsh.
                God commands death for small crimes, such as picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
God claims to be good, but we see him be evil.
                God commands the genocide—killing of men, women and children as well as animals—of entire nations.

Yes, God is shown to be loving as well. 
                God delivers an undeserving nation from slavery.
                God forgives a man for murder and adultery.
                God provides food for the hungry.
                God raises children from the dead.
                God pays the debt of a widow.
                God establishes a great nation out of nobodies.
But the very nation God established was patriarchal, bloodthirsty and warring. 
They’re ancestral heroes are lying, cheating and disloyal.

I’d like to say that there is an error in the Bible.
  That some events were attributed to God when they really weren’t.
  That people penned God’s name to sayings he never said.
  That God experimented in different methods to train humans to love, and many of them failed.
  That God could do what humans could not do because He was creator.
But these are all excuses for an unloving God, or, at best, a God that was learning how to love.
  A God who did not know what compassion, grace, forgiveness and good really meant.
  Or a God who was sorely, even deceitfully, misrepresented.
Frankly, I just don’t know.

But this I do know:
The God I worship, adore, obey and imitate is displayed in full glory in Jesus.
Jesus is the perfect demonstration of the love of God.
Jesus is the God who transforms the occasionally harsh law into pure love.
Jesus is the God who heals the sick and feeds the hungry.
Jesus is the God who supports the poor.
Jesus is the God who welcomes the sinner.
Jesus is the God who sacrifices himself for the sake of the world.
Jesus is the God who forgives completely, without punishment.
Jesus is the God who exuberantly, abundantly, enthusiastically loves.
And there is no other God but the God whom we see in Jesus.

Jesus is the complete fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jesus turns deceit into Truth.
Jesus turns disloyalty into Faithfulness.
Jesus turns selfishness into Sacrifice.
And Jesus turns a broken God into a God broken for us.
In Jesus we see the Compassionate, the Gracious, the Merciful, the Forgiving.
This is the God I love, the God I seek, the God I pray to.


There is no other.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Discovering God: Questions

This is part of continuing series of theological questions.  We will give some description, but the purpose of these posts are not to answer questions but to ask them.  You may answer some if you like in the comments section, but I will keep myself in the questioning mode for now.

Many of us desire to find God, and some spend their whole lives just doing this.  But why?  Is God so the center of the meaning of our lives that we should be seeking Him?  Is God the Source we should be seeking, or is there another Subject that is more true, more to the core of our being?  Some have said that we should not be seeking God, but ourselves, humanity, reality, love, economic stability, truth, power....  If we find God will we find all these as well?  If we find these will we find God?

Is God even an object to be discovered?  We can discover most things within our own universe, eventually, but if God is outside of our universe, then can we truly discover God?  Can we only describe God through what God is not, because we cannot see or measure what God is?  Is it possible to describe or communicate God at all, if God is beyond our imagination?

What would be the tools to discover God?  If God is beyond human comprehension, then perhaps God is the only one to describe what or who God is.  But what is this revelation in which God describes God?  Is it creation, made by God, but ravaged by time?  Is it physics, the building blocks of creation?  Is it the human mind, the most sublime creation?  Is it a text in which God laid out the most important thoughts about God?  Is it a person, who communicated God most sublimely through both words and action?

Who are we to make such choices?  Can we grab onto one of these tools and call it the ultimate revelation?  Or should we live our lives and hope that God is some rock that we will stumble upon and everything will make sense? Is such a search ultimately futile or fruitful?

Thursday, January 16, 2014

God's Sovereignty: Questions

We will be starting a series of theological questions today.  We will give some description, but the purpose of these posts are not to answer questions but to ask them.  You may answer some if you like in the comments section, but I will keep myself in the questioning mode for now.

All the monotheistic religions hold that God is Sovereign-- that is, He rules the universe.  But there has been much disagreement as to how much and to what extent God rules.

Does God rule every aspect of the universe?  Or are there portions of the universe He never had control over?  Are there portions that He relinquished control over?  Is God the god of this world or did He give it over to Satan?  Or did he give it over to humanity?  If God is not really in charge of the earth, then why complain to God if things go bad or if there is evil?  Shouldn't we take it up with the current management?

Is God specifically ruling every single atom of the universe, or just the general flow of things?  Is every aspect of what has happened and what will happen under God's control?  Is the movement of every atom directed by Him?  Did he set the universe up and let it go, still understanding exactly what would happen, every day, for the rest of eternity?  If that is so, then is God responsible for every evil that took place, because He set it up that way?  If God is responsible for evil, doesn't that ultimately make Him evil?  Or at least part evil?



It says in the Bible that God sustains life.  Is it speaking about in the general sense, in the way that God provides food and other sustenance for those who need it?  Or does it mean that without God no life would exist, that God is somehow holding all of creation so that it doesn't fall apart, and that without God holding things together, nothing could continue to exist?

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

What is the Nature of God?


The quick theological answer about the nature of God takes us through a quick tour of the “omnis”:
  •       Omnipotent: God is all powerful
  •       Omnipresent: God is in all places
  •       Omniscient: God knows all things
  •       Eternal: God is timeless


Biblically, I have questions about all of these statements.  But the fact is, biblically, to say that the nature of God is his being or essence is to miss the point.  That is a metaphysical answer to the question, not a biblical one.

There is one statement about the nature of God that is repeated many times in Scripture, and yet it is rarely quoted, or certainly  not quoted as often as the omnis.  The best answer to “what is the nature of God?” is:

Yahweh, Yahweh God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in merciful faithfulness and truth, who keeps merciful faithfulness for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin, yet he will not leave the guilty unpunished.”  Exodus 34:6-7


This statement, in whole or part, is repeated at least 12 times in the OT alone*.  It is the basic creed of who God is, and is the basis for the statement “God is love” and is the basis for the NT statements which say that we, as God’s children, should imitate God (Luke 6:35-36; Eph 5:1).






Thus, we should focus on God being:
  •      Compassionate: One who understands and desires to help the weak.
  •      Gracious: One who gives of Himself to those in need
  •      Slow to anger: Doesn’t instantly respond to offenses, but takes time to consider a proper response
  •      Abounding in merciful faithfulness:  When he keeps his promises, he does it for the benefit of those he is blessing
  •      Abounding in truth: Doesn’t lie, doesn’t break his promises
  •      Forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin: Is ready to cleanse the heart, mind and any debt incurred from any sin, real, ritual or imagined.
  •      Will not leave the guilty unpunished:  Forgiveness is for the repentant, not for those who continue to purposely hurt others.

This is the true nature of God, and the basis of all biblical truth.


*Passages that are a reference to Exodus 34:
  II Chronicles 30:9; Nehemiah 9:17, 31; Psalm 86:15; Psalm 103:8; Psalm 111:4; Psalm 112:4; Psalm 116:5; Psalm 145:8; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nahum 1:3

Friday, June 1, 2012

A Conversation about Sovereignty


God, eternal, omnipotent and sovereign:  you bastard, why am I alive?  Just so you’ve got a pin cushion, a punching bag to take your anger out on?  Look at all the crap you handed me.  I’d be better off having died a long time ago.  Actually, I think I would prefer have been aborted.

So, Roger, you’re blaming me for being born?  Don’t you think your parents had something to do with that?

Well, you gave me the no good sombitches that were my parents.  The old man runs out on me when I’m four and my mother might as well have been running a whorehouse with a revolving door with all the new “dad’s” around.  Why didn’t you give me a better set of parents?

Actually, they gave you life, I didn’t give them to you.

My wife was no winner, either.  The woman screams all day and wouldn’t ever give me any sex. I might as well be in an army camp.  Why did you give her to me?

If you recall, you are the one who chose her.  As well as chose to cheat on her so that she was angry all the time. And I think your three kids is enough proof that you got sex sometime.

Well, at least I know she didn’t open her legs to anyone—she hated sex.  But those kids.  Tommy won’t give me any respect.  Said “Ef you” and walked out the door.  I don’t care if he’s in his car, dead with a needle in his arm the way he treated me.

He learned to treat you the way you treated him.  You showed him no respect so he never learned any.

And Chelsea… damn.  That was the worst, you omniscient efing bastard. Why did she have to die?  Why didn’t you save her?  Why?  Why couldn’t it have been me?

I am sorry for you, Roger.  I know how much she meant to you. I could have saved her.  I could have reminded you to take her to the doctor so her lungs would have been checked and she wouldn’t have died of pneumonia. But you never asked me.  You never sought after me to come into your life. 
I accept your rant Roger.  I don’t see it as disrespect. Instead, I know that you are seeking me because your life is so screwed up.  I can help.  I will help.  Just sober up, cook yourself some breakfast and then go and see the pastor tomorrow morning.  Change for you is that close.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

The Oneness of God



Moses:
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
  Deuteronomy 6:4-5


Jesus:

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?"
Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'  The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
 Mark 12:28-31 


Paul:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.
 Ephesians 4:4-6



Muhammad:
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.
   Quran,  Sura 112






In all of these sayings, the most important idea is not that God is one being.  Most beings are unified, and the ancient world recognized that.  Rather, it is that God alone is supreme over the universe. There is no one like Him, no one above Him, no one beside Him, no one can take His place.  Thus, God's unity is His sufficiency and His alone-ness.  Even Christianity, with a Trinitarian notion of God, recognizes that God is one and no one else is beside Him.


It is this notion that all the monotheistic religions agree upon (as well as a few other things).   It is important so that we know that God is not at war with Himself.  God does not change.  God can't one day be replaced.  God isn't of multiple personalities.  God will never break his promises. When we see God's actions on earth, it may seem that God does have different personalities.  But we recognize that while God may repent of harm, that God remains steadfast in His purpose to do good to all.  While other spirits under God may harm, God is merciful.  While humanity, including religious leaders and practitioners, will often be faithless and hating and changeable-- they do not represent God in that way.


God is one and does not change.


You Go Your Way, I"ll Go Mine


There are some who do not believe in God, or who do not believe in the God we believe in.  That may frustrate some of us, and we may try to force others to believe.  But to do so is fruitless.  We can't force someone to see what they do not see.  If we try to force, we will only cause greater conflict, and more resistance.

We should have the same attitude as Muhammade and say as he said, "You go your way and I'll go mine."

We can, of course, explain what we believe.  We can give our perspective on local history, for example.  Some may say "The Civil War was caused by many events" and leave it at that.  Others may say that God used the Civil War to end the atrocity of slavery.  This doesn't mean God caused the Civil War, but used it for His work.

Even so, Muhammad used the story of a local event about an elephant to speak of God's involvement in local history. That makes sense.

Also, Muhammad spoke of how God helps in his life.  "There are many evils around us", he said.  Evil human beings. Evil curses. Evil desires against us.  God is the light in the midst of the darkness, the refuge from the storm of evil.  Satan himself speaks evil to us and about us.  But God and God alone allows us to be protected.

"And so I seek God" says Muhammad.  You may seek other things.  Money, perhaps.  Science.  Power.  Force.  "But I," said Muhammad, "have my hope in God alone."

Monday, November 7, 2011

Gratitude: Not Just Attitude


In the midst of the prophetically angry Quran, there are a number of suras of comfort and reminders of God's grace.

In Sura 94, the Muslims* are reminded of their deliverance by God.  They had terrible burdens and were oppressed, but God had given them freedom.  The deeply comforting words are repeated twice: "With every difficulty there is relief; Verily, with every difficulty there is relief."

In God, no matter what terrible horrors we must face, no matter what persecutions or trials, there is, in the end, relief.

In Sura 93, "Morning Bright",  the Muslim is compared to an orphan, lost and fatherless, whom God takes under His wing, providing shelter and care.

However, the Quran recognizes that every gift is, in itself, a demand.  The greater the gift, so greater our response to the gift must be, if only to display proper gratitude.  We need not give as much as the giver did, but we must return something to show that we truly appreciated the gift.

For God's deliverance, what does He request?  In Suras 93 and 94, God requires three things:

a. God requests that we turn our attention to Him.  In our lives, we are constantly focused on Him and thinking how we can properly live our lives in light of the gift of life and freedom He has given us.

b. God asks that we work hard for the purposes He has set us to.  That we work not only for our own well being, but for God's purposes and glory.

c. Finally, God properly asks that we care for the needy and orphans, even as He has helped us when we were needy and an orphan.  We should provide shelter and care for those who do not have it.

These tasks are not onerous, but the proper gratitude to the God who has given us life, freedom and provision.



*"Muslim" isn't necessarily the adherent of a particular religion, but by definition "one who is submitted to God"   Although, of course, one would usually define "submission" by one's own belief system.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Talk About Allah




Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds;
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgment.
Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek.
Show us the straight way,
The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace,
those whose portion is not wrath, and who go not astray.




This is the beautiful prayer that is probably the most recited sacred text, with the Lord's Prayer a second.  This prayer could easily be a Christian or Jewish prayer, having the same theology as either of the other two main monotheistic religions. 


God is shown to be loving, merciful and generous.  He is the Creator of the Universe. God is going to judge the earth, depending on people's lifestyles, just the same as the New Testament.  But most of all, God is the one who answers prayer, and shows his utmost care by answering prayers.


Let's deal with one issue right away: the name "Allah" for God.   It has been said that it was the name of a moon god which was adopted by Muhammad later on.  This is certainly not the case.  


Allah has two roots: al, which means "the" and ilah, which is "God".  Ilah is from the same root that Elohim in Hebrew is-- that is the Hebrew term "God". 


In fact, we need to remember just how close Arabic and Hebrew is.  For instance the basic greeting "peace" in Hebrew is Shalom, and in Arabic it is "Salaam"-- that's pretty close.   So that fact that they share the same name for God shouldn't be surprising. 


Could the name for God have pagan origins?  Well, the word Elohim certainly had pagan uses.  Actually, the word is plural, so in most contexts it would be translated "gods".  (It is translated as singular because in most places in the Hebrew Bible Elohim is matched with a singular verb, which means Elohim, which has a plural ending, is meant to be understood as singular.  The plural form is retained in order to show God's greatness over other gods.)  The word for God in the New Testament is Theos, which certainly had a pagan origin.  A strong possibility for the root of the English word "God" is a general term for an idol. 


What am I getting at?  The root of a word doesn't make its meaning.  Meaning of a word is determined by context.  In the context of the Quran, even just the first Sura, Allah is the Creator, the Judge, merciful and powerful.  Yes, we are talking about the same God as the Bible here.  No one else fits the bill.




Thursday, August 4, 2011

Calvinism: The Great Antichrist?




Some people see Calvinism as a problem.  Certainly it has led, in the past, to a lot of unbiblical thinking.  Just as people have used Catholicism, Darwinism and even Jesus himself to promote their hateful, bigoted ideas, so they have done with Calvinism. Calvinism isn't about a certain kind of economy, nor is it about plain clothes or stoicism.  Rather it is a certain view of God's sovereignty and the implications of such thought.  It is closely aligned with Augustinian thinking.  Calvin himself was a lawyer who specialized in prosecuting heretics and a biblical scholar. Calvinism may have escaped from his strict biblical grasp, but it closely resembles his thinking. 
The foundation of Calvinism as a theology is the idea that God is under complete control of all that happens in the universe: past, present and future.  There is nothing that happens outside of God's power and direction.  This does not mean that all is in accordance with God's desire.  Certainly God does not desire sin, but God is ultimately in change of every atomic particle and the direction of even the smallest movement.  This leads to a number of conclusions that we will discuss later.

The alternative that is often discussed is Arminism, named after Jacob Arminius a Dutch theologian who lived soon after Calvin and opposed Calvin's ideology on a biblical ground.  The most famous proponant of Arminism was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism and the theological grandfather of the Nazarenes, American revivalists, the Pentecostals and the Charismatics.  The Arminian position emphasizes human responsibility along with God's sovereignty.

For the most part, however, I wonder about the questions that both Calvinism and Arminism ponder. Their answers go back and forth and they both seem to be focusing on their presuppositions instead of the Bible.  In the end, I wonder about whether they are asking the wrong questions.  Are they focusing on the subjects focused on in the Bible, or are they speculating on the unknowable?  What does this have to do with loving God, loving your neighbor, doing kindness and walking humbly with one's God.  In fact, the discussion seems to have little to do with humility whatsoever. Instead, pronouncements come from the minds of those discussing as if they had come from the Mount. 

Of course, I will be sharing my opinions about the main topics here the next week or so, but I think we need to remember-- these are opinions.  You are welcome to disagree with them.  We can approach theology differently, as long as we are serving God with all our heart and we are loving all humanity and meeting the needs of the poor.  All else goes by the wayside.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Loving God



From “The Maxims of the Saints” by Archbishop Fenelon
Translated by H.R. Allenson, edited by Steve Kimes


There are many ways to love God. At least, there are various feelings which go under that name.

First, there is what may be called selfish love. This is a love of God which originates solely in regard too our own happiness. Those who love God with no other love than this kind love Him just as the miser loves his money, and the sensual man loves his pleasures. These attach no value to God except as a means to an end: the gratification of their desires. Such love, if it can be called that, is unworthy of God. He does not ask it, and He will not receive it.

Second, there is another kind of love that doesn’t suppress our own happiness as a motive to love God. However, this love requires our happiness to be a subordinate to a much higher motive: a desire for the glory of God. It is a mixed love, in which we regard ourselves and God at the same time. This love is not necessarily selfish and wrong. On the contrary, it is correct when we put our love for ourselves and our love for God in the correct position. In this way we would love God as He ought to be loved, and love ourselves no more than we ought to be loved. This kind of love is unselfish and right. This is the love most often spoken of by Jesus.

However, there is another kind of love of God. This mixed love described above can become a pure love of God. This can happen when the love of self is lost, though not absolutely, in regard to the will of God. Even mixed love can become pure love when the two loves, of ourselves and of God are combined rightly.

Pure love is not inconsistent with mixed love, but it is mixed love carried to it’s true result. When this result is attained, the motive of God’s glory expands itself so that it fills the mind. The other motive, that of our own happiness, becomes so small, and it so recedes from our inward notice that it is practically annihilated. At this point God becomes what He ever ought to be—the center of the soul. God is then the Sun of the soul, from which all its light and its warmth proceed.

We lay ourselves at His feet. Self is known no more—not because it is wrong to notice and desire our own good, but because the object of desire is withdrawn from our notice. When the sun shines, the stars disappear. When God is in the soul, who can think of himself? In this way we love God, and God alone. And all other things are in and for God.

Whoever has attained pure love has also attained all the moral and Christian virtues. For all the virtues: temperance, self control, restraining from sexual pleasures, truth, kindness, forgiveness and justice—are all included in holy love. Love will develop and show itself in all of these forms. St. Augustine remarks that love is the foundation, source or principle of all the virtues.

Replacing God for a Culture War

God is a mystery of another world. God is Spirit, another substance, another entity, a person that we can relate to, but can only understand through symbol and metaphor and the broadest of concepts. God is separate from this world, as different from this world as a cow is different from an amoeba. God is a part of Himself, which before creating this universe created the spirit world for His essence to dwell in, although nothing can hold Him.

We, however created by God and in God’s image, are creatures of this world. From the instant we are born, possibly before, we are swimming in the substance of our world, breathing in the ideas, experiencing its vision, consuming the smells and tastes around us. All that we experience is not just created by God, but created by humanity. The sea of humanity is not only the mass of people, but the crowd of human creations that we cannot escape. This force, as pervasive as gravity or air, is culture.

The culture we are raised in and live in is not just something we live in, but it lives in us. Even as our soul is united with our body, our being is infused with culture. Every thought we think is a cultural thought. Every act we perform is a cultural act. Every word we speak is a cultural word. The unique ones are never a culture of their own—at best they are a sub-culture of one, but still reacting in one way or another to the culture or cultures they know and remain a part of, even if absent.

How then can we know God, who is so apart from this world, and we are so inseparable from it? The only way to experience the greatest of all Aliens is to have the superior intelligence teach the lesser one. To understand the best of who God is, we need to have it explained to us in cultural terms. We have no reference to who God really is, but God patiently presents himself in terms we can appreciate and understand. How God wants us to live is encased in culture. And when we relate to God, whether in worship or in prayer, God kindly allows us our cultural expression, for we have no other.

The difficulty is that culture is not a rock foundation on which our ideas are based, but culture is in constant flux. It is an ocean, that as soon as you have determined a pattern of water flow or of hot and cold streams, it shifts, or there is a hurricane and everything changes. With each generation, culture makes a major shift again with minor shifts happening all along. And if a single culture is divided, then it becomes two, distinct, unique cultures within two generations, and never can they be united again without irreparable harm.

Because of this, our relation to God changes. That which one generation holds as the truest form of worship, within two is completely rejected. The worship itself has not shifted, but the mode would be unthought-of by all previous generations. The communication of how we live must change, for the good life of one culture could be evil in another and visa versa. In one context, it is good to give money to beggars, while in another it is death. And even our understanding of God himself, wrapped up in an ancient culture, becomes an enigma, uncovered only by those who have knowledge of the ancient culture, and that only in the most vague way.

God continues to display himself. He is not limited by time, by changing contexts or by unused languages. He continues to speak, and yet He does not neglect his older speech. But that speech is transformed, born again, renewed. It is both old and yet strangely new. It’s old context and life still lives and it lives again. Yet God can only be understood by communication that comes from God himself. Because He is fundamentally unknown, that which we know about Him, as vague as that is, must come from Him, not our own culture, our own thoughts. For God is beyond our thoughts, never being of our culture, as much as He uses our culture.

The difficulty we have about God, however, is trying to grasp Him only through His communication, and not through our own. Alongside the God that dwells in the Spirit world is a god, in the semblance of the former, that is a creation of culture. This god (in reality, gods) is very real in the minds of humans, more real than the true God of heaven. But this god is real because it is a part of culture, a part-and-parcel of “real” life, everyday existence. And this god can use the same ancient revelation and mode of modern communication in order to take the place of the God who existed before time.

This god promotes religious prejudice. This god limits himself, even as he makes claims that are vast. This god is everyone’s friend, and yet he creates enemies and has his people kill them at their pleasure. This god places himself in philosophical concepts of Trinity and Sovereignty, Prime Mover and Anti-Flesh. This god becomes a part of patriarchy, of empire, of rebellion and of complete independence. So a culture of human theology is created, and shifted and soon there are many theologies and many truths about god, all equally inadequate. And they can all say, “We have as much truth as the last theology,” and it is true, for none of it is based on revelation, but on speculation.

And then this god makes demands to shape and warp culture into his own image. His followers become advisors and judges and lawyers and politicians in order to control the passage of culture. He imposes his own limits and laws, his unique principles and precepts become the law of the land. Other cultures fight against this trend, and the followers of the god say, “You are opposing god! You are evil incarnate!” Yet the true God waits on the sidelines, allowing the culture war to play out.

Other cultures to whom God is revealing Himself in a unique way become the evil cultures, in opposition to god, no matter how close some in those other cultures are to the true God. The followers of god do not have understanding of God, so they cannot see Him at work. So the strong culture of god makes war with the other cultures—often destroying the communication of God there. The god of a culture is never the critic of the culture, for the culture itself becomes the god. And anyone or anything that changes the culture is trying to change god. Yet God never changes. He waits, continuing to communicate, continuing to love and critique all equally, for all need support and all need change.

To overcome god, we must restore God to His place. We must re-discover the revelation that God has given—both ancient and modern—and take such revelation seriously. We must not hear it for what we want it to say, but allow it to speak for itself. For it is the best understanding of God we have. We must allow Jesus and the prophets and apostles speak. And we must listen.

In listening, we must do two things. We must first create principles of the cultural communication to have ideas that surpass culture. And then we need to embed the concepts back into culture, otherwise they are words with no life. We must see how revelation is in agreement with culture, and when it opposes culture, remembering that God is beyond all culture, not taking sides, but is only on the side of Truth and Love. God is no respecter of persons, upholding one culture above another, one human ideal above another. So God has both a message of approval and of change for every culture, equally.

If we truly want to see God, then we must look for His communication to other cultures as well, in ways that we would not have expected. And when we find God in the other culture, in the context of that culture, we will know more of Him than we ever would have in one culture.

And we must never automatically reject another’s worship or communication with God or ethical pattern until we understand how they are trying the context of what they are doing. We fear and reject that which is unfamiliar—that is the human pattern. But to grasp God, we must go beyond the human as God does. God’s revelation, one might notice, has few items that are condemned in comparison to the limitless variety of the human experience. The variety, obviously, is pleasing to God, and so we must accept it, wherever it comes. And if a particular mode of variety is displeasing, then God will correct it, if we would but trust it.

But we must be rid of god. We must be rid of the cultural idol we have created in our own image. We can often recognize this god when he says, “We must not speak this way. We must not act this way. We must not love this way. We must not restore this way.” God rarely says these things. But god will demand destruction of the other, will limit variety at every incarnation of it. We know that god has reared his ugly head when each of our congregations look the same, worship the same, act the same and always knows what the other congregations are talking about. In God there is natural conflict—but in God there is the craving of accepting so that we all might achieve the One in many.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Is Atheism Too Simple?

“Atheism is too simple,” Lewis says. How does he come to this conclusion? Because we all have a sense of right and wrong, and we all make moral arguments. If there was no Christian God—or someone like Him—then where does a sense of morality come from?

But really, Lewis isn’t saying that all atheism is too simple, but only his sort. Lewis, when he was an atheist, felt that the world was too unjust for there to be a just God, and that the arguments of the Christians were just too complicated. But that just argues the point that there is an idea of justice, and that it had to come from somewhere.

What Lewis is actually saying, without explicitly stating it, is that pantheism makes more sense than his sort of atheism. That God is in everything, and thus everything—even cancer or child pornographers—is just as much a part of God as a saint. In other words, justice and morality is just an illusion. If the atheist continues to hold to morality, it makes no sense. But the nihilist, who admits that there really is not cause for any morality, can keep a simple atheism. The problem, Lewis seems to indicate, is not atheism, but morality.

So the question is, can anyone actually set aside morality? Can we live a life without a sense of morality? Or, even more so, is it possible to have a rational, God-absent, basis for morality? Although I believe that God is the source of human morality, yet still I think there is an argument to be mace for godless morality, and one that looks similar to Christianity, especially the popular form.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Cause: Unknown, Therefore God?

Let’s look at the moral argument, as Lewis presents it. It is basically the same argument as Aquinas’ proofs of God. We see reality. Reality cannot be formed on its own, but needs a creator. Therefore, there must be a creator. Lewis is just narrowing this argument to moral law. There is a universal moral law. It is inexplicable that such a moral law could exist amidst complex cultures. Therefore there must be a Source of Moral Law outside of humanity.

However, this is not the only possible explanation. For instance, one of the basic premises of this Moral Law is that the Other is equal to the Self, or, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” But neuroscience has recently discovered “mirror neurons”. These are cells in the brain that observe and then create a facsimile of what is observed in the brain. In other words, we might observe someone jumping off a cliff—in our minds we experience ourselves jumping off that same cliff, without all the messy bits that happen at the bottom of the cliff. This is why, when watching a video of someone jumping off a cliff, we find our heart beating harder, our breath catching, perhaps we might get a little dizzy. This is because our observation of the other is being experienced ourselves. The Other is the equal of our Self because we have actually experienced it. This is a part of our brain, and we have stronger mirror neurons than animals have. Thus, this could very well be a neurological basis for a basic principle of morality.

And all of the arguments about the existence of God typically go this way. Someone takes that which has never been explained and then claimed that it proves a higher reality. Until someone comes along with an explanation for the complexity without the need for a higher reality. Then those who believed in that argument for God looks foolish, because human interpretation has a greater imagination than was ever thought. Then the argument descends into heated philosophical and theological arguments that cannot be won by anyone.

Personally, I think that we should leave behind the “reality proves Gods existence” argument completely. Not because it isn’t true, but because it is terrible proof, and just makes everyone look foolish when an alternative reason is discovered. Ultimately, the argument is a bet against the human imagination. “I bet,” the argument says, “That you can’t find a reason for this mountain, therefore the reason must be God.” And when the human imagination finds a reason apart from God, then the arguer looks like an idiot. “I bet you can’t find a reason for consciousness, therefore it must be God,” says Francis Schaeffer. “I bet you can’t find a reason for all the stars in the sky…” “I bet you can’t find a reason for agreement in human morality…” etc. These bets are always lost. Human imagination is as vast as the universe and the fictions it can create are unlimited. It is best never to bet against it.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Is Man The Measure of All Things? Part 1

Lewis now is trying to make a conclusion based on his assertion of the Moral Law. I think that his argument for a Moral Law is a good one and pretty solid. Now he is trying to apply universal morality to understanding the nature of reality itself. In this, he speaks of the scientific process. That science is simply about observation and communicating that observation of reality. I agree, that’s the main point of science. Interpretation of observation is less science than scientific theorizing. But observation and drawing rational conclusions from that observation is what science is about.

However, Lewis says that the nature of reality cannot be determined by science. Because it is all about observation, therefore it does not allow for deep interpretation. That is the job of the philosophers and theologians. Again, I agree. Once a scientist says what the nature of reality is, they are no longer performing the observation of a scientist, but instead doing the job of a philosopher. This does not mean that a scientist cannot do both jobs adequately, but we need to recognize that there is a difference.

Then, Lewis says that reality cannot be determined by observation of outer things, but by understanding the interpreters, namely Humanity. This goes back to the ancient Greek argument that “Man is the measure of all things.” That, in the end, the interpreter is what determines reality. Since Humanity is the interpreter, then that is the standard of measure.
Lewis then wants to go on and say that what we understand about Humanity is reflective of the reality. So if all humanity has a Moral Law, therefore that is something that is reflective of the reality of the universe. This is where I think Lewis makes his first misstep.
The only thing we can determine by looking at Humanity is the nature of that which is interpreting, not necessarily that which is behind that nature. If we look through the most powerful microscopes, we can see atomic particles and how they move. In observing their movement, we may be able to guess what the particles are that make up these atomic particles. This is where theories about quarks and such are found. However, we cannot say decisively what the reality is behind the atomic particles. We can make pretty solid guesses, but there are other guesses that are equally solid. And this is the way with the interpreters of reality. We might guess as to what is behind that level of reality, but frankly we are guessing.

Some might say, “Well, we are human, so shouldn’t we know best what the reality governing us is?” In fact, I would argue the opposite. We are human, and thus we have an idea of how our lives OUGHT to work, not how they DO actually work. We are the consummate interpreters and we interpret first and explain later. We have our interpretation in mind when we look at ourselves and we see partly what we want to see, but more importantly we don’t see that which we think cannot exist.

Frankly, we are our own worst interpreters. We have interpreted ourselves before we have interpreted anything else and everything we see about ourselves feed into our interpretation. This has been what psychology has, for the most part, been about. It has been somewhat successful in seeing social aberrations, but it has been terrible at explaining why those aberrations exist. Theology can be seen as a series of cultural assumptions about the reality of life, despite the text one theology is supposed to be based on. The texts only determine the questions one asks of reality, but they almost never determine the theological answers—that is determined by the interpretation of the theologian.

Even so, I think that Lewis’ jump from the interpreter of reality to that which is behind reality’s interpretation is too quick. He hasn’t made his case. He gives me no good reason to determine why we can rely on this interpretation.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

The Euthyphro Dilemma: Where Does Morality Come From?

A few videos to tide us over until the final decision is made.

A Quick Defense From Plato

Euthyphro is a Socratic dialogue by Plato and an entertaining read. In this book, Socrates is about to head off to defend his life against those who want to claim that his teaching is “impious.” Before this, Socrates has a discussion with Euthyphro about what “piety” means. What does it mean to be a good religious person. Euthyphro basically says that a good religious person does what God commands. Socrates, however, shows that “goodness” or morality is something that even the gods obey, and this means that to be “good” isn’t just about obeying God, but is about finding that standard that even God obeys. This means that morality isn’t tied to religion at all.

Epydemic2020 summarizes this dilemma and then says that it isn’t really a dilemma because there is another option. He is doing this in order to defend his position that the common morality all humans hold—do not murder, do not rape—is proof of God’s existence. So he says that because there is a third option—that God’s nature holds the seed of morality—means that the Euthyphro dilemma is no dilemma at all. There are other options.

Okay, that’s true. But it doesn’t really answer the basic question that the Euthyphro dilemma poses—is God the source of morality or is morality the source of God’s justice? The fact that God has a nature of morality doesn’t mean that there isn’t a source that pre-exists God, unless we take the existence of God as being apriori—a basic unquestioned assumption (which I hate). But let’s just talk about morality and God.

There are two kinds of morality. One is circumstantial ethics, and the other intrinsic ethics. Intrinsic ethics are foundational principles of ethics that cannot be changed. Some hold to the value of life—all life—as an intrinsic ethic—that would be a foundational principle on which they base their ethical actions. Circumstantial ethics, however, is the action that one does based on two things—one’s intrinsic ethic and the context that one finds oneself in. For instance, since there are small bugs one may swallow, one who holds to the intrinsic value of all life would put a mask over their face in order to prevent this from happening. However, one who lived in a “clean room”, where no outside life existed, then the mask would not be necessary. The mask is only a correct moral act given the circumstances and the intrinsic morality—it is not a good in and of itself.

In Christian theology, we must acknowledge that God’s nature would only determine intrinsic morality, not circumstantial morality. First of all, God’s creation has changed radically from the beginning. First of all, sin has infected human life significantly, changing the circumstance. We respond to a sinful humanity, not an innocent one. Thus, since creation has changed, circumstantial morality has changed.

But what about intrinsic ethics? Is that based in God’s nature? It is possible that, say, “love” is the most base intrinsic ethic. If that is the bass of God’s nature, then why is God not always “loving”? Why does He kill innocent women and children? Why does he allow Job to suffer the death of his children? The difficulty of morality as the nature of God is that morality is clearly not the same for God as for humanity. Humans are not supposed to kill other innocent humans—that is God’s command. But God can do this, because the circumstances for being God is different than being human. God is Creator and humans are creation, as special as they are.

Why is obeying God’s will so important? Not because the nature of God requires a certain morality to be done, but because God is wiser than we are. He can see how certain moral decisions can either help us or hurt us. He has an objective perspective outside of our hormones and emotions and so can communicate to us what is right and wrong given the broader circumstance, not according to our own limited perspective.

I would not say that there is no intrinsic morality. And I would even go so far as to say that “love” is an intrinsic moral standard. However, how “love” looks when God is acting it out could be very different from how humans live it out. When we talk about morality and when we look at God’s commands about morality, we must realize that the commands and the morality is for the human context only. We cannot ask animals to engage in our morality—they have their own morality according to their circumstance. We cannot ask God to follow our morality, because His circumstance differs greatly. God and we may have similar goals, but the actual actions may differ.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Authority Matters

Tough Questions for Christians #36—Collateral Damage
Watch it here.

AZ gives us a Bible theme—when one person makes a decision, other people get punished for it. So he asks, “Why does God punish people for actions they did not participate in?”

This has to do with the principle of authority. Anyone who has authority over others—a parent, a king, a church leader—has power over the other’s lives and how they are responded to. Thus, Adam’s decision causes the rest of us to suffer because we are all born children of Adam. David’s sin caused his people to suffer because his action related to his responsibility to the people.

This principle continues on today. If Congress passes a law, we are all responsible to obey it and we will be punished if we don’t. If our father is an addict, that effects his children severely. If our mother has AIDS when we are born, that effects the rest of our life. The actions of those who have authority over us effect us, even if we don’t want it.

This is true even if we didn’t choose the authority over us. Everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen of the U.S. even if we wished that were not so. This means that whatever the leaders of the U.S. choose, that effects our lives. If they decide to enact war against another country, then it is our sons and daughters who will die in that war, and also we will all suffer the moral and mental damage of them killing others in that war. A slave in a household is stuck in the system of his master, even if he didn’t want to live in the household. When it is a choice between stealing from a master’s enemy’s or dying under the master’s whip, the choice to the slave seems clear.

This is why if we have a choice of authorities to live under, we should choose carefully. To join up to the military is to accept the military as one’s master, and they train one to kill if they say kill. That effects everyone’s life. If we choose to be a citizen of a nation, we accept their laws and accept the consequences of the decision of their leaders.

This is why Jesus is so important. He is offering us citizenship in the kingdom of God. He offers to be our King, our Lord. If we choose Him, and release the ties to all other kingdoms, all other masters, then we receive the consequences of His actions and not the weak leaders we have around us.

Authority matters.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

God's Patient Love

Tough Questions for Christians #34—Reinforcing False Beliefs
Watch it here.

AZ gives an example of a Muslim couple who prays for a child from Allah and then gets pregnant. He says, why does the Christian God reinforce a belief in a false god?

Well, first of all, I don’t think that Allah is a different God than YHWH, but let’s suppose it’s a Hindu couple who are praying to Shiva or something. Whatever.

The basic answer is this: God loves humanity. All humans. And God grants blessings to all humans, without exception. Certainly some humans are blessed more than others, and some humans endure terrible suffering (almost always at the hand of other humans), but all humans are granted blessings by God.

God grants blessings because He wants to teach all humans how to love. This is what Jesus came to teach us as well, and Jesus is certainly the better, more direct teacher. However, in praying to Allah (or Shiva) for a baby, and God granting this, shows us how to love. It shows us how to offer the blessing of life to others, all others, without exception.

And this should teach Christians especially. If God gives the gift of life and health and joy to many behind the false disguise of Shiva, then perhaps we should be less concerned about how we love and focus on the task of loving. In other words, perhaps God is teaching US that we should love, and be less concerned about pushing Jesus down people’s throats. That maybe we should love and show how to love and then some—few, but some—will take this example and follow Jesus in action. It is important for others to know that we love them because Jesus loved us, but why should we only love if they love Jesus as we love Him? That is not the love of God, but the restrictive human love.

Love that judges isn’t love at all.