At this point I remind myself that I am not designing a system of governance from scratch. Almost everyone--if not everyone--in this room is an American. We have a Constitution that presents us with a law with which I must begin if I am a Christian ruler in America.
Here God models a first insight for us--He starts with people where they are and works to bring them of their own "free will" to where He wants them to be. The very nature of biblical revelation thrusts this conclusion on us time and time again. Each book reflects the language and paradigms of its own time and place, from the stars in between the waters in Genesis 1 to the three heavens of Paul.
Thankfully, there is a great deal of overlap between America's laws and Christian values. Our Constitution is a social contract meant to protect the rights of all within its boundaries. It thus in theory is wired against the harm of anyone.
In my opinion, when we can show that certain actions harm others, we can work within the system to outlaw them. At times our culture has a blind spot to such harm. Slavery would be one instance. The refusal to give voice to women was another. We might look to abortion and racial discrimination as two instances that we are currently working on today. These are areas in which the law still allows individuals to do harm to others.
I believe a Christian ruler would work as wise as a serpent within our society to make it as harmless as a dove toward the unborn and toward those many others disempowered in it. By this comment I mean that some paths to these ends are more effective than others. For example, shooting abortion doctors hardly reduces the number of abortions or brings its legal end any closer.
I believe a Christian rulers would work within the American system for the benefit of all. While the Constitution really works more against the detriment of all than for the benefit of all, this is a small step our system allows.
A Christian ruler would thus make a priority the empowerment of the oppressed or downtrodden. I cannot believe that a Christian ruler would not make it a priority to educate and transform those who are in a perpetual cycle of disempowerment in society. While it is true that such cycles are often a product of choices, they are not empowered choices. How could it not be Christian to help others from the slavery of their environment?
God does not insist that people choose Him. But He seeks to influence others for Him. A ruler who would write off or simply abandon some segment of society, without seeking to woo it to the better, is not worthy to have Christ's name in front of him or her.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
How would He govern? (Free Will)
The issue of free will is one of debate among Christians. But I think we can all agree that whether or not we ultimately have free will, we act like we do.
And God lets us. Even if God is ultimately pulling the strings, He lets some murderers think that they are enacting their own free will in choosing to kill others. In short, God does not make the world conform to His will--not yet, at least.
Even our risen Lord does "not yet have everything under his feet" (Heb. 2:8). He is in one sense still waiting until his enemies are put under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).
For some mysterious reason, God allows people to disobey His will down here. Indeed, He often allows them to do so far beyond anything we would stomach as a Christian ruler. He allows people to murder and steal from each other. He allows Holocausts, genocide, and millions of abortions. These are some of the most pressing questions of Christian faith, why God allows evil to happen to His people.
Surely our first rule of Christian governance must come into play here--a Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those both within and without the nation. Surely we will not allow murder. Surely we will pass laws that protect our citizens from one another.
But doesn't God show us by the way He governs the world that He much prefers to woo people to Him than to force them to Him? Does He model an approach that seeks to influence and change people so that they come to Him willingly rather than one that focuses on outward action regardless of any heart change?
How do we decide where to force conformity to His will (e.g., murder) and where we allow people to sin to their own detriment?
It is clear that God's model implies that a Christian ruler would not force everyone to believe in God or to go to church. A Christian ruler would seek to influence others to believe in God and go to church, but it would allow the nation the other choice as well, to its detriment.
Would a Christian ruler make sure all businesses were closed on Sunday, to faciliate going to church? I think he or she might--in the 1940's. But I don't think a Christian ruler today would. Why? Because such a law would not draw non-Christians to Christ today. It would push them away.
So we are left with the same question again. Clearly God would have a Christian ruler work for the benefit of all. But God would allow individuals to disobey His will at some points also, to their detriment. What rule of thumb should a Christian ruler use to decide which principle to invoke at what point?
And God lets us. Even if God is ultimately pulling the strings, He lets some murderers think that they are enacting their own free will in choosing to kill others. In short, God does not make the world conform to His will--not yet, at least.
Even our risen Lord does "not yet have everything under his feet" (Heb. 2:8). He is in one sense still waiting until his enemies are put under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25).
For some mysterious reason, God allows people to disobey His will down here. Indeed, He often allows them to do so far beyond anything we would stomach as a Christian ruler. He allows people to murder and steal from each other. He allows Holocausts, genocide, and millions of abortions. These are some of the most pressing questions of Christian faith, why God allows evil to happen to His people.
Surely our first rule of Christian governance must come into play here--a Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those both within and without the nation. Surely we will not allow murder. Surely we will pass laws that protect our citizens from one another.
But doesn't God show us by the way He governs the world that He much prefers to woo people to Him than to force them to Him? Does He model an approach that seeks to influence and change people so that they come to Him willingly rather than one that focuses on outward action regardless of any heart change?
How do we decide where to force conformity to His will (e.g., murder) and where we allow people to sin to their own detriment?
It is clear that God's model implies that a Christian ruler would not force everyone to believe in God or to go to church. A Christian ruler would seek to influence others to believe in God and go to church, but it would allow the nation the other choice as well, to its detriment.
Would a Christian ruler make sure all businesses were closed on Sunday, to faciliate going to church? I think he or she might--in the 1940's. But I don't think a Christian ruler today would. Why? Because such a law would not draw non-Christians to Christ today. It would push them away.
So we are left with the same question again. Clearly God would have a Christian ruler work for the benefit of all. But God would allow individuals to disobey His will at some points also, to their detriment. What rule of thumb should a Christian ruler use to decide which principle to invoke at what point?
How would He govern? (God vis-a-vis world)
The reason that Jesus' ethics in the Sermon on the Mount only seem to give us a partial sense of how a Christian would govern is because his words, like those of so much of the New Testament, were aimed at the governed rather than the governing. Jesus, Paul, Peter and others presume that the situation in which the Christian will find him or herself is one in which the governing force is either completely independent of or more likely hostile toward him/her.
Jesus' words on turning the other cheek picture a person in the role of the slapped. Paul draws a sharp dichotomy between church and state in his comment that we make judgments in the church but that God will judge the world--leave it to Him (1 Cor. 5). Hebrews and 1 Peter both picture the Christian as the stranger and alien on the earth, not as the emperor or senator.
On the one hand, the love ethic--love God and love others--is the greatest absolute of the Christian ethic. God gives no exceptions to this rule, so we can set down the first rule of Christian governance. A Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those within as well as without.
As a side note, it does seem likely to me that for God, His justice ultimately does triumph over His mercy if there is a hell without the possibility of repentance. God is not bound by some abstract "rule" that says He doesn't really want to send people to hell, but He has no choice. If God is God, He has a choice. If God consigns individuals irrevocably to hell, then He must ultimately consider love of Him a priority over love of others.
But I believe the opposite priority is in force on earth. On earth, mercy should triumph over justice. The cross is the ultimate demonstration of this principle.
Of course it is true also that God occasionally does seem to enact justice before mercy on earth as well. While He most of the time gives us a chance to repent up until our deaths, Ananias and Sapphira were immediately taken from the earth. Similarly, if there is such a thing as the unpardonable sin, it is an irrevocable instance of God's justice set in stone on earth. In general, we might suppose that there are people who we observe to be unwaveringly unrepentant. Has God withdrawn the grace that leads to repentance from such individuals? In other words, is this the triumph of justice over mercy even on the earth and before the final judgment?
To return to our subject, the teachings of Jesus while on earth and those of the other New Testament authors do not address as directly the question of governance as they do the question of those governed. A nation will not turn the other cheek long before it makes the transition from the governing to the governed. "If someone shoots an ICBM at the east coast, give the coordinates to the west coast as well"? If this is the Christian way to govern, then Christians will not govern for long. Some take this position--Christians simply should not get involved in governance.
But I would suggest that the most appropriate model God gives us for how a Christian would govern is not Jesus' ethical teaching aimed at the disempowered.
Similarly, I would suggest that it is not God's relationship with Israel that provides the model either. On the one hand, I have already suggested several clear differences between our situation and that of God's relationship with ancient Israel. We have no Moses. We have no biblical basis for thinking ourselves a chosen nation over other nations. And the New Testament modifies several Old Testament laws beyond continuance.
Further, the relationship between God and Israel is more analogous to that of Christ and the church than to that of God and the world. Although Israel often did not keep the covenant, Israel represented those who were "in," as the church (also full of sinners) represents those who are putatively "in."
But a nation like America is not a gathering of those who are "in." It is a mixture of the ins and outs.
In the end, it is the relationship between God and the world or that of the risen Lord and the world that is a closer model. In other words, the biblical model that comes closest to that of a Christian governing a society is that of God governing the world, a world both with people who serve Him and a preponderance of those who don't.
Jesus' words on turning the other cheek picture a person in the role of the slapped. Paul draws a sharp dichotomy between church and state in his comment that we make judgments in the church but that God will judge the world--leave it to Him (1 Cor. 5). Hebrews and 1 Peter both picture the Christian as the stranger and alien on the earth, not as the emperor or senator.
On the one hand, the love ethic--love God and love others--is the greatest absolute of the Christian ethic. God gives no exceptions to this rule, so we can set down the first rule of Christian governance. A Christian will govern with a view to the benefit of those within as well as without.
As a side note, it does seem likely to me that for God, His justice ultimately does triumph over His mercy if there is a hell without the possibility of repentance. God is not bound by some abstract "rule" that says He doesn't really want to send people to hell, but He has no choice. If God is God, He has a choice. If God consigns individuals irrevocably to hell, then He must ultimately consider love of Him a priority over love of others.
But I believe the opposite priority is in force on earth. On earth, mercy should triumph over justice. The cross is the ultimate demonstration of this principle.
Of course it is true also that God occasionally does seem to enact justice before mercy on earth as well. While He most of the time gives us a chance to repent up until our deaths, Ananias and Sapphira were immediately taken from the earth. Similarly, if there is such a thing as the unpardonable sin, it is an irrevocable instance of God's justice set in stone on earth. In general, we might suppose that there are people who we observe to be unwaveringly unrepentant. Has God withdrawn the grace that leads to repentance from such individuals? In other words, is this the triumph of justice over mercy even on the earth and before the final judgment?
To return to our subject, the teachings of Jesus while on earth and those of the other New Testament authors do not address as directly the question of governance as they do the question of those governed. A nation will not turn the other cheek long before it makes the transition from the governing to the governed. "If someone shoots an ICBM at the east coast, give the coordinates to the west coast as well"? If this is the Christian way to govern, then Christians will not govern for long. Some take this position--Christians simply should not get involved in governance.
But I would suggest that the most appropriate model God gives us for how a Christian would govern is not Jesus' ethical teaching aimed at the disempowered.
Similarly, I would suggest that it is not God's relationship with Israel that provides the model either. On the one hand, I have already suggested several clear differences between our situation and that of God's relationship with ancient Israel. We have no Moses. We have no biblical basis for thinking ourselves a chosen nation over other nations. And the New Testament modifies several Old Testament laws beyond continuance.
Further, the relationship between God and Israel is more analogous to that of Christ and the church than to that of God and the world. Although Israel often did not keep the covenant, Israel represented those who were "in," as the church (also full of sinners) represents those who are putatively "in."
But a nation like America is not a gathering of those who are "in." It is a mixture of the ins and outs.
In the end, it is the relationship between God and the world or that of the risen Lord and the world that is a closer model. In other words, the biblical model that comes closest to that of a Christian governing a society is that of God governing the world, a world both with people who serve Him and a preponderance of those who don't.
How would He govern? (Preliminaries 2)
We have established biblically that America is not Israel. We have also hinted that even if we could find a modern "Israel" that had the same relationship as ancient Israel did, God would not deal with them in exactly the same way He did ancient Israel. We have the New Testament to reckon with and the Lordship of Jesus Christ administrated through the Holy Spirit in this domain.
By the way, nor is the current Israel yet the Israel of promise. Most prophecies of return related to the return of Israel from Babylon in 538BC. Paul does predict that all Israel will be saved. But this has not happened--indeed, it is illegal to try to convert people to Christ in modern Israel. Most Israelis are not even religious. The last statistics I heard were that modern day Israel was 85% secular. Perhaps they will become the Israel of promise one day, but it has not happened yet. For all we know, they will be destroyed and restored again before these things happen--if indeed this is the way to interpret these biblical passages.
We now come to another important preliminary: we have no certain Moses among us. If we are to be a theocracy, we must have a Moses to show us the way. Who of us is ready to give a particular denomination the authority to set the law and decide what God's precise will is in law?
Indeed, the history of church and state relations seems often checkered with excesses and ungodliness. I doubt many of us would enjoy Geneva if we were transported to the days when Calvin influenced its laws. Which of us desires to be a pilgrim making his or her way to America to escape the persecution of the Puritans in England or that of the Lutherans and Catholics in Europe? I would not want to be a Catholic bishop under Henry VIII or a Protestant one under Bloody Mary. And while Susanna Wesley was fond of Oliver Cromwell, I personally would not aspire to live under his thumb.
I heard once that Charles Spurgeon, a famous Baptist of England, was once asked why the Baptists never burned anyone at the stake. His answer was immensely insightful: "We were never in power."
We should read the first amendment boundary between church and state against the backdrop of these situations. A healthy distance between church and state saves us from ourselves and from the times we frequently mistake our interpretations and thoughts from those of God.
And the claim that we will base our laws on the Bible is misleading and potentially very dangerous. Whose interpretation of the Bible will you use? Most of those who say this only know to read the Bible as it appears to them and have little awareness of the original meaning of these words--and how different it was from their own thoughts. Both Jesus and Paul model a spiritual interpretation of the Bible's words that cannot be quantified or pinned down. It is only as valid as the Spirit behind the prophecy, and it is always subject to the spirits of other prophets in our midst.
In short, Adam's Fall has impaired our moral and natural image. Entailed in these impairments is a need for checks and balances in our thoughts and understandings, because we are all stuck in our heads. No one person or denomination or nation has a corner on God's thoughts.
By the way, nor is the current Israel yet the Israel of promise. Most prophecies of return related to the return of Israel from Babylon in 538BC. Paul does predict that all Israel will be saved. But this has not happened--indeed, it is illegal to try to convert people to Christ in modern Israel. Most Israelis are not even religious. The last statistics I heard were that modern day Israel was 85% secular. Perhaps they will become the Israel of promise one day, but it has not happened yet. For all we know, they will be destroyed and restored again before these things happen--if indeed this is the way to interpret these biblical passages.
We now come to another important preliminary: we have no certain Moses among us. If we are to be a theocracy, we must have a Moses to show us the way. Who of us is ready to give a particular denomination the authority to set the law and decide what God's precise will is in law?
Indeed, the history of church and state relations seems often checkered with excesses and ungodliness. I doubt many of us would enjoy Geneva if we were transported to the days when Calvin influenced its laws. Which of us desires to be a pilgrim making his or her way to America to escape the persecution of the Puritans in England or that of the Lutherans and Catholics in Europe? I would not want to be a Catholic bishop under Henry VIII or a Protestant one under Bloody Mary. And while Susanna Wesley was fond of Oliver Cromwell, I personally would not aspire to live under his thumb.
I heard once that Charles Spurgeon, a famous Baptist of England, was once asked why the Baptists never burned anyone at the stake. His answer was immensely insightful: "We were never in power."
We should read the first amendment boundary between church and state against the backdrop of these situations. A healthy distance between church and state saves us from ourselves and from the times we frequently mistake our interpretations and thoughts from those of God.
And the claim that we will base our laws on the Bible is misleading and potentially very dangerous. Whose interpretation of the Bible will you use? Most of those who say this only know to read the Bible as it appears to them and have little awareness of the original meaning of these words--and how different it was from their own thoughts. Both Jesus and Paul model a spiritual interpretation of the Bible's words that cannot be quantified or pinned down. It is only as valid as the Spirit behind the prophecy, and it is always subject to the spirits of other prophets in our midst.
In short, Adam's Fall has impaired our moral and natural image. Entailed in these impairments is a need for checks and balances in our thoughts and understandings, because we are all stuck in our heads. No one person or denomination or nation has a corner on God's thoughts.
How would He govern? (Preliminaries 1)
Tomorrow is the religion colloquium at IWU, and I'm supposed to present on this topic. By the way, all are invited and you can get chapel credit (10-1 in the banquet rooms). There will also be a discussion time. I won't present everything I write today here, but I'm priming my pump.
Now that "we" are in power--if indeed moral issues of evangelical flavor pushed Bush over the top--how are we to rule?
My topic is how would God rule?
On the one hand, this is a question that we must filter--because none of us is God. To some degree, we know how God governed ancient Israel. But we are not ancient Israel. For example, the circumstances that led to food laws no longer exist. While there are legitimate grounds for disagreement on this topic, I personally think the food laws had more to do with distinguishing Israel from their neighboring peoples than because of health. After all, did they really cook pork better in Paul's day than they did in the day of Moses?
Similarly, God no longer deals with the earth through a specific ethnic group. The scope of misunderstanding involved in taking Ezra to prohibit interracial dating is staggering. This line of attack is such thinly veiled prejudice that I have no problem dismissing the spiritual advice of any group that would dare twist Scripture and God's will so blatantly.
This latter matter brings us to an important point. Ancient Israel repeatedly demonstrated that they were not worthy or holy enough to be called God's people. Such a designation was truly a matter of God's grace. It was God who called them to be His people, despite their unfaithfulness and unworthiness.
There has been no biblical revelation pronouncing any other nation to be God's people, God's unique mirror to the world. Indeed, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, American nor Russian, Iraqi nor Canadian, but you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I would say that I aspire for America to be conformed to God's will. If by calling ourselves a "Christian nation" we mean that we as individual Americans surrender our lives to God and will try as best we can to work as Americans to bring this nation in conformity to His will--if these things are what we mean, then no problem.
But we are not pure enough and the American flag is not untainted enough to presume itself the new Israel. There is no new Israel. God does not love us Laodicean and Pharisaic American Christians any more than He loves the Christian Iraqis who are currently fleeing for their life. If there were gradations in God's love, I think He would love them more because their Christianity comes with a price.
I believe God is very practical. If I were pastoring, I would not make a big stink about there being an American flag on the pulpit. But I would register what I believe to be God's thoughts on the matter. Thus saith the LORD: "No nation's flag is pure enough to be on a level with Me or My word. Put the flag by the piano if you want, to remind you to use democracy to make America as godly as you can. But don't even dare to think America has arrived spiritually or that your sinful nation is worthy of My favor. It will be by My grace if you are saved; America cannot earn my favor any more than anyone else can."
I believe many of us will have to repent in heaven for our spiritual pride on some of these matters. I believe God will honor the Christians from many, many other nations for a spirituality so much deeper than ours that we will fall on our faces in shame before our Lord at the thought that we were so blind to think ourselves somehow special for where we were born.
Now that "we" are in power--if indeed moral issues of evangelical flavor pushed Bush over the top--how are we to rule?
My topic is how would God rule?
On the one hand, this is a question that we must filter--because none of us is God. To some degree, we know how God governed ancient Israel. But we are not ancient Israel. For example, the circumstances that led to food laws no longer exist. While there are legitimate grounds for disagreement on this topic, I personally think the food laws had more to do with distinguishing Israel from their neighboring peoples than because of health. After all, did they really cook pork better in Paul's day than they did in the day of Moses?
Similarly, God no longer deals with the earth through a specific ethnic group. The scope of misunderstanding involved in taking Ezra to prohibit interracial dating is staggering. This line of attack is such thinly veiled prejudice that I have no problem dismissing the spiritual advice of any group that would dare twist Scripture and God's will so blatantly.
This latter matter brings us to an important point. Ancient Israel repeatedly demonstrated that they were not worthy or holy enough to be called God's people. Such a designation was truly a matter of God's grace. It was God who called them to be His people, despite their unfaithfulness and unworthiness.
There has been no biblical revelation pronouncing any other nation to be God's people, God's unique mirror to the world. Indeed, in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, American nor Russian, Iraqi nor Canadian, but you are all one in Christ Jesus.
I would say that I aspire for America to be conformed to God's will. If by calling ourselves a "Christian nation" we mean that we as individual Americans surrender our lives to God and will try as best we can to work as Americans to bring this nation in conformity to His will--if these things are what we mean, then no problem.
But we are not pure enough and the American flag is not untainted enough to presume itself the new Israel. There is no new Israel. God does not love us Laodicean and Pharisaic American Christians any more than He loves the Christian Iraqis who are currently fleeing for their life. If there were gradations in God's love, I think He would love them more because their Christianity comes with a price.
I believe God is very practical. If I were pastoring, I would not make a big stink about there being an American flag on the pulpit. But I would register what I believe to be God's thoughts on the matter. Thus saith the LORD: "No nation's flag is pure enough to be on a level with Me or My word. Put the flag by the piano if you want, to remind you to use democracy to make America as godly as you can. But don't even dare to think America has arrived spiritually or that your sinful nation is worthy of My favor. It will be by My grace if you are saved; America cannot earn my favor any more than anyone else can."
I believe many of us will have to repent in heaven for our spiritual pride on some of these matters. I believe God will honor the Christians from many, many other nations for a spirituality so much deeper than ours that we will fall on our faces in shame before our Lord at the thought that we were so blind to think ourselves somehow special for where we were born.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Theology 4: God as Good and Just
Christians also believe that God is love (1 John 4:8). Let's take a moment to ponder what this claim might mean in relation to His role as creator.
Plato/Socrates pondered the question "Is good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good." The implicit answer I perceive most Christians to take--and the answer most popular among Christian philosophers and ethicists seems to fall into the category of "God loves good because it is good." Those who take this position would probably not word it this way, but it is how I would categorize their position.
What I mean is that Christians tend to predicate goodness of God's "nature," as something He could not be anything but. The opposing idea is known as "Divine Command Theory." This is the idea that anything God commands is good, even if he were to command someone to offer his only son as a sacrifice (:-)
I have problems with the idea that God loves the good because it is good or because it is His essential nature. For one thing, I'm not sure what this means. Good is a ultimately an adjective when it comes to concrete reality. Only as an abstract concept is it a noun. Are we then saying that God only does "good" things?
But what are good things? A child would say they are things that bring pleasure, while something is bad if it brings pain. Adults come to speak of the "greater good." One person might say these are goods that ultimately bring greater happiness in the philosophical sense (eudaimonia). However, pain may be involved on the way to that greater good.
Talk of a "moral structure" to the universe seems equally ambiguous to me. Even C. S. Lewis reduced such a structure to the fact that people everywhere have a sense of right and wrong, not to a specific list. Indeed, it is very difficult to find a core list of morals accepted by all cultures everywhere. Perhaps all healthy cultures have a sense that it is wrong to kill certain "innocents," although such innocents are variously designated.
Finally, something inside of me wants to say that God could create a universe where the things we think of as bad are good and the things we think of as good are bad. This is not that universe, but there is a part of me that hesitates to venture anything about God's "nature" in anything but a sense relative to this universe. This approach places God beyond our universe in mystery, as it would seem a true God should be--not something our minds can tame and grasp in neat systems of philosophical-theological thought.
Also, I want to allow God to do things that would be evil for me to do even within this universe. The most famous example is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Somehow it seems a cop-out to me to suggest that God was just testing Abraham, that God could never have let Abraham go through with it. I want to say that God sets the rules, He commands and thus defines what is "good."
Nevertheless, I believe that He has defined "good" as love in this universe, where love is both the attitude and the act of benefiting others. He has done this particularly through Christian revelation but also partially through creation. Good thus does involve on a basic level working toward the greatest possible happiness and pleasure of others.
By faith I believe God chooses to operate by His own rules in this universe--that He operates toward the greater happiness and ultimately pleasure of all. But God alone is allowed to violate His own rules--by definition any such action will be good if He does it. Also, His "nature" as love must be balanced with another representation of His "nature" in this universe, namely, His justice...
Plato/Socrates pondered the question "Is good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good." The implicit answer I perceive most Christians to take--and the answer most popular among Christian philosophers and ethicists seems to fall into the category of "God loves good because it is good." Those who take this position would probably not word it this way, but it is how I would categorize their position.
What I mean is that Christians tend to predicate goodness of God's "nature," as something He could not be anything but. The opposing idea is known as "Divine Command Theory." This is the idea that anything God commands is good, even if he were to command someone to offer his only son as a sacrifice (:-)
I have problems with the idea that God loves the good because it is good or because it is His essential nature. For one thing, I'm not sure what this means. Good is a ultimately an adjective when it comes to concrete reality. Only as an abstract concept is it a noun. Are we then saying that God only does "good" things?
But what are good things? A child would say they are things that bring pleasure, while something is bad if it brings pain. Adults come to speak of the "greater good." One person might say these are goods that ultimately bring greater happiness in the philosophical sense (eudaimonia). However, pain may be involved on the way to that greater good.
Talk of a "moral structure" to the universe seems equally ambiguous to me. Even C. S. Lewis reduced such a structure to the fact that people everywhere have a sense of right and wrong, not to a specific list. Indeed, it is very difficult to find a core list of morals accepted by all cultures everywhere. Perhaps all healthy cultures have a sense that it is wrong to kill certain "innocents," although such innocents are variously designated.
Finally, something inside of me wants to say that God could create a universe where the things we think of as bad are good and the things we think of as good are bad. This is not that universe, but there is a part of me that hesitates to venture anything about God's "nature" in anything but a sense relative to this universe. This approach places God beyond our universe in mystery, as it would seem a true God should be--not something our minds can tame and grasp in neat systems of philosophical-theological thought.
Also, I want to allow God to do things that would be evil for me to do even within this universe. The most famous example is God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Somehow it seems a cop-out to me to suggest that God was just testing Abraham, that God could never have let Abraham go through with it. I want to say that God sets the rules, He commands and thus defines what is "good."
Nevertheless, I believe that He has defined "good" as love in this universe, where love is both the attitude and the act of benefiting others. He has done this particularly through Christian revelation but also partially through creation. Good thus does involve on a basic level working toward the greatest possible happiness and pleasure of others.
By faith I believe God chooses to operate by His own rules in this universe--that He operates toward the greater happiness and ultimately pleasure of all. But God alone is allowed to violate His own rules--by definition any such action will be good if He does it. Also, His "nature" as love must be balanced with another representation of His "nature" in this universe, namely, His justice...
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Theology 3: God as Creator
After laying down some ground rules, I'd like to begin now with God.
I start with the faith claim that God created the world out of nothing. This claim seems rational to me in the sense that it is reasonable to believe that the universe had a cause and that its cause was a masterful designer. I do not know enough about astrophysics to speak authoritatively on the physics of such a beginning. But it would seem reasonable that there has only been one beginning and that some cause from beyond this universe is a reasonable trigger.
If God created the world out of nothing, He must be all world powerful. He must at least be able to do anything that is possible to do in this world. We must suspect He can do much more than is possible, but we cannot infer anything beyond this creation using reason alone. We have no point of reference to do so.
If God designed this world out of nothing, He must have knowledge of all possible worlds in conjunction with this universe. He must know all the potentialities of the world. He knows suffering; He knows evil; He gains no knowledge by becoming human. Everything that is to be known in this world is known by Him.
Whether God knows not just all the potentialities but the actualities of the universe is an issue of faith it would seem rather than reason.
But in short, we cannot by reason infer much beyond these inferences relative to our universe. We have no frame of reference by which even to understand what it might mean to be beyond this universe. Reason consigns us to resort to mystery.
Further, we suspect that the revealed truths that Scripture and Christian tradition present us about God's nature are also relative to our understanding. They are the face of God in relation to our universe. Who are we to limit or presume on what a divine "nature" might be in essence beyond this world?
I stand on mystery then. I assume that God has all power and knowledge of all potentialities. By faith I presume He has knowledge of all actualities beyond potentialities. I do not limit God's natures to that which is logically possible in this universe but allow for paradox.
I start with the faith claim that God created the world out of nothing. This claim seems rational to me in the sense that it is reasonable to believe that the universe had a cause and that its cause was a masterful designer. I do not know enough about astrophysics to speak authoritatively on the physics of such a beginning. But it would seem reasonable that there has only been one beginning and that some cause from beyond this universe is a reasonable trigger.
If God created the world out of nothing, He must be all world powerful. He must at least be able to do anything that is possible to do in this world. We must suspect He can do much more than is possible, but we cannot infer anything beyond this creation using reason alone. We have no point of reference to do so.
If God designed this world out of nothing, He must have knowledge of all possible worlds in conjunction with this universe. He must know all the potentialities of the world. He knows suffering; He knows evil; He gains no knowledge by becoming human. Everything that is to be known in this world is known by Him.
Whether God knows not just all the potentialities but the actualities of the universe is an issue of faith it would seem rather than reason.
But in short, we cannot by reason infer much beyond these inferences relative to our universe. We have no frame of reference by which even to understand what it might mean to be beyond this universe. Reason consigns us to resort to mystery.
Further, we suspect that the revealed truths that Scripture and Christian tradition present us about God's nature are also relative to our understanding. They are the face of God in relation to our universe. Who are we to limit or presume on what a divine "nature" might be in essence beyond this world?
I stand on mystery then. I assume that God has all power and knowledge of all potentialities. By faith I presume He has knowledge of all actualities beyond potentialities. I do not limit God's natures to that which is logically possible in this universe but allow for paradox.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Hopes for the Future
It looks like Bush has won, although it may take a day or two for Kerry to admit it.
In some respects this is a relief. I approve of many of the President's faith based initiatives. My Dad does prison ministry in a prison specifically set aside for people of faith. I don't have to worry about Kerry outlawing such things (if he would have). Bush will hopefully appoint Supreme Court judges who do not legislate morality (one way or the other). Perhaps Kerry would have appointed pro-active judges with agendas.
My hopes? I hope that since Bush is in his second term he will come clean with us. I hope he will not worry about politics and will get down to business. I hope he will work on the deficit instead of throwing money at us at least in part so we will like him (I believe he was also trying to help the economy). I hope he's learned his lesson in Iraq and won't go charging any more windmills. I hope he'll show some intelligence in the pursuit of real threats to our security. I hope he'll be a whole lot humbler in his bold initiatives and take the untested advice of conservative think tanks with several grains of salt.
Frankly, I suspect he's learned some lessons. I consider so much of his first term as incompetence and ignorance. I hope he somewhere deep down recognizes that too, even if he doesn't admit it. If he has learned from his mistakes, then he might redeem his first term in the second.
My fears? Well, there is my fear that he hasn't really learned anything, that he isn't just playing politics when he denies that he's made any mistakes. I personally prefer for a different party to control Congress than controls the White House--this provides checks and balances. I fear with an even more conservative Senate Bush will have free reign to experiment on us some more.
I'm also a little scared that we conservative Christians have so much power in America. I'm scared because I don't think we have as much figured out as we think we do. I would never give a Calvin the keys to Geneva, a Bloody Mary or a Cromwell the keys to England. I fear that we might do evil in God's name.
I knew I would feel this way no matter who won--that I would have some hopes overshadowed by even more fears. And so it is, a restless night before more restless days.
I pray the Lord humble us all. The temptation to sin is usually stronger in victory than in defeat.
In some respects this is a relief. I approve of many of the President's faith based initiatives. My Dad does prison ministry in a prison specifically set aside for people of faith. I don't have to worry about Kerry outlawing such things (if he would have). Bush will hopefully appoint Supreme Court judges who do not legislate morality (one way or the other). Perhaps Kerry would have appointed pro-active judges with agendas.
My hopes? I hope that since Bush is in his second term he will come clean with us. I hope he will not worry about politics and will get down to business. I hope he will work on the deficit instead of throwing money at us at least in part so we will like him (I believe he was also trying to help the economy). I hope he's learned his lesson in Iraq and won't go charging any more windmills. I hope he'll show some intelligence in the pursuit of real threats to our security. I hope he'll be a whole lot humbler in his bold initiatives and take the untested advice of conservative think tanks with several grains of salt.
Frankly, I suspect he's learned some lessons. I consider so much of his first term as incompetence and ignorance. I hope he somewhere deep down recognizes that too, even if he doesn't admit it. If he has learned from his mistakes, then he might redeem his first term in the second.
My fears? Well, there is my fear that he hasn't really learned anything, that he isn't just playing politics when he denies that he's made any mistakes. I personally prefer for a different party to control Congress than controls the White House--this provides checks and balances. I fear with an even more conservative Senate Bush will have free reign to experiment on us some more.
I'm also a little scared that we conservative Christians have so much power in America. I'm scared because I don't think we have as much figured out as we think we do. I would never give a Calvin the keys to Geneva, a Bloody Mary or a Cromwell the keys to England. I fear that we might do evil in God's name.
I knew I would feel this way no matter who won--that I would have some hopes overshadowed by even more fears. And so it is, a restless night before more restless days.
I pray the Lord humble us all. The temptation to sin is usually stronger in victory than in defeat.
Monday, November 01, 2004
The Other Side: Can a Republican be a Christian?
Dear Ken,
I’m really struggling with how a Christian could ever vote Republican. I mean Jesus made it the cornerstone of his earthly ministry to help the poor and downtrodden. Republicans are always favoring the wealthy and the powerful. They oppose welfare and programs to help women in trouble. How could a Christian be Republican when Jesus had such strong things to say against the rich?
How could anyone think that the party that opposed civil rights for African-Americans and equal rights for women represented God? If you find a person who belongs to the KKK or is really racist, they’re almost always a Republican. It’s always the Republicans who work against women having equal pay.
And what’s up with the Christians who support this war? How could anyone think Jesus would favor war or capital punishment? How does that fit with turning the other cheek? How could anyone think that the party of guns was the party of Christ? Jesus would be just as concerned with the innocent Iraqis dying as with our troops. How in the world could the party of war be the party of Christ? God told us to love our enemies. I have to consider the hate coming out of the Republican Party a sign that it isn’t of God.
And what’s up with the environment, man? God made this world! How could anyone think it was Christian to spoil God’s land? How can anyone be a Christian and not be absolutely in favor of protecting this world and the environment?
Now I don’t like abortion any more than anyone else, but we Democrats became pro-choice to save the teens that were dying while having back alley abortions in secret. We aren’t pro-abortion; we’re pro-choice. Is it better, a child to grow up in circumstances that make it a child of hell?
And I don’t see the Republicans adopting or going down to the crisis pregnancy center to help anyone. It’s always the Democrats who help these girls. The Republicans are always happy to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. But they don’t really care about the people. Jesus was just the opposite. He didn’t tell people what to do; he tried to help them. What would Jesus vote? He'd be a liberal Democrat, and Jerry Falwell would preach that he was going to hell!
I’m at a complete loss to imagine how anyone could be a Christian and vote Republican. Can you help me out with this one?
Justin
Justin,
You can’t just say that all Republicans think or feel in all these ways any more than you can say all Democrats agree with you. There are a lot of Republicans like me who don’t agree with everything in the Republican platform. I would consider myself fairly pro-environment and relatively anti-war, although I’m not a pacifist.
I also believe we should help the poor and downtrodden, that it is appropriate for the system to work for the empowerment of the little man. To me that isn’t always the same as a “free hand-out.” I do feel that my party has been on the wrong side of most of the social issues these last years, from the civil rights movement to women’s rights.
Abortion is a tougher issue. If abortion is murder—especially late term abortions—then it would seem that the child has a moral claim. But I agree that it doesn’t do for us simply to oppose the abortion while ignoring the problems of these girls.
I don’t think either party has the right to call itself the party of God. The best thing we can all do is to get past such nonsense. God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I suspect we reveal blind spots in our own spirituality if we think one or the other party has a corner on the truth.
Ken
I’m really struggling with how a Christian could ever vote Republican. I mean Jesus made it the cornerstone of his earthly ministry to help the poor and downtrodden. Republicans are always favoring the wealthy and the powerful. They oppose welfare and programs to help women in trouble. How could a Christian be Republican when Jesus had such strong things to say against the rich?
How could anyone think that the party that opposed civil rights for African-Americans and equal rights for women represented God? If you find a person who belongs to the KKK or is really racist, they’re almost always a Republican. It’s always the Republicans who work against women having equal pay.
And what’s up with the Christians who support this war? How could anyone think Jesus would favor war or capital punishment? How does that fit with turning the other cheek? How could anyone think that the party of guns was the party of Christ? Jesus would be just as concerned with the innocent Iraqis dying as with our troops. How in the world could the party of war be the party of Christ? God told us to love our enemies. I have to consider the hate coming out of the Republican Party a sign that it isn’t of God.
And what’s up with the environment, man? God made this world! How could anyone think it was Christian to spoil God’s land? How can anyone be a Christian and not be absolutely in favor of protecting this world and the environment?
Now I don’t like abortion any more than anyone else, but we Democrats became pro-choice to save the teens that were dying while having back alley abortions in secret. We aren’t pro-abortion; we’re pro-choice. Is it better, a child to grow up in circumstances that make it a child of hell?
And I don’t see the Republicans adopting or going down to the crisis pregnancy center to help anyone. It’s always the Democrats who help these girls. The Republicans are always happy to tell someone else what they can and cannot do. But they don’t really care about the people. Jesus was just the opposite. He didn’t tell people what to do; he tried to help them. What would Jesus vote? He'd be a liberal Democrat, and Jerry Falwell would preach that he was going to hell!
I’m at a complete loss to imagine how anyone could be a Christian and vote Republican. Can you help me out with this one?
Justin
Justin,
You can’t just say that all Republicans think or feel in all these ways any more than you can say all Democrats agree with you. There are a lot of Republicans like me who don’t agree with everything in the Republican platform. I would consider myself fairly pro-environment and relatively anti-war, although I’m not a pacifist.
I also believe we should help the poor and downtrodden, that it is appropriate for the system to work for the empowerment of the little man. To me that isn’t always the same as a “free hand-out.” I do feel that my party has been on the wrong side of most of the social issues these last years, from the civil rights movement to women’s rights.
Abortion is a tougher issue. If abortion is murder—especially late term abortions—then it would seem that the child has a moral claim. But I agree that it doesn’t do for us simply to oppose the abortion while ignoring the problems of these girls.
I don’t think either party has the right to call itself the party of God. The best thing we can all do is to get past such nonsense. God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I suspect we reveal blind spots in our own spirituality if we think one or the other party has a corner on the truth.
Ken
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Theology 2: Faith Seeking Understanding
A second matter of prolegomena is a question of approach. Do we presume Christian faith and work to substantiate it? Do we allow for modification or deconstruction of our starting point? If so, to what degree? If we start from a particular Christian faith stance, which one? Or should we start completely from scratch and see if the evidence demands the verdict of faith?
I think for a Christian, the most appropriate place to begin is with faith. If we start from scratch, it is not at all clear that we will reach orthodox faith, since much of what Christians believe may be the result of what is called "special" rather than "natural" revelation. If some of Christian faith would not be known apart from God's special introduction of it into history, then starting from reason alone would not get us to complete truth.
On the other hand, there is enough diversity of Christian belief and change in Christian belief over time that we should probably keep the core faith with which we start relatively small. Basic orthodoxy as it has been believed by the Christians of the centuries provides us with an appropriate starting content of faith. Let's basically start with the Apostle's Creed.
The Bible is also of central importance. But we must remember as we use the Bible that its authoritative meaning has as often as not been a "spiritual" meaning rather than a historical-critical/literal one. Such non-contextual interpretations often disagree with one another, calling for great caution in the use of them. Jesus and Paul both model a certain looseness in relation to the original meanings. These are all important cautions to keep in mind.
To me, the Christian God is a God of truth. "All truth is God's truth." On the one hand, it is true that the evidence does not always lead us to the truth in some matters. Evidence is almost always partial, and we are ultimately stuck in our heads with at least partially skewed perspectives.
Nevertheless, I start out with a bias against the notion that God is a trickster. I do not think He has completely stacked the deck against reason and the evidence. Surely the evidence we have does not point in a dimetrically opposite direction from the truth. Surely it usually will point us in the direction of truth.
My initial bias is thus that it makes sense to believe in God and Christ on the basis of the evidence. While I do not expect the opposite conclusion, I would have to consider a fideist or blind, irrational faith position if we were to reach such a juncture.
Let us begin our quest then in the next entry. Presuming that the Christian God exists, what are His attributes? Is belief in Him reasonable?
I think for a Christian, the most appropriate place to begin is with faith. If we start from scratch, it is not at all clear that we will reach orthodox faith, since much of what Christians believe may be the result of what is called "special" rather than "natural" revelation. If some of Christian faith would not be known apart from God's special introduction of it into history, then starting from reason alone would not get us to complete truth.
On the other hand, there is enough diversity of Christian belief and change in Christian belief over time that we should probably keep the core faith with which we start relatively small. Basic orthodoxy as it has been believed by the Christians of the centuries provides us with an appropriate starting content of faith. Let's basically start with the Apostle's Creed.
The Bible is also of central importance. But we must remember as we use the Bible that its authoritative meaning has as often as not been a "spiritual" meaning rather than a historical-critical/literal one. Such non-contextual interpretations often disagree with one another, calling for great caution in the use of them. Jesus and Paul both model a certain looseness in relation to the original meanings. These are all important cautions to keep in mind.
To me, the Christian God is a God of truth. "All truth is God's truth." On the one hand, it is true that the evidence does not always lead us to the truth in some matters. Evidence is almost always partial, and we are ultimately stuck in our heads with at least partially skewed perspectives.
Nevertheless, I start out with a bias against the notion that God is a trickster. I do not think He has completely stacked the deck against reason and the evidence. Surely the evidence we have does not point in a dimetrically opposite direction from the truth. Surely it usually will point us in the direction of truth.
My initial bias is thus that it makes sense to believe in God and Christ on the basis of the evidence. While I do not expect the opposite conclusion, I would have to consider a fideist or blind, irrational faith position if we were to reach such a juncture.
Let us begin our quest then in the next entry. Presuming that the Christian God exists, what are His attributes? Is belief in Him reasonable?
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Theology 1: Egocentric Predicament
For the indefinite future I want to think about theology. I know a bit about what the church has believed as well as what my church believes. But there are any number of issues where I am not entirely sure what Christians have believed on an issue. That may mean the issue is not yet fully decided.
I hope to dialog with the church as I go along, but I am more just wondering for now. I want to think about things, hoping that the Holy Spirit will help in the thinking and feeling.
One thing theologians debate is where to begin a discussion of theology.
God is the best answer and the one most often given.
But unfortunately, we have also become acutely aware of ourselves as knowers these last two hundred years or so. The post-modern situation has fomented this problem to a crisis.
So it seems that before we can begin our discussion of God, we must clear the air about prolegomena, things that should be said before beginning.
I am stuck in my head. I do not see the world as it is. I see the world as it appears to me. I filter it through the "dictionary" in my head that defines so much more than words.
Mary Douglas once said that "Dirt is matter out of place." It's true. I draw lines around my world and categorize things into boxes. I am not able to hold all the data of the world together as individual data in all its relationships to all other data. I have to schematize and categorize.
In early 97 when I was in Sierra Leone, I found myself witnessing on an afternoon with some nationals. I remember a moment of puzzlement when in the middle of a collection of houses, I suddenly found a hut. This was in the middle of a city, Freetown. House, house, hut, house. It was as if I were suddenly up country in a "primitive" village.
As we approached the hut, two girls returned from school. They both had uniforms on, like you would wear to a parochial school. I watched these girls stoop and enter the hut.
It was just weird to me. I couldn't put my finger on why but my surreal alarms were going off.
In retrospect, I believe what was wierd about this moment was the fact that my paradigms were in conflict. My brain was searching its files for the right category and it came up wanting. My paradigm of the city and of civilization was in conflict with my paradigm of the "primitive" and African village.
Clearly this was not a conflictual matter for any of these individuals.
Now I believe reality exists. I believe this by faith because I don't think I can absolutely prove anything other than "I think therefore I am" (or to be even more accurate, "thought" exists). In the evidentiary sense, therefore, I believe the world is real because this concept "works." I am, therefore, a pragmatic realist.
I evaluate the schemas that I bring to bear on the world on the basis of their use and ability to account for the data and to predict events. I believe the chair I sit on exists because my memory tells me that the things I call chairs have worked almost every time I've sat down (unless someone has pulled it back while I wasn't looking or unless I sat askance on it and fell off).
Therefore, from an evidentiary standpoint, I evaluate truth vs. falsity on the basis of 1. how well the truth proposal accounts for the data I have and 2. its ability to predict events or how well it corresponds to analogous events.
I must acknowledge, however, that I am stuck in my head. While I believe by faith that reality exists and that my mental schemas can correspond effectively to the world, my schemas are not absolute. They are "myths" I use to express the world, which must ultimately be consigned to mystery. These myths work and the better they are, the more precisely they predict events.
So I think the equation for distance in physics is distance equals velocity multiplied by time. Actually, that's a bad example. This equation is true by definition. If velocity is distance in relation to time, then by definition the time multiplied by the velocity yields distance.
This serendipidously leads me to a very important aside. There are a number of axioms about reality that I cannot prove but must assume to think logically. They are things like "any number times one equals that number." We should consider in a later entry whether the foundational nature of logic and number is a proof for the existence of God.
Anyway, by and large my schemas are exactly that, paradigms and mechanisms by which I process the world. I believe these can be better and worse. But ultimately they are more about me than about the world.
This is the starting point for discussing any "knowledge." I take a pragmatic realist position first: the greatest criterion for truth is whether that truth "works." Beyond that I affirm by faith a kind of "critical realist" position. I believe by faith that the world outside myself exists. I believe that my schemas of the world can adequately predict and explain the world, although they are ultimately functions of my head and not the actual reality of the world itself. The actual reality of the world must remain a mystery to me. And as Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent."
Of course that's never stopped me before... :)
I hope to dialog with the church as I go along, but I am more just wondering for now. I want to think about things, hoping that the Holy Spirit will help in the thinking and feeling.
One thing theologians debate is where to begin a discussion of theology.
God is the best answer and the one most often given.
But unfortunately, we have also become acutely aware of ourselves as knowers these last two hundred years or so. The post-modern situation has fomented this problem to a crisis.
So it seems that before we can begin our discussion of God, we must clear the air about prolegomena, things that should be said before beginning.
I am stuck in my head. I do not see the world as it is. I see the world as it appears to me. I filter it through the "dictionary" in my head that defines so much more than words.
Mary Douglas once said that "Dirt is matter out of place." It's true. I draw lines around my world and categorize things into boxes. I am not able to hold all the data of the world together as individual data in all its relationships to all other data. I have to schematize and categorize.
In early 97 when I was in Sierra Leone, I found myself witnessing on an afternoon with some nationals. I remember a moment of puzzlement when in the middle of a collection of houses, I suddenly found a hut. This was in the middle of a city, Freetown. House, house, hut, house. It was as if I were suddenly up country in a "primitive" village.
As we approached the hut, two girls returned from school. They both had uniforms on, like you would wear to a parochial school. I watched these girls stoop and enter the hut.
It was just weird to me. I couldn't put my finger on why but my surreal alarms were going off.
In retrospect, I believe what was wierd about this moment was the fact that my paradigms were in conflict. My brain was searching its files for the right category and it came up wanting. My paradigm of the city and of civilization was in conflict with my paradigm of the "primitive" and African village.
Clearly this was not a conflictual matter for any of these individuals.
Now I believe reality exists. I believe this by faith because I don't think I can absolutely prove anything other than "I think therefore I am" (or to be even more accurate, "thought" exists). In the evidentiary sense, therefore, I believe the world is real because this concept "works." I am, therefore, a pragmatic realist.
I evaluate the schemas that I bring to bear on the world on the basis of their use and ability to account for the data and to predict events. I believe the chair I sit on exists because my memory tells me that the things I call chairs have worked almost every time I've sat down (unless someone has pulled it back while I wasn't looking or unless I sat askance on it and fell off).
Therefore, from an evidentiary standpoint, I evaluate truth vs. falsity on the basis of 1. how well the truth proposal accounts for the data I have and 2. its ability to predict events or how well it corresponds to analogous events.
I must acknowledge, however, that I am stuck in my head. While I believe by faith that reality exists and that my mental schemas can correspond effectively to the world, my schemas are not absolute. They are "myths" I use to express the world, which must ultimately be consigned to mystery. These myths work and the better they are, the more precisely they predict events.
So I think the equation for distance in physics is distance equals velocity multiplied by time. Actually, that's a bad example. This equation is true by definition. If velocity is distance in relation to time, then by definition the time multiplied by the velocity yields distance.
This serendipidously leads me to a very important aside. There are a number of axioms about reality that I cannot prove but must assume to think logically. They are things like "any number times one equals that number." We should consider in a later entry whether the foundational nature of logic and number is a proof for the existence of God.
Anyway, by and large my schemas are exactly that, paradigms and mechanisms by which I process the world. I believe these can be better and worse. But ultimately they are more about me than about the world.
This is the starting point for discussing any "knowledge." I take a pragmatic realist position first: the greatest criterion for truth is whether that truth "works." Beyond that I affirm by faith a kind of "critical realist" position. I believe by faith that the world outside myself exists. I believe that my schemas of the world can adequately predict and explain the world, although they are ultimately functions of my head and not the actual reality of the world itself. The actual reality of the world must remain a mystery to me. And as Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent."
Of course that's never stopped me before... :)
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
A Footnote
I don't know how many people are reading my blog. I know some people in the dorms of Indiana Wesleyan University do. I know a few friends from the beyond have checked in occasionally too. Then there are the occasional visitors from the vast emptiness of the internet who come because they just happen to hit "next blog" the nanosecond after I posted.
I've (thankfully) noticed a difference between some students in my classes their first semester at IWU and then later. Although many take what I say with a grain of salt from the very beginning, some seem all too sponge-like at the beginning. I see those same students around campus their junior or senior year and I can tell they've changed. They know other professors have contrasting positions, and they've come to their own conclusions on many issues.
In short, I trust no one just swallows my comments here. Especially since I am sometimes venting. A blog is an interesting thing. It is like a diary, where you put your feelings. But the fact that others may be reading makes it a bit different.
And by the way, it is enjoyable to interact with others on the things you think when you're driving in your car. It's different from when you're up in front of a class officially representing a university or in a pulpit representing a denomination. And for the record, I think God understands my ignorance and accepts me all the same. I am open to any correction from Him as a standing rule.
But I suppose there is still some responsibility attached to a blog like this, if you know it's being read a little. I absolve whoever might read this blog from any need to take me seriously (most didn't need absolution).
In case you haven't read my comments to the comments made to my blog. I thought I'd mention some of the kinds of things I have expressed in my responses:
1. There is a part of me that feels a little sad when I convince people to change their minds on something. Part of it is the weight of feeling responsible for it. What if I'm mistaken? I'm known somewhat for telling my classes, "Feel free to disagree." Sometimes that means I don't feel completely certain.
At other times it's because I hate to burst people's bubbles. When I discuss how Matthew interprets the OT, I have no problem at all with Matthew. But I'm a little sad to burst the bubble of those who thought Hosea 11:1 straightforwardly predicted the event of Matthew 2:14-15.
There's no debate that Matthew is using the word "fulfill" differently than the way most people think. But I feel sad to be the messenger of this truth to others. Matthew is certainly inspired, but he wasn't saying what my Thompson Chain Reference KJV Bible implied when it catalogued all the OT Scriptures that were "fulfilled" in Jesus.
2. I honestly don't feel like I know who God wants to be elected this year. I view Bush as in over his head, but I think he has good intentions. He really does scare me in terms of the major damage I see him capable of. I'll muse about one reason why he might make me so angry sometimes in a second.
In one note I said the following: "I take fatalistic solace in the fact that Bush will be elected in Indiana no matter who I vote for." What I meant was that even if I cast my vote mistakenly, my vote will not change the outcome. In other words, I feel free to be genuinely mistaken. Of course if I vote, I'll hope I'm voting correctly. But in a twisted way, I won't worry about being wrong because the outcome will be the same.
I really don't think Kerry will do anything anti-Christian as president. I am genuinely open to being convinced that he will. On the one hand, he will not help stop abortion, that's for sure. But I don't think he will promote abortion either. There were fewer abortions under Clinton than under the current Bush, but that probably has to do with the economy as much as anything.
I want to see abortion illegal. I see it as murder. But given the current situation, I think we have to change the culture before that will happen and stick. I see our current efforts to do it through the legal process largely counterproductive and ineffectual. It does not target the hearts and minds, and I think will be consistently unsuccessful.
It is a paradigm I think we have unthinkingly absorbed. One that I fight against as a parent. It is the model that disciplines for justice's sake rather than for redemption's sake. These are my thoughts. These are some I am not 100% sure of, so critique them strongly. My community does not lean this way, so unless I am a prophet, you should bias yourself against me.
On any number of other issues I think the Constitution is in conflict with our Christian values (e.g. matters of homosexuality). I think the model of free will in these areas seeks to influence others for Christ while allowing them to make the wrong choices to their detriment. I think this is the way God does it. But again, my most immediate community seems to disagree with me. So unless I'm a prophet, you should perhaps bias yourself against my position.
3. Why am I so angry at Bush? I could be angry at Kerry. I think Kerry and Edwards are stretching the truth just as I believe Cheney has. There's not going to be a draft. Kerry is probably no great war hero. He can't afford his proposals any more than Bush can his.
I think Bush has made me feel stupid. I really wanted to believe he was doing the right thing leading up to the whole Iraq thing. Now I feel like a fool for even thinking he knew what he was doing.
I feel bad for Colin Powell. Here's someone I really respect and would have liked to see become President one day. I feel like Bush has smeared and shamed his good name both in the administration and in the world.
But most of all, I think Bush reminds me of myself about twenty years ago. Maybe that's the real root of my anger, or not. I look back at myself and the things I thought I knew and I think, "Boy, I was so stupid." I look at Bush and I see someone who thinks they know a lot but are maybe just a little shy of real depth, just as I think was. I see the gullible zealot of my earlier years.
Maybe I fear deep down that I am still as gullible as ever. I perceive Bush as a second rate thinker and scholar, a thinker wanna be. Maybe I'm angry at Bush because I fear I am as two-dimensional in my thinking as I think he is. I don't know.
Then again, maybe it has something to do with my mother. But since Freud may be involved, be sure to think of me and my blog more as the voice of a jester than of a thinker.
I've (thankfully) noticed a difference between some students in my classes their first semester at IWU and then later. Although many take what I say with a grain of salt from the very beginning, some seem all too sponge-like at the beginning. I see those same students around campus their junior or senior year and I can tell they've changed. They know other professors have contrasting positions, and they've come to their own conclusions on many issues.
In short, I trust no one just swallows my comments here. Especially since I am sometimes venting. A blog is an interesting thing. It is like a diary, where you put your feelings. But the fact that others may be reading makes it a bit different.
And by the way, it is enjoyable to interact with others on the things you think when you're driving in your car. It's different from when you're up in front of a class officially representing a university or in a pulpit representing a denomination. And for the record, I think God understands my ignorance and accepts me all the same. I am open to any correction from Him as a standing rule.
But I suppose there is still some responsibility attached to a blog like this, if you know it's being read a little. I absolve whoever might read this blog from any need to take me seriously (most didn't need absolution).
In case you haven't read my comments to the comments made to my blog. I thought I'd mention some of the kinds of things I have expressed in my responses:
1. There is a part of me that feels a little sad when I convince people to change their minds on something. Part of it is the weight of feeling responsible for it. What if I'm mistaken? I'm known somewhat for telling my classes, "Feel free to disagree." Sometimes that means I don't feel completely certain.
At other times it's because I hate to burst people's bubbles. When I discuss how Matthew interprets the OT, I have no problem at all with Matthew. But I'm a little sad to burst the bubble of those who thought Hosea 11:1 straightforwardly predicted the event of Matthew 2:14-15.
There's no debate that Matthew is using the word "fulfill" differently than the way most people think. But I feel sad to be the messenger of this truth to others. Matthew is certainly inspired, but he wasn't saying what my Thompson Chain Reference KJV Bible implied when it catalogued all the OT Scriptures that were "fulfilled" in Jesus.
2. I honestly don't feel like I know who God wants to be elected this year. I view Bush as in over his head, but I think he has good intentions. He really does scare me in terms of the major damage I see him capable of. I'll muse about one reason why he might make me so angry sometimes in a second.
In one note I said the following: "I take fatalistic solace in the fact that Bush will be elected in Indiana no matter who I vote for." What I meant was that even if I cast my vote mistakenly, my vote will not change the outcome. In other words, I feel free to be genuinely mistaken. Of course if I vote, I'll hope I'm voting correctly. But in a twisted way, I won't worry about being wrong because the outcome will be the same.
I really don't think Kerry will do anything anti-Christian as president. I am genuinely open to being convinced that he will. On the one hand, he will not help stop abortion, that's for sure. But I don't think he will promote abortion either. There were fewer abortions under Clinton than under the current Bush, but that probably has to do with the economy as much as anything.
I want to see abortion illegal. I see it as murder. But given the current situation, I think we have to change the culture before that will happen and stick. I see our current efforts to do it through the legal process largely counterproductive and ineffectual. It does not target the hearts and minds, and I think will be consistently unsuccessful.
It is a paradigm I think we have unthinkingly absorbed. One that I fight against as a parent. It is the model that disciplines for justice's sake rather than for redemption's sake. These are my thoughts. These are some I am not 100% sure of, so critique them strongly. My community does not lean this way, so unless I am a prophet, you should bias yourself against me.
On any number of other issues I think the Constitution is in conflict with our Christian values (e.g. matters of homosexuality). I think the model of free will in these areas seeks to influence others for Christ while allowing them to make the wrong choices to their detriment. I think this is the way God does it. But again, my most immediate community seems to disagree with me. So unless I'm a prophet, you should perhaps bias yourself against my position.
3. Why am I so angry at Bush? I could be angry at Kerry. I think Kerry and Edwards are stretching the truth just as I believe Cheney has. There's not going to be a draft. Kerry is probably no great war hero. He can't afford his proposals any more than Bush can his.
I think Bush has made me feel stupid. I really wanted to believe he was doing the right thing leading up to the whole Iraq thing. Now I feel like a fool for even thinking he knew what he was doing.
I feel bad for Colin Powell. Here's someone I really respect and would have liked to see become President one day. I feel like Bush has smeared and shamed his good name both in the administration and in the world.
But most of all, I think Bush reminds me of myself about twenty years ago. Maybe that's the real root of my anger, or not. I look back at myself and the things I thought I knew and I think, "Boy, I was so stupid." I look at Bush and I see someone who thinks they know a lot but are maybe just a little shy of real depth, just as I think was. I see the gullible zealot of my earlier years.
Maybe I fear deep down that I am still as gullible as ever. I perceive Bush as a second rate thinker and scholar, a thinker wanna be. Maybe I'm angry at Bush because I fear I am as two-dimensional in my thinking as I think he is. I don't know.
Then again, maybe it has something to do with my mother. But since Freud may be involved, be sure to think of me and my blog more as the voice of a jester than of a thinker.
Monday, October 18, 2004
A Prophecy: Bush's Third Strike
There are no more debates. Bush is up in the polls. Unless something goes very wrong in Iraq to pin on Bush, it looks like he'll win. Bush should be feeling pretty good about right now.
So what will I be blogging about in a couple years?
I sure hope it isn't the new war Bush has got us into. Frankly, I think he's learned his lesson no matter what he's saying. Under similar circumstances, he'll wait a lot longer before going to war, especially if the nation in question actually has some weapons to fight us with. Any solicitations for international support will not give him the benefit of the doubt again.
I sure hope it isn't about some dirty bomb that slipped through. I will at least partially blame Bush if this happens, because he got us on a tangential mission in the "war against anyone we can see since we can't get at the real terrorists." While we should have been focusing on securing nuclear material and getting Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear business, we've been bleeding to death in Iraq.
No, I think I'll be talking about the immense social crisis Bush's privitization of social security will create. Now I don't know much about the specifics of how it all works. It wouldn't be the first time I was way off. All I have is Bush's record so far and a clear pattern of operation:
Strike 1: "No Child Left Behind"
Here's the pattern: 1. Bush has a good goal. In this case, his thinking was two fold. First he wanted to make sure our children could read, write, and do arithmetic. Second, he bought the non-educator propagated myth that the problem is all the liberal teaching we're funding and that it's cheap to teach a child to read and write.
[The problem with this way of thinking is that the number one problem in the educational system is not the teachers and their liberal tendencies. The problem is the social background of our kids that creates such immense discipline problems in the schools. The teachers want to teach. Some students want to learn. A great deal of other students come with such baggage that these other two parties can't connect.]
Step 2 in the pattern: Bush implements the goal by force rather than with real understanding of the real issues and without any contingency plan if things don't go right. In other words, he has no real plan for how to make it really happen or to deal with problems.
Step 3: things don't work the way he planned and usually crash and burn in some way. In the case of education, Bush has set the right standards but has not dealt with any of the real problems and obstacles. He has held a gun to our educators heads and said, "You figure it out or I'll shoot you." We may have some success on this one, but not many educators think he knew what he was doing.
Strike 2: "The Iraq Debacle"
Here's the pattern again. In step 1 the goal is to free the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime and create an island of democracy in the troubled Middle East. Great goals!
Step 2: Bush goes in without real international support and tries to force the issue with a pre-emptive war against a nation that was not about to attack us. Bush has no plan to make it happen, expects them to welcome us with open arms, sends neither enough troops nor the right equipment, has no sense of how Iraqi people actually think, etc...
Step 3: The mess you currently see. Looting. Beheadings. Over 1000 soldiers dead. And next year we'll reach the 200 billion dollar mark in expenditure (remember that Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for this war and that the blowing up of Iraqi pipelines have been used repeatedly as an excuse to jack up oil prices this last year). The world is not safer yet. We've created new monsters like Zarkawi (by the way, Zarkawi is making his link to Al-Qaeda today, not revealing one that had existed previously).
So what will Bush's next immense lack of foresight be?
Prophecy: Strike Three, the Privatization of Social Security
I'm betting that he will throw millions of elderly people into massive crisis as he again 1. Aims at a good goal, to reform the social security system.
But you can bet he's not smart enough to pull it off. I wonder if anyone would be, but he in particular doesn't inspire confidence in me. I bet millions of elderly people will be thrown into crisis--maybe even after his administration has gone the way of the Dodo. I can't tell you the specifics. I'm just going on Bush's track record. I'm wondering if it will be the most colossal problem of all.
I bet Congress will have to pass massive emergency spending bills to rescue millions of elderly people who suddenly find themselves without a social security check. At worst, I bet it will throw the Stock Market into a dither and create a recession or depression the likes we haven't seen in almost a century.
Now some may see this as a good thing--the system needed to be done away with. Maybe so, but capitalists who look forward to the ultimate good usually don't think too much about the people who get run over in the process. I bet many elderly people will fall through the cracks. I bet many will even die in the neglect of progress and crisis.
It's the insignificant ones that capitalism and evolution don't care about. I bet our families will have to take in some of our elderly aunts and uncles who no longer have a social security check coming.
I'm probably wrong. But I see a pattern here. Bush is all too willing to "wing it" on things he really doesn't know much about. And every time he wings it, lots of people get hurt.
So what will I be blogging about in a couple years?
I sure hope it isn't the new war Bush has got us into. Frankly, I think he's learned his lesson no matter what he's saying. Under similar circumstances, he'll wait a lot longer before going to war, especially if the nation in question actually has some weapons to fight us with. Any solicitations for international support will not give him the benefit of the doubt again.
I sure hope it isn't about some dirty bomb that slipped through. I will at least partially blame Bush if this happens, because he got us on a tangential mission in the "war against anyone we can see since we can't get at the real terrorists." While we should have been focusing on securing nuclear material and getting Iran and North Korea out of the nuclear business, we've been bleeding to death in Iraq.
No, I think I'll be talking about the immense social crisis Bush's privitization of social security will create. Now I don't know much about the specifics of how it all works. It wouldn't be the first time I was way off. All I have is Bush's record so far and a clear pattern of operation:
Strike 1: "No Child Left Behind"
Here's the pattern: 1. Bush has a good goal. In this case, his thinking was two fold. First he wanted to make sure our children could read, write, and do arithmetic. Second, he bought the non-educator propagated myth that the problem is all the liberal teaching we're funding and that it's cheap to teach a child to read and write.
[The problem with this way of thinking is that the number one problem in the educational system is not the teachers and their liberal tendencies. The problem is the social background of our kids that creates such immense discipline problems in the schools. The teachers want to teach. Some students want to learn. A great deal of other students come with such baggage that these other two parties can't connect.]
Step 2 in the pattern: Bush implements the goal by force rather than with real understanding of the real issues and without any contingency plan if things don't go right. In other words, he has no real plan for how to make it really happen or to deal with problems.
Step 3: things don't work the way he planned and usually crash and burn in some way. In the case of education, Bush has set the right standards but has not dealt with any of the real problems and obstacles. He has held a gun to our educators heads and said, "You figure it out or I'll shoot you." We may have some success on this one, but not many educators think he knew what he was doing.
Strike 2: "The Iraq Debacle"
Here's the pattern again. In step 1 the goal is to free the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime and create an island of democracy in the troubled Middle East. Great goals!
Step 2: Bush goes in without real international support and tries to force the issue with a pre-emptive war against a nation that was not about to attack us. Bush has no plan to make it happen, expects them to welcome us with open arms, sends neither enough troops nor the right equipment, has no sense of how Iraqi people actually think, etc...
Step 3: The mess you currently see. Looting. Beheadings. Over 1000 soldiers dead. And next year we'll reach the 200 billion dollar mark in expenditure (remember that Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for this war and that the blowing up of Iraqi pipelines have been used repeatedly as an excuse to jack up oil prices this last year). The world is not safer yet. We've created new monsters like Zarkawi (by the way, Zarkawi is making his link to Al-Qaeda today, not revealing one that had existed previously).
So what will Bush's next immense lack of foresight be?
Prophecy: Strike Three, the Privatization of Social Security
I'm betting that he will throw millions of elderly people into massive crisis as he again 1. Aims at a good goal, to reform the social security system.
But you can bet he's not smart enough to pull it off. I wonder if anyone would be, but he in particular doesn't inspire confidence in me. I bet millions of elderly people will be thrown into crisis--maybe even after his administration has gone the way of the Dodo. I can't tell you the specifics. I'm just going on Bush's track record. I'm wondering if it will be the most colossal problem of all.
I bet Congress will have to pass massive emergency spending bills to rescue millions of elderly people who suddenly find themselves without a social security check. At worst, I bet it will throw the Stock Market into a dither and create a recession or depression the likes we haven't seen in almost a century.
Now some may see this as a good thing--the system needed to be done away with. Maybe so, but capitalists who look forward to the ultimate good usually don't think too much about the people who get run over in the process. I bet many elderly people will fall through the cracks. I bet many will even die in the neglect of progress and crisis.
It's the insignificant ones that capitalism and evolution don't care about. I bet our families will have to take in some of our elderly aunts and uncles who no longer have a social security check coming.
I'm probably wrong. But I see a pattern here. Bush is all too willing to "wing it" on things he really doesn't know much about. And every time he wings it, lots of people get hurt.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
The Christian and the State 6: Conclusion
If the American system is roughly universal egoist and roughly based on the social contract model, how is a Christian to interact with it, given what we've said thus far?
I see two "zones" of interaction:
1. Where the egoist system and Christian values overlap, we should work with the system for the good of all. I would like to call this domain the "zone of concrete consequence." Murder has visible and concrete consequence. The universal egoist bans it so that no one kills him or her. The Christian supports such laws so that no one kills anyone else.
The egoist forbids stealing so that no one will steal his or her stuff. The Christian supports such laws so that no one steals anyone else's stuff.
What about the poor? The universal egoist should reasonably think about the poor for two reasons. The first is that it is always possible that he or she will become poor unexpectedly. In such case the egoist would want some system in place for them to recover.
A second reason is that the discontented have a way of revolting. In previous centuries, these were bloody indeed. "Let them eat cake" is a recipe for disaster. In our world poverty engenders crime and drug traffic.
In short, the empowerment and improvement of the disenfrancised is in everyone's ultimate best interest.
Of course as Christians this issue is a no brainer. In Luke especially Jesus especially targets the poor. When John the Baptist asks Jesus if he is the Messiah, Jesus recounts the "social" ministry he has been engaged in as proof.
Christians should support every aspect of state that empowers those either born or brought into powerlessness. We will even try to stretch the bounds of what the egoist state is willing to do.
Where the egoist system allows individuals to do what they want, as Christians we will try to walk a fine line between the freedom that is the goal of egoism and protecting others from themselves. Seat belt laws stand on a nebulous border here. There is a cultural line that will change over time.
But when there are potentially concrete negative consequences, we will work with the system to avoid them. When there are potentially concrete positive consequences, we will work with the system to reinforce them.
2. I'll call the second zone the "zone of theological consequence."
What do we do when Christian theology tells us that something is wrong, but we cannot clearly see any concrete consequence? For example, what about suicide?
On the one hand, we can plausibly set up a network of protection for those whose desire to commit suicide is chemically caused. On medication, these individuals would want us to stop them from commiting suicide--this is an area of clear consequence.
But what if a person in their "right mind" wants to commit suicide? I don't see how the egoist system could forbid him or her. But most Christians would think theologically that this is a perilous course of action. We would want to stop them. What do we do? The system really has no room for a law against such suicides (I suspect the existing laws will eventually be deemed unconstitutional), but we want to stop these individuals.
And what about homosexual sex or homosexual lust? Clearly the majority of homosexuals don't get AIDS. And in an egoist system, it is questionable that bodily damage to yourself counts if the pleasure you get offsets it. Lesbians in particular do not clearly have any concretely negative consequence for their actions.
But Christians believe that homosexual sex is inappropriate, even when it does not inflict bodily damage. Although laws against it exist, the current Supreme Court has already moved in the direction of considering such laws unconstitutional. What is a Christian to do? We believe that the practice brings eternal harm and want to influence such individuals to change. But at the same time we might have difficulty finding clearly negative concrete consequences in most cases.
We could mention many other issues where most Christians believe something is wrong that does not have demonstrably concrete consequences--or at least bad consequences that we will convince the egoist of.
For example, what of the day after pill or stem cell research? An embryo with 100 cells does not have a nerve tube and cannot feel pain. How will we convince the egoist that this embryo has an egoist claim?
What of sex between consenting adults, say between two 60 year olds whose spouses have both died? How will we convince the egoist that there are concrete consequences that mean we should outlaw this?
In this zone of theological consequence I discern two basic approaches among Christians.
Approach 1: I'll call this the Calvinist approach. Because the true Calvinist does not believe in free will, because the true Calvinist believes that God has chosen who will be saved, the sovereign model of God to the exclusion of free will applies the same model to church-state relations. The Calvinist insists on making the state conform to God's will as he or she understands it.
In our system, the Calvinist approach often tries to co-opt the system (Christ over culture). It takes it over. It tries to use the legal process to make the law conform to its theology.
If the system resists, it may take an opposing stance, Christ vs. culture. It may bomb abortion clinics or engage in civil disobedience of a more Christ-like nature.
The greatest danger with this approach is the fact that it may try to impose a will that in the end is its own rather than God's. The other danger is that this is the wrong model for understanding God. To me it is interestingly close to the fundamentalist Muslim picture of God.
Approach 2: I'll call this the free will approach. This approach does not believe that God would allow anyone to go to hell without a real chance to choose Him. He enables us at some point to make a choice for or against Him. Some choose Him; others do not. God gives humanity the freedom to choose Him for our betterment and the freedom to choose against Him to our detriment.
This approach takes a model of influence rather than force. On matters where Christian values coincide with concrete consequence it works with the system for good. On matters of theological consequence it adopts a model of influence but clear separation. God will judge the world in the end.
Its danger is that it might allow sinners to harm themselves when they might be redeemed by more active "steering." If you favor the Calvinist approach, this is also the wrong model for understanding God.
Which approach do you favor? Since I believe in the second model of God, I lean heavily toward the second model.
I see two "zones" of interaction:
1. Where the egoist system and Christian values overlap, we should work with the system for the good of all. I would like to call this domain the "zone of concrete consequence." Murder has visible and concrete consequence. The universal egoist bans it so that no one kills him or her. The Christian supports such laws so that no one kills anyone else.
The egoist forbids stealing so that no one will steal his or her stuff. The Christian supports such laws so that no one steals anyone else's stuff.
What about the poor? The universal egoist should reasonably think about the poor for two reasons. The first is that it is always possible that he or she will become poor unexpectedly. In such case the egoist would want some system in place for them to recover.
A second reason is that the discontented have a way of revolting. In previous centuries, these were bloody indeed. "Let them eat cake" is a recipe for disaster. In our world poverty engenders crime and drug traffic.
In short, the empowerment and improvement of the disenfrancised is in everyone's ultimate best interest.
Of course as Christians this issue is a no brainer. In Luke especially Jesus especially targets the poor. When John the Baptist asks Jesus if he is the Messiah, Jesus recounts the "social" ministry he has been engaged in as proof.
Christians should support every aspect of state that empowers those either born or brought into powerlessness. We will even try to stretch the bounds of what the egoist state is willing to do.
Where the egoist system allows individuals to do what they want, as Christians we will try to walk a fine line between the freedom that is the goal of egoism and protecting others from themselves. Seat belt laws stand on a nebulous border here. There is a cultural line that will change over time.
But when there are potentially concrete negative consequences, we will work with the system to avoid them. When there are potentially concrete positive consequences, we will work with the system to reinforce them.
2. I'll call the second zone the "zone of theological consequence."
What do we do when Christian theology tells us that something is wrong, but we cannot clearly see any concrete consequence? For example, what about suicide?
On the one hand, we can plausibly set up a network of protection for those whose desire to commit suicide is chemically caused. On medication, these individuals would want us to stop them from commiting suicide--this is an area of clear consequence.
But what if a person in their "right mind" wants to commit suicide? I don't see how the egoist system could forbid him or her. But most Christians would think theologically that this is a perilous course of action. We would want to stop them. What do we do? The system really has no room for a law against such suicides (I suspect the existing laws will eventually be deemed unconstitutional), but we want to stop these individuals.
And what about homosexual sex or homosexual lust? Clearly the majority of homosexuals don't get AIDS. And in an egoist system, it is questionable that bodily damage to yourself counts if the pleasure you get offsets it. Lesbians in particular do not clearly have any concretely negative consequence for their actions.
But Christians believe that homosexual sex is inappropriate, even when it does not inflict bodily damage. Although laws against it exist, the current Supreme Court has already moved in the direction of considering such laws unconstitutional. What is a Christian to do? We believe that the practice brings eternal harm and want to influence such individuals to change. But at the same time we might have difficulty finding clearly negative concrete consequences in most cases.
We could mention many other issues where most Christians believe something is wrong that does not have demonstrably concrete consequences--or at least bad consequences that we will convince the egoist of.
For example, what of the day after pill or stem cell research? An embryo with 100 cells does not have a nerve tube and cannot feel pain. How will we convince the egoist that this embryo has an egoist claim?
What of sex between consenting adults, say between two 60 year olds whose spouses have both died? How will we convince the egoist that there are concrete consequences that mean we should outlaw this?
In this zone of theological consequence I discern two basic approaches among Christians.
Approach 1: I'll call this the Calvinist approach. Because the true Calvinist does not believe in free will, because the true Calvinist believes that God has chosen who will be saved, the sovereign model of God to the exclusion of free will applies the same model to church-state relations. The Calvinist insists on making the state conform to God's will as he or she understands it.
In our system, the Calvinist approach often tries to co-opt the system (Christ over culture). It takes it over. It tries to use the legal process to make the law conform to its theology.
If the system resists, it may take an opposing stance, Christ vs. culture. It may bomb abortion clinics or engage in civil disobedience of a more Christ-like nature.
The greatest danger with this approach is the fact that it may try to impose a will that in the end is its own rather than God's. The other danger is that this is the wrong model for understanding God. To me it is interestingly close to the fundamentalist Muslim picture of God.
Approach 2: I'll call this the free will approach. This approach does not believe that God would allow anyone to go to hell without a real chance to choose Him. He enables us at some point to make a choice for or against Him. Some choose Him; others do not. God gives humanity the freedom to choose Him for our betterment and the freedom to choose against Him to our detriment.
This approach takes a model of influence rather than force. On matters where Christian values coincide with concrete consequence it works with the system for good. On matters of theological consequence it adopts a model of influence but clear separation. God will judge the world in the end.
Its danger is that it might allow sinners to harm themselves when they might be redeemed by more active "steering." If you favor the Calvinist approach, this is also the wrong model for understanding God.
Which approach do you favor? Since I believe in the second model of God, I lean heavily toward the second model.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Round 3
Well, the debates are over. More time to work, which is good. Less time to watch the fireworks, oh well.
I thought both did well enough. I thought both were sincere. They both were clearly appealing to their bases.
Bush was our down home good guy, the guy you laugh with at the barber shop. Kerry was the guy you chat with from your horse while you're fox hunting (as I so often do). No offence to either.
I don't think the math of either really works, but that's typical again of these election games. Promise everything in the campaign. Keep a few promises your first four years, even if it hurts the nation. If you get a second four years, then be realistic. Juvenal said it 1900 years ago--just give them "bread and circuses" and they'll be happy.
I thought Kerry took the "liberal" positions we might expect on many issues, although the political climate has forced him to move toward the center on several matters of foreign policy and economy. I think he will have to follow through on many of these issues if elected, regardless of his biases.
Bush stuck to his guns on his issues. If he's anything, he doesn't alter his course. That's good if you like his course, really bad if the course is off or if you don't like his trajectory.
Kerry apparently either decided to target his base (especially women tonight) or doesn't understand fundamentalists on issues like gay rights and abortion. I'm guessing he was targeting his base because he figures he has never stood a chance of getting the fundamentalists in the first place. He consistently takes a relativist position on these issues--"I have my views, but I can't impose them on others."
Of course Bush generally comes close to saying the same, but his base is willing to overlook his comments as what he needs to say to get by. They believe he will (wink, wink) work things their way once in office.
In short, whoever's policies you support, that's who won tonight.
I thought both did well enough. I thought both were sincere. They both were clearly appealing to their bases.
Bush was our down home good guy, the guy you laugh with at the barber shop. Kerry was the guy you chat with from your horse while you're fox hunting (as I so often do). No offence to either.
I don't think the math of either really works, but that's typical again of these election games. Promise everything in the campaign. Keep a few promises your first four years, even if it hurts the nation. If you get a second four years, then be realistic. Juvenal said it 1900 years ago--just give them "bread and circuses" and they'll be happy.
I thought Kerry took the "liberal" positions we might expect on many issues, although the political climate has forced him to move toward the center on several matters of foreign policy and economy. I think he will have to follow through on many of these issues if elected, regardless of his biases.
Bush stuck to his guns on his issues. If he's anything, he doesn't alter his course. That's good if you like his course, really bad if the course is off or if you don't like his trajectory.
Kerry apparently either decided to target his base (especially women tonight) or doesn't understand fundamentalists on issues like gay rights and abortion. I'm guessing he was targeting his base because he figures he has never stood a chance of getting the fundamentalists in the first place. He consistently takes a relativist position on these issues--"I have my views, but I can't impose them on others."
Of course Bush generally comes close to saying the same, but his base is willing to overlook his comments as what he needs to say to get by. They believe he will (wink, wink) work things their way once in office.
In short, whoever's policies you support, that's who won tonight.
Confessing Christ in a World of Violence
The following is a document drafted by several leading evangelicals, principally Richard Hays of Duke, George Hunsinger of Princeton, Richard Pierard of Gordon, Glen Stassen of Fuller, and Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
Confessing Christ in a World of Violence
Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.
Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?
Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.
* A "theology of war" is emanating from the highest circles of American government.
* The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.
* The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."
The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.
In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.
1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.
We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.
2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.
We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done -- torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction -- regardless of the consequences.
3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed that the distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.
We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.
We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.
5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong. We reject the false teaching that those who are not for our nation politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.
The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.
We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.
Confessing Christ in a World of Violence
Our world is wracked with violence and war. But Jesus said: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God" (Matt. 5:9). Innocent people, at home and abroad, are increasingly threatened by terrorist attacks. But Jesus said: "Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44). These words, which have never been easy, seem all the more difficult today.
Nevertheless, a time comes when silence is betrayal. How many churches have heard sermons on these texts since the terrorist atrocities of September 11? Where is the serious debate about what it means to confess Christ in a world of violence? Does Christian "realism" mean resigning ourselves to an endless future of "pre-emptive wars"? Does it mean turning a blind eye to torture and massive civilian casualties? Does it mean acting out of fear and resentment rather than intelligence and restraint?
Faithfully confessing Christ is the church's task, and never more so than when its confession is co-opted by militarism and nationalism.
* A "theology of war" is emanating from the highest circles of American government.
* The language of "righteous empire" is employed with growing frequency.
* The roles of God, church, and nation are confused by talk of an American "mission" and "divine appointment" to "rid the world of evil."
The security issues before our nation allow no easy solutions. No one has a monopoly on the truth. But a policy that rejects the wisdom of international consultation should not be baptized by religiosity. The danger today is political idolatry exacerbated by the politics of fear.
In this time of crisis, we need a new confession of Christ.
1. Jesus Christ, as attested in Holy Scripture, knows no national boundaries. Those who confess his name are found throughout the earth. Our allegiance to Christ takes priority over national identity. Whenever Christianity compromises with empire, the gospel of Christ is discredited.
We reject the false teaching that any nation-state can ever be described with the words, "the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it." These words, used in scripture, apply only to Christ. No political leader has the right to twist them in the service of war.
2. Christ commits Christians to a strong presumption against war. The wanton destructiveness of modern warfare strengthens this obligation. Standing in the shadow of the Cross, Christians have a responsibility to count the cost, speak out for the victims, and explore every alternative before a nation goes to war. We are committed to international cooperation rather than unilateral policies.
We reject the false teaching that a war on terrorism takes precedence over ethical and legal norms. Some things ought never be done -- torture, the deliberate bombing of civilians, the use of indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction -- regardless of the consequences.
3. Christ commands us to see not only the splinter in our adversary's eye, but also the beam in our own. Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed that the distinction between good and evil does not run between one nation and another, or one group and another. It runs straight through every human heart.
We reject the false teaching that America is a "Christian nation," representing only virtue, while its adversaries are nothing but vicious. We reject the belief that America has nothing to repent of, even as we reject that it represents most of the world's evil. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23).
4. Christ shows us that enemy-love is the heart of the gospel. While we were yet enemies, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10). We are to show love to our enemies even as we believe God in Christ has shown love to us and the whole world. Enemy-love does not mean capitulating to hostile agendas or domination. It does mean refusing to demonize any human being created in God's image.
We reject the false teaching that any human being can be defined as outside the law's protection. We reject the demonization of perceived enemies, which only paves the way to abuse; and we reject the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of supposed benefits to their captors.
5. Christ teaches us that humility is the virtue befitting forgiven sinners. It tempers all political disagreements, and it allows that our own political perceptions, in a complex world, may be wrong. We reject the false teaching that those who are not for our nation politically are against it or that those who fundamentally question American policies must be with the "evil-doers." Such crude distinctions, especially when used by Christians, are expressions of the Manichaean heresy, in which the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil.
The Lord Jesus Christ is either authoritative for Christians, or he is not. His Lordship cannot be set aside by any earthly power. His words may not be distorted for propagandistic purposes. No nation-state may usurp the place of God.
We believe that acknowledging these truths is indispensable for followers of Christ. We urge them to remember these principles in making their decisions as citizens. Peacemaking is central to our vocation in a troubled world where Christ is Lord.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
An Ode to Derrida
Once upon a pan'cras churning
Went the Da to death a learnin'
Over the under takers he received the endless snore
Derrida went over the hill
To fetch beyond the pale
Death fell down and up he went
or down to the hereafter
Cancer comes without a care or bias
Can Sir Derr be present though he's gone?
All that's left is traces chasing traces
The dog is gone and only left a tale
So live that when your summons comes
Comes summons so that you no longer live,
Ol' Jacques had lived in Lethe,
For Lethe now he pines
As his pine box remembers
What in life he had forgot
Because he would have stopped for death
Had no effect on her
So buy some kind of presence here
Lest absence hear and kindly stop by in life, leaving a kind of emptiness.
Went the Da to death a learnin'
Over the under takers he received the endless snore
Derrida went over the hill
To fetch beyond the pale
Death fell down and up he went
or down to the hereafter
Cancer comes without a care or bias
Can Sir Derr be present though he's gone?
All that's left is traces chasing traces
The dog is gone and only left a tale
So live that when your summons comes
Comes summons so that you no longer live,
Ol' Jacques had lived in Lethe,
For Lethe now he pines
As his pine box remembers
What in life he had forgot
Because he would have stopped for death
Had no effect on her
So buy some kind of presence here
Lest absence hear and kindly stop by in life, leaving a kind of emptiness.
Christ/State 5: Universal Egoist/Christian Overlap
To return to the train of thought on Christianity and Government, I suggested in the previous point that while a theocracy would be ideal, it runs into two problems/objections.
The first is that we do not have a perfect "point man" (or woman) on earth between us and God. The interpretive factor means we should stand somewhat loosely between our Christianity and the state. To confuse the two or impose one on the other risks an oppressive system.
The second is that God has not modeled a Christianity equals state perspective for us. The New Testament actually has a "two worlds" model--Caesar's stuff has nothing to do with God's stuff. And God has created a world where the weeds and wheat grow alongside each other (Matt. 13). He gives those who choose to disobey the freedom to do so to their detriment.
These factors push us away from trying to legislate coextensively with our Christianity. God does not call us to make the state look like a particular church. God has created a world in which a Satan or an Adam can fall. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?", Paul says. "God will judge those outside" (1 Cor. 5:12-13).
The situational nature of NT teaching means that the story does not necessarily end with the NT model of church and state. For example, the early church had no role to play in government, unlike our current democratic situation. Nevertheless, the NT does not model the "make the state look like the church" approach so prevalent in conservative Christian circles. We might call this approach the "civil religion" approach, where the American flag and Christian flag stand side by side on our church platforms.
In point of fact, there is a good deal of overlap between the secular, universal egoist system we have been suggesting (and which approximates the basis of our Constitution) and what we would want in a Christian state. The universal egoist system tries to create an environment in which the happiness of all is maximized. Everyone is allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as they do not impinge on the happiness of others.
On the one hand, the Christian approach is not egoist at all. We are to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6). We are to "look not only on your own interests but the interests of others" (Phil. 2). In attitude, the Christian approach is diametrically opposite to the egoist one. We are to surrender our rights and freedoms for the building up of the body (e.g., 1 Cor. 9).
But there is an overlap because both systems work for the happiness of all. The universal egoist works for the happiness of all so that the individual can be happy. The Christian works for the happiness of all because we love our neighbors.
The overlap in terms of law are the rules that keep us from harming one another. The egoist forbids murder so that he or she is not murdered. The Christian works against murder so that the neighbor is not murdered. The egoist forbids stealing so that his or her stuff isn't stolen. The Christian works against stealing so that the neighbor's stuff isn't stolen.
Next entree: what do we do with the points at which the Christian wants to protect the egoist from his or her own misguided pleasure? The egoist system has little room for this.
The first is that we do not have a perfect "point man" (or woman) on earth between us and God. The interpretive factor means we should stand somewhat loosely between our Christianity and the state. To confuse the two or impose one on the other risks an oppressive system.
The second is that God has not modeled a Christianity equals state perspective for us. The New Testament actually has a "two worlds" model--Caesar's stuff has nothing to do with God's stuff. And God has created a world where the weeds and wheat grow alongside each other (Matt. 13). He gives those who choose to disobey the freedom to do so to their detriment.
These factors push us away from trying to legislate coextensively with our Christianity. God does not call us to make the state look like a particular church. God has created a world in which a Satan or an Adam can fall. "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?", Paul says. "God will judge those outside" (1 Cor. 5:12-13).
The situational nature of NT teaching means that the story does not necessarily end with the NT model of church and state. For example, the early church had no role to play in government, unlike our current democratic situation. Nevertheless, the NT does not model the "make the state look like the church" approach so prevalent in conservative Christian circles. We might call this approach the "civil religion" approach, where the American flag and Christian flag stand side by side on our church platforms.
In point of fact, there is a good deal of overlap between the secular, universal egoist system we have been suggesting (and which approximates the basis of our Constitution) and what we would want in a Christian state. The universal egoist system tries to create an environment in which the happiness of all is maximized. Everyone is allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as they do not impinge on the happiness of others.
On the one hand, the Christian approach is not egoist at all. We are to "bear one another's burdens" (Gal. 6). We are to "look not only on your own interests but the interests of others" (Phil. 2). In attitude, the Christian approach is diametrically opposite to the egoist one. We are to surrender our rights and freedoms for the building up of the body (e.g., 1 Cor. 9).
But there is an overlap because both systems work for the happiness of all. The universal egoist works for the happiness of all so that the individual can be happy. The Christian works for the happiness of all because we love our neighbors.
The overlap in terms of law are the rules that keep us from harming one another. The egoist forbids murder so that he or she is not murdered. The Christian works against murder so that the neighbor is not murdered. The egoist forbids stealing so that his or her stuff isn't stolen. The Christian works against stealing so that the neighbor's stuff isn't stolen.
Next entree: what do we do with the points at which the Christian wants to protect the egoist from his or her own misguided pleasure? The egoist system has little room for this.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
The Importance of Mystery for Faith
These last few years I have really come to appreciate the importance of mystery for faith. On the one hand, I think most of us at least pay lip service to the idea that God is beyond our feeble human comprehension. I am less certain that we actually live out this belief.
I really believe that I will have to spend some time in heaven with a dunce cap on my head. How many times have I thought I have "captured" God's thoughts in my puny mind? Balancing out this goal of faith humility with my confident affirmations of faith seems a delicate task. It seems like we are always struggling to walk this fine line between essentials and non-essentials. It's like there should be a kind of footnote on all my thoughts--"These thoughts come by the grace of God by way of my limited human understanding."
But I think there is another very important reason to recognize the mystery of our faith, one in addition to our need to give God His due and acknowledge our feebleness. When we stake our faith on things that, in the end, are not a part of faith, we run the risk of endangering our faith if we begin to doubt those things.
For example, I'm convinced that one of the main reasons there was so much opposition to translations like the NIV when they came out was because many had bound their Christian faith inappropriately to a particular wording of the King James Version. When this was called into question, their faith became insecure.
In some of the lines of Paradise Lost, you can hear Milton's questions in the voice of Adam as he contemplates the emptiness of space. We are hearing the crisis that ensued when people finally became convinced that the earth went around the sun and that the earth was not, apparently, the center of the universe. Milton wrestles just a little with the insignificance of humanity in a vast universe.
One of the problems is that our Christianity is almost always incarnated in the form of a contemporary cultural understanding. In other words, it is always very difficult in some areas for us to see the difference between what in our faith is passing and what is transcendent. We can see differences between us and the world, but we often have difficulty seeing the places where we are conformed to or inappropriately impacted by the world.
An underlying sense of mystery is a valuable safeguard for our faith in such instances. We draw the core small and have strong beliefs on the rest, but we stake our faith on the core and place the rest under the heading of "mystery." If something challeges our faith in this category, we acknowledge our feeble understanding and leave it to the mysterious omniscience of God. Not that the form of our faith was even necessarily wrong--but I remind myself that my faith ultimately does not stand or fall on that particular issue.
What is the core? No one can lay any foundation other than that which is laid: Jesus Christ. Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ, will come again! It is the existence of a God who cares and acts on the world, it is the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, that is essential to Christian belief. If we go much beyond these, we have entered areas where we can be mystified and yet our faith still stand.
I really believe that I will have to spend some time in heaven with a dunce cap on my head. How many times have I thought I have "captured" God's thoughts in my puny mind? Balancing out this goal of faith humility with my confident affirmations of faith seems a delicate task. It seems like we are always struggling to walk this fine line between essentials and non-essentials. It's like there should be a kind of footnote on all my thoughts--"These thoughts come by the grace of God by way of my limited human understanding."
But I think there is another very important reason to recognize the mystery of our faith, one in addition to our need to give God His due and acknowledge our feebleness. When we stake our faith on things that, in the end, are not a part of faith, we run the risk of endangering our faith if we begin to doubt those things.
For example, I'm convinced that one of the main reasons there was so much opposition to translations like the NIV when they came out was because many had bound their Christian faith inappropriately to a particular wording of the King James Version. When this was called into question, their faith became insecure.
In some of the lines of Paradise Lost, you can hear Milton's questions in the voice of Adam as he contemplates the emptiness of space. We are hearing the crisis that ensued when people finally became convinced that the earth went around the sun and that the earth was not, apparently, the center of the universe. Milton wrestles just a little with the insignificance of humanity in a vast universe.
One of the problems is that our Christianity is almost always incarnated in the form of a contemporary cultural understanding. In other words, it is always very difficult in some areas for us to see the difference between what in our faith is passing and what is transcendent. We can see differences between us and the world, but we often have difficulty seeing the places where we are conformed to or inappropriately impacted by the world.
An underlying sense of mystery is a valuable safeguard for our faith in such instances. We draw the core small and have strong beliefs on the rest, but we stake our faith on the core and place the rest under the heading of "mystery." If something challeges our faith in this category, we acknowledge our feeble understanding and leave it to the mysterious omniscience of God. Not that the form of our faith was even necessarily wrong--but I remind myself that my faith ultimately does not stand or fall on that particular issue.
What is the core? No one can lay any foundation other than that which is laid: Jesus Christ. Christ has died. Christ has risen. Christ, will come again! It is the existence of a God who cares and acts on the world, it is the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, that is essential to Christian belief. If we go much beyond these, we have entered areas where we can be mystified and yet our faith still stand.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
The Bible as Sacred Space
Has there ever been a special place that immediately brought back fond memories as soon as you arrived? I enjoyed my years at college greatly, and I got more excited the closer I came on my way back from a break. My college was nestled in the hills of South Carolina, and I always enjoyed the final trek away from the main road and back into the country. It was the same at seminary. I always took a back road up through the hills of Kentucky.
There are many other places that immediately evoke warm feelings and pleasant memories. And of course there are places that bring other feelings and memories. There are songs that immediately conjure the feelings of ended relationships or the thrill of newly begun ones. The other day as I was walking to my car on the campus of Indiana Wesleyan University, the sound of the charilon sounded, "Nearer my God to Thee." Thanks to the movie Titanic, I immediately became melancholy, pictures of those stuck on the Titanic dancing in my head.
It occurred to me the other day that the words of the Bible also occupy a kind of sacred space. God could surely speak to us anywhere through any words--a Reader's Digest for that matter.
But when we walk into the "room" of the Bible, something inside us suddenly becomes more open to hear God. We suddenly find our spirits transported to a spiritual and heavenly place where God speaks to us. It is a place of quiet loudness, of silent communication.
The Bible is a sacrament of revelation, a means of grace by which God takes words and makes them divine.
There are many other places that immediately evoke warm feelings and pleasant memories. And of course there are places that bring other feelings and memories. There are songs that immediately conjure the feelings of ended relationships or the thrill of newly begun ones. The other day as I was walking to my car on the campus of Indiana Wesleyan University, the sound of the charilon sounded, "Nearer my God to Thee." Thanks to the movie Titanic, I immediately became melancholy, pictures of those stuck on the Titanic dancing in my head.
It occurred to me the other day that the words of the Bible also occupy a kind of sacred space. God could surely speak to us anywhere through any words--a Reader's Digest for that matter.
But when we walk into the "room" of the Bible, something inside us suddenly becomes more open to hear God. We suddenly find our spirits transported to a spiritual and heavenly place where God speaks to us. It is a place of quiet loudness, of silent communication.
The Bible is a sacrament of revelation, a means of grace by which God takes words and makes them divine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
