What Does "Morality" Even Mean?

Below is the manuscript of a sermon first delivered at Cortez (CO) Church of the Nazarene on Nov. 24, 2019.

Text: Col. 1:9-23 (ESV):

9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

A Clash of Worldviews

In our passage this morning, Paul is speaking to the faithful in the church at the Greek colony of Colossae, now in modern day Turkey. Many of these believers came from a pagan background. They didn’t grow up with the benefit of stories about God’s providence or saving work through Israel. They weren’t raised on the Ten Commandments or the guiding words of the Prophets. Many weren’t instructed in the wisdom of the Proverbs or Ecclesiastes, and most were not taught to pray in the model of the Psalms.

Their outlook on life, what they considered important, and what was expected of them was shaped by an entirely different worldview. Though the Greeks believed in gods and goddesses, often these deities couldn’t be trusted. They rarely acted in a purely benevolent way for the good of human beings. In fact, when the gods interacted with humans, it was often the result of a spilling over of some divine family squabble. I’m sure you all have heard of some of the Greek gods and goddesses, but I doubt many here realize just how truly awful they were! For example, Zeus’ wife Hera was renowned for her profound jealousy with regards to her constantly cheating husband, the so-called “king of the gods.”

In one story, Zeus impregnates a goddess named Leto and Hera curses the land of any people who give her shelter in her wanderings as she seeks a place to give birth. In another, he rapes a nymph named Callisto and in her fury, Hera doesn’t punish or confront Zeus; instead she turns Callisto into a bear so that she is hunted and killed by the goddess Artemis.(1) There are lots of these stories and I won’t go into them all here, but the point is, these are the gods the Greeks worshiped! They made sacrifices to them and gave them offerings and praise, as if they were worthy of worship!

The truth is, these terrible gods were just reflections of the Greeks themselves. In a way, they were embodiments of self-worship and the idols the Greeks worshiped were just images created to represent and validate their own selfish desires. For the Greeks, “goodness” was whatever they wanted it to be, and they created myths and legends to give legitimacy to their own sins.

A Culture Correction

It is this twisted sense of morality and way of life which Paul is seeking to correct in his letter to the Colossians. The believers at Colossae, being new to the good news of the Gospel, had heard of Christ’s forgiveness and grace, but they were adding elements of their old pagan ideas into their new faith. They had been forgiven of their sins when they first believed, but their minds still saw the world the way their unbelieving neighbors around them did.

So, when Paul opens his letter to the Colossians, he doesn’t just open with, “You’re doing it wrong!” Even though he’d probably be justified by saying that, he knows that a confrontational tone will just shut them off to the truth he is trying to teach them. After all, if I walked up to one of you and just opened up with, “Hey, I need to tell you what an awful person you’re being...” You probably wouldn’t want to see me again, would you?

Instead, Paul understands that it is more important to communicate compassion first. He wants the Colossians to know that he loves them and what he desires is for them is all the goodness and graciousness that God has to offer. This is why he begins in v. 9 by saying,

“And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.”(2)

From the day Paul first heard that the believers at Colossae had come to Christ, he began praying for them, and he hasn’t stopped! Their well-being and their growth is constantly on his mind, and so he “does not cease to pray” for them. And what does he pray for? He prays that they would “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him.” He qualifies this walk, what the early Christians called “the Way” as being marked by the knowledge of God, by strength, by power, by endurance, and patience, and joy, and thanksgiving and he roots these qualities in God the Father, who through the Holy Spirit, brings them out in the lives of the believers so that we may share in the inheritance promised to us through Christ as adopted sons and daughters of God.

There’s a lot to take in, in this handful of verses, but the central point is that the believers are being called to “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord.” But who decides what that looks like? I think we can agree that most people want to live a “good” life, and we generally think of ourselves as “good people,” but who decides what “goodness” is?

Naturally, if you’re sitting in one of these pews this morning, your default answer will probably be, “God!” And you would be right, that certainly is a good Sunday School answer. It’s a safe answer. But in our culture, we have many different ideas about who God is, what He’s like, and what His idea of “goodness” really is.

Even among Christians, you’ll find a myriad of different answers. For some, smoking and drinking are fine within the freedom which Christ brings. For others, these acts are stumbling blocks which separate us from God and each other and they’ll cite 1 Cor. 8:9 in support of their position.

Or the issue might revolve around piercings and tattoos. I’ll always remember when I was in High School and I asked my pastor what he thought about pierced ears, because I was thinking of piercing mine. He was horrified and asked why I would even think of doing such a thing! For him, the idea was unfathomable. His answer was pretty harsh and being the rebellious teenager that I was, I got mine pierced anyway. They were even gauged up! Maybe if he had answered in a more compassionate way, I would have considered a different course. The holes where the piercings were have since long closed up, but I will always remember that conversation.

Some will say that consuming lustful images are no big deal, or even that they provide a healthy outlet for pent up urges, and they’ll cite Jesus’ words in Mat. 7:15 in support, saying, “There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” While others will quote Jesus’ words in the previous chapter, saying “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!”(3)(4)

Or, some will cite Deu. 10:19, “Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt,” as a call to open our homes and our lives to immigrants seeking a better life; while others will note the necessity of laws and governments for maintaining secure and just societies, and will cite Rom. 13:4 in support.

The Danger of Blind Spots

It isn’t my intention to weigh in on these issues, but to note that these questions about what is moral or immoral, good or bad, righteous or evil extend into every sphere of life: the personal, the familial, the social, the economic, the political, the philosophical. And there are so many answers offered up by so many different authorities, that many simply give up on the idea of objective “goodness” altogether. Many have opted to understand the world and humanity within it materialistically, as being shaped by the chance pressures of natural selection alone. I have several atheist friends who would tell me that “goodness” is just that which is advantageous to the survival to the species. We define goodness for ourselves. There is no objective morality. And what we define as “moral behavior” is simply defined by the majority of any culture in consensus.

This isn’t a new idea. In many ways, it is a call-back to the morality of the ancient Greek culture which forms the backdrop of our passage this morning. Just as the Greek gods were simply reflections of Greek culture, and the behavior of these gods was no better than the men who worshiped them; so also, if we define our own morality, what we call “good” will just be an excuse to continue to do what we are already doing. And when our own culture, our own behavior is the pinnacle of goodness, it causes us to look at our forebears as if they were savages, while we hold the “enlightened truth;” and it carries with it the unfortunate result that future ages will consider us barbarians in turn.

The problem is that each culture carries with it certain blind spots, which make it impossible to see the whole picture accurately and which make it impossible to develop a truly objective morality. As C.S. Lewis once said, “Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and especially liable to making certain mistakes.”(5)

To understand just how easily blind spots can be missed, I want you all to try an experiment I learned in flight training. In your bulletins there is an extra sheet of scratch paper for notes. I want you to take that paper and make a + and then about 2 1/2 inches to the right of the +, make a large dot. Now, cover your left eye and look at the + with your right. Then move the paper to about 6-10 inches from your face. If you need to, move it slowly further away or closer to your eye. At some point you’ll notice the dot disappear! That represents the spot in the back of your eye where your optic nerve connects to the eyeball and creates a literal blind spot in your vision. But so that you aren’t constantly distracted by it, your brain fills in the missing information and you never notice it! Every single person born with working eyes has this blind spot, but most of you have probably never noticed it before. Some of you may have lived for decades without realizing that there is a big ole hole in your vision, because you are accustomed to seeing the world around it. This also means none of you has ever really seen the world for what it is; instead your mind has filled in your field of vision with what it thinks should be there.

Even worse, basing morality on the consensus of the masses can and has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities in human history. The most ardent followers of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin considered what they were doing to be moral, and they believed that anyone who opposed them was inherently evil and inferior. If our understanding of goodness and morality is based upon natural selection or cultural proclivities alone, then who has the authority to say they were wrong? In order for morality to actually guide us, it must call us to something higher than ourselves, to a way of life that is better than what we would normally choose. This means its source can’t come from within in us, because as Rom. 3:23 says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Anchoring Our Understanding of Morality

Among those Greeks who recognized just how terrible the pagan gods were, philosophy became the answer. They may not have fully known why, but their hearts knew that they were meant for something more than to be incidental playthings of the gods. Still, because they were products of a corrupted world, they missed the mark in their attempt to find the answers in nature. They understood that true morality could not originate in the consensus of the fallible majority alone, but they failed to realize that their ability to perceive nature through reason was itself clouded by sinful desire.

Among the believers in Colossae, this meant many had begun to embrace a system of beliefs called “Gnosticism,” that held that all matter was evil and only the spirit was good. For them, the idea that Christ incarnated in the flesh meant that He either must have been less worthy of worship than the angels or that He was really a spirit which had the illusion of flesh and blood. And so it appears from Paul’s letter that some of them had begun to renounce the world, embrace austere fasting and abstinence in order to deny the body, and even worship angels!(6)

Paul warns the church about these practices in ch. 2:8-10, when he says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority.”

Paul understood the shortcomings of paganism, materialism, and gnosticism and he understood that our basis for understanding “goodness” for developing morality must be anchored firmly in something outside of ourselves, outside of our perception of nature, even outside of our assumptions of what is pleasing to God.

The only way we can possibly “be filled with he knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that we may lead lives worthy of the Lord,” as vv. 9-10 say, is if God revealed Himself to us directly, cutting through the cultural clutter and our clouded perceptions, by literally literally taking on flesh and walking among us.

This is what Paul means, when he says in vv. 13-20,

“He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

Though God the Son had taken on flesh and walked among us, He was no less worthy of worship or our imitation than when the universe itself was created through Him. Paul calls Him “the firstborn of all creation,” and this could easily be misinterpreted as meaning He was created first, before the rest of creation. But John 1 and the Nicene Creed make it clear that God the Son was never created, being eternally begotten of the Father. Instead here, Paul is using the term “firstborn” to help his audience understand Christ’s status in relation to the Father. In the ancient world, the firstborn son had certain legal rights of inheritance that no one else had, and God the Son has a special claim to Creation and us by virtue of His relationship to the Father.

It is literally by Christ’s grace alone that the fundamental forces which hold the universe together are even able to exist. Grace is the glue which binds everything together. Even more importantly, grace illuminates the Cosmos with meaning. And just as Christ is the source of the Cosmos itself, He is also the source of the new beginning, the new creation. Just as He is the firstborn of Creation, He is the firstborn from the dead because He was the first to rise glorified from the dead. And because He rose, we have the assurance that we will rise too. As the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of the New Creation itself, He is the head of the family of God, the body of Christ, the Church and there is no other authority in heaven or on earth which can compete with Him. We have no other source for understanding that elusive term, “goodness.” Christ’s example as communicated faithfully in the gospels is the only objective good, the only means by which any action or system of thought may be judged moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or bad.

The Fullness of the Good News

That’s certainly great news! But it’s in the next verses that the fullness of the Gospel is explained to the new believers at Colossae as Paul says in vv. 21-23,

“And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

Christ didn’t just die on a cross to “cover our sins,” as some might claim. He didn’t make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf so that we can continue to wallow in our moral failures. He died so that we might be transformed, made “holy and blameless and above reproach” according to the only morality that matters – His own example. This transformation isn’t accomplished by our own efforts, but by His grace alone. As Paul says elsewhere in 1 Thess. 5:23-24, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it.”

But this is only if we “continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that [we] have heard.” He doesn’t force us, and contrary to what some may teach, we can indeed walk away from the free gift of salvation and sanctification if we so choose. But the good news is that Christ is faithful, His example is sure, and in a world of constantly spinning moral compasses, His goodness will never, ever change.

Footnotes

(1) Cartwright, Mark. “Hera” in Ancient History Encyclopedia. Web. Published Sep. 10, 2012.

(2) If not otherwise noted, all passages are ESV.

(3) Mat. 6:22-24.

(4) I take the latter position that they are indeed harmful, but that is a sermon for another time.

(5) Lewis, C.S. “Introduction” in St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 4.

(6) “Annotations,” in The Wesley Study Bible. Ed. by Joel B. Green. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009), 1447.

The Problem of Citing Bodily Autonomy in Defense of Legalized Abortion

Author’s Note: Abortion is an extremely sensitive issue for many, and must be approached with sensitivity and compassion, especially for the women and families who have been so deeply impacted by the agonizing decision over whether or not to terminate a fetus, and for those who have been wounded by the often uncaring and hurtful words of people on both sides of the debate. The intention of this piece isn’t to provide a “gotcha” argument for either side, but rather to help all those involved in forming public opinion and policy to reasonably think through the unquestioned assumptions we often hold regarding when individual lives (and their associated rights) do or don’t begin.

Many pro-choice advocates appeal to the individual woman's right to bodily autonomy as justification for free access to abortion. Though attempting to build a strong philosophical foundation for any political belief is important, I do not think the concept of “bodily autonomy,” or the right for a person to make all choices regarding the health and care of their bodies, is as sound as it may at first seem.

We as a society seem to have already agreed there are certain times when bodily autonomy can and indeed should be violated. For instance, most tend to agree that people should be vaccinated, even if the personal views of individuals run counter to the practice. This violation of bodily autonomy is generally justified by the risk non-vaccinated people pose to the rest of the population. When it comes to gun control, many societies have agreed that the right to bodily self defense must be weighed against the concerns of a safer society and the realities of mass shootings, suicides, and domestic abuse. And almost every nation on the planet is willing to compromise the bodily autonomy of certain classes of people (soldiers, prisoners, etc.) in order to maintain a stable society. Finally, we're also coming to the realization that the fight against climate change will likely require global action which restricts the choices of many individuals with respect to their own bodies (everything from freedom of transportation to the types of food we eat will be impacted)(1).

All of these pressing concerns demonstrate the reality that a perceived right to bodily autonomy isn't as inviolable as we may initially think. This is especially true when we consider that no man or woman is an island, and each decision we make impacts the lives of many others. This also means that when we decide to end the life of an unborn child (or, at the least, the potential life of a fetus); the decision almost always has further reaching impacts than in the life of the mother alone. The truth is, no body is really autonomous.

If we say a fetus is less of a person simply because it is wholly reliant on the mother for life, then we may as well argue that no one has rights; because literally every human being on the planet is part of an interconnected, complex system and each requires the others to survive. The species could not survive if each human being were truly divorced from the support she or he receives from others.

Because of this, and because I do think a fetus is a life with certain inalienable rights, I cannot support legalized abortion (except in the case of medical emergencies). I must admit that as a person of faith, I believe there is a sacredness to life... to all life, but especially to human life. And when we remove our sense of life's fundamental value, then all individual rights are at risk of dissolving before the ever-increasing needs of "the greater good." The irony is that when we begin to see unborn children as expendable tissue, it isn't that far of a cognitive leap to seeing born children as expendable as well.

But I also recognize that not everyone in this country holds to my particular religious beliefs. Since our country is based upon the principles of free expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of belief; any relevant policy decisions must be based not on the tenets of a particular religion, but through the development of coherent political philosophies arrived at through the application of reason.

Though I have many religious reasons for opposing abortion (the sacredness of life, the creation of humanity in God’s image, and God’s care for the voiceless and defenseless); I do not believe that faith and reason must necessarily conflict. And in this case, I believe that they do not. I simply think there is a stronger philosophical foundation for contending that fetuses have certain rights which must be considered equal to any other right (including the rights of born men and women); than the contention that abortion is justified by the right to bodily autonomy alone, especially since no bodies are truly autonomous.

This is because the same reasons for asserting the rights of those who have already been born apply equally to the unborn. These reasons are both biological and philosophical. Both groups exhibit biological individuality (both born and unborn have their own, unique DNA). And both groups exhibit the potentiality for agency (agency being defined as the capacity for intentional action).

If we judge the value of human life on individual agency alone (as many pro-choice advocates seem to affirm), then we suddenly run the risk of arguing that the elderly, the infirm, or the handicapped are somehow less human. This is why "potentiality for agency" is a better basis for asserting individual rights than simply "agency" or even viability alone.

But when we destroy a life, for any other reason than to save another life (and even then it's an ethical gray area that must be approached with compassion and sensitivity), we necessarily violate the intrinsic value of that life (whether born or unborn).

I don't want to restrict anyone's rights more than necessary. And I certainly don't want women to be oppressed, or left out in the cold to take care of vulnerable lives alone. We must have strong social webs of support for women in need. But I just can't see the justification for supporting legalized abortion in light of all this.

Footnotes

(1) I briefly considered including seat belt laws in the list of ways we as a society have decided public health concerns trump bodily autonomy, but I felt that would unnecessarily bog down the article. Suffice it to say there are many laws on the books which restrict the rights of individuals to make decisions regarding their own bodily health.

A Short Discourse on the Question of Miracles

The following is a response I wrote for an atheist friend who asked for personal accounts of miracles, which they then defined as “something that defies the known laws of physics.” They stated that while they had heard many stories of unusual events, they believed the causes to be perfectly rational and natural. In my response, I both relayed a personal experience I had a couple of years ago and made the argument that miracles are in fact perfectly rational and natural and that the definition which she used is a modern straw man created by David Hume, and not the classical definition of a miracle.

A Personal Experience of a Miracle

To begin, I'd like to describe an event that happened to me two years ago, which doesn't defy any laws of physics, but which was extremely (on orders of magnitude) unlikely. I was moonlighting as a security guard, with a number of properties to watch during the night, including a lot with a large number of U-Haul trucks. I never visually checked inside the cabs if they were locked (which they always were) as the windows were above my eye level, and generally just walked around without investigating the particular trucks too closely. My attention instead was on making sure there was no visible damage or noticeable signs of a break-in. One night, I was walking in front of one of the rows of trucks, when the truck immediately to my left suddenly flashed its lights. This was obviously extremely startling. When I checked the cab, I found a small boy sleeping (perhaps 8-9 years old), who must have accidentally kicked the lights causing them to engage at the exact moment I walked by.

Long story short, the boy had been missing for a week, and hadn't eaten or drunk anything for a number of days. He was very frightened, exhausted, without a jacket or any protective clothing, and the temperatures were sub-freezing. After calming him and assuring him that he wasn't in any trouble, I was able to give him my jacket and small sips of coffee while I called the police, who came with paramedics and child services. I am convinced that if I hadn't found him that night, he likely would have succumbed to the elements.

Now did this break any laws of physics? No, it did not. But if I hadn't been in that exact position, at that exact moment (with maybe a second or two of leeway), and if he hadn't kicked that light (I assume he did) and it hadn't engaged for a split second to alert me to his presence, then there’s a very real likelihood that he would have died. Due to its extreme improbability, I consider that a miracle, whereby God (maybe on a subconscious level) interacted with both our minds to cause us to be at the exactly right place at the exactly right time.

The (Often Misunderstood) Nature of Miracles

A miracle doesn't have to break the laws of physics. That has never strictly been its definition, even in ancient times. It simply needs to be evidence of an outside Intelligence interacting within those laws, to effect a result that is outside our normal human experience. As Thomas Aquinas wrote, a miracle is simply an event whose source is “apart from the general order of things” and not necessarily contrary to it (1). As far as I can tell, Hume was the first to insist they break natural laws, so that he could build a straw man to knock down using circular reasoning (that miracles can't happen since they break the laws of nature, and human experience shows the laws of nature unbroken, because miracles are never observed)(2).

I perceived God's presence in that moment the same way I perceive that those I interact with through social media are actual people, based on their tweets, shares, and comments. I don't have any proof that the letters which are posted aren't just a random arrangement of electrical signals that erroneously appeared in the system. I don't have any proof that a social media account is not a non-human bot. But our online interaction demonstrates to me that you exist; in a similar way to how the episode that I experienced above demonstrated to me God's miraculous care in that moment. That interaction between minds, and the perception of outside consciousness intervening in the situation still constitutes a genuine miracle. It is the very unlikelihood of an event occurring naturally and without interference which alerts us to the presence of intelligent interaction (whether among humans or with the Divine).

The Granddaddy of All Miracles: The Resurrection of Christ

So, what about the reports of miracles we have that are less subtle and truly extraordinary? For that, I suggest we look at the miracle of miracles, the singular one on which the entire Christian faith rests, the resurrection of Jesus. Now, the popular argument that I hear most often against it runs along the circular reasoning of Hume referenced above. Resurrections don’t happen, because if they did happen, it would be observed within the laws of nature and would consistently happen all the time under the right conditions. The problem is that the laws of nature are by necessity generalizations of human experience and not immutable realities. “Laws of nature” are predictive and descriptive, not proscriptive the way we think of human laws. They are simply what we have consistently observed in nature. Since we have not consistently observed all possible conditions, we cannot know all characteristics of the natural order. This uncertainty is highlighted by discoveries over the past several decades within the field of quantum mechanics.

As Heisenberg observed, there are limits to the extent to which we can measure the complementary variables (such as position and momentum) of particles. For instance, if we know a photon’s exact position, we can’t know it’s momentum and vice versa. So our knowledge of these particles includes a probabilistic range of behavior. As we’ve learned more about the cosmos, we’ve realized that the classical assumptions about its deterministic behavior are wrong. The future isn’t a predetermined reality, it is an uncreated (until it is created as the present) range of potentialities, many of which are much more likely to happen than others.

Within this almost infinite range of realities, there are quite possibly (but extremely unlikely) conditions which lead to the resurrection of a body. If an outside Intelligence, with perfect knowledge of those conditions, interacts with the cosmos in a way that doesn’t change the probability of such an event happening in any given moment, then they cannot be said to have necessarily “broken” the laws of nature, even by effecting a resurrection. Since such an event is so extremely unlikely, if credible reports of a resurrection arise, it does not necessarily mean they are false (unless the reports themselves are unreliable). Rather, with numerous credible reports (which Christians believe we have in the New Testament and early Apostolic accounts), the likelihood of the source being an omnipotent Intelligence increases.

Additionally, given the wide range of possibilities within the natural order, it may be that God acts in such a way so as to not upset the likelihood of expected outcomes. This does not mean miracles are violations of the natural order (as David Hume presumed) but rather unlikely events which disturb the natural operation of the cosmos, suggesting to us the presence of and interaction with an outside Intelligence, in the same way that every day interactions with the effects of other human’s actions convince us that there are other intelligent beings which exist besides ourselves. Miraculous effects then are observed to be within the natural order, but their source (whether by degrees or outright) is beyond it (3).

Christians, just like skeptics, recognize the extreme improbability associated with miracles. And we should insist that all possibilities be investigated when reports arise. However, given the wide range of human experience and the very nature by which we perceive Intelligence, I do not think we can simply brush aside credible reports when they arise with the outdated Humean response that “miracles don’t happen because the laws of nature prohibit them.” The laws of nature do no such thing because the laws of nature (as characteristics of observed effects) don’t actually do anything.

Sources

(1) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles. 3.101.1. Transl. by Vernon J. Bourke.

(2) Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 10.1.

(3) Aquinas. Summa Contra Gentiles. 3.101.2.

*Edited for clarity.

#miracles #theism #atheism #philosophy #reason #science #experience

A Dialogue on Discussing Religion with Atheists

My previous post reflected on guidelines for discussing religion with Atheists, principally that any conversation should be characterized by grace, humility, and a genuine desire to listen and learn. In it, I briefly mentioned ontological and teleological arguments for God as evidence (though, I contended, not "proof") for the reasonable assertion that God exists.

This sparked a very interesting conversation today with an Atheist friend of mine, whom I will refer to as C.S., and which I thought was worthy of reproducing here. It delves into a number of subjects, including cosmology, quantum physics, psychology, philosophy, logic, and even comparative religion. If anything, it helped me to wrestle with my own thoughts on these diverse subjects as I continue to wrestle with and synthesize both my belief in God and my respect for science and logic.

Without further ado, here is the exchange in it's entirety. I hope you are able to get something out of it as well:

C.S.: Philosophical arguments like the Modal Ontological Argument have no bearing on reality. What we can and cannot meaningfully, logically say is a function of our language, not the universe.

Also, as an atheist, I think there are three issues that get mixed up all the time. The possible existence of gods, what’s the real definition of gods, and which religion/dogmas are correct and true.

Many of the debates I have seen in YouTube mostly deal with the question of god’s existence. Apologists rarely ever want to defend the existence of their specific god, or the validity of their specific religion.

Ian Hyde: C.S., I've actually been thinking about that quite a bit recently, but I'm going to break my response up into two parts. Your first point is one of the reasons I think it is important to distinguish between the philosophical application of logic and the scientific process.

Both processes are essential to our understanding the cosmos, but where the scientific process discovers observable phenomena, philosophy orders them. The problem with the modal ontological argument is as you say, it's an application of logic without any direct bearing on phenomena in the universe as we find them.

I find it useful only in that it demonstrates that the idea of the necessary maximal greatness is at least logically coherent (if not evidentially demonstrable as a matter of fact). Therefore, it becomes necessary to link the ontological to the teleological, for it to have any bearing on the universe and not just the inner workings of our own minds.

This is where the dual process theory of the mind comes into play. Both the language of logical expression and the capacity for scientific reasoning are conscious processes (the so-called "System 2". They come with a choice. They can be embraced or ignored. But our abilities to instinctively distinguish order from disorder, life from nonlife, to perceive patterns, attribute meaning to events, or perceive intelligence are all unconscious processes (the so-called "System 1"). System 1 makes us conscious; System 2 makes us human.

Incidentally, it's also System 1 which provides the mechanism for perceiving the Divine, and it's the perceptions generated within System 1 which provide the foundation for the reasoning expressed by System 2. It's also the processes of System 1 which directly affect the results of the double-slit experiment or the results of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

Consciousness creates the reality which we then investigate using the scientific process. And if the presence of our consciousness defines the results of probabilistic outcomes experimentally in quantum mechanics; then it seems reasonable to infer a Divine Consciousness defined the almost immeasurably unlikely probabilistic outcomes leading to the creation of the Cosmos and us in turn.

That's how I link the ontological to the teleological, anyway; by understanding the observable universe to be a function of Divine Consciousness in a similar way as logical processes are a function of our own consciousness.

Ian Hyde: In response to your second point, I also agree that the three issues you listed are often conflated; though I also find the common atheistic argument that "Christians don't believe in 999 of the gods of other religions, while atheists just extend that logic to one more" based on a similar conflation of the issue.

If God is defined according to an ontological definition of "the maximally great Consciousness from which the cosmos is derived", then It is present in nearly every theistic religion. Even ancient pagan religions generally had one central deity from which all others were derived and which presided over all others. And almost all monotheistic faiths (and even non-theistic positions) today recognize the existence of elemental forces and the possibility of ultra-powerful beings which would seem to us as gods.

The primary distinguishing mark between monotheism and polytheism is not how many of these things exist, but what is worthy of worship. Monotheism (or its close cousin monolatry) simply state that only the Creator is worthy of worship and not the creature. Elemental forces or ultra-powerful beings, even in pagan mythologies, are generally understood as creatures springing from a singular Divine principle.

In turn, the distinguishing mark between Christianity and other forms of monotheism again does not revolve around which God exists, but rather how that God is self-revealed and expressed in the relational character of the Trinity (as opposed to other supposed self-revelations). We believe that the Father is self-revealed in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ and that both in turn are communicated through the work of the Holy Spirit. All three exist relationally and eternally as distinct Persons, while all are fully One God.

This means that if I did not think the kerygma (teaching) of the Church as expressed in the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Mothers and Fathers was true, then I wouldn't be a Christian. I'd probably be something else, but I still wouldn't be able to be an atheist, materialist, or philosophical realist; since I'd still be convinced that God very likely exists and is worthy of worship.

C.S.: Just because we can perceive patterns and attribute meaning to events, and/or perceive intelligence doesn’t mean that the answers we come up with to explain them are correct. Our senses can and do deceive us. We are really good at coming up with patterns for things that aren’t there. And attribute meaning to things that have none. Have you been to an art gallery lately?

Also, are you implying that some people have problems with their System 1 if they don’t

perceive divinity?

And System 2, the conscious process, is affected by many things like education level/understanding, cultural background, biases, experiences, brain damage/disorders, etc. The scientific method helps take biases away when trying to answer hypotheses, and can provide a high level of certainty in some cases.

But we all don’t engage in that method at all times, and can’t account for supernatural events or beings with it.

So consciousness creates a reality, but it’s not the same reality for everyone. I still don’t understand how you make the jump from quantum mechanics to Divine Consciousness. I’m probably missing something.

I know close to nothing about quantum mechanics, but doesn’t it rely on mathematics and science to some extent?

You can infer almost anything if your System 1 and System 2 allow you to. Mine are telling something else.

C.S.: Point 2. I think the ontological definition of God is a presupposition and nothing more. They are just words. It obviously hasn’t been proven that God exist and what attributes it has.

Also, a difference between Christianity and other pagan religions is that followers were and are instructed to stop worshipping other deities. And not only that, but once in power, they made it a priority to convert whoever they came across, by force if necessary. That’s a big difference.

The same reason you don’t believe in Zeus and worship him accordingly, is the same reason I don’t believe in Yahweh. To me there’s no difference between the two. I would require the same kind of evidence for both if I was asked to believe in either.

Ian Hyde: I really should go to an art gallery soon. :) Anyway, all art has meaning, whether conscious or unconscious (our aesthetics are a function of System 1, while their analysis is a function of System 2).

Also, I think everyone actually does instinctively, unconsciously perceive Divinity within System 1; but they choose whether or not to suppress that perception using System 2 processes.

Here's a link to a published article called "The Development of Childrens' Prelife Reasoning: Evidence From Two Cultures" by Natalie A. Emmons and Deborah Kelemen on the research backing my claim up (namely that we, as a species, are biologically primed to perceive the supernatural).

I also recommend the book called Born Believers: The Science of Children's Religious Belief by Justin L. Barrett, who is a professor at the Fuller Graduate School of Psychology (Fuller is also where I earned my MDiv.).

To better understand the logical leap I made, I suggest looking up the double-slit experiment. Basically, when a coherent light travels through two slits in a metal plate unobserved, they exhibit an interference pattern when registered on a screen behind the plate (which means the light traveled through the slits as a wave). But when the beam of light is observed, the screen registers individual particles travelling only through one slit or the other rather than through both slits as a wave.

Even if the light is only observed *after* travelling through the slit, it registers as a particle hit, rather than a wave. This means that, even though the light should have moved as a wave unobserved through the slits, it uploaded a back-history as a particle when it was observed before hitting the screen.

This demonstrates empirically two things: 1) The act of conscious observation changes the outcome of the experiment, without physically manipulating the light. and 2) The act of conscious observation collapses the wave function deciding a probabilistic outcome and making it appear as if it had been a deterministic one.

This is perhaps best expressed in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which asserts there is a fundamental limit to our ability to predict outcomes, making them essentially uncertain and probabilistic until observed. The more precisely a particle's location is known, the less precisely its momentum can be known.

Where I connect it to Divine Consciousness is that, just as our observation defines the reality with which we can interact and measure; Divine Observation was required for the definite moments (the Big Bang and subsequent events such as the rise of our particular physical laws, the condensation of matter, the formation of the Solar System, the creation of the Moon, the rise of life, and then humanity) which allowed our consciousness to be possible. Without Divine interaction, these definite events would have remained undefined, probabilistic realities.

Incidentally, both Heisenberg (the father of quantum mechanics) and Georges Lemaitre (the fellow who first postulated the Big Bang theory) were devoted Christians. That really has no bearing on their scientific theories, but it does suggest that these scientific observations were not seen as antithetical to their faith.

Now, it's totally possible that I am the one missing something, and not you. But I keep going over it all in my head, and it seems to be logically sound and backed up by empirical research.

C.S.: I will look into the stuff you provided, but I think that you’re assuming stuff. The double slit experiment demonstrated those two things you mentioned and nothing else. You say that Devine Observation was required for the big band to take place, but that’s just an assumption.

C.S.: Oh and by the way, when it comes down to children, I told my 6 year old the truth about Santa. He kept asking questions about it and the possibility of certain things, like how can he have enough presents for all the kids. So, I told him that I was the one who bought his presents, and that Santa didn’t exist.

A few days later, he still believes Santa is real. Go figure. Even with all the doubts and

questions he has about it.

Ian Hyde: It's an assumption based on how consciousness shapes reality within the Universe. In any case, it seems to be more plausible to me than the Many Worlds Interpretation supported by Lawrence Krauss, which is the only other alternative I've heard of which explains these observations.

The problem with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that it requires an infinite variety of universes, which is in contravention of Occam's Razor, the founding principle on which all scientific theories are based. Occam's Razor states that plurality should not be introduced into a theory or system without necessity. Or, as Isaac Newton said, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes." I can think of no greater plurality than an infinite

number of universes.

As to your response titled "Point 2" above, I agree that the ontological argument doesn't adequately provide attributes of character (though "Maximally Great Being" does imply attributes of being: namely omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence) or provide proof of God's existence (I think I tried, unsuccessfully, to state that in my original response). It's just meant to provide a basic working definition for God and to demonstrate that God's existence, at the very least, isn't illogical.

Also, it's true that Christians are instructed to worship no other deities, but the definition of deity in that context is altogether different than that which describes the Maximally Great Being of the ontological argument. Other deities are understood to be creature, rather than Creator, and ontologically limited in a way the Creator is not.

As for those who would kill to bring people into their religion, they do so in direct contravention to Christ's teaching. The very instant they kill someone for not believing what they do, they cease to be Christians (defined as someone who follows Christ's teachings).

Finally, Santa Claus does exist! St. Nicholas of Myra was a bishop in the 4th century. He was imprisoned for 8 years for his faith, upheld the cause of the vulnerable and the poor, and became a model for generosity. What he stood for, the essence of his character, lives on whenever anyone lives generously or cares for the less fortunate. I have as much proof for his existence as I have for anyone else's. :)

Ian Hyde: BTW, the other problem with the Many Worlds Interpretation is that even multiverses are subject to the expansionary characteristics of the observed Universe (as multiple possibilities branch off) and STILL require a single point of origin, as demonstrated by the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth (BVG) Theorem. Even a multiverse, it appears, calls for a single Creator.

#faith #science #philosophy #logic #ontological #teleological #consciousness #quantumphysics #cosmology #psychology #comparativereligion

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

Toward a Philosophical Understanding of Abortion and Human Rights

Since the landmark Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the debate regarding abortion has taken a center stage in the political discourse of the United States. Unfortunately, this debate too often degrades into tired platitudes and appeals to party lines on both sides. Even worse, the well-being of mothers and babies is held hostage to political power plays.

On the pro-life side, I often hear appeals to religious principles or scriptural passages, but how do we apply these in a secular nation? Can we really expect those who don’t believe as we do to accept the formulations from a book they don’t read or care about? Apart from scripture, how do we develop an argument that human life (both pre- and post-born) should be respected? At a more basic level, is there an argument to be made that a freshly formed zygote is an individual human being with individual rights?

On the pro-choice side, I often hear the line that a fetus, or fertilized egg, is just a mass of tissues and has no rights apart from the mother. The problem is, I rarely hear a philosophical reason for why the process of birth separates masses of tissues from fully formed human beings. Beyond the ritual of having fluid squeezed from the lungs and passing through a tunnel, what is the difference between a baby moments from being born, and one already in its mother’s arms?

I think it is clear that, in the context of these important questions, one’s political opinion be founded on philosophically coherent principles. And the fundamental philosophical question is this: Are zygotes and fetuses fundamentally human beings with intrinsic, individual rights?

Now, as a Christian, I can’t completely remove the influence of my faith from my political positions, since the fundamental linchpin of my understanding of the universe rests in the belief that we are created in the image of God and like God, we have will, desire, moral understanding, and the ability to create, destroy, and shape our environments. Still, even a person who either denies the existence of God, or whose understanding of God is fundamentally different from mine, can at least (hopefully) agree that human beings exhibit the above attributes. That being said, I go a step further in my philosophy of individual rights.

You see, the above attributes all focus on “ability”. Humans have the ability to express will or desire, to create or destroy, to make moral choices, etc. However, if our definition of a human being only rests in its ability, what does this mean for the mentally or physically handicapped? Or for those whose ability is restricted by external circumstance, like the poor? Or those whose ability is restricted by past choices, like the prisoner? Even in the past century, we have seen many atrocities committed by regimes who denied the intrinsic, fundamental human right to life of one or more of these groups because they lacked “ability” in one way or another.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Kims of North Korea all provide ready examples of the terror such a definition of humanity can create. It would be bad enough if these outbursts of violent and repressive regimes were the only examples we had, but there are new acts of violence and death perpetrated each day, all over the face of this planet. Every murder, every execution, every act of war represents the destruction of one or more human beings. And in order for a human to kill another human being, they first have to justify it in some way. Usually this means making an argument that the other human being has lost their right to life in some way, and have become less than human. Whether these deaths are justified (for instance in the execution of criminals or when fighting wars) is beyond the scope of this article.

But in the context of abortion, the observation remains true, people justify killing fetuses using the same psychological mechanism which allows them to kill enemies. This tells me their philosophical foundation for human rights is fundamentally deficient. A very pertinent example is the current practice in Iceland to screen for Down’s Syndrome and abort fetuses based on the results. On the one hand, their efforts are being lauded as successfully eliminating the genetic malady from the country. But at the same time, almost any parent of a Down’s Syndrome child will tell you just how wonderful, loving, and happy they can be. How long before we begin aborting fetuses that have the genetic disposition for heart disease, obesity, or brown eyes instead of blue?

To correct this, I argue that we must expand our definition to not only include “ability,” but also “potential.” Though a fetus is utterly reliant on its mother for the sustenance of its life and its ability for self-expression is severely limited at the moment, its potential for all the above attributes is never diminished. After all, a newborn baby is just as reliant on its mother’s survival as an unborn fetus and most humans of any age are utterly reliant on their communities for their survival, as well. In fact, no matter what challenges or changes the human organism faces throughout its life, though its ability is constantly changing as well, its potential for further expression in each of the above areas (however small) continues to remain a fundamental attribute.

This expansion of our definition of humanity has the potential to revolutionize how we philosophically frame a wide variety of political and ethical issues, including debates over the justification of war, capital punishment, euthanasia, poverty alleviation, environmental policy, and even the extension of rights to artificial intelligence or extraterrestrials we may come in contact with (topics which are science fiction now, but may become a part of reality in the future).

For me though, the issue is much simpler. Because I’ve fallen deeply, irrevocably, and irrationally in love with God; I love the bearers of God’s image just as deeply. To see any destroyed breaks my heart.

#politics #philosophy #abortion #prolife #prochoice

My Philosophy of Ministry

Introduction

As part of the ordination process with the Church of the Nazarene, I wrote a Philosophy of Ministry that articulates my views on theology and leadership within the church. This is a “living document” which can change over time as my emphases and experiences shape my outlook on church leadership.

Core Theology

My Central Mission Statement:

I am called to share the good news with the lost; to love God with everything I am; to reflect the love of God in my relationship with Him, with other people, and with all creation; and to lead others to do the same.

The Good News:

Humanity was created both individually and communally by God in God’s image,(1) to freely and fully enjoy worshipful communion with Him, with each other, and with all creation.(2) By virtue of our being God’s image, we were created with the ability to freely choose between life and death, right and wrong, creation and destruction;(3) as genuine relationship can only happen in the context of freedom.

In freedom, the first humans were seduced with the promise of power which the Tree of Knowledge embodies.(4) In doing so, they willfully followed their own selfish desires without regard to the natural consequences of broken communion which followed. This willful pursuit of selfish desire at the expense of our communion with God is what we call “sin”. Their communion with God was severed as their nakedness was revealed;(5) their communion with each other was severed as one human was cursed to dominate another and their children would be hounded by sin and death; and their communion with creation was severed with their removal from paradise and exemplified in their struggle to survive.(6)

But even though we have all been separated from God and each other by the selfish and rebellious choices of every human being from the first up to today; God did not abandon us. He chose the people Israel to be the avenue through which He would bring Salvation to all who would accept it.(7) He also sent the prophets to proclaim His law, the nature of His desire, and the reality of our sin.(8)And He loved us so much that Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully human, took on flesh and was born to a virgin, died on the cross, and was bodily raised from the dead; so that we likewise may not die in our twisted state of separation and sin, but rather also be bodily raised to new life in perfect communion with God and each other in the new, restored, and redeemed creation.(9) In doing so, Christ is the new Adam, and frees us from the curse of the old.(10) This also means our ability to repent and accept the free gift of salvation is restored through the prevenient grace provided in Christ’s sacrifice and communicated through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Christ had the authority and ability to do this because he is fully God and fully man. He was not tainted with the communal state of sin into which all humanity is born. He lived a perfect life free from sin, though he was tempted. He conquered sin and death forever in his self-sacrificial death on the cross and bodily resurrection; thus establishing the promise of bodily resurrection for all who believe in him.(11) During his life, he worked miracles and taught his disciples a new way of life, meant to provide a foretaste of his victorious kingdom and the above-mentioned new creation.

And once he was assumed into Heaven to prepare for the fulfillment of of his promise; he sent the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to call all humanity to Himself and to guide, comfort, and admonish the Church. The Holy Spirit is fully and equally God, as are the Son, and the Father. They are eternally and mystically One substance, yet three Persons. It is through the Holy Spirit that we come to know and experience God.(12)

The Church in turn is the community of disciples called to embody the foretaste of the new creation, the kingdom of heaven, which stands in stark contrast to the kingdoms of the world. We live by Christ’s teachings and self-sacrificial example. And our greatest testimony to our faith in a broken, hurting and often bitter world, is our love for one another which extends even to our enemies.(13) Our love not only reflects the promise of the new creation, it reflects the love Christ has for the world, and the love expressed in the perfect unity of the Trinity. The more fully this love is expressed in the Church, the more fully we realize the purpose for which we were first created, which is to be God’s image in the world.

Our sacraments were instituted by Christ himself for the benefit of the Church, and include Baptism and Communion. I believe Communion communicates the real presence of Christ to the participant and connects them in worship and proclamation to the whole Body of Christ, in all times and places.(14) And I believe water Baptism using the Trinitarian formula, whether by sprinkling or immersion and whether to infants or adults, is a necessary sign of obedience and public proclamation to the world of both the Christian’s inclusion in the community and their trust in Christ’s promise of the resurrection.(15) This does not mean it is necessary for Salvation, as Salvation comes through faith in the free gift of grace alone.(16)

In all this, I affirm the inspired reliability and sufficiency of Scripture to communicate what is necessary for Salvation;(17) I affirm the tradition of the Church Fathers and Mothers who have shaped its interpretation from the days of the Apostles to today; and I affirm the ancient ecumenical creeds which formulate orthodox belief.(18)

Role of the Pastor

While all Christians are called to utilize their God-given gifts for ministry, the Holy Spirit calls certain ministers, who are referred to in scripture as Elders or Overseers, to special roles in leadership, preaching, discipleship, and administering the sacraments.

As leaders we are called to discern and execute the vision which God has for our particular area of ministry, while being good stewards of the resources placed under our responsibility. As preachers, we are called to bear witness to and proclaim the transforming grace of Jesus Christ in the gospel message. As disciplers, we are called to grow, challenge, counsel, encourage, and equip those believers entrusted in our care as the Holy Spirit leads them to greater maturity, sanctifies them, and in turn calls them to ministry.(19) When administering the sacraments, we take the concrete elements and actions taught to us by Christ, and through the Holy Spirit, communicate the immeasurable grace of Christ freely given to all who are in communion with Him.

As an Elder, I plan to fulfill all these roles; though the emphasis on particular roles may take precedence over others as need requires. For example, as a hospice Chaplain I may preach monthly, usually in the context of funerals and memorials where many of those gathered may not be believers, and who may only hear sermons when they attend weddings or funerals; rather than weekly to a congregation that may have a greater proportion of believers, who may be used to sermon series and themes carried over multiple Sundays. At the same time, I may spend a greater amount of my time and energy on the tasks associated with discipleship, especially counseling and encouragement. Additionally, rather than having set, pre-planned times for the administration of sacraments, they may need to be provided on an emergency basis for individuals who wish to partake in these particular expressions of faith.

Philosophy of Leadership

As a leader in the Church, I am called to both reflect the leadership of Christ to the people, and lead the people to worshipful communion in Christ. As stated above, the type of kingdom which Christ leads stands in stark contrast to the kingdoms of the world. Likewise, the type of leadership which Christ exemplifies stands in stark contrast to the leaders of the world. Where the world rewards leaders who ruthlessly pursue their desires and consolidate power over people under themselves; Christlike leaders are called to selflessly set our desires aside and bring people to true freedom in Christ.(20) Where worldly leaders and the kingdoms they lead seek to protect their group by demonizing outsiders; Christlike leaders welcome the outsiders into our churches, our homes, and our lives.(21) Where worldly leaders and the kingdoms they lead believe power should rest with the powerful and ally themselves to it; Christlike leaders protect the marginalized and defend the cause of the orphan, the widow, and the refugee.(22)

Additionally, the New Testament puts forward very clear standards for leaders in the church. An Elder must be disciplined, faithful, honest, and gracious in all his or her areas of life, starting with the home.(23) After all, our first mission field is our own families, and they often see our true nature.

I think all leaders in the church, whether clergy or lay, are called to this type of Christlike leadership. I also think that, as we are one community, we are all accountable to each other and to the Holy Spirit for our thoughts and actions. Still, as one of the fundamental roles of a pastor discussed above is discipleship and mentorship for those called to ministry, we must be especially watchful of our conduct; as it has the potential to shape (or harm) the faith of future generations of leaders.

Philosophy of Evangelism and Discipleship

There are a number of challenges which American churches are facing in the 21st century, and one of the biggest is how to draw in and communicate the gospel to generations of Americans who are increasingly not only un-churched, but even anti-church. It isn’t simply a matter of updating the music every couple of decades. Many of those who have walked away from (or never entered) a church have deep wounds from those around them which they perceived as religious. Many have walked into a congregation two or three weeks in a row without being noticed. And there have been some who were absent for weeks to care for a family member or because of illness, but no one called, came to visit, or prepared a meal.

If we are to attract, convert, and disciple an increasingly un-churched culture; we need to push past the political, generational, socio-economic, and ethnic divisions in our country and discern what the Holy Spirit is already doing. It’s easy to become discouraged sometimes, but God is doing some amazing things in our culture. For instance, there is a deep desire among younger generations to see ethnic divisions crumble and to be a part of diverse groups. They are passionate about caring and advocating for the poor and marginalized. And they care about the planet and the ramifications of pollution, deforestation, and climate change. Though they are increasingly shaped by sources of information which only serve to confirm previous biases, they have a deep desire for truth that addresses the hard questions encountered in life.

To me, these concerns represent the work of the Holy Spirit in the world, drawing all people to Himself. We just need to be aware of what God is already doing, and develop our ministries to reflect and participate in that work. That may mean starting a community garden, or organizing a highway cleanup, or designating lay volunteers to greet new visitors and call those who we haven’t seen in a while, just to let them know we care for them and are here for them. It could also mean conducting small group bible studies in more comfortable and personal settings, like in homes, or coffee-shops, or other so called “third spaces” where people can relax and grow as a community. Finally, our leaders need to trust God by being vulnerable with each other. By taking risks and letting our congregations know we also sometimes struggle with tough questions, with loneliness, and with emotional wounds; we can build a more trusting and truly united community within the Body of Christ.

Role of the Laity

Our church affirms the calling placed on the life of every believer to be ministers and witnesses to the good news of Jesus Christ.(24) This means that, according to the gifts they’ve been given and which the Church is called to cultivate, they can and should be involved in almost every area of ministry. While an Elder is called to discern and communicate God’s vision for the community, lay members are equipped by the Holy Spirit to participate in and execute that vision. Though an Elder is called to preach to the congregation, lay members may pray or give testimony to what God is doing in their lives in the congregational setting. And though an ordained Elder is responsible for the maturity and discipleship of the body of believers, as well as the cultivation of prospective ordination candidates; more mature lay members may still lead bible studies, book clubs, and group discussions, teach Sunday School, and even mentor less mature individuals, all under the supervision of the ordained members of the congregation.

Philosophy of Stewardship

First, I believe the church should be utterly transparent in how it allocates funds. In line with the above discussion on evangelism, many have grown mistrustful of institutions in general and churches in particular. Popular criticism of lavish church facilities and pastors who travel in their own private jets and live in mansions abound; even if this criticism does not reflect the reality of most churches and pastors.(25) A church which makes its financial information readily available goes a long way toward earning people’s trust.

I also think that if an Elder or leader in the Church is going to hold the community to a standard of investment in the church and personal accountability; then the self-same leader should exemplify that standard.(26) That means I should not only tithe as a regular act of trust, discipline, and worship;(27) I should use all my household resources in a responsible manner. This may mean going above and beyond the tithe to support Nazarene Compassionate Ministries or other worthy causes, as I am able. It also means responsibly using my time and energy in ways that edify the community, grow our bonds of love, and that exemplify the loving character of Christ to all those I interact with. And it means finding new ways to eliminate waste (including food, water, electricity, fuel, etc. as well as money).

Additionally, just as the church’s leadership are called to discern and build strategies for responding to God’s vision for the congregation; they are also called to find creative ways to efficiently allocate resources in a sustainable way, while seeing to the needs of those entrusted to the care of the Church.(28) This means having Standard Operating Procedures and detailed recordkeeping in place on the congregational and program level for the allocation and use of funds; as well as detailed financial plans in place when a new ministry or project is started and at regular intervals as it continues.

Finally, stewardship also extends to our care of the planet and the “community capital”(29) which surrounds our churches. This may mean embracing green initiatives when remodeling or expanding our facilities, or instituting a recycling or scrap collection program (which could also bring in revenue). It could also mean having a prayer garden and which incorporates the natural beauty of the surrounding environs, while also utilizing plants adapted to the climate to cut down on chemical pest control measures and watering requirements (which also saves money in the process). On the “community capital” side, the local church could partner with other like-minded area churches, businesses, non-profits, and individuals in ministering to the poor, or by working together on ministry projects, thereby fostering greater cooperation with the greater Body of Christ and negating another popular criticism of the Church as being fractured and divisive.(30)

The Role of the Family

The family is a microcosm of the Church,(31) and the relationships within the family should strive to reflect the perfect love, joy and communion expressed in the Trinity. My wife and I try to make all our family decisions in unity, submitting ourselves to each other, and being examples of Christ-like love to each other and our children.(32) When it comes to ministering in the Church, I recognize that my wife has been given unique gifts and her own will to follow Christ. This means that while she is very supportive of my ministry, her role within the church should be decided based on her own gifts and the leading of the Holy Spirit, and not by her relationship to me as a pastor’s wife.

I also recognize that, while I am committed to raising my children in the knowledge of Christ, their decision whether or not to follow Christ or participate in ministry is ultimately a decision made between them and God. So, while I encourage my family to participate fully in the life and ministry of the Church, I will not force them. Likewise, when it comes to positions of ministerial authority within the Church, they will need to show the same maturity and calling that would be expected of any other believer who desired such a position, and should not be deferentially placed simply because I am the pastor.

Why a Nazarene Minister

I love the Nazarene Church and the work of God expressed in both its history and distinctive doctrines. These include denominational roots in urban homeless ministries in Los Angeles, and an emphasis on supporting Nazarene educational institutions. They also include our teachings on Christian perfection, free will, and divine healing. Additionally, I support our affirmation of both infant and believer’s baptism. And I rejoice in the call God has placed in the lives of women as well as men to become ordained Elders and Deacons. All of these were factors in my decision to serve with and support the Nazarene Church.

Still, I also believe that God is doing great things in other orthodox denominations(33) and I believe it is God’s desire that we overcome our denominational differences and learn to love each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. We may not agree on everything and should still stay true to our convictions and doctrinal distinctions; but we can also recognize the legitimacy of each other’s ministries, ordinations, and sacraments. In the meantime, I think it is essential to the ministry of the Church that we begin to work with other denominations in our communities to reach out to the lost, help the poor, and even worship with each other as the opportunity arises.

//SIGNED//

Rev. Ian Hyde

Footnotes

1. Gen. 1:26-27.
2. cf. Psa. 8:1-9, 19:1-6 and 139:13-18.
3. Deu. 30:19.
4. Gen. 3:3-6.
5. Gen. 3:7.
6. Gen. 3:13-19, 23.
7. John 4:22; cf. Rom. 10-11.
8. 2 Chr. 24:19.
9. 1 Cor. 15:12-58; Rev. 21:1-27.
10. 1 Cor. 15:45.
11. 1 Cor. 15:12-58; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:31:2.
12. John 14:15-17.
13. John 13:35; Mat. 5:44-45.
14. Eph. 4:11-13.
15. John 6:32-58; 1 Cor. 10:16-17, 11:23-29.
16. Mat. 28:19-20; Acts. 16:31, 33; 1 Cor. 12:13.
17. 28th General Assembly of the Church of the Nazarene, Manual: 2013-2017, 29.
18. cf. Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381; Chalcedonian Creed of 451; Apostles’ Creed; and the Athanasian Creed.
19. Eph. 2:8-9.
20. 1 Pet. 5:2-3; Mat. 20:25-28.
21. Heb. 13:2.
22. Exo. 23:9; Jer. 7:6; James 1:27.
23. Titus 1:5-9; 1 Tim. 3:1-7.
24. Church of the Nazarene, Manual: 2013-2017, 186.
25. According to Pastor Salaries, Average Salary & Jobs Pay, http://www.salarylist.com/jobs/Pastor-Salary.htm, retrieved Feb. 27, 2017; the average annual pay for a pastor is $35,360. In fact, a growing number of pastors must work two or more jobs to provide for their families.
26. 1 Cor. 4:1-2.
27. Deu. 14:28-29; Prov. 3:9-10.
28. Luk. 12:42-46.
29. These are the unique cultural resources which abound in any community, and which both connect it to and differentiate it from other communities.
30. John 17:20-21.
31. John Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians, 6.
32. Eph. 5:21-33.
33. Defined as those who exhibit apostolic authority and adhere to the ancient creeds listed above.

#ministry #ChurchoftheNazarene #creeds #gospel