Questions about The Bible?

Ted Lasso, Social Justice, and the Tower of Babel

2021-10-09T22:53:00.004-05:00

This Medium article:

The Imperfect Politics of Ted Lasso

https://gen.medium.com/believe-ted-lasso-bro-bravado-tower-of-babel-a9d0af7c4f

contains this interesting portion about the Tower of Babel:

"Which invites us to a quick visit to the Tower of Babel. Set in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 11:1–9), it’s the short (nine sentences long!) story of the time a bunch of (let’s say) guys tried to climb their way to heaven in response to which God says “Hell no!” and makes everyone suddenly start speaking different languages. It’s often understood as the story of an attempted human overthrow of God’s kingdom in response to which God unleashes a total communications breakdown to keep humans in their place moving forward.
But we can also read this as a timeless (and also timely) teaching about the human political condition: There is never a perfect time or place where “we all speak the same language” — which is to say, even when many of us are literally speaking a shared language, we are still never really speaking a shared language.
It brings us back to history and memory: Your neighbor’s lived experiences are filled with resonances from their own cultural or racialized or minoritized or marginalized past and present which includes the experiences of countless others in her family, community, and positionality who have suffered at the hands of hatreds you will never know, who have been subjected to structures of inequity you will never see, and who have risen up in the spirit of hopes you will never feel. To the extent that we all breathe different histories and presents, we all “speak different languages.”
Setting out to do good politics is about learning to engage with this difficult fact, not “rah-rah” our way over it. And it’s about taking up a spirit of creative political action that is hopeful in just this sense. Not “you’ll do as I expect” hopeful and not “are we having fun yet?” hopeful, but Lasso-believe, imperfect, off-kilter, hanging-on-by-a-thread hopeful. It’s a spirit that is not optimistic, not pessimistic, and certainly not perfect. It’s a kind of “difficult hope” where we sleeve-roll in the face of impossibility and forge imperfect solutions toward radical new futures that break step with the injustices we have created thus far.
Better politics requires real change, including real structural change. And it also requires difficult hope."

The issue with this interpretation of the Tower of Babel story is that it applies current pop-culture sensibilities to a story that offers deep insights into human nature. These insights, when ignored, paradoxically lead to some of the problems our pop-culture have given us today.

What pop culture tells us is with respect to this article is two things: 1) that we are all separated from a shared human experience by race or other categories, and, 2) that politics can be "good."

Taking the second assertion first, politics is a human endeavor, which, in democracies concerns itself with the balancing of values. Asserting that any one priority ranking of values is "good" and any other is "bad" is a human endeavor- not a universal morality endeavor. God does not come down on the side of the conservatives or the liberals. Humans are inherently flawed, thus any kind of human ranking of values is, by its nature, flawed.

The first assertion misses the point of the Tower of Babel story by a mile. The Tower of Babel story is about the hubris of mankind. It is about humans thinking they can reach God if they build a tower tall enough. It is a metaphor- and can be very easily applied to the perpetual idea that human technology or human smarts can fix problems associated with human nature. The current pop-culture idea that humans can usher in "social justice" on Earth. That humans can fix the weather and the climate. That humans can eradicate poverty, rape, war, violence, and disease. That humans can bring an end to injustice.

This hubris was what the Tower of Babel story was about. It was a story that should have told generations of humans that they shouldn't be hubristic. That they shouldn't think they can fix human nature. That they couldn't usher in an age of justice on Earth.

The entire Biblical story was about the Afterlife. It emphasized that justice would never be found on Earth. Humans were inherently flawed. Only through acknowledging that failing could humans be saved. Today's pop culture- increasingly invading into today's Christian religions- preaches an opposite message: that humans can usher in justice on Earth. That humans can fix human nature and Earthly problems. That through our amazing technology and intelligence we can eradicate injustice, poverty, hunger, violence, war, and other ills.

Paradoxically, this misunderstanding of human nature, Christianity, and the Bible's lessons will lead to more injustice, violence, and suffering.

Jesus' Position on Nations, Borders, Politicians, and the Like

2019-07-21T21:36:00.003-05:00

In today's environment it seems there are many in the Church willing to judge others. The President is evil. Republicans are evil. Democrats are evil (although I don't hear this one as much). Those who don't support LGBTQI+ political stances are not Christ-like. Jesus would be in support of open borders. Jesus would favor free health care. The list goes on. The Progressive Church seems bent on judging everyone outside of their political agenda- the agenda of the so-called "Left" as "not Christ-like," sinful, and even evil.

Jesus, however, seemed to come down hard on those who judged:

"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." - John 8:7

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged." - Matthew 7:1

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged." - Luke 6:37

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. " - Luke 6:41-42

What of "nationalism"? Borders? I have heard many progressive Christians declare that Jesus would not support borders. He wouldn't support nations. Political separations.

In today's Old Testament lesson at my church, Genesis 12:1-9 was read:

The LORD had said to Abram, "Go from your country, your people and your father's household to the land I will show you. 2"I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." 4So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Harran. 5He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Harran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there. 6Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. 7The LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him. 8From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD. 9Then Abram set out and continued toward the Negev.

It is a curious passage. The Lord sends Abram away from his country to Canaan and basically tells him He will give him the land that the Canaanites currently had settled. And, of course, He tells Abram that He will make Abram into a great nation. If God or Jesus were against nations and borders, why would God have promised Abram to make him into a great nation? Why give him a swath of land known as Canaan that, obviously had borders associated with it. Egypt was not a part of Canaan.

The New Testament lesson came from Matthew 28: 16-20:

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Did Jesus tell the disciples to go and undo nation-states? Did He tell them to open all the borders? No, He told them to make disciples of all nations.

I don't pretend to know the mind of Jesus or God- their thinking is beyond a mere mortal's. But, I can see what they said and what they did in the scriptures. What Jesus seemed focus on was people's souls. He didn't undo slavery, he didn't usher in democracy and women's rights. He didn't establish free health care or do away with nations, borders, and political institutions. He did not overthrow the Roman Empire.

Thus, it seems to me that the Progressive Church, bent on Earthly things, is making just as much of a mistake as those churches who attempt to manipulate the political system towards the Right. Now, I don't think churches should be banned from engaging in politics, but I do think it is disingenuous to portray one's political platform as conforming to Jesus' preferences. Jesus wasn't here to establish a Heaven on Earth. He was here to save souls. Individual souls. At least that is what His actions seem to portray to me.

Was Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?

2016-01-17T21:04:00.004-06:00

Today many churches are taking very political stands. This is perhaps not new, but the churches in America seem to be dividing along the dual party system of its followers. The more Liberal churches push for social justice, racial equality and civil rights, divestiture of investment from Israel, a minimum wage, gay rights, and Palestinian statehood. The more Conservative churches favor an end to abortion, prayer in schools, the death penalty, and free market Capitalism.

In the past, most of the churches I was involved in didn't talk too much about politics. There were Democrats and Republicans in the pews and matters of importance were mainly how to lead a spiritual life in the mold of Jesus. What did the scriptures say? How can we apply them today?

Lately, however, I have heard more and more preachers speaking politically. This is especially true in the more Liberal churches. Perhaps Conservative preachers have always railed away in the pulpits about Conservative causes, but I have normally attended mixed congregational churches- churches in which one's politics wasn't worn on one's sleeve.

These churches seem to be few and far between now. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is debating whether to take on the Belhar Confession as one of our statements of faith. The Belhar Confession was written in the 80s in South Africa and was meant to address that specific context. Today, applying the Belhar Confession to 2016 America seems to put American churches who adopt it squarely in the Democratic party platform. Some excerpts:

We believe

- that unity is, therefore, both a gift and an obligation for the church of Jesus Christ; that through the working of God's Spirit it is a binding force, yet simultaneously a reality which must be earnestly pursued and sought: one which the people of God must continually be built up to attain

- that this unity must become visible so that the world may believe that separation, enmity and hatred between people and groups is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted

Therefore, we reject any doctrine

which absolutizes either natural diversity or the sinful separation of people in such a way that this absolutization hinders or breaks the visible and active unity of the church, or even leads to the establishment of a separate church formation;
which professes that this spiritual unity is truly being maintained in the bond of peace while believers of the same confession are in effect alienated from one another for the sake of diversity and in despair of reconciliation;
which denies that a refusal earnestly to pursue this visible unity as a priceless gift is sin

We believe

that God has revealed himself as the one who wishes to bring about justice and true peace among people;

that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged;

that God calls the church to follow him in this, for God brings justice to the oppressed and gives bread to the hungry;

that God frees the prisoner and restores sight to the blind;

that God supports the downtrodden, protects the stranger, helps orphans and widows and blocks the path of the ungodly;

that for God pure and undefiled religion is to visit the orphans and the widows in their suffering;

that the church must therefore stand by people in any form of suffering and need, which implies, among other things, that the church must witness against and strive against any form of injustice, so that justice may roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream;

that the church as the possession of God must stand where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.

Therefore, we reject any ideology

which would legitimate forms of injustice and any doctrine which is unwilling to resist such an ideology in the name of the gospel.

We believe that, in obedience to Jesus Christ, its only head, the church is called to confess and to do all these things, even though the authorities and human laws might forbid them and punishment and suffering be the consequence.

Now, some of these lines make perfect sense if they are read in light of the context in which they were written: taking a moral stand against South African apartheid and making the case that the South African Church should not split into two or disallow Blacks to join churches.

For today's American church, however, these lines take on some very different implications. For one, some church leaders have insisted this affirmation of one's faith would naturally support many political causes: gay marriage, a minimum wage, divestiture of Israeli investments, support to Palestine, the social justice agenda, and many more positions normally associated with the Democratic party.

Perhaps more troubling, the confession makes unity a goal above all other goals and categorizes a lack of supporting unity as a sin. When viewed in the sense of Black and White churches in South Africa that makes sense. When viewed in contemporary American terms, it seems to imply that anyone who would advocate breaking away from, in my case the Presbyterian Church USA, would be sinning. This is especially relevant to the case of gay marriage, since many churches are today breaking away from the main denomination in various forms in opposition to the General Assembly's support for gay rights.

What would Jesus think of all of this? If He came around today, walking among us, preaching and healing- what would he say?

I would have to conclude, based on my study of the Bible, that Jesus would not come here to overturn the current political, economic, or social systems. I think he would condemn all groups as being self-righteous and falling short of the Glory of God. I further assert that Jesus would be more concerned about how our lot in our Earthly lives were getting in the way of our spiritual life and the Afterlife. He would tell Republicans that they have become corrupted, miserly, and obtuse. He would tell the Democrats that they have become self-righteous, disingenuous, and corrupted. He would hang out with the vilified social outcasts of "both" sides: convicts and bankers; oil barons and Sean Penn; Monika Lewinsky and Darren Wilson; Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton. He wouldn't support any of these people, and each one He met would come away fundamentally changed.

I think the church is a victim of its institutionalization. It exists as an entity to support humans, and thus is corrupted. It corrupts even more by becoming supporters of political positions. For political positions are Earthly concerns. They are inherently unfair and at least amoral, if not immoral. They are meant to address practical considerations of Earthly life. They are not of concern to the likes of Jesus.

We, as Christians who strive for a better life for the next generation must confront some very troubling truths. Jesus could have fed everyone who was hungry in the world when He walked among us. He could have healed all the sick. A waive of his hand could have toppled the Roman Empire and ushered in a government that brought peace and justice to all. But, he did none of those things. And many were upset by this: they saw him as an Earthly savior.

Jesus, however, was interested in much grander things than in fixing our Earthly experiences. He was interested in our souls. For us to advocate certain political agendas or platforms from our churches would be to miss His entire point.

In Mark, Jesus makes the clearest delineation between what is in the realm of man: government, and what is in the realm of God: man's souls.

Mark 12:13-17
And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone's opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar's.” Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” And they marveled at him.

In Matthew, we find that one cannot serve both God and money. Politics, of course, is the business of dividing money between different groups.

Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."

In Proverbs, we are cautioned to not rely on our own understanding. Politics and using the Bible to support certain political agendas is, if nothing else, relying on our own understanding of things.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

In John, Jesus states very clearly that his interest is not of the Earth and that if it was, he could easily call down his servants to fix whatever he wanted to.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

In Mark, Jesus describes how different Godly things are, they are actually the opposite of what we value on Earth:

Mark 10:42-45
And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

In Matthew, Jesus again points out he is not on the Earth to solve Earthly problems.

Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

And in Matthew he, possibly for the umpteenth time, tells the Pharisees- who were the spiritual leaders of the day- that they are hypocrites:

Matthew 15:7-9
You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

In light of that, how could any religious leaders today be so sure that their understanding of the Bible and Jesus is any better? Surely they shouldn't be so full of hubris...

Lastly, in Matthew 4, verses 1-25, we read about the temptation of Christ. Satan offers Jesus everything: food, rescuing by angels, and all the kingdoms of the world. Jesus answers him with scripture. He doesn't succumb to the temptations of the world- He is after something far greater.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't feed the poor or help the needy. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't vote Democrat (or Republican). But what it strongly suggests is that Jesus was not concerned with our Earthly systems of government, our destined-to-fail attempts to divide up the spoils and rule over ourselves. He wasn't concerned with His church taking sides for certain political platforms. He was only concerned with saving our souls and those individual Earthly choices we make that could get in the way of our souls being united with Him in Heaven.

What is Heaven like?

2015-02-15T19:38:00.000-06:00

What is heaven like?

Four people bowed their heads in silent meditation for a minute, attempting to envision the impossible. What went through our heads?

This question resulted in several thoughts: the usual stuff like clouds and nature, peace, and light. A few comments noted the idea of complete knowledge. Full consciousness, perhaps, a la Caddyshack and the Dalai Lama?

Some folks thought of their struggles with imagining God to begin with. It was hard for all of us to stay within an "envisioning" task.

My own vision was of a journey- hyper fast and starting over clouds, then amongst the stars. At one point my own perspective stopped and reversed- I seemed to see things from a different perspective- not from my own as I seemed to come out from my own perspective and "see" things from- not just another perspective, but from all perspectives. But, suddenly things started to "break down" as my five human senses ended and I took on a new perspective. At that point I was unable to hold the "vision".

What struck me, however, was not all of our descriptions- it was that very few of us could imagine anything that was truly "heavenly". Most, if not all, were actually frustrated or even negative. What is wrong with us that we can't imagine heaven?

I would like to say that we Americans have reached a state wherein we know what it is like to have extended comfort. We don't go hungry- at least not those in my Sunday School. We are rarely cold or too hot. Our lives are not in danger. I wonder if it was easier for past groups of humans to imagine heaven because life was so thoroughly infused with suffering. I bet if we were all living in an Islamic State prison we'd probably have a very clear picture of what heaven was: anywhere but there.

On the other hand, we are humans. All humans must inherently have an issue with imagining the spiritual world, since we so rarely are- if ever- able to experience it. Our physical senses overpower us and leave us blind to the reality of "the spiritual"- hinted about in the Bible and ever-present all-around us, but unable to be "scientifically" proven. How do you test something if the only tools available to you to test things can't test outside of their nature?

And maybe, like many things, its a little bit of both. Rich people, it goes, have a harder time getting into heaven ("Eye of the Needle"). The beatitudes seem to hint at Heaven being reversed from what is important on Earth:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

But, of course, we cannot imagine for a moment what something that is beyond us must be like. And so we rely on metaphor. Peaceful looking father figures with white beards. Clouds. Angels with wings. Light. Heavenly mansions. Pearly gates. A banquet.

I'd like to think I'll someday know what all of this is for. What the purpose of it all is. And maybe it will be so powerful and amazing that it will be Heaven- and it will be beyond all current imagination. Hope in that keeps me going. It is, as someone said, all we have.

Should Christians concern themselves with the politics of the day?

2014-11-16T19:56:00.001-06:00

What if you could solve the most prescient and important issue of the day with a compromise? Do the ends ever justify the means? I asked this question today during Sunday School: "if you could solve THE most important issue of the day that you felt was the most pressing and all you had to do was to agree to carry out drone strikes against terrorists that would kill about 100 really nasty terrorists a year and the only "collateral damage" would be about 20 of their family members- would you do it?" The scenario assumed that without authorizing the strikes, you wouldn't have enough political capital to push through legislation to solve the very important issue.

Some of the issues: education, healthcare, spiritual health, and government gridlock. Others could have included the economy, the gap between the poor and the rich, crime, racism, Global Warming. Some of the class were okay with drone strikes regardless- so it wasn't much of a choice for them. Others were okay with drone strikes if it solved their identified "prime problem". Some were not okay with drone strikes or any kind of killing of innocents- no matter the cause. One person remarked that this kind of compromise issue was why they didn't vote and they further remarked that Jesus would not have used drone warfare.

And that last comment is a very important one: politicians, by design, have to make compromises. At some level the ends DO justify the means for them, or nothing gets done. In fact, some would argue the current problem is that the extremes of the two parties in the U.S. rarely can justify the means any longer- and thus compromise is impossible.

But, the reason that last comment is important is because Jesus was not interested in political change. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" has long separated the two worlds for most of the West and allowed political life to largely exist outside of one religious dogma. Unlike Islam, which describes political life as part of one's religious life, Christianity separated the two. Jesus was interested in saving souls- he was not interested in solving political problems. He did not overthrow the emperor or the king. He did not fix the gap between the rich and the poor. He even advised slaves on how to be good slaves.

And, thus, one must ask whether churches and Christians in general should be "political"- and, if so, how. Should churches take up positions against or for homosexual marriage? Should churches advise people how to vote? Should churches push for more (or less) taxes or free healthcare?

I personally think that churches are in a rough position. Churches to a large extent exist to offer things to their community. Some give food to the poor. Most have ceremonial functions that tie people together, remind others of the past, or bring others spiritual comfort. Many, if not most, assist their members in rough times. And many- if not all- send out emissaries to spread the message and bring in converts. All of these activities and more can lead an institution like a church to favor certain political positions. Some may even think that their political positions are backed by- if not specific Gospel passages- at least some implied ones.

But I do also think that churches have to be careful. Jesus was under no mission to make Earthly life better for Christians or those who were suffering. His focus was on the Afterlife. He seemed to take for granted that "the human condition" was something necessary, something inherently "not fixable", or something that was beyond what He was called on to accomplish.

I often think that systemic problems are not "fixable" by humans. That the nature of humans and life creates problems inherently and thus most solutions will either make things worse or create more problems. Feeding starving children in Africa, for instance, while a noble endeavor, can lead to increased diseases, war, births, and even more starvation. Some have argued that by our own charity we arrest the development of homegrown solutions- something that guarantees more suffering in the long-term. Because we cannot easily trace these kinds of causes, it is easier for us to just give money and hope for the best, feeling good because we "did something".

If human nature and life itself is full of these intractable systemic problems that are only "fixable" through pain, time, and internal development- oftentimes 2.9 steps back for every 3 steps forward (or maybe its 1 step forward and 1 step back- we just think things are "progressing"...)- then maybe church folk should be more wary about approaching political problems from a Christian position. And maybe all Christians should be at least as worried- if not much more- about folks' spiritual needs than they are their Earthly needs. This would get Christians- and possibly churches- out of the business of politics and more in the business of saving souls.

Of course, that begs the question- "what is 'saving souls'"? ....

Some thoughts on handling church controversies

2014-02-09T20:25:00.000-06:00

From a friend:

"As I look back on my life today I am able to see things differently in hindsight, things that at the time seemed to be tragedies- today appear in a different light. Not good or bad, but necessary; necessary towards learning about myself, others, and the world around me. With the benefit of age and wisdom I don’t see myself as much as an individual as I once did, today I appreciate the connections between myself as an individual and between myself and the world in a way in which I was unable to as a youth. Today I value nuance, life, and the small, sweet smells of spring, the clearness of winter, the depth of summer, and the earthiness of fall.

As Tom T Hall once sang:

I love little baby ducks,

Old pick-up trucks,

Slow movin trains, and rain.

I love little country streams,

Sleep without dreams,

Sunday school in May, and hay.

I love honest open smiles,

Kisses from a child,

Tomatoes on a vine, and onions.

I realize that, today, though obviously still a child in the eyes of God, I am no longer a mere infant. I am reminded of the third chapter in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians as they struggled internally as all human institutions do:

“Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?

And so, as I approach the time in my life in which I will be reunited with my maker, I realize that, although I am just now becoming more than a “mere infant”, I am able for the first time to start to break away from the worldly and see things spiritually. I don’t see bad times as I once did: as bad in and of themselves, but as necessary experiences that can be embraced for all of their uncertainty, their pain, their passion, and their disappointment. For what good am I if I cannot share with the less experienced the fact that life has always been about human suffering and human triumph, and not necessarily in that order? Again, turning to Paul and chapter 13 of his first epistle:

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal... ...Love is patient, love is kind... ...It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child… …For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

...And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

And as Tom T Hall closes:

I love winners when they cry,

Losers when they try,

Music when it's good, and life.

I love life. Even with all its trials and tribulations- which are necessary. They make life rich and meaningful. Bring on the bad times. I can only hope that all people will be able at some point to appreciate the gift of trying times. It is in these trying times that our spirits are most tested, useful, and needed. May God bless us all with and during trying times.

If Man is made in God's image, What does that say about God?

2013-07-28T19:08:00.002-05:00

It says nothing: Why ascribing human traits to God is problematic

Today's Sunday School topic in my church class was the age-old debate about why bad things happen to good people (the original question was, "has life turned out the way you thought it would- and, if not- how have you handled that). We took turns describing tough times to each other and our respective reactions to those times. We delved a little- but not too much- into the philosophical side of things. Inevitably the discussion turned to God's "will", His plan, His purpose, and whether life was predestined or not.

I wish we had had some time to discuss the meta-subjects we were unconsciously ignoring. Topics such as: what is "good", what is "bad", and what is "life". Its very difficult in my experience to have a conversation about deep questions like "why do bad things happen to good people" without discussing the foundational assertions that we assume everyone is in agreement on. Rarely, however, have I found folks to agree on fundamental assertions- and therefore we spend a lot of time talking past one another- doomed to disagree but not really sure why.

I have a huge problem ascribing human traits to God. I don't think He is a human (even using the pronoun "He" in my opinion masks the true nature of God by placing him in a human context) and thus to say that God "has a plan" or "has a will" is problematic to me, since the only way I can imagine a plan or a will is to think about how a human has a will or plan. I don't think God works like we do- and therefore I don't think we should waste our time attempting to apply our logic to the way God works in order to explain mysteries that have bedeviled humans for centuries if not mellennia.

Take, for instance, the word "plan". Many of my friends assert that things happen for a reason and it is all part of God's "plan". Now, I am a military planner, so I know a thing or two about how many- if not most- humans attempt to plan. We do it very logically- and in a linear fashion, because that is what our limited reasoning understands the best. We first set an objective or goal. We attempt to be as detailed as possible and we put a time constraint on it, placing it in the category of foretelling or prediction. We then backwards plan through a logical process all of the things that we think we will need to do- milestones if you will- and how they might be related to each other. We either consciously or unconsciously perceive an overarching theory or worldview of how things work that- if wrong- will cause us serious issues in reaching our goal (I've normally seen it done unconsciously, which renders learning- and thus adjusting one's plan- very difficult).

So, when this very human process is applied to real-world problems, chaos many times- if not most- raises its ugly head. When planning deals with human behavior the inevitable issue of emergence arises: humans and human population groups are independent, adaptive, and subjective thinkers and actors and thus give rise to behavior that is impossible to predict. Many cutting-edge planners today advocate learning lessons from complexity theory and evolutionary systems adaption to better understand how we might avoid planning that leaves us no better off- and many times worse off- because we assume a linear causal logic in the world.

I imagine the same can be said of God. I assume that I cannot understand God's mechanics- the way He functions. I assume that He is beyond my understanding in the present state of my existence: wholly reliant on my five Earthly and very human senses to literally make sense of life. So, I would further imagine that God's "plan" isn't any kind of plan that a human could imagine. In fact, I'd take it further and say that His purpose, will, what "good" is and "bad" (in this case "bad" things that happen to "good" people), and other concepts that imply some human quality or interpretation to them should not and cannot be applied to God and issues that deal with God.

So, to answer the original question, I'd first have to think about these questions:

- What is my definition of "life" (up to this point now? just me individually- divorced from others? including the "Afterlife"?)
- At what point am I talking about "planning" from? (a year ago? after High School? after college?)
- Has any plan worked out for me? If I'm in a good place- was it because I planned it? Can we really isolate ourselves from the world around us and analyze that question in an objective fashion?

And, to answer the question about bad things happening to good people, I'd have to think about the following:

- What is the definition of "bad" things?
- Who are these "good" people?
- How do we know the sum total of most or even all "bad" things is "bad"? Can we really analyze "bad" incidents divorced from their context and other incidents happening in conjunction with them?

Before concluding, here are a few prescient passages I found in Bible that deal with the nature of God and His "plan" and "will":

Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts

1 Thessalonians 5:18
Give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

Isaiah 43:18-19
“Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.

Revelation 22:20
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

What do these passages say to me? They hint at a mystery that is beyond me. They cry out for me to be wary of the things of this world- the human characteristics and the five senses I am limited to. To avoid putting human metaphors and characteristics on God. And always be ready to receive new Revelation as opposed to being stuck in the old Traditional ways of interpretation and revealing. I strongly suspect that the make-up of God- the way "He" "works" is truly beyond my comprehension- even to the extent that I have to rely on a terribly limited human language to describe what is indescribable (I think the Jews were on to something when they refused to speak God's true name).

I can only conclude that sometime in the Afterlife God's purpose will be revealed to me. In the meantime I have to trust there is a higher purpose and that part of that purpose is how I deal with the gifts I've received through no effort of my own. I think the reason we have to rely on Grace- and that we can't rely on our works is that our works are for the most part not our own- they come from a mixture of others and who came before us. Works, therefore, are by definition problematic. But, that doesn't mean one should not "work". The effort we put forth- in the face of whatever "bad" things we perceive (and "good" things) IS important if for no other reason than if we put forth no effort- we are slandering the good gifts we have received, and thus in my opinion turning our back on God's grace.

Bad things don't happen to good people. Bad things happen to bad people (humans, in my mind, are flawed- and thus, all "bad"), everyday, all around the world- in fact "bad" things are the norm for most of the world. If these "bad" things include dying- then they are most likely only "bad" for those who are left here. And defining something else "bad" is problematic- it assumes nothing "good" can come out of anything "bad" (people in the "East" would probably have an issue with the false choice presented between "good" and "bad"). We in the West experience an anomaly every day in that we worry about things the rest of the world considers luxuries: how we will beat cancer, how we will lose weight, how we will get the air-conditioning fixed, how we will get more income, how we will hold our marriages together. These are the worries of elites- a people who have long forgotten what it is like to survive on a subsistence level. If the least among us will rule in Heaven, then most Americans will probably be servants.

I don't think God plans or has a will- not, at least, in the way we think of humans planning and having a will. Therefore it literally makes no sense to contemplate whether or not something bad happening to us is God's will or part of His plan. I see no other option but to trust that there is a purpose, that it will be revealed to us one day, and that we must continue to learn and use the gifts we have received to do good- constantly questioning our most cherished assumptions. I propose asking for God's grace implies questioning one's human qualities and perspective. And that that might be the only way to become closer to God on this Earth, in this life.

We Can't Build a More Perfect Union... or World: Getting back to Rendering Unto Caesar

2012-06-24T16:06:00.000-05:00

Recently I made a comment to several military officers that we should not build our doctrine around the perfect scenario- we should write our doctrine reflecting the current reality or, better yet- the worse-case scenario. Specifically we were talking about how we seem to be operating more and more in cases wherein our strategy is unclear and our objectives are ambiguous. Even more upsetting is the lack of support and/or understanding for what we are doing from our populace. Instead of assuming we will get unambiguous guidance and a strategy that is clear and supported by our people, let's figure out, I argued, how we should act when we don't have those things. If we get those positive things- then our effort should be easier. In fact, we often train that way at the tactical level- the thought being that if you train for the worse, then if things are not as bad- then we should be fine.

Why don't we do the same for religion? Many religious folk talk a lot about how we need to make the Earth better and we need to work for peace. There are even many who insert their religion into their politics- I heard one lady on the radio say that the reason a bus monitor was abused by kids was that prayer had been taken out of school. Do we really want our nation to be guided by our faith? What about "rendering to Caesar"? If power corrupts, I'd think the last thing we would want is for our religion to hold political influence. Politics is all about compromise- but religion doesn't seem to be conducive to much compromise.

I think establishing a more perfect Earth and working to get our country to support our faith is similar to the military wishing for the perfect environment with which to carry out operations. I submit that no matter how much we fight to get prayer back in schools, abortion banned, and the ten commandments in courtrooms, the U.S.- and the Earth for that matter- will still have the same issues we have today. Why? Because of human nature. Humans seeking power (all of us) will twist whatever "works" to their own ends- whether it be religion or secularism. If an interest group can take a position of advantage- through either the victim mantle, a righteous position, or simple majority rule- then they will use it to their ends and their ends will eventually become corrupted through their ways and means. Religion is no different and, as we have seen over and over again, religious leaders are just as bad as secular ones.

Instead, I would not advocate inserting religion into politics. Practically speaking, there may be a time or a place where Christians are not the majority- and then what? But, philosophically, I think Christianity is at its best when it is the minority. When it is oppressed. Laughed-at. Even persecuted. Christianity starts turning very peculiar when it is the governing authority in an area. It was a religion that started during trying times- people actually faced much more hunger than they did obesity, subsistence living was the experience of most, and most religious folk faced some kind of persecution of one kind or another- to include death. Today the worst thing that can happen to most Christians in the U.S. is not getting to the restaurant on Sunday for lunch quicker than the church down the street.

I would also encourage us to "prepare for the worst" instead of trying to make things better. Because that assumes we can make things better. And I don't really see where God gave us the mission to make the Earth a perfect place. He wanted us to treat each other better, but I don't think that included setting up a theocracy- or even a republic that was conducive to religion. Instead of assuming we can have it perfect one day- let's assume that no matter what we do, the Earth will remain a place full of faults. That way we can turn our efforts towards that reality- instead of praying for things we should know will not take place. For instance, instead of praying for a certain politician to win, maybe pray for both sides to conduct themselves respectfully. Instead of praying for a person to recover from a disease, maybe pray for everyone who loves that person to be comforted. Things in life will continue to be bad- we cannot build a Tower of Babel on this Earth. Let's accept that and move on to the real business Jesus talked about: spiritual growth and development.

What does the Bible say about the "soul"?

2012-02-12T15:35:00.001-06:00

I had read something interesting the other day- basically saying that Jesus never did talk about the soul or something spiritual surviving after our body died. This interesting article: http://www.ucg.org/death/what-does-bible-say-about-immortal-soul/ left me thinking that even though Jesus might not have said much about an immortal individual soul, that obviously He had changed what the traditional Hebrew thoughts had been about death. What that article goes on to talk about is the influence of Greek thought- specifically an immortal soul- on early Christian thinking.

Is it possible that we Westerners are looking at the Bible- and have for centuries- from a Greek philosophical perspective? Is anything wrong with that? As one friend of mine said- "maybe that was part of God's plan..." Yes- that's true, but maybe it was part of God's plan that the early Church fathers would get it wrong and we, with the advantage of the Internet, are supposed to ignore traditions that are wrong and figure out what Jesus really meant...

As I responded to my friend, "maybe God's plan was for there not to be a plan..."

But, it is interesting, at least to me, to imagine for a second if the first books of the New Testament had been written in an Eastern language instead of in Greek (or translated first into Greek). If we would have gotten an Eastern slant to Jesus' teachings. Would our understanding of "the soul" have been different? And does it really matter?

I argue that it might matter. That our understanding of an individual soul that leaves its body and lives on as an immortal entity may be based on a pre-Christian notion of Plato's and not based on what Jesus really meant. Is it so uncomfortable to think that Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and Origen got it wrong- and that our traditions around all-important entities such as "the soul" have led us to an improper and lazy understanding of the afterlife?

What if, instead of an immortal "soul" that inhabits each one of us, there isn't anything at all? What if there is a soul- but it isn't an individual soul, belonging only to us? What does the Bible- and, more interestingly perhaps, the Gospels- Jesus himself- say about the Afterlife, the soul, and immortality? In the next few posts we'll delve into what scripture says, how Greek thought influenced our understanding of scripture, and some possible other ways- and their implications- of thinking about our spiritual existence, place in the universe, and the Afterlife.

Loving God through Dialectic Thinking (You're not supposed to love God with all your mind?)

2012-02-05T19:56:00.002-06:00

The problems with translation:

I've often heard it that those who wrote the Bible were inspired and guided by God. And those who translated the Bible were too. And even when you read it you are inspired to get the right message. Really? So, if I read a verse in the emptiness of my room- I am guaranteed to know exactly- or even pretty closely-what I'm supposed to from that verse? Or what God really meant or Jesus said? I'm not so sure.

For example, our study group looked at "the greatest commandment"- Matthew 22:37. I figured if we should delve into the true meaning of anything- it would be the greatest commandment. The greatest commandment usually reads something like this in English: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." Seems pretty simple to me- although I'm a little fuzzy on what the heart and soul are. If anything, the mind is the most clear of all of those words.

But let's look at the Greek for that verse- arguably what Matthew was written in (some will hold it was written in Aramaic, but others argue Greek. Regardless, the oldest version we have is Greek and the Latin, German, and English versions came from the Greek).

o de ephē autō agapēseis kurion ton theon sou en olē tē kardia sou kai en olē tē psuchē sou kai en olē tē dianoia sou

Most of the words don't offer too much trouble as far as linking them to the English translation. But, the bold words are worthy of a closer look. First, agapeseis- familiar to most Christians as "agape love". Greek, it turns out, has four words- that I know of- for the English catch-all word: "love". Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storge. In this case, agape was what was used- love the Lord with Agape love. It is defined as a deeper love than the attraction suggested by "eros" and a more sacrificial love than that associated with Philia. Without the Greek translation, Christians would not be familiar with the term "agape"- and its special meaning.

"Kurion" means "Lord." "Kardia" is "heart"- and was meant to depict one's character. "Psuche", or psyche- "soul" was associated with the breath of life, what makes us human- as opposed to an animal. And now we come to "Dianoia".

Dianoia, it turns out, does not mean "mind." Instead, this term was associated with Plato and discursive thinking. Discursive was thinking that came from reason and not one's intuition. Further, reasoning, by the Greeks, was thought of as very difficult- if not impossible- for most humans to engage in... alone. The Greeks overcame this by engaging in dialectic thinking.

The Dialectic is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that relies on two or more open-minded individuals presenting conclusions based on logic to each other and all arriving at a different and higher level of understanding about the particular subject. Note the difference between this method and debating- wherein someone "wins." In the dialectic, everyone is assumed to be wrong, and yet through the sharing of different ways with which to think about a subject- all are changed.

If this is really what Jesus said, then the commandment- remember, the greatest one- the one that all other laws hinge upon- might read more like this:

"Have a sacrificial love for God with your character, your individuality, and through discursive and dialectic thinking."

My conclusion to this is that there may be other areas- areas that are important to our understanding of the Bible and God- that we may benefit greatly from reading the original language it was written in.

Now, some may argue that loving God with one's "mind" may encompass both individual study and dialectic- and even other types- of thinking and that may be true. But if the real command was to engage in reason- and you buy into the Greek concept of reason- that on one's own reason is very difficult- if not impossible- then I'm not sure how one can arrive at any other conclusion but that in order to love God, one must engage others in discourse with an open mind.

Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't read the Bible alone or think about God alone- but I am saying it is possible that that would not be following that specific part of the commandment. It might be that reading the Bible alone fulfills loving God with one's individuality. But loving God with one's dialectic thinking implies more than one person. It also implies an open mind. Even more- it implies using one's mind.

I've heard a lot of people discount using one's senses, reason, and intellect. It is- I think- true that to God we are pretty ignorant. And it should be true in my opinion that we can't possibly be comfortable with any conclusions drawn from our relatively small amount of sensory capabilities. But, I would argue that is why the dialectic is so important. Harnessing the ability of others to further one's own understanding- and contributing to others' understanding: that may be the best we humans can do to overcoming our limitations.

If this is true, then maybe God was attempting to help us by specifically steering us towards the dialectic. It's something worth thinking about...

A "Design" look at the Bible

2011-10-02T22:49:00.000-05:00

My SS class has taken on a critical reading of the Bible in order to explore possible "Big Ideas" and read the Bible with those potential Big Ideas as context (with the idea that reading it without that context could be a very different experience).

As part of our exploration we have delved into Genesis. While researching, I found an interesting piece on how traditional Jewish scholars approached Genesis:

Traditional Jewish scholarship has viewed the creation account in Genesis as expressing spiritual concepts. The Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah states that the actual meaning of the creation account, mystical in nature and hinted at in the text of Genesis, was to be taught only to advanced students one-on-one. Tractate Sanhedrin states that Genesis describes all mankind as being descended from a single individual in order to teach certain lessons.

Among these are:

- Taking one life is tantamount to destroying the entire world, and saving one life is tantamount to saving the entire world.

- A person should not say to another that he comes from better stock because we all come from the same ancestor.

- To teach the greatness of God, for when human beings create a mold everything that comes out of that mold is identical, while mankind, which comes out of a single mold, is different in that every person is unique.

I also stumbled onto another interesting piece about interpreting Hebrew (I pasted his conclusion up-front):

It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.

The Poetry of Genesis Chapter One, Jeff A. Benner

When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.

The most common form of Hebrew poetry is called parallelism. Parallelism is when the writer says one thing in two or more different ways. The Psalms and Proverbs are filled with these such as the examples below.

Psalms 119:105 - "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path." The first part of this verse is paralleled with the second part. This verse is not saying two different things, rather, one thing in two different ways.

Proverbs 3:1 - "My son, do not forget my teaching, and keep my commands in your heart." Again the first part is paralleled with the second part.

Genesis 4:23 - Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me and a young man for injuring me."

Let's break down what Lamech says; [Adah and Zillah, listen to me] = [wives of Lamech, hear my words] then he says; I have killed [a man for wounding me] = [a young man for injuring me]. Lamech did not wound one and injure another, but killed one person and says it two different ways.

Often we overlook what the Bible is telling us because we are not recognizing what the poetry of a passage is attempting to convey. For example look at Psalms 40:8; "I desire to do your will, O my God; your Torah is within my heart" Here we see that doing the will of God is the same thing as having the Torah within your heart.

Now let us look at the Creation story Parallels of Genesis chapter one.

Creation Story Number 1

The first story is found in Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The Hebrew word "bara" is a verb and is usually translated as "create". To really understand what this word means let us look at another passage where this word is used.

1 Samuel 2.29 - Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?' The word "fattening" in the passage above is the Hebrew word "bara". The noun form of this verb is "beriya" and can be found in Genesis 41.4 - "And the cows that were ugly and gaunt ate up the seven sleek, fat cows." The word "fat" is the Hebrew word "beriya".

The word "bara" does not mean, "create" (Hebrew actually has no word that means "create" in the sense of something out of nothing) but "to fatten". If we take the literal definition of "bara" in Genesis 1.1 we have - In the beginning God fattened the heavens and the earth. What does this fattening of the heavens and earth mean? This verse is not showing the creation of the heaven and earth, but rather the fattening or filling up of it. Therefore, Genesis 1.1 is a condensed version of the whole creation story.

Creation Story Number 2

The second creation story paralleling Genesis 1.1 is Genesis 1.2 - "and the earth was unfilled and empty and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Wind of God was hovering over the waters." In this passage we see that the earth was formless and empty before it was filled up, then the Wind of God hovers over the waters of the earth. This hovering would be the action of the Wind of god filling up the earth.

The use of the word "and" at the beginning of this verse may cause some confusion due to an understanding of how this word is used in Hebrew. In English the word "and" in between verses one and two means that what happens in verse two occurs after what happens in verse one. In Hebrew, the word "and" is used in standard Hebrew poetry to link two statements as one. In other words, verse one is the same thing as verse two.

Creation Story Number 3

The third story is found in Genesis 1.3-5. "And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light and God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness and God called the light 'day', and the darkness he called 'night' and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day".

Hebrew, like English, has a word for one and a different word for first. The same is true for the words two and second, three and third, etc. As an example the Hebrew word for "three" is "shelosh", and the Hebrew word for "third" is "sheliyshiy". Days 2 - 7 use the Hebrew word for second, third, fourth, etc. We would assume that the "first" day would use the Hebrew word "reshon" meaning "first" in order to be consistent with the other six days, but instead we have the word "echad" meaning "one" or " in unity". The author is making a parallel with the "first" day and with all the days of creation. I believe this is because all seven days of the fattening of the earth are being united in this verse. The first day of creation is also a parallel with the whole of creation as the earth was in darkness and the act of filling the earth brought light to the earth.

Creation Story Number 4

The fourth creation story is found in Genesis 1.3-13. In these passages we have the first three days of creation. These are the days of separating. On the first day God separated light and darkness. On the second day God separated the waters above from the waters below forming the sky and the seas. On the third day God separated the land from the water forming dry land.

Creation Story Number 5

The fifth creation story is found in Genesis 1.14-31. In these passages we have the second set of three days of creation. On the fourth day God filled the light with the sun and the darkness with the moon and stars. On the fifth day God filled the sky with the birds and the sea with the fish. On the sixth day God filled the dry land with the animals and man. Notice the correlation between the first set of three days of separation with the second set of three days of filling.

Creation Story Number 6
The sixth story is the whole of Genesis chapter one. Though we have looked at five different stories of creation, they are all combined together to form one complete story of creation.

CONCLUSION

It must be remembered that modern western thinkers view events in step logic. This is the idea that each event comes after the previous forming a series of events in a linear timeline. But, the Hebrews did not think in step logic but in block logic. This is the grouping together of similar ideas together and not in chronological order. Most people read Genesis chapter one from a step logic perspective or chronological, rather than from the block logic so prevalent in Hebrew poetry.

I do think we may miss things when we read the Bible- how ancient Hebrews communicated, why they communicated, and who they were communicating with. We take things out of context possibly and discount the manner in which different peoples communicate. Can we understand God without any knowledge of ancient Hebrew- the language, the people, and how and why they communicated? Is it disingenuous to take the Bible literally- especially through an English translation?

The Cappadocian Fathers and "Negative" Theology

2011-02-04T10:55:00.001-06:00

Recently I finished a book called Decoding Reality by Vlatko Vedral. Vedral is a quantum physicist and the book has as its premise that the basic building block of "reality" is information- and especially information at the quantum level. If you aren't up on your quantum mechanics, suffice it to say that scientists have for some time speculated that the smallest level of existence is something called a "quanta"- and at that level Newtonian Physics (what we are used to explaining our reality) doesn't work real well- much like it doesn't work at the massive macro level such as when light travels around large objects (the whole space-time thing and relativity). At the quantum level things seem to do weird things like exist in two states at once, behave randomly, and take their cues from other "quanta".

In his book, Vedral notes that the early (4th Century) Christian "fathers" known as the Cappadocian Fathers- Basil the Great, who was bishop of Caesarea; Basil's brother Gregory of Nyssa, who was bishop of Nyssa; and a close friend, Gregory of Nazianzus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople- used something very close to the scientific method to describe God and to think about Him (These "fathers" were famous for coming up with the explanation of the mystery and Orthodox definition of "the trinity" as well as being the force behind the Nicene Creed, among other things).

The Cappadocian Fathers reasoned that humans could not describe or explain God- as God was too complex and "high" an entity for humans to understand Him and how He worked. By using human words to describe God, they felt, would thus limit God- because human language was by definition made by humans and thus limited to what humans have experienced. Instead, they recommended that we describe God by what God is "not" (similar to the scientific method wherein someone comes up with a hypothesis and the hypothesis becomes stronger through others attempting to disprove the hypothesis through tests).

So, for instance, one would not say God is "good", since that word has a certain limited connotation to humans and might not describe God very well at all. A better way to describe God is that He is "not evil". Another way the Cappadocian Fathers talked about God was to say that they believed in God, but that God did not exist. Their reasoning was that to put the moniker of "existence" on God with the human understanding of that word was problematic- due to our lack of ability to understand how God exists, whether He really does exist like we know of existence, and whether that word even makes sense in God's "world" or reality.

(see this link for an interesting explanation of "Negative Theology": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_theology )

quotes:
"The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists in the same sense that everything else exists. That is to say, everything else that exists was created, but the Creator transcends even existence. The essence of God is completely unknowable; mankind can only know God through His energies."

and:
B"ahya ibn Paquda shows that our inability to describe God is similarly related to the fact of His absolute unity. God, as the entity which is "truly One" (האחד האמת), must be free of properties and is thus unlike anything else and indescribable; see Divine simplicity. This idea is developed fully in later Jewish philosophy, especially in the thought of the medieval rationalists such as Maimonides and Samuel ibn Tibbon.
It is understood that although we cannot describe God directly (מצד עצמו) it is possible to describe Him indirectly via His attributes (תארים). The “negative attributes” (תארים שוללים) relate to God Himself, and specify what He is not. The “attributes of action” (תארים מצד פעולותיו), on the other hand, do not describe God directly, rather His interaction with creation. Maimonides was perhaps the first Jewish Thinker to explicitly articulate this doctrine."

This quote from an article on the Cappadocian Fathers on theandros.com (http://www.theandros.com/cappavision.html), an on-line journal of Orthodox Christian Theology and Philosophy, states some more interesting ideas:

"...Further, the Cappadocians acknowledge two methods of understanding and experiencing God. The first is a method of knowledge by epinoia, an intellectual and rational approximation (a category of kataphatic knowledge). [3] It is used to describe God in a rational realm of the created world and formulates in language manifestations of God in His names and energies. The second is the method of knowledge by means of direct experience. It goes beyond sense perceptions (a category of apophaticism) towards union with God. This constitutes a paradox where God is seen as knowable (kataphasis) and unknowable (apophasis) at the same time.

Gregory of Nyssa agrees that a real knowledge of God is not to be found in the created world, but was careful not to make the cognitive knowledge, even if necessarily limited, seem unimportant. [4] He insists on the absolute transcendence and unknowability of the Trinity, while emphasizing the reasonable accuracy of words as verbal signifiers..."

My initial thoughts on all of this is that it echoes some of the ideas I've had in the past that we be wary of limiting God to what we think the Bible says or what we've grown up learning, or some kind of brilliant deduction we've arrived at in our enlightened years. A thirst for knowledge first and humbleness a close second- realizing one is probably wrong even with new information- will probably serve us well as opposed to a haughty surety that we have arrived at some kind of final knowledge of God.

Other links on this subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_(book)
http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Negative_theology

The Vedral book concludes that we make our own reality. That trees that fall in an empty forest really make no noise. In other words, our interaction with information at the quanta level both reveals and becomes our reality. He postulates that we are in a "Matrix-like" existence, but instead of Neo seeing a false reality constructed by computers, we see a "true" reality constructed by our own interaction with it ("it" being reality and our "seeing" limited to our 5 senses). This dichotomy seems both counterintuitive and hard to understand. And that is the same with attempting to understand God- much like the Cappadocian Fathers reckoned: that we have to have the two ways of understanding and experiencing God (apophatic and kataphatic) because of the paradox that He is both knowable and unknowable.

Occam's Razor and Neo's decision

2010-09-04T07:34:00.008-05:00

In the movie The Matrix, the main character- Neo- had to make a decision at one point in the movie: should he take the blue pill which would keep him in relative comfortable ignorance, or should he take the red pill, which wouldn't promise him anything, but help him discover truth. In the movie, of course, the hero isn't comfortable with ignorance and needs to know the truth, therefore he takes the red pill. He then realizes that he is plugged into a computer and everything he has known as real is false. He "wakes" up and unplugs himself from the computer, thus beginning a long and arduous journey towards "the truth"- one in which he arguably doesn't get very far.

Neo's decision is interesting, however, because I would argue most humans choose the blue pill. Questioning the status quo and the conventional wisdom is hard to do. Going along helps us fit in- a very strong urge in our communities. Being ostracized is not something that human nature rewards. As some have noted (http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php), politics plays a part as well: those in power or have something to lose if the status quo changes have a reason to fight the questioning of said status quo. Is this something we do with religion as well? Do we fight anyone questioning our assumptions or our "Truth"? Are we really that scared that we will lose a debate? Is our faith that shaky?

One recent poster to this blog stated that "this is postmodern rubbish" and implied that to question religious truth is illogical and blasphemous. Is this line of thinking closer to the way Martin Luther thought or more like Pope Leo X? Are we now the entreched, dogmatic and institutionalized Catholic Church of old- incapable of learning, questioning, or accepting of new ideas? Are contemporary Christians more inclined to be comfortable with their blue pills of ignorance or are they strong enough in their faith to take on the red pill of questioning assumptions? One of my friends once told me that questioning things is dangerous as it allows the Devil a way in. Really? Is that why we refuse to question our beliefs- because we are afraid of the Devil? Where is the tradition of "the rock of Peter"- the unshakeable faith that so characterizes earlier Christian trailblazers? Why can't we don our Godly armor, take the red pill, and wade confidently into the complex universe of questions, knowledge, and alternative possibilities?

Occam's Razor is a concept that basically states that among competing theories, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one one should usually go with. Some have used it to argue both for and against God. Religious supporters have said there are fewer assumptions if God created the Earth. More scientific folk say that the concept of God is fraught with assumptions. I take Occam's Razor a different way- and it has something to do with the "postmodern rubbish" mentioned in the previous post and related comments.

To me, knowledge of reality- knowledge of "truths"- is fraught from the get-go, as humans can only make observations through our senses. Therefore, since all known human observations have only been corroborated by other humans, the only thing we can definitely say is "that through our limited senses and position in the universe we have observed the following:________", for all empirical findings. Therefore, science is very limited in terms of explaining "initial conditions" and "universal" truths. To make some of the deductions and inductive reasoning we have made in science is ludicrous without that caveat. The fact that scientists don't caveat their theories and observations with those words- especially Stephen Hawkings new book (http://gawker.com/5629013/stephen-hawking-proves-god-doesnt-exist-in-new-book-or-something) that seems to deny God- is especially troubling to me.

I don't think God can be "proven" (therefore why need "faith"?), but then again I don't think the concept of God can be denied through current science. All of our (humans) observations are distorted through our limited perspective. We occupy a very small portion of the known galaxy (not to mention the unknown), we can only observe phenomena through 5 senses (because of that we can only observe about 20% of the known universe), and we have absolutely no way of independently and objectively verifying anything we observe (we haven't contacted anyone outside even of our solar system- much less universe- to see if what we are "seeing" is consistent with what they "see").

To me, Occam's Razor would hold that "the universe"- i.e. everything "out there"- everything that exists, is most likely NOT explained by physics principles based on human observations from Earth. That to me would take many more assumptions than I can conjure. Instead, the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is that our observations are very localized and only make sense from a local perspective. Thus Newtonian physics works very well- because it fits local conditions. Once one attempts to infer initial conditions of the universe from local observations, one must make vast assumptions- something I curiously never find that scientists do.

I'm not saying this "proves" God, but I am saying that in my mind it says that Earthly-based observations (our science) cannot disprove Him either. Which brings me back to Neo's decision in The Matrix. As Christians we shouldn't be afraid to take the red pill. To take the red pill means to question. It means to risk being ostracized. It means to be skeptical about the conventional wisdom. This would follow in the historical tradition of Jesus and Martin Luther. If we are afraid to question- afraid to listen to new ideas- and would rather remain in the possible ignorance of the blue pill's dogmatic comfort, then not only are we just as bad as the Sadducees and Pharisees who refused to hear a new message and the Catholic hierarchy that fought anything that would upset their positions- but we also may be too weak in our faith. Have faith that God can stand up to scrutiny. Take the "red pill."

Pilate's Question

2010-02-21T14:45:00.000-06:00

The exchange between Pontius Pilate and Jesus in John 18:28-38 illustrates another of the big questions of life. The passage tells us that after Jesus had been arrested, Caiaphas and the Jewish council sent Him to Pilate. The council did so because they wanted Jesus put to death, but under Roman law they had no authority to enact the punishment. Pilate had several questions for Jesus. First Pilate asked whether Jesus was King of the Jews. Jesus responded by asking Pilate if the idea that Jesus was King of the Jews was the latter’s own idea, or if someone had told him that. Pilate, apparently seeking the truth so that justice could be served, wanted to know what Jesus had done, because it was the Jews who had handed Jesus over to the Roman authorities. Jesus indicated that His kingdom was not of this world. Pilate exclaimed, “You are a King, then!”
Jesus reply is astonishing, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
Interesting question, isn’t it? Is Jesus, having established that his kingdom is not of this world, stating that he holds dominion over an idea, which is truth? Pilate does not give Jesus a chance to answer. I doubt Pilate expected one because for him the question is rhetorical. For Pilate, there is no truth. Everything is subjective, and justifiable from a point of view. Pilate is pragmatic; he does what works. In this case he needed to placate the Jewish leaders and avoid riots.
The Bible doesn’t shy away from presenting two philosophies that compete with each other. On the one hand, Jesus proclaims that there is objective truth, that the truth is knowable by anyone, and that he can lead you to it. But he makes claims that are difficult to accept, as are claims made about him. Among them are He and the Father are one, if you believe in him you will have eternal life, and His virgin birth. On the other hand, those that live by the idea that there is no truth, or that it is not knowable, reject Jesus’ testimony because all humans have parents, and all life dies. Those that reject Jesus know these things to be objectively true and therefore his story is unbelievable. How would you resolve these apparent contradictions?

Pharaoh's Question

2010-01-11T20:03:00.000-06:00

Ex 5:1-2 Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the desert.’”
Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord and I will not let Israel go.”
We could get overly focused on the specific command, which was “Let Israel go,” but the substance of Pharaoh’s question is, “Who is the Lord that I should obey him?” Pharaoh’s answer to his own question tells us much about his mindset. He does not know the Lord and therefore will not obey him. Pharaoh’s attitude is, “He is not my Lord, I will not obey him.”
If we accept Pharaoh’s position as true, then a statement that follows logically from it is that who, or what, he will obey is his lord. Pharaoh, as ruler of all Egypt, was arguably the most powerful man in the world. As such, he probably did not believe he had any masters. God sent one man with a staff to Egypt. That man, Moses, who in obedience to the Lord went to Egypt, compelled Pharaoh, thought to be the most powerful man in the world, to obey. Because of the plagues, we realize that Pharaoh learned of the Lord, but we do not know if this changed Pharaoh’s heart. Pharaoh had a belief system that denied there was a God of Israel that had dominion over him. As a consequence, he also decided that God’s command had no authority.
Pharaoh’s world view is still a prevailing doctrine today. Many deny God’s existence, and therefore they think his commands have no basis other than in human tradition. Tradition can always evolve. Still others profess a belief in a higher being, but deny any authority over human behavior.
I struggle with obedience too. I have not rid my life of sin. So I am asking myself, if I give in to my sinful desires, has sin mastered me? If I obey my cravings, are they my lord? Even if I deny God’s sovereignty, am I really my own master? What lies and rationalizations I spin for myself. How about you? What do you obey? What is your master?

The Akashic Field Part II: Unexplained mysteries

2009-11-20T22:35:00.006-06:00

(This is part II of a review of Ervin Laszlo's book, Science and the Akashic Field- see part I below)

At the core of Laszlo's book is the idea that the Universe is guided by an "informational" field, or, as he calls it: the "A-field". This name is taken from the Sanskrit word for "ether", Akashic. He describes the field as something akin to the Gravitational Field in that one cannot see it, feel it, or directly observe it- but one can infer that it exists from the way things may interact with it. This informational field, may inform all things in the Universe- from the smallest entities like quanta to massively large cosmological things like stars, planets, solar systems, and the actual universe itself.

What kinds of things can one infer an informational field from? Here Laszlo lists many different puzzles that do not make any sense when looked at from the conventional scientific point of view.

A. Cosmic mysteries:

1) The staggeringly fine-tuning of the universe: if the "Big Bang" had produced just one billionth more or less matter than it did, space-time would have been curved even in the absence of matter (it is flat in the absence of matter).

2) The missing "mass" of the universe: even when scientists use dark matter to account for a huge chunk of the mass in the universe that they cannot see, there is still a massive amount "missing".

3) The accelerating cosmos: the cosmos should be slowing down.

4) Coherence of cosmic ratios: the mass of elementary particles, the number of particles, and the forces that exist between them are all mysteriously adjusted to favor certain ratios that appear over and over.

5) the "horizon" problem: the cosmos is evolving exactly the same in every direction from the Earth, but that kind of coherence doesn't make any sense- nothing could travel that fast to make sure it stayed coherent.

6) fine-tuning of universal constants: the universe seems very finely tuned for the extremely improbable conditions for which life can emerge and evolve.

Conclusion from cosmic mysteries: something is connecting everything in the Universe, and thus the universe may not have risen in the context of random fluctuations.

B. Puzzles of Quantum Physics:

1) Quanta (the most infinitesimal unit of any entity) do not exist in just one state. Until interacted with they display the counterintuitive behavior of being in multiple states at the same time.

2) Once a quanta is interacted with, it "becomes" one state- but there appears to be no way of telling beforehand which state it will become- it seems to choose its state from some other way than the act of the interaction.

3) You cannot measure both speed and energy of a quanta at the same time- when one is measured, the other becomes "blurred".

4) Quanta that are linked somehow remain linked: even when taken far apart, when one is observed, the other takes on a complimentary state based on its linked partner.

5) In one system, all the quanta are linked in such a way that not only will all take on a state based on another quanta- if one is individually measured the others will take on a complimentary state- even if the experiment is not carried out.

Conclusion from activity at the quanta level: Newtonian physics works on Earth- but ran into trouble once we split the atom. Then Einstein came up with Relativity- which is very hard to understand as it does not mirror what we see in everyday life. Now that concept is having trouble since quantum mechanics has come along. Something even more counterintuitive is needed to explain the phenomena we are now experiencing. What can connect quanta and make them behave the way they do? No matter how far apart- even light years away- quanta are somehow correlated. How does that happen?

C. Puzzles with Biology

1) organisms are extremely coherent: experiments in quantum biology have shown connections between organs in the body and in particles within organs.

2) organisms are coherent with their environment: without an internal fine-tuning to the external, organisms would have not been able to adapt to changing environments and would have been eliminated by natural selection.

3) The Darwinian concept of the separation of the genome from its environment is not correct- it has been proven so by statistics and experimentation: offspring can adapt in such a way that the same environment would have killed the parent. Statistics proves that chance mutations and natural selection could never have resulted in life in such a "short" period as it did on Earth.

Conclusion from Quantum biology: we are not only internally coherent, we also are coherent and correlated with the outside world. Not only that, but something guided the evolution of life- chance and destruction of the weak couldn't have done it.

D. Puzzles with Conscience research:

1) The measured effects of "non-local" events: groups praying for hospitalized individuals were able to have a statistically significant impact on those hospitalized when compared to those who were not prayed for.

2) Cultures developing similar artifacts and other cultural connections and correlations although they were never in contact.

Conclusion: not only are we coherent within ourselves and the outside world, but we are coherent with each other.

Conclusion from all this: things on the micro, macro, and even "ordinary" (from the human perspective) scales are surprisingly coherent and correlated. What makes this coherency and correlation happen?

A possible solution is an informational field that we cannot detect, but that "informs" everything in the Universe, guides all evolution, and connects us to everything. What does it mean? This is a question Lazslo will attempt to answer, but one in which we can attempt to answer for ourselves as well. What are the implications of some of these ideas on us as Christians? On our understanding of God and our purpose here? On life and the afterlife?

The Akashic Field: Part I

2009-11-11T18:53:00.011-06:00

In the coming weeks I will attempt to explain parts of a book called Science and the Akashic Field (http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html). This book explores an "integral theory of everything", or- as Einstein liked to call it: "reading the mind of God." The book is a fascinating look at some cutting-edge science attempting to tie cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, consciousness, and all other science disciplines together. It is written by Ervin Laszlo, (http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/bios/ervin-laszlo.asp).

What is a "theory of everything" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything)? Simply put, physicists have long dreamed of coming up with a mathematical equation that would be able to explain all observable phenomena. Einstein attempted to do so (unified field theory), but lately- especially in light of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)- scientists have turned to conceptual schemes instead of mathematical equations to help explain "everything".

For awhile now many people, and increasingly scientists, have felt that the universe was connected somehow- that it isn't all just a bunch of random encounters with lots of "empty" space in between matter. With the curious and "weird" phenomena that is quantum activity coupled with the puzzling discovery that matter (detectable, observable entities) only makes up 4% of the Universe- scientists have slowly been coming around to the realization that our perception of reality is massively skewed by our lack of perception of the true nature of the Universe.

Or, in layman's terms: we can only "see" 4% of what's out there- so any conclusions we attempt to make about the ENTIRE universe are apt to be incomplete and most likely totally wrong; in addition- quantum mechanics: or the explanation of physical reality at the smallest level- is "weird": i.e. it seems to violate Newton's Principles on how matter behaves.

The weirdest, most unexplainable phenomenon: the smallest facet of physical reality: the quanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta)- basically a "packet" of energy that is unlike any form of energy that we know of (it is both a "corpuscle and a wave", is not material- but can have the properties of mass, gravitation, and inertia)- when one property of a quanta is measured, the other properties become unavailable to measurement and observation. In other words, each quanta has the potential to take on different properties, but once they are interacted with- they take on a specific characteristic, a reality- and all other potential positions are unavailable. Another weird quality: there is no way to predict which property the quanta will take.

Laszlo points out that many scientists do not mess with the "why", but only stick to finding out the "how" of things. He explains in the beginning that "why" and "purpose" questions seem to some to stray too close to putting human perception and subjectivity on science. However, Laszlo makes the case that science should be concerned with "why"- that ultimately "why" may matter more and help explain the "how" better than just attempting to explain the "how".

As Laszlo explains in the first section- "why" really matters because no-one wants to believe that this universe came about simply by chance, that nothing we do will amount to anything in the long-run, and that the universe will end in destruction. "Purpose" drives humans and if the Universe is purposeless, then it begs the question of why even have humans in the first place (or, for that matter- anything)?

His answer: that cutting edge discoveries in physics, biology, cosmology, and consciousness all point to an existence that is not accidental, that the universe is an informed and meaningful universe, and that a unifed conceptual scheme can tie all phenomena in the world together: Einstein's elusive integral theory of everything.

As we get further into the book we will discover new ways of looking at the Universe, some that will look very familiar to religious folk (while at the same time looking unfamiliar to athiestic scientists), and others that will tease us into looking at the Universe in a wholly different light. If God is indeed more complex than we can understand and a literal interpretation of the Bible would have us believe- then these concepts could indeed be a glimpse of the awesomeness of His creation and maybe even a hint of the essense of God Himself.

Can Christians have their God and eat Him too? (Or, can athiests have their science and eat it too?)

2009-09-19T11:01:00.005-05:00

This fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html has two well-known authors answer the question, "Where does evolution leave God?". The great thing about this piece is that the WSJ did not do what most mainstream media do in juxtaposing different views on God: get one example from a moderate scientist and one example from a fundamental Christian. Instead, Richard Dawkins portrays a dyed-in-the wool atheist viewpoint and Karen Armstrong gives the view of a more moderate Christian. Although one could argue for a more balanced view (two extremists or two moderates), I think the WSJ peice is the most balanced I've seen anywhere.

Armstrong's view is very close to some of the ideas that have been posted on The Red Cell blog. She makes the argument that prior to the 17th Century, most religious scholars and even practitioners approached God and church doctrine in more of a spiritual way. Thus, in line with the Greeks, there was a "mythos" and a "logos" and they were careful not to confuse the two. Thus, "logos" or logic would have you discover that the Earth rotated around the sun and act accordingly. This "logos" would never, however, address things like morality, spirituality, origins of life, creation subjects, God- etc. The assumption is that our logic is unfortunately bounded by our perspective: our place in the universe and our limitations. Of course this isn't testable, but that does not mean it does not exist. Armstrong argues that that is why we need both- because just to assume everything must be logical and proven to be contemplated is possibly a very bad assumption. She further makes the point that at some time after the 17th Century, believers started to take the Bible literally and apply its teachings to subjects wholly outside of its focus: provable scientific inquiry.

Taking Armstrong's points a bit further, this is why the "logos" and "mythos" separations make sense to me. I don't need to read the Bible literally and ignore the provable fact that the mustard seed is not the "smallest of all seeds." In the same vein, I don't have to ignore evidence that supports evolution (although I should keep an open mind to other testable hypothesies). If, indeed, God (or as Armstrong describes it: "God beyond God"), in all God's mysteriousness is not an entity that is observable or measurable by humans, it would be egotistical to think that we could explain how the universe was created in the truly Godly technical way it came into being using human language and a human interpretation (whether literal from a human standpoint or not) of the Bible.

Having said that, the same can be said of the athiest view, which is represented by Dawkins' writing. In his peice, Dawkins basically argues that God does not exist because evolution can explain how life began on Earth. Ignoring the fact that Evolution is still a theory and that it has not been proven (if it ever could) that all life on Earth followed an unmolested evolutionary trail from the first beginnings of the planet, and that even if evolution explained how life on Earth began it doesn't explain two other subjects: how the universe "began" (assuming it did "begin") and what our purpose here is (again, assuming we have one- which I do assume- otherwise all this debating is useless): I think it is likewise egotistical that athiests can rule out God simply because the entity is unprovable.

To expect that everything has to follow a "logos" or reason is to ignore the possibility that we humans are so limited in our faculties that we might not be able to ever detect other things "out there". That, of course, does not mean they are out there, or that athiests have to believe something else is out there just because Christians say there is- but I would argue they shouldn't discount the possibility out of hand. Most of the makeup of the Universe (that we can perceive) is actually not even detectable by humans (dark matter and dark energy). Only about 4% of the universe is directly observable.

The dominant theory about the universe holds that another 22% is so-called dark matter- which is indirectly observable by its effect on the observable parts. The rest- 74%- is not detectable at all right now and is referred to as "dark energy". I am not trying to say that God is the dark energy or something to that effect, but to simply point out that just because we cannot detect something hasn't forced scientists to discount it. On the contrary, although they only take into account what they think the universe is physically composed of, they do not discount unobservable phenomena.

Likewise, in my opinion, we should not discount possible unobservable phenomena that may lie on other "extra-universal" planes than we exist in and that do not fit into the "logos" realm (different ways in which to exist might not follow what we view as fitting within the realm of reason). Dawkins refers to these kinds of things as "magic", but surely- just as he points out- Medievel peoples would have considered 747s as magic as well, but that does not make them any less "real". To assume that as technology progresses, "God" digresses is to assume the opposite of what we have possibly experienced: that as technology progresses and we are able to observe and measure more, we either become closer to understanding the entity we know as "God"- OR, that the two are wholly separate subjects and it is not a zero sum game- as the entity known as "God" is outside of the "logos" part of our world.

In conclusion, the point that I think Dawkins misses is not that he is wrong- but that the human description of God might be wrong. In other words, just because literal translationists say that God must be a certain way does not mean they are right and just because athiests say evolution proves there is no God does not mean they are right either. I tend to believe that God is much more mysterious than any verse-quoting preacher can describe, as I also tend to believe that the universe is much more mysterious than any science-quoting athiest can describe. In the end, the two may be incompatible anyway- one describing the physical universe and the other describing the spiritual. The fascinating possibility that I am interested in is, if it exists, in what way are the two connected- and can we detect that?

Necessary, but not sufficient?

2009-08-09T09:53:00.007-05:00

Last Sunday, our Pastor Ron said the phrase "necessary, but not sufficient". My ears perked up because it recalled recent conversations in the classroom about ultimate causes.

Of course, looking back at his sermon, he really didn't say the phrase that caught my attention. What he said instead was:

"... The Westminster Confession of Faith on which the Presbyterian Church is based says, "All things in Scripture are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, (They) are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding of them..."

So, while he touched on the concept, "necessary"- he shied away from the term "sufficient" when speaking of Scripture (his use of the term "sufficient" was in reference to us understanding the Scripture).

But what is sufficient? Is the Bible sufficient? Or is it "only" necessary? Necessary to understand God, but not sufficient to understand Him? Following Ron's central idea of his sermon that day- that we should approach the Bible as a group in order to gain a deeper understanding- follows in the tradition of current social science theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse).

The idea is that one is bounded by one's own experiences and knowledge when approaching a new topic (or even an old one) and thus one is limited in one's potential for understanding. Discourse- talking with others (although that is a shallow definition) can help spur deeper understanding.

Pastor Ron seems to advocate the same for understanding the Bible (and thus, one would presume, God). So, it is necessary to read the Bible- but not sufficient. One needs "discourse" also. Is there anything that is sufficient?

Theoretically one could arrive at ludicrous trains of thought following this exercise. Is God really necessary? Or, is our belief in Him all that is necessary? In other words, is it more important that we believe, or that He exists? If our beliefs affect our actions, belief may be more important in the conceptual sense (at least on Earth). If He exists, but no-one believes that, then as far as Earthly existence His reality would not seem to be that sufficient.

And that is probably the limit of my understanding: it all boils down to context. Universally it is sufficient that God exists. But our understanding of God is bound by our Earthly knowledge. We can't even begin to explain 1/1000th of God's makeup. If that is so, then maybe it is not important that His existence be sufficient. For us, all that is sufficient now (due to our ignorance) is that we believe. Maybe that is all we can shoot for in this life.

Is the Church a Learning Organization?

2009-08-02T10:15:00.003-05:00

The one fad in the business world that might be on the verge of becoming more than a fad is "the learning organization". In short, a learning organization empowers its employees down to the lowest level with a passion for education and knowledge, responsibility to make decisions, a team-player attitude, and the acceptance of mistakes- with the idea being if the whole organization learns from everyone's mistakes, they won't be repeated. This contrasts with the traditional organization that hides mistakes, promotes those who consistently show excellence (and thus hide their mistakes), and doesn't trust their employees.

Is the Church a "Learning Organization"? I've been in some churches where most of the responsibility rests with only a few. I've been in others that seem to play a political game- and thus people are unwilling to admit mistakes. I've also been in the proverbial "perfect" church wherein everyone supports one another and the goal is the growth of the congregation, as opposed to the growth of individuals within the congregation.

I guess the answer may be that some churches are more "learning organization" oriented than others. It would, of course, depend on the individual church's culture, history, its present pastor and church elders. But, as a rule- are churches geared towards being learning organizations or are they traditionally more likely to be traditional, hierarchical, and resistant to growth. Do people use the Bible to prohibit "growth" in the church? Can we question paradigms that have been around forever and are no longer seen as dogma as much as they are seen as unquestioned doctrine? Are we passionate about the search for knowledge in everything we do? Are we really concerned with education- education in a more scientific experimentation-style that requires an underlying doubt about dogma?

I'm really not sure. I would like to think the church doesn't stifle a learning organization-type atmosphere. Surely there were periods in the Universal Church's history wherein this wasn't the case. I would encourage church goers to read Peter Senge's book, The Fifth Discipline- which is considered one of the authorities on Learning Organizations, and then give their opinion on this question. Here's a good link: http://www.solonline.org/aboutsol/who/Senge/

What is the purpose of church?

2009-07-26T09:56:00.004-05:00

I get a lot of polar opposite thoughts on church from acquaintances:

- "Church is man-made and really doesn't do too much for me spiritually"
- "It is wrong to not go to church."

As I'm finding out more and more, reality is usually somewhere in the middle of ideology. Churches are influenced by their parishioners and many a church could seem more earthly than heavenly when filled with the self-righteous, the judgmental, the gossipy, and the cliquish. Having said that, however, learning about heavenly matters is tough on one's own- surely discussing, sharing ideas, contemplating during sermons, and working to help others all have the potential to broaden one's understanding of universal purpose.

As a kid I usually liked to go to church. There was Sunday School- which was like regular school only some of the kids didn't go to my regular school so it was a chance to play with other kids I didn't normally see. There was usually some type of food- especially at potlucks. One Lutheran church I went to had fastnacht- which was a fun and crazy time of food, drink, dancing, skits, singing, and acting. Retreats usually were in the mountains or at lakes and those were definitely fun. Mixed in with all that were lessons on God and the Bible and these things stoked my curiosity of heavenly topics. I slowly started to seek answers to questions we didn't really touch on in school: why are we here?; what is the purpose of life?; how should we live and why?

As I got older Sunday was more of a day to recover from Saturday. I felt uncomfortable going to church alone and even after I got married it seemed more like a families-with-kids kind of place. But, I never really felt any passion about going to church at that point- it seemed more like a social club to me than anything else.

After children came along I started seriously thinking more about church and wanting "to belong". I remembered the good feeling of belonging from when I was a kid and wanted the same for my children. Since joining a few churches now for several years I think there are some obvious positives to going to church:

- it helps one broaden their social contacts. It is spiritually and emotionally healthy to have more contacts than just family and work. Church allows one to meet others that one might not normally meet. Church members may need help at times and this allows beneficial relationships between people that normally might not exist- especially in today's world of the Internet, suburbs, and TV.
- discourse is increased. Lots of books have been written on the importance of discourse in improving understanding. Reading the Bible at home is good, but talking about the Bible with others leads one to hear different ideas and attempt to articulate one's own ideas- many times a prerequisite for deeper understanding.
- Churches usually help others. At the least they help their members when they need help. Usually, though, the membership attempts to help locals in need and even those in other countries. Charity helps others and it helps the people giving it too.

But, does Church always help people, or, conversely, is it required? Would love to hear thoughts on this- because I think I know the answers, but I'm not sure. I have heard horror stories of some churches being more hurtful than helpful and I have thought at times that it would be really hard to understand God if one didn't go to church. Is there only one answer? Is this a false choice?

I do, however, think the key is discourse. If the theorists on complexity are correct and it is difficult for one person- no matter how smart- to come to greater understanding about complex subjects through only self-study- then church is probably more important than I thought. Discourse might actually be required to greater understanding of God. It might not be required to get into Heaven- but maybe it is required to understand the possibilities of what Heaven means.

Are our souls separate from our bodies?

2009-06-21T09:59:00.003-05:00

If you google the title you get a plethora of sites and ideas. One of the ideas that seems to pop up directly questions what the Bible says: "...A soul is an idea created by man to comfort his fear of his impermanence..."

If you google the words "Bible" and "soul" you'll see this website: http://www.learnbible.net/soul.html. In it you see many Biblical references to these ideas:

- "God hides the truth from all but a few" basically saying that it is hard for the "common scholar" to divine Divine Truth from reading the Bible (so, who is a "common scholar"?)
- "That Greek thought and St. Augustine came up with the doctrinal views of "the soul"- and not anything directly out of the Bible
- "..."Among the ancient Hebrews 'soul' was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible ..."
- "...In the Old Testament Hebrew, the original word for soul is nephesh. In the New Testament Greek it is psuche. Both mean the same thing and are used Interchangeably. One is used to translate the other..."
- "...It is quite obvious at the outset that a word of such broad application, including all the animal kingdom, all its bodily [and] physical aspects, CANNOT POSSIBLY indicate some immortal essence in man distinguishing him from the lower creation..."

I'd encourage anyone interested to peruse the rest of that website- some interesting thoughts. I personally plan to spend some time today looking up the thoughts on the "soul" in the Bible- but as the above-mentioned website notes- is the Greek and English translations so corrupted as to make finding the meaning of one word problematic? I guess it depends on what our thoughts are on the source of the Bible and subsequent translations.

Bottom line, though- is: is our soul separate from our bodies, or is it a manifestation of our bodies (or is that a false dichotomy- and the "truth" somewhere in between?)?

On the one hand I feel very lucky to have been born into the U.S. and as a product of loving and educated parents. That my soul "landed" in that vessel seems to me to be a jackpot kind of "win". Surely I need to do a lot to justify that gift.

On the other hand, what if my soul could not have existed in any other body? What if it is the end result of every person along my lineage up to this point? What if my soul actually emerges from my body and is not separate? This possibility makes the whole "afterlife" idea a little murky- what happens to my soul if it is a result of my body- and my body is decomposing in the ground? Likewise, if my soul is entirely separate- wouldn't that be akin to the idea of multiple lives?

The meaning of "Yom": How do we set church doctrine?

2009-05-31T10:09:00.006-05:00

I read recently that the Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the Creation story ("Yom") could have three different meanings. One is a 12 hour period. Another is 24 periods of something (24 seasons, 24 days, 24 years, etc. The last possible meaning is "a time period". This could mean a season, a year, a millennium, etc.

I'm no language expert- and surely don't know Hebrew (so I might be entirely wrong), but if this is true then a literal translation of the Creation story may be problematic. Do we really know what the "literal" translation is?

One theory I've heard to solve this "problem" is that the King James Version was inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be a translation we can count on being literally God's words.

In going to the website http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm, I saw these interesting theories on the Genesis account of Creation:

1- It happened exactly as the Bible- in its current English translations- says it did (God created the world in 6, 24-hour periods)
2- God created the world in 6 days, but the days were not contiguous- there were long periods of time in between each day.
3- God's "days" are a thousand days to a human "day"- therefore it happened over 6,000 days.
4- God's "days" are "like" a thousand days- so they could be any time period- to us they are long, to God they are "only" a day.
5- The Creation story is a metaphor- not meant to actually describe what happened, but to give humans a model from which to follow in as far as work, worship, and rest.
6- Each day represented millions of years
7- God did create the universe in 6 days, but it happened a long time ago (unknowable).
8- The author of Genesis used a narrative device to describe the Creation in "acts"- instead of "Act I", he used "Day 1". In other words, it is impossible to know how long "Act I", etc. was.
9- God described the Creation to Moses and took 6 days to describe it. Moses described the illustration.
10- God commanded Creation to take place over 6 days, and then it took a much longer period to take place
11- depending on your "time perspective" (since time is relative), from God's perspective (outside looking in?) the days were short. From our perspective (inside?) it would have been billions of years- but even that is problematic- since "we" weren't around billions of years ago. (this theory somehow agrees very closely with Big Bang Theory calculations for the age of the Universe)
12- and, my "favorite" : "...Replicated earth theory: Mike Schuler has developed a novel theory of origins, and has begun a web site to explain this and other scientific puzzles. He believes that God created an original earth. He spent billions of years trying every possible genetic code, to see what types of life would result. Most of the species were useless. God created a mass extinction event whenever the world filled up with such unneeded species. At the end of this great experiment, he was ready to create humans in the image of God. So he created an exact copy of that original earth in perfect detail, down to the atomic level. This took him only six days, as Genesis states. Schuler draws the analogy of the creation of a music CD. It might take months to create a new CD, but a copy can be created in seconds..."

I, personally, have one question for all of the theories which hold that it had to have happened (any part that God took direct part in) in a certain time period. For an omnipotent God, why would it not have happened instantaneously? It would seem to me to be more believable that it really was a metaphor to show us how to live, and that in reality it happened in a way most likely only known to God.

The science fiction lover in me, however, likes the "time perspective" theory. Time being relative is very hard for the layman to understand (me being one of them). At the start of the Big Bang (if the theory is right), time, space, and matter were compressed in ways beyond our understanding. To explain how it really happened, one would have to know from what perspective it was being described. Since humans weren't around according to the Bible- it would only follow it wasn't from our perspective.

In the end, however- it should only matter how it happened if it effects the central tenets of our faith. Does it?

Flooding in front of our eyes: Are we ignoring God in favor of the Bible?

2009-05-24T17:19:00.003-05:00

If any of you have been reading this blog for some time you've probably noticed a trend in some of the posts: a struggle with how to interpret the Bible. I see some issues with a literal translation, and yet- what is the alternative? As one of my youth pastors once said: "in picking and choosing what to believe from the Bible you, in effect, become your own god."

But can that be all there is to life? Believe a literal translation of the Bible, blindly, and, through little effort of your own (unless you were unlucky enough to have been born into a non-Christian family and/or country, which would mean you would have expended lots of effort overcoming your cultural background) you reach Heaven? As a non-believe once asked me, "Why would God be so enamored with a bunch of automotons- bent on believing whatever their parents and/or society told them to- without so much as a critical thought?"

It reminds me of a story that I've posted once or twice already, but I think it is worth repeating:

A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer's home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says "Jump in, I'll take you to safety."
The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, "Jump in, I'll save you."
The farmer again says, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer "I'll save you, climb the ladder."
The farmer says "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The helicopter goes away. The water comtinues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.
The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says "What are you doing here?"
The farmer says "I put my trust in you and you let me down."
God says, "What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!"

Now, we all laugh at this joke today and if you're like me you wonder at someone who would believe in something that he can't explain (God) and yet not believe in something he can. It reminds me of those people who deny medical treatment to their kids in favor of prayer. I want to yell out: "maybe God already answered your prayer and sent you a doctor!"

Likewise, I sometimes get the feeling that something similar may be in store in the Afterlife for me if I have lived by a literal interpretation of the Bible alone and ignored everything else as "man's folly". I can imagine God saying, "I created you in my own image (knowledge of self?), gave you reason, gave you the scientific method, gave you the potential for critical thought, etc.- and you chose to waste those gifts? How could you be so confident in something that you devoted no critical thought to? How can you be so pompous as to think you have Me figured out from only one of the tools I provided?"

To me "faith" is a more complex topic than we give it credit for. Believers seem to want to wrap it up in a nice little box and either you have it or you don't. Blind faith, some will say, is what God wants. Doubt, examination, and alternative possibilities are the Devil's tools and man's undoing and overconfidence. And yet I can't get why God would reward an uncritical approach to His universe. Why give us all the tools He has given us if He didn't expect us to use them- not to come to a total understanding- but to grow closer in understanding?

Maybe faith isn't just a blind faith in what our parents and society tells us, but instead faith entails believing that not everything is as simple as it appears. Maybe faith means trusting our senses and not ignoring them when they seem (from our vantage point) to contradict church doctrine. Maybe faith involves assuming that we don't live in a "matrix"-type existence and that what we see, measure, feel, etc.- is reality. To believe that all scientists are part of some worldwide conspiracy headed by the devil seems to me to run counter to that definition of faith.

Surely the knowledge of physics passed on through the generations for the past few hundred years has done wonders for the collective knowledge of the human race. If anything, I would propose it has deepened the mystery as to how God functions and how the universe came into being. I'm not saying ignore all verses in the Bible as false and start believing everything that comes out of scientific journals. But, I'm not sure we should discount them all either- the reality of God may exist in some mysterious mixture of both the Bible AND science- and wouldn't we hate to have been working at cross-purposes because we think our grasp of the Bible gives us all the answers? Can we be so confident?

Is the Bible consistent?

2009-05-17T10:16:00.004-05:00

Growing up, a close relative used to express his frustration with the Bible to me at times. "I am frustrated many times with the New Testament. It's all about forgiveness and love. We Protestants have forgotten about the God of the Old Testament- the punisher. You didn't mess around with Him. We need more of Him today. We need a flood!"

The exact opposite was what I usually heard from my friends. "The Old Testament is so judgmental. Why can't everyone be more loving and forgiving like Jesus?"

Then I met crusty, old Army guys who talked about "the commie threat" and that Jesus seemed "like a hippy" to them.

Then there were the collegiate folks who talked more of tolerance than anything else- and made the case that Jesus would have been more tolerant than Christians today (I guess they missed the part about the moneychangers and the part of Peter trying to get Jesus to fight back).

Lastly there were the folks that thought contemporary preachers ignored the "fire and brimstone" parts of the Bible in order to not turn-off people who were looking for hope. Joel Osteen and others seemed to be the anathema of God to them.

I, too, see a difference between what was stressed in the Old Testament and what seems to be the focus of the New. In the Old there was instruction, disobedience, and punishment. There were laws- tons of them.

In the New Testament there was one message: love. God loves us, so Jesus sacrificed Himself, so that we could be saved. And all we have to do is believe in Him and love one another.

How do we reconcile these differences? Some say that is how it was meant to be: Jesus came and changed things. Others see no difference- they talk of a consistency throughout the Bible.

I tend to think that Jesus did change things. What I think about a lot is why we don't add more books to the Bible. Surely we have learned things since Jesus was here. Things that could expand our knowledge of life, purpose, and the universe.

Complexity Theory would hold that things get more complex and complicated over time. Following that- that is why religions keep breaking off into different groups and sub-groups. Things won't get simpler- things will just get more complicated. And more diverse. And there will be more groups.

So- that's why I don't think books will be added to the Bible. No group would be able to sell their ideas of additions to the other groups. It wouldn't be accepted.

But that is too bad. I am reminded of the story of the guy who passed up all kinds of chances to be saved during a flood thinking that God would save him. In Heaven God tells him, "I sent you a boat, a helicopter, a...." I think God has given us many things since Jesus was here. We have discovered and understood so many more things about His creation. We have uncovered many more questions. I sometimes feel that God would want more added to the Bible. That He still inspires people to write about Him and His creation. Will he one day say to Christians- "Why did you stop adding to my book?"