Understanding God's Love vs. God's Wrath

My sister recently commented that of all the questions she'd want to ask God is first and foremost, "How do you balance the whole wrath and fury thing with love and compassion?"

Here is my response.

That question used to bother me a ton (it sometimes still does). How do we reconcile ideas about God's wrath with those about God's love? I think the key is in realizing that wrath isn't the opposite of love. It's the opposite of mercy and is the consequence of justice (just as mercy is the consequence of compassion). Showing mercy to one is denying justice to another; and yet both justice and mercy are attributes of love.

Understood this way, we see that wrath isn't an expression of God's anger at being hurt (just as we often confuse "love" with an emotional response, we do the same for "wrath"). It is an expression of his justice in consequence of our abusing not only God, but also creation and each other. Wrath is as much a part of God's love as is compassion. If there was no wrath, no justice, then how could a rape victim cry out to God in their anguish? How could a homeless man, repeatedly beaten down by the world, turn to God for any kind of hope? Who could an abused child turn to?

Hypothetically, if God had just decided to forget our past sins and skip the Incarnation, death, and resurrection; the blood of the innocent would still cry out from the ground and our cycles of injustice, oppression, violence and death would spiral ever deeper until humanity wiped out all life (including itself). So God took the wrathful death which we deserved as a consequence of justice (itself being a characteristic of God's love for the innocent and downtrodden) on himself in Christ and conquered it in the resurrection.

A perfect example of this is the story of Noah's Ark, which is as much a warning for the future as it is a story about the past. In that story, the ark could be said to be Christ carrying the world through the waters of death into new life (think of baptism) and a new covenental relationship between God, humanity and the rest of creation. If there were no ark, no flood, and no new covenant; then humanity would have perpetuated the pre-flood cycles of violence to the point that it would have wiped out all of creation, with no remnant left to be saved.

It becomes less a question of balance, and more one of fulfillment. How could God's love toward a selfish, death-dealing, abusive humanity be realized to its fullest extent? Only in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus...

#God #love #wrath #justice #compassion

The Problem of Evil and Epicurus' Trilemma

I've been musing over the problem of evil and that popular maxim put forward by Epicurus, 2300 years ago, as an argument against an all-knowing (omniscience), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all loving God. The argument is still popular today among many of my atheist friends (even being referenced in the movie Superman vs. Batman), so I thought it worthwhile addressing.

First, in case you are unfamiliar with the argument, Epicurus basically posited that if God is willing to prevent evil, but not able, He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, He is not all good. If He both able and willing, evil should not exist. If He is neither able nor willing, then He is not God.

The problem with the Epicurean trilemma (leaving aside the fact it is first quoted in the writings of a Christian theologian arguing against it, and was possibly never uttered by Epicurus) is that it rests on a few (unproven) assumptions: 1) the future is something which can be known, 2) omniscience is properly defined as knowing the future, and 3) evil can be objectively defined.

The reason this is a problem is that, if the future is something which can be known ahead of time (either because it is predetermined, or "exists" in the mind of its Creator), then free will does not exist. If free will does not exist, no action can be good or evil. A predetermined universe negates the initial premise of the argument.

However, it seems that quantum mechanics shows us "the future" is probabilistic in nature, rather than deterministic. This means it is essentially uncreated. While an omniscient God can know all the possible futures, there is no way a single future could be known ahead of time. A thing can only be known if it exists; so it follows that if the future does not exist, it cannot be known. In this case, a probabilistic universe negates the argument's definition of omniscience.

Finally, if evil can be objectively defined (especially as something within the created order), this suggests a moral reality beyond human social contract, which can only apply to functionally free beings in a probabilistic universe. Since humans are (said to be) free beings, then the burden of evil rests entirely on them.

But if there is no God, then there can be no moral reality beyond transitory human social contract. And again, the burden of breaking any such contract (defined as an act of evil) would rest only on its constituent parties, i.e. human beings. In either case, human beings are to blame for evil's existence, rather than God (whether or not God exists).

It seems to me that the God of Christianity (the faith with which I am most familiar) is generally described as creating humanity to reflect God's "Image", i.e. to be free beings which possess the ability to make moral decisions, to live in community (with God, fellow humans, and creation), and to create or destroy.

But the existence of free beings carries with it the implicit risk of evil, broken relationship, and immoral decisions. If Christianity's claims are correct, then the best explanation for the existence of evil is that God loves humanity so deeply, He figured it was worth the risk that we would dork everything up.

#philosophy #God #atheism #Christianity #theodicy #Epicurus #evil

How Should A Christian Define "Ethics"?

This is a question I was asked recently, and as I am not a professional philosopher by any means, any post of mine would probably fail to hit on many of the considerations which have been debated for millenia. Still, I think this is a worthy question which every person of faith should consider for themselves and their communities. So, in what is probably much too short a post to fully address the issue of Christian ethics, I will offer some of my own thoughts on how I formulate my understanding of Christian ethics, its relationship to human philosophy, and to scripture.

I think that very often, the term "ethical" is implied to be some external good (perhaps a holdover of Platonism?). If there is a God, then I do not think that God's ethics with regard to humanity are an objective, eternal reality by whose standard we are held to account. Before the cosmos (or outside of the cosmos, outside of existence itself), any understanding of "good" or "evil in relation to God would be irrelevant, as there would only be God as an objective reality. And after all, if God is revealed in any way in scripture, it seems immediately clear to the average reader that even in scripture standards change over time.

There are definitely overarching themes which weave their way through the passages and books (and these, I think, are significant for the faithful) concerning standards for justice, but of the 613 mitzvot alluded to in the Tanakh, many are simply impossible to obey today (for example, commands regarding the Temple in Jerusalem, which no longer exists). And most (if not all) of the basic concepts behind the standards for justice in scripture are relational in nature.

I think that, in terms of us who believe in God, ethics must be viewed as entirely relational and not objective. What I mean is, "the good" and the ethics which govern behavior along this standard, is defined as that which encourages harmony between God, humanity and creation. For a Christian, the more this harmony reflects the inner-relationship of the Trinity, and the more humanity's character represents Christ and lives as the image of God (and caretaker of creation), the more ethical we are. We measure these ethics by Jesus' interpretation of the Law and the Prophets: we are good when we love God and love others (even our enemies) as ourselves. We fall short of this ethical standard when we do not.

The commands themselves are relational, and reflect the above relational understanding of humanity's purpose. For the Christian, God is ethical because God sent the Incarnate Word made flesh, to open the way for perfect relationship between God, humanity, and creation. The commands, in this context, do not then act as the substance of ethics, but as part of the road-map leading toward the Incarnation.

This also means that as times change, humanity should ideally change as well. What was "good" for a Medieval or Ancient Near Eastern king is not necessarily good for a king today. This is something on which both religious and non-religious people should be able to agree. It is interesting to me that many non-religious have an objectified view of ethics or the good (as if they were unchanging), but I do not know what this idea would be founded on.

As an example, from an objectively material point of view, landmines are neither ethical or unethical. They are simply an additional and painful component of the chaos which often comes in contact with human lives. From a relational point of view, they are extremely unethical. Not only do they harm the possibility of human relationship in the relevant conflict in which they were laid; but they also harm people for many generations to come and greatly impede the ability of human beings to overcome all the other problems we have to deal with.

#God #ethics #good #evil #relationship #humanity #creation

Plumbing the Depths of God's Love

Someone recently said to me,

"You know, I believe in God, and though I've asked, I just don't know if he would forgive me for my sins or how to start back on religion."

Below was my response and is an attempt on my part to conceptualize and vocalize the depths of God's love for us:

I've ministered in both military and prison contexts, and sometimes people who are passionately telling me their story will swear or say something they think is inappropriate. But when they apologize, I always tell them, "Don't worry, both God and I have heard worse." I think that we assume that because we are the sons of apes, that we are somehow inconsequential. That we need to "clean up" and hide our failures and our weaknesses before approaching the Divine.

If there is a God (and I think there is, revealed in the Incarnate Christ), then this God knows the deepest part of every being on every planet, in every time in the cosmos. In a billion years after you turn to dust, you will still be dear to God's heart, even as another being, in a galaxy far away also wonders if there is any greater Consciousness that really cares about its life or can give it a fresh start and new purpose.

I think this God, while so utterly transcendent that it paradoxically extends even into non-existence itself, is also so utterly imminent that it vibrates along the fundamental forces of the universe, experiences the movement of every quark, and experiences the struggle, loneliness, and joy of every sentient being. When we rejoice, God rejoices with us. When we suffer and mourn, God suffers with us.

How could a God, so cosmically transcendent that universes pop into existence and recede into nothing in the blink of an eye; and yet so imminent that it marvels at the most inconsequential carbon atom in your thumbnail, do anything other than forgive you? How could the One who has seen potentially a million civilizations across ten-thousand star systems and yet witnessed your very entry into this world as a baby, be anything but utterly enthralled by you?

Of course you are forgiven! You are forgiven for a hundred thousand deeds in the past, and a hundred thousand possible deeds to come. I really think that if there is a God even worth mentioning, then this God has already fallen so deeply in love with you that It waits in anticipation for your call, like a giddy teenager waiting by the phone.

#God #love #transcendence #imminence #forgiveness

My Thoughts Regarding Evidence for God

Preface

A friend recently told me he had lost his faith. He had been a young-earth-creationist and had found the apologetic arguments regarding the relationship between science and scripture dissatisfying to the intellect, and insufficient evidence for his continued walk with Christ. Still, he asked for my thoughts on faith, how it fits with our current scientific understanding, and what my "best argument is for God's existence."  I generally dislike engaging in apologetic arguments, as I think Christ is best reflected in the life lived by faith and in the life of the Church, but below is the substance of my reply. Many Christians may find it controversial, but within it I believe I have confirmed the orthodox faith while also affirming the value and reliability of scientific discovery.

Introduction

"I think the only argument for Christianity is found in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I do not think "proof" of God's existence can be found in cosmology, or evolutionary biology, and certainly cannot be found in any argument for a "god of the gaps."

Interestingly enough some of the 20th century's best theologians (including the theologian and theoretical chemist Charles Coulson) fully recognized this and emphasized the centrality of Christ's person to any theological understanding of God's work in the cosmos. I am particularly fond of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was put to death for opposing the Nazis and leading the confessing church in Germany during WWII) quote,

"How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know."

It is with this in mind that I define my faith, not as "blind belief," as some might claim faith is; but instead as "relational trust," based on the evidence related below. I trust God because I think He has been trustworthy in the past, even in the midst of the chaos and suffering in which we find ourselves. Some might argue that this contradicts Hebrews 11:1, which states, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Many Atheists tend to see this as justification for casting Christianity as unreasonable. But I would contend that this passage is not referring to things of the past, but things of the future. We do not hope that the past will happen again. Instead, based on what has already happened (and the evidence on which we base the knowledge of what has already happened), we hope in the unseen future.

The thoughts which follow are largely the result of much wrestling on my part. However, I've come to the conclusion that throughout scripture, God does not punish our doubt, instead He often speaks to us through it. If this weren't true, then we would have to ignore the dialogues of Gideon and Moses, many of the Lament Psalms, the entire books of Job, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, and the narrative of the post-resurrection encounter between Jesus and Thomas.

So, here I'll outline my current thoughts on my faith. Please bear with me, because this is a long one, but in the process of laying all this out, I am trying to communicate why I still have faith while at the same time affirming a completely material cosmos, discoverable through the natural sciences:

1) My Thoughts on God and Humanity
I am a Christian, but I absolutely affirm the necessity of scientific discovery for accurately shaping our worldview. I have no problem with the current, standard theories concerning the big bang, multiverses, or evolutionary biology. My current understanding of God most resembles what might be called Extensionalist Panentheism. Unlike Pantheism, best exemplified in some of the more spiritually inclined writings of Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza, which equates the total sum of the Universe (or Multiverse) with God; my understanding of Extensionalist Panentheism posits that the Cosmos is an extension (or expression) of the mind of God. The expression of God subsists within every particle or force within the Universe, and yet expands beyond it, even into,paradoxically, non-existence and potential futures. In this view, the Universe becomes an outflow of the mind of God, in whose Word everything finds existence (Jn. 1:3).

Its intelligence may be expressed through revelation (the interaction of mind-to-mind), but whenever such revelation happens, it takes the form of direct experience, and so in the process of abstraction and human mental process (including the translation into symbolic language), becomes a dim reflection of the original revelation and is written down by those who receive it using the best (often mythic) symbols available to them (i.e. the prophets of old). Ultimately however, the perfect revelation is expressed in the Word made Flesh, the Incarnate Son of God whose relevance is communicated through the Spirit (sometimes known as "ruach" in the OT Hebrew or "pneuma" in the NT Greek, both roughly translated as "breath" or "wind") (cf. Gen. 1; Jon. 1).

This perfect expression took on carnality, for the sake of carnal beings. I think that we are wholly physical (I do not believe we have a spirit, other than that which fills all life, that can be separated from the body, as this strikes me as a Neo-Platonist and Gnostic idea which was introduced to Christianity in the third and fourth centuries). Even our minds, where we find our identity and personality, are generated in the brain; just as the cosmos is generated from God through the Word. Because we are completely material, in a material cosmos, any salvation of the individual must be expressed materially. This is why the New Testament (and especially the Pauline and Johannine Writings) place such an emphasis on the bodily resurrection. Christ's sacrifice may have been the first and only truly selfless sacrifice, and served as both an example and as the avenue through which salvation comes. But if Christ was not bodily resurrected, then human beings have no hope of bodily resurrection in the future (1 Cor. 15:17).

I do not think science nor scripture support a vision of the afterlife where a person's disembodied spirit eternally inhabits heaven or hell. For one, we've come to discover through the neurosciences that the seat of our emotions, memory, and intellect all rest in the biological processes of the brain. Our hope is not in a disembodied, eternal heaven; but in a bodily resurrection and a restored creation where humanity is no longer separating from God by our sin and where we are no longer subject to the suffering found in chaos (Rev. 21:1). If there is judgment and a reckoning for the broken relationships we've caused, and for both individual and systemic sin; then I think this reckoning takes the form of self-imposed bitterness and hatred in individuals, to such an extent that one could stand in Paradise itself and still feel as though they were burning in hell. If this state is permanent, then it is likely so, because a person's bitterness and sin has twisted them up so much inside that they wouldn't receive the gift of grace even if it were offered.. Since I affirm that we are made in the Image of God, in that we have the creative and destructive powers of free will (Gen. 1:26-28; Deut. 30:19), I think that even when all is accounted for on the Last Day (which would require a physical resurrection), if a person is willing to turn from their own twisted insides toward the ever-present mercy of God, then they will receive it immediately (cf. Ps. 103:1; Ps. 118). I'm not 100% sure on whether those who find themselves in that state would do so, as it may be that if a person truly becomes utterly consumed by hate, then they may not even want to turn away from their own suffering, out of sheer bitterness and obstinance.

2) My Thoughts on the Old Testament
If God exists, and if this God were to reveal anything about Himself, then myths are just as good a literary form as any. After all, even today, we use myths (movies, fictional literature, etc.) to communicate ideas which are central to our cultural and relational understanding. Myths are often used to convey very poignant truth about who we are, and to completely dismiss them as irrelevant because of a lack of understanding regarding their source and purpose, is a bit silly.

 As C.S. Lewis said,

"Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches... and in this respect irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become."

I think that the Bible is a mix of song, poetry, myth, history, proverb, and parable. But when we confuse these literary genres, we totally miss the point of the text.

For example, the Jews most likely borrowed many of the elements in the creation story, the flood, and the early genealogy lists from the Babylonians (and them from the Sumerians before them).

But what makes the biblical stories kind of cool (if you're a nerd like me) in this context are the changes they made to the stories. In the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics, the earth is flooded because humans just party too hard and keep the gods up, so they decide to kill everybody. In the biblical story, God regrets his decision to create humanity because it fills the earth with violence.

This theme crops up again and again in the OT, and shows that even at an early point (they were probably included in the OT at the latest 2,600 yrs ago, but maybe a couple of hundred years before that), ideas about social justice were beginning to take shape. Even in some of the more brutal parts of the OT, the system of laws in place is much “fairer” in the modern sense than comparable law codes of the time (like Hammurabai's).

Also, and this often gets lost on modern audiences,but the narrative (especially from creation to the flood) takes on a very precise parallel structure. Genesis two (Adam & Eve) and three (Cain & Abel) are parallel structures, the days of creation are parallel structures (days 1 & 4 – light & light givers created; days 2 & 5 – waters & fish created; days 3 & 6 – earth and land creatures created; day 7 is a bookend of “rest); the flood exhibits a similar parallel device, as does the tower of babel, and the entire section of Genesis 1-7 exhibits an overarching parallel structure.

Additionally, in the Babylonian creation stories (the Enuma Elish), Marduk wrestles Tiamat (a chaos dragon), kills her, and creates the world from her carcas. In the Bible, Yahweh only needs to speak the Word, and chaos (tohu – an early cognate of Tiamat) recedes. This makes Yahweh a bit unique in the ancient near east, in that creation is an extension (through the Word) of God's mind into “the void” or “nonexistence.” The chaos dragon creeps up again throughout the OT and even in the NT, as a dragon or leviathan.

Since the Jews who were in exile in Babylon knew the Babylonian myths, they would have immediately recognized the similarities and recognized these biblical stories as myths. And if they somehow missed that, then the parallel structure would have tipped them off.

Finally, just in case anyone was still tempted to treat these stories as literal historical events, there are six “Creation Psalms” (Ps. 8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 139) which use creative language and have never been treated literally. I think this is primarily because they are immediately recognized as the creative outflow found in most songs.

The funny thing is, these creation stories, from the earliest Jewish works, all through early Christianity (cf. Origen and Clement of Alexandria), were understood in their mythical, figurative, and symbolic sense. And even the laws found in the Torah suggest a much greater work in the cosmos and a more socially just form of being (compared to the surrounding cultures, even if brutal by today's standards).

When Fundamentalist (and many Evangelical) Christians take these stories literally, not only do they make the faith look stupid to outsiders, but they miss much of the beauty of these early works. And that honestly makes me kinda sad that they think they are doing good, and yet are often totally missing the message that is in the works. Unfortunately, this also encourages people on the opposite end of the spectrum to completely reject any value in the text, even though their level of knowledge regarding them is on the same level as the Fundamentalists.

3) My Thoughts on New Testament Evidence
Long story short, it's all very much open to interpretation, and I'm not opposed to an allegorical reading for many of the events surrounding Jesus' life (in fact, Clement of Alexandria argued that ALL scripture has a deeper allegorical meaning, and that only chumps take everything literally, a position which came to define the Alexandrian School). Still, based on the below considerations, I think there is a genuine historical core which makes for very interesting study and discussion.

But, even where stories and myths are re-appropriated, I still find it useful to discuss the differences with source material, and what it could mean for interpreting theological positions based on the gospels. The gospel of John has fascinated me the most out of any of them. While the first three are Synoptics (meaning they share much of their material, with the most likely hypothesis being that Matthew and Luke used Mark, Special-L, Special-M, and Q as their source materials); John is very different in many respects.

At various times this has led scholars to tend to disregard John as non-historical, but I actually think John might be the most reliable of the gospels. His gospel is unique in that he shares details regarding the temple which (generally) only insiders would have known before it was destroyed in 70 CE. His timeline is also more likely for the Passover, given Jewish practice at the time (and also more theologically significant, as Jesus dies the moment the Passover lamb is slaughtered on the Day of Preparation before the Sabbath). He writes in slightly terrible Greek (especially compared to Mark or Luke), and uses multiple Hebraic idioms, suggesting a native Semitic speaker. The source of the book is evidently Ephesus, or nearby Asia Minor, and this fits with the written accounts of John's life by the men who knew him, specifically Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Polycarp, and possibly traditions handed on to Irenaeus. The gospel writer self-identifies as the beloved disciple in the narrative, which is most likely John (as the only major unnamed disciple in the book).

The Johannine Epistles and Revelation are evidently already aware of the Gospel's existence, and as they have an estimated composition date of the mid-90's CE, this suggests the Gospel was earlier. The language between them is very similar (though there are some significant grammatical differences with 2-3 John), and may be from the same author.

Finally, we actually have a small scrap of papyrus from the gospel, dated to about 125 CE at the latest (called P52), and possibly only one copy removed from the original. Evidence from the writing and type of script suggests a devoted hand without formal scribal training, which would be consistent with an upstart community, not yet well established.

All of this suggests at least a strong core of a genuine first-hand account by the beloved disciple. The text may have been augmented with an unnamed sayings gospel and a signs gospel. This suggests that either some of John's followers added this material, or he used additional material to assist in telling his own story (as biographers often have). Based on the writings of his followers, and the date of the gospel, I think it was relatively finished while he was alive and I think it was really written by him.

Even when we look at the fact that the other three gospels were most likely not written by the apostles themselves, their sources were most likely in circulation while the people who remembered these events were still alive (especially with Mark, who seems totally unaware of the Temple's destruction in 70 CE). Additionally, recent scholarship on oral traditions of Africa (from the early Colonial period to the 1960's) has show a remarkable consistency among oral accounts, even over hundreds of years. Ironically, the effort to immortalize events by writing them down tends to remove them from the collective memory of a culture's storytellers.

Despite the explosion in written gospel narratives during the first few centuries of Christianity, there appears to be a genuine core narrative and teaching to Jesus' life which carries through the four canonical gospels (which in turn rely on at least 7 sources), the gospel of Thomas (which seems to have a genuinely early core), the epistles, and the writings of the Apostolic fathers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hermas, Bartholomew, etc. who are often overlooked, though these writers knew the apostles firsthand).

4) My Thoughts on Sources Outside the New Testament
As for outside sources, there is a ton of debate on the quotes by Josephus concerning Jesus. There are three normally quoted (Antiquities, XVIII, 3.3 & 5.2, XX, 9). I think two of them are probably later interpolations into the text, but Antiquities XX, 9 appears to contain a genuine narrative concerning Jesus. The nature of Josephus' treatment in this passage may suggest that he was more familiar with the trouble-making Chrestians and the Christ they followed, and so his attribution to Jesus as the Christ may not be a sign of belief (or later interpolation), but simply a helpful identifier for his Roman patrons, who were increasingly coming into contact with this group. Still, I would give this passage's authenticity about a 50-50 shot.

Perhaps most helpful when reading Josephus is not what he says about Jesus, but what he says about the destruction of the Temple. This strongly echoes Matthew and Mark (which was likely written earlier), and actually suggests that much of Jesus' teaching had nothing to do with "the end of the world," or "the rapture," but the end of the Temple in Jerusalem and the cataclysmic change it would bring to Judaism and humanity's relationship with God.

In fact, I think we can make a strong case that Jesus never talked about an afterlife that consists of a disembodied soul floating up to God was borrowed from Neo-platonism and Gnosticism. I don't actually think there is a soul apart from what is generated by the body, or a heaven we go to. As to the breath or Spirit which emanates from God, I think this is present in all life. And when the bible speaks of humanity, it may very well be speaking of that state of evolution in which life begins to exhibit the consciousness and will which is reflective of the power of God (cf. Gen. 1:27, Deut. 30:19)

Jesus seems to be speaking of a restored creation (cf. Rev. 21:1), and the Gehenna (what we interpret as "hell") that he speaks of is the natural consequence of suffering and shame brought about by the unjust life. I think there may be a physical resurrection for us, but only if Jesus was physically resurrected, and this would indeed be a miraculous event. If Jesus was only symbolically resurrected, then I think we rot in the ground as we have always done.

Even without Josephus, we have the written accounts/letters of Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Seutonius from the early second century which lend credence to the New Testament claims regarding the quick spread of these teachings.

Essentially, when all of these various factors are taken into account, I think we can reasonably say that Jesus of Nazareth lived and taught (and that some of these teachings survive), that people perceived his ability to heal, that he was crucified by the Romans, placed in a tomb (which was not unheard of in the first century, as with the case of Yehohanan, son of Hagakol, whose body was discovered in 1968), that his body was discovered missing from the tomb, and that his followers genuinely believed he had resurrected and so spread the word (with almost all of them later dying for it, even after being given chances to recant).

Conclusion

While I think we can be relatively certain of the above events, that still doesn't guarantee that he was the Son of God or that he genuinely resurrected. But I do think that the suggestions that he didn't exist at all, or that we can't know anything about him, lack the same level of evidence.

Additionally, when everything above is put together, when the relative reliability of the Gospels (including the at least seven internal witnesses/sources within the canonical texts, as well as genuine core elements in the Gospel of Thomas) and the Apostolic Fathers, I think that a genuine belief in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ may be postulated (especially when framed within the cosmological understanding outlined above). Now, whether you choose to believe or not, and in turn live out a life of faith or not? That's totally up to you dude. I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe. In fact, I've always liked C.S. Lewis' quote,

"I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him the evidence is against it."

I just want us to have a good-natured discussion and still be able to have a beer together afterward. :)

In any case, I wish you the best on your journey, and along the way I hope and pray that you find enlightenment, peace, and joy and, dare I say, that you even find God in the process."

#faith #evidence #science #cosmology #atheism #Christianity

Abortion and the Language of Ownership

I recently read a Huffington Post article regarding a sermon preached by Pastor Jeff Crawford at Cross Church, where he states that a woman's body is not her own, but belongs to God. Theologically, he seems to be working from the point that if creation belongs to God, and humanity within it, then naturally our bodies belong to God. While I do not think that it was his intention to single out women's' bodies over men's; the fact that a male preacher is using the logic of ownership when speaking about the relationship between God, a woman's body, and a developing fetus, tends to reinforce the image of the church as a patriarchal organization whose chief purpose for being is to control people.

The Language of Ownership v. The Language of Emancipation 

While there are many who share the view that God “owns” us, I think that this is a misreading of scripture, especially when read in the context of Jesus' mission. There are definitely many religious leaders who frame their understanding of morality in terms of ownership and servitude, which borders on the rationale for slavery. But there are many others who frame their religious understanding of morality in terms of grace, freedom, and love. I tend to think that whatever the individual moral positions being debated (whether abortion, the death penalty, civil rights, etc.), the second line of thought is more helpful and a better paradigm for human beings to operate under.

While the Bible definitely addresses issues regarding ownership and property, they are almost always concessions to the human desire to find our identity in terms of control and occupation. God knows that humans have a tough time sharing. If we all were able to equitably distribute resources, then there would be no need for economic, political, or judicial systems. We would still be living in the paridisical relationship for which we were created. However, because we have chosen to corrupt our relationship to God, each other, and creation through sinful action, any attempts or even dreams of utopia tend to fall short. The Bible doesn't address issues of ownership because such a system is what God desires. It addresses these issues because it must address the reality of our fallen, selfish state and the inequality with which we tend to frame our relationships.

In fact, I would argue that the entire concept of ownership is a human (and relatively recent) invention. To frame our understanding of God, the cosmos, or ethical practice on terms of “ownership” will always pit human beings against each other. I think that if God exists, and if God created and sustains the cosmos, with life and an evolving humanity within it (with free will); then this means that even God has relinquished any "right of ownership" in favor of developing a relationship with humanity founded on mutual love.

Something which owns another, cannot expect the other to freely choose right over wrong, life over death. Ownership (and slavery, which is ownership of the body) is the language of force and violence. Redemption is the language of peace and reconciliation.

Applying the Language of Emancipation to the Abortion Debate

To bring this back to the issue at hand, I think we should address abortion theologically and in the context of the gospel message: which is the proclamation of redemption through love, and freedom through reconciliation (Lk. 4:17-21). I do not oppose abortion on the grounds of God's right of ownership (after all, the ownership argument still doesn't address the status of the fetus within the woman's body). I oppose abortion in most cases because all life is sacred, and the potential for life is sacred. Even if a fetus is part of a woman's body, its growth is still a sacred part of the life which God created. The sacred nature of life should be the focal point for the theological and philosophical consideration of abortion; instead of notions regarding ownership of the woman's body, or the individuality of the fetus.

I have no doubt that both sides value life. But for us to come to any kind of truly ethical conclusion, I think we should value BOTH the life of the mother and the potential of life for future generations, represented in the fetus. Using “ownership” as an argument is simply misleading, and I would argue, may even be contrary to the core of the gospel message.

#abortion #pro-life #pro-choice #women #God #ownership #emancipation #Gospel

The Problem of a God Who Allows Suffering, pt. II

This is a bit of a rehash on the topic found in a previous post of mine, The Problem of a God Who Allows Suffering. But as I often re-examine my own ideas, I try to see them from different angles. This time, my thoughts were prompted by the questions a friend of mine posted on Facebook. He asked,

"Whenever something 'bad' happens everyone asks for prayers. Everyone says God answers prayers, but if what they're praying for doesn't happen they always say 'it's what God wanted'. 'It was their time' Then why pray if God is already making the decision?"

 Below is my response. What are your thoughts on this issue? I'm always glad to hear them!

I do believe in God, but I don't think God operates on our terms. A ton of problems humans face are created either by the actions of other humans, themselves, or by systems that humans have set up. In this regard, I think the purpose of faith is a complete change of character, in how we treat others and how we organize the systems which rule our lives. In this way, God ends up acting through the lives of human beings.

As far as natural things that hurt and kill us (earthquakes, floods, disease, asteroids, etc.), I think that these stem from the necessary amount of chaos which exists in the universe to allow for things like free will or uncertainty of action (probability) and biological evolution while also allowing for a relatively stable universe (the determinism we observe in Newtonian physics). If God is actually a God who desires personal relationship with people, then that would only be possible if their actions were probabilistic instead of deterministic. We find an analogy in physics, where many things in quantum theory are probabilistic, while the overarching standard laws of physics tend to be deterministic in nature.

Which means, again, that it is up to human beings to reflect the desires and compassion of God in how we react to such disasters (i.e. through aid to the needy, disaster relief, etc.) When we choose to care for each other, we best reflect the character of God. This is why Jesus says the entire Torah (Jewish Law) can be found in two rules: Love God with everything we are, and love our neighbor as ourself. We fulfill the first by doing the second. And we do the second when we sacrifice what we have, even what we are (our very life), for others.

While I think it's good to ask God for help, I think its better to ask God how we can reflect God's character in the situation we are going through. Our faith isn’t an exercise in escapism, it is an exercise in incarnation. We are called to bring God’s love into the World, rather than flee from it. The example of God’s character on which we model our lives is found in the Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. He becomes the model by which we live, and the redemption and resolution we find in a life following Him is the vehicle God uses to spread grace throughout the world.

You might say, “Why doesn't God just intervene and stop the nonsense?” I think the key to answering this is in just how we define God. Most people define God using philosophical and ontological terms: God is omniscient (knows everything that is and will be), God is omnipresent (everywhere), and God is omnipotent (all powerful). I don't think these are exactly correct. I think they were when God created the cosmos, but once chaos was introduced into the mix (“the void” or “the seas” is a term the Bible often uses), it meant that the future could change. I do think that God is present in the future as well as the future, but that's a little misleading, as there is no thing called “the future.” There are probable futures, and God is present in all of them. He knows all possible outcomes of any given situation, and even which future is likely to manifest, but He does not know which future precisely will manifest in the reality which we will experience out of all the many possibilities, because that particular future remains un-created until it happens. And that which is un-created is not a thing which can logically be known.

This means that no matter what possible suffering we could experience, God suffers with us. We may not experience every possible future, but I believe God does, including the one we will eventually face. So, instead of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; I define God by the attributes found in the revealed Christ: God is imminent (experiences our suffering, and indeed the movement of every particle in the cosmos), God is transcendent (God extends beyond the cosmos, to all possible futures, and even into non-existence), and God is good (despite the suffering we face, as fellow creatures of freedom with the ability to create and destroy, God loves us and has compassion on us – and desires that we do the same).

So does praying do any good? I think it helps us to quiet ourselves, commune with God, and hopefully better reflect God's character in the midst of our suffering. But will God always intervene miraculously? Not if we are to remain creatures of freedom, created in God's image. If all suffering, chaos, and freedom were removed from the cosmos, we would just be a lab experiment or puppets on a stage and would no longer really be human.

I think that sometimes God does intervene miraculously (and definitely did so in the life of Christ), but only to the extent to which we are still able to make our own future and on a statistically negligible basis. I say statistically negligible, based on recent studies regarding the efficacy of prayers for patients in hospitals. I think that if, and when, God does heal someone, it's on His own terms.

#suffering #God #atheism #christianity #DivineIntervention #Providence #probability #determinism #arminianism

The Problem of a God Who Allows Suffering

Someone asked me, if God were real, why would He allow kids to be born with birth defects (and finished with saying, "thanks imaginary god.") It bothered me, not just because he was challenging my beliefs. After all, our beliefs should be challenged and tested by the force of reason and experience, otherwise they're probably not worth anything.

But what bothered me was that he had a valid point. Why would a good God allow kids to suffer, like in the article below? Why do so many human beings seem to live a loveless, harsh, and suffering existence only to die at the end of it?

I've been thinking about it a lot. I think the only acceptable solution is one that fully recognizes the reality of suffering in the world and doesn't try to mitigate or minimize it. Suffering in the human condition is real, it is deep, and it is often relentless.

So, this is what I'm thinking currently: Our conception of God rests on our understanding of "the Ideal." The ideal varies from culture to culture, and over periods of time, but almost universally includes the concepts, "the Good, the Transcendent, and the Imminent." A concept of God worth engaging by human beings (whether in prayer, worship, or just simple awe and joy), must include these three (and yet is infinitely more than these) concepts. But how could an imminent (involved deeply in the details of the cosmos) and good God allow such undeserved suffering?

Well, if God is real, good, imminent, and transcendent and has created us for relationship with Him, then relationship requires free will. And if free will is not an illusion, it must be probabilistic and not deterministic in nature. By it's very definition, the existence of probability introduces an element of chaos into the cosmos. This chaotic element, would then introduce harsh realities into all of life's experience (and not just human), which would be experienced as suffering.  And free will opens the possibility for us to choose disharmony over harmony, and betrayal over trust.  If trust, in turn, is the foundation for all human relationships (including those with each other, with God, and with creation), then it leaves us in a completely broken state.  Brokenness leads to confusion, and in that confusion, it is no wonder we are unable to perceive God clearly on our own.

This does not compromise God's goodness, as God's goodness is manifest in everything created. Evil (and its cousin, suffering) are not created things, but are a warping or corruption of what is created, as a consequence both of the abuse of free will and the role of chaos in allowing both free will and a lack of total determinism in the cosmos. But the beauty and mystery of God's goodness, is that in His desire to preserve the will, and enable relationship, He suffers with us. He feels the pain of every dying child, of every victim of abuse. He feels our hurt, confusion, and rage.

Christ's Incarnation (God taking humanity onto Himself in Christ) ensures that He takes part in our suffering., His death on the cross is the ultimate expression of this as He takes all the pain, suffering, and brokenness in the world into Himself. His resurrection is the ultimate triumph over suffering and the hope of our triumph, as well. Finally, the Holy Spirit's continued presence in a broken and hurting world feeds the hope and propels its fulfillment forward, even in the face of inexpressible sorrow.  And it is through the Incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ that we experience the hope of reparation and restoration.

I understand if people don't see it the same way I do, and I don't blame them. But these are just my thoughts as I grapple with the realities of our existence.

P.S. Some further thoughts on the attributes of God expressed in, "the Good, the Transendant, and the Imminent." We can envision these attributes, and we all have different ideas about them, but we also all agree that outside of concepts concerning God, there are no perfect expressions of the Good, or the Transcendent, or the Imminent in human experience.

This tells me that the argument that our concept of God is simply anthropomorphic projection and nothing more, is not valid. If God simply reflected anthropocentric tendencies in our species, as necessary for our survival, then our concept of Him would not rest on attributes which are utterly unattainable by any created being. ‪#‎GodProblems‬ ‪#‎Suffering‬

Daily Mail Article: 'I Can't Cuddle My Son Because It Makes His Skin Fall Off,' A Mother's Anguish at Her Son's Suffering 

Sermon I: The Kingdom of God

-->

This is the first sermon I preached at FSBC in Pasadena . I've only preached once before, at Shiloh Baptist in Iowa, and if I can find it, I'll post it. Hopefully readers will see some improvement in style from this sermon to the ones I've preached more recently. Anywho, I welcome comments, questions and open discussion. It's my hope that posting this will stimulate thought and prayer on the Word of God and that I'll get some good advice out of it too :-) P.S. I coun't figure out how to get blogger to stop underlining my text... it's wicked irritating. Also, I totally owe Travis Stevick for giving me the idea to post these, since he's been posting his sermons for a while (they're pretty good, I might add, you guys should check 'em out).

The Kingdom of God

March 30, 2008 - Youth Sunday/Octave Day of Easter, Year A

By Ian “Ivan” Hyde

Delivered at First Southern Baptist Church of Pasadena, CA

1. Introduction

The words “kingdom of God” come up many times in the Gospels, but the phrase is probably one of the most misunderstood of Jesus’ teachings and yet, at the same time, essential to understanding his mission.

1. For over a thousand years it was standard practice in Christian nations to push the Gospel at the edge of the sword in the belief that this kingdom was somehow wrapped up in the state; we will see, however, that Christ meant something entirely different.

2. So central to the Gospel, the phrase is used at least 56 times in Matthew alone.

3. We will look at three aspects of the Kingdom of God: Suffering, Power and the Resurrection.

2. Old Testament Background

1. God is King over Creation and the Nations in the OT.

2. Israel was seen as God’s special domain, with God ultimately its Ruler.

3. Prophets spoke of God’s desire for obedience to His rule in the form of social justice: the widow and the poor were under His special care. Obedience is prized by God more than blood sacrifices.

4. Daniel speaks of God’s overthrow of earthly kingdoms – God will set right the injustice done to those He cares for.

5. This led the Jews to hope for a military and political savior that would uproot their oppressors (the Romans) with force and usher in a new era of peace and justice. This set the stage for Christ’s arrival.

3. The Kingdom Manifest in Suffering

1. In a world where people wanted to hear the sound of trumpets and a battle call, Jesus spoke of peacemakers, turning the other cheek, and being persecuted for staying true to the Gospel.

2. People wanted to be vindicated and feel self-righteous and Christ called us to account for hating each other and stepping over each other to get what we want.

3. When Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of God he would almost always immediately follow it with a parable that gave clues to some aspect of it. In Matthew 19:24 Jesus speaks of just how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God. He says, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the K of G.” This doesn’t mean it’s impossible for rich people to enter God’s kingdom, as Jesus follows that up with saying all things are possible through God, but it does mean that if we truly want to enter God’s Kingdom we need to be willing to give up our family, financial security, and even physical safety when called. Jesus clearly makes his point in Matthew 16:24 – 25 when he says, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”

4. There’s a new trend in modern American culture that some call the “prosperity gospel”, the idea that God wants us to have all the best material things in life to make us happy. Some will say just trust and God will give you that brand new car, or that promotion, or that home you’ve always wanted. If you’re a youth, since this is youth Sunday, they might say just visualize it and God will give you a sweet PS3 or a Nintendo Wii.

5. But it doesn’t work that way, the life we’re called to is hard and full of suffering. We experience the pain of rejection for our beliefs, the loss of friendships and family. Jesus tells his disciples as he sends them out in Luke 9 and 10 that they’ll meet opposition. Keep in mind most of these guys, except Peter, were between 15 and 20 years old and within a few short years some of them would be beaten, imprisoned, and killed for following Jesus. In fact, eventually all except John ended up getting killed. While you might never be called to face your death for the Gospel (though some might) I can guarantee you will see suffering, persecution, and sacrifice for living the Gospel.

6. You might never be called overseas to backpack Christian materials, medicine or aid to communities cut off by war zones, but you’ll still be called to love the smelly kid or the awkward kid in class or at work. The person you find most annoying in your life you still gotta love as a brother or sister. When our faith in Christ allows us to do this, we truly begin to enter into God’s Kingdom.

4. The Kingdom Manifest in Power

1. This brings us to God’s provision. Even though our road is marked with suffering, we are called in Luke 12:32 to strive and struggle to enter the Kingdom and all the junk that people worry about: food, clothes, and shelter will come when needed.

2. In the face of life’s sufferings, injustice, and humanity’s hate, we are able to withstand, do what’s right, and love by the power of God’s Holy Spirit.

3. When we recognize that Jesus’ death and resurrection opened the way for us to finally be reconciled to God and each other, and we have faith that His death was enough to forgive all our hates and injustices and trespasses we become heirs to the promise and power of God’s Kingdom.

4. This means that when we are faced with persecution, when our friends put us to the test about our faith, how we can possibly believe all this stuff about God, we don’t have to worry about what to say. Even though we should still pray and prepare by reading the bible and understanding God’s Word, in those tough moments He will provide the words that person needs to hear. God’s Word never returns to Him void. In this God not only promised to provide his disciples with the words they would need at the right times, but also the power to cast out demons and heal people. This power always bears witness to the sovereignty of God as rightful Ruler of our hearts.

5. And when we’re in our darkest hour, and we’re faced with doubts about where to go next or how to hold on, God, in His power, will give us the encouragement we need and even when we feel like nobody’s with us, like there isn’t a friend left, God will be there to comfort us and push us on. And when we’re at the end of this life, and death is near, God will give us the courage to fully enter His Promise. Jesus tells us this much in Matthew 24:13 – 14 when he says “But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news (or Gospel) of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come.”

5. The Kingdom Manifest in the Resurrection

1. In the end, Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God always carried with it the tension between the “already” and the “not yet”. In one way, God’s Kingdom was ushered in through Jesus’ ministry and miracles, as signs that God was and is supernaturally engaging our world to free people from oppression and injustice, but at the same time it is so much more. This is attested to in Luke 17:21 when Christ says “the kingdom of God is among you,” while also he speaks of the return of the Son of Man, who the Jews in Jesus’ day would have recognized from Daniel 7, as an event that would be like lightning tearing across the sky in a final, cataclysmic event that everybody would recognize at the end of the age before the final Resurrection which would fully restore Creation; and all the suffering, pain, and sin we see now will be completely gone.

2. We can trust that God will keep his promise in that Christ, who died to redeem us was also resurrected. It is in this hope of redemption and resurrection that we engage our culture, our friends, and our family sharing the Gospel with them, loving them no matter what, and sticking up for the oppressed, the socially awkward, and the forgotten. We live the promise of the “already” when we suffer to become like Christ knowing we are criminals redeemed, and we live in the hope of the “not yet” when we look forward to the end of all suffering and sin.