Sunday, September 10, 2006
The next big issue
This is why there's Calvin and Hobbes, and then there's all the other comic strips. No wonder the Bible has all those numbers.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Let us reason together
In a comment to my initial church-state post, Ruggman made the point that having a "Biblical worldview" considerably influences a person's life.
To know and understand that the essence of reality is God - transcendent, personal, moral, relational - who is both separate from and fills all time and space; and who entered into time and space as a human being who ultimately dies and rises in an act of unfathomable love in order bring reconciliation and renewal should and must influence every aspect of our being.
The issue which I in part raised in the post was how would we then relate to our fellow human beings made in the image of God, whose image, like ours, is tarnished and marred and broken due to our rebellion and rejection of the one who is truth, goodness and life itself. Do we stand above simply issuing religious sounding words that our hearers do not understand, or do we say, as even God himself said to his wayward people: "'Come now, let us reason together,' says the Lord." Isaiah 1:18.
It is vitally important to note that the New Testament is clear that the endpoint, purpose, meaning and understanding of Biblical revelation is found ultimately in the momentous pronoucement of the coming of God himself onto the stage of history, in the person of his Son, to bring redemption and restoration in his death and resurrection and to call to himself all those from every "tribe and language and people and nation" to entrust themselves to him. It is good news that the rule of the righteous and true king has come. "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other." Isaiah 45:22.
Therefore, I think the citing of Scripture's condemnations without the proclamation of their remedy in Jesus being the one who is condemned for us is a misuse of the Bible and damaging to its hearers. This is especially the case in a setting where the Bible is cited out of its context and there is no opportunity for discussion and explanation.
I want to be clear here that I am not saying it is always inappropriate to cite the Bible in public discussions. First, we should allow room for different approaches. Secondly, Scripture has much wisdom and knowledge to impart, and sometimes its jarring and pointed truth can get to the heart of the matter (I realize it may seem obscure in places and even strange to us 21st century individualists, but that is another discussion for another time). I think it is a matter of exercising sound judgment, understanding the context of the situation and those being addressed. For example, the Civil Rights movement was an overtly Christian movement that employed Scripture effectively both as the foundation and support of its just cause.
Someone might wonder whether I am taking the position in all this that the secular or relativistic person is the one who is neutral and objective, simply seeking to make reasonable judgments. Um, no. There is nothing neutral and objective about believing that either God does not exist or that God is unknowable (not only for that person but for anyone) or claiming that one believes in God or "spirituality," while only adopting those aspects of "spirituality" that are to one's taste or choosing. Each of these is a deep and personal commitment that has significant implications for how one views the world and makes decisions.
At the same time, with respect to our current situation, I think it important that we understand the perspective held by many of our friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow citizens. To them, expressions of religious belief or appeal to writings they categorize as religious are merely private and subjective beliefs having no connection to reason or reality. When they hear an overtly religious argument to support a position on a public matter, they find it to be an imposition that has no place in a public setting, especially if it involves legislation. Now, some may have noticed that sometimes religious arguments are well-received when they support a position that is favored. Also, all laws are an "imposition" of morality. In other words, people are inconsistent and their motivations are not often clear even to themselves. My point is not to explain or justify, but to try to understand. We should be sympathetic to someone who finds it threatening to have a religion he doesn't believe have its laws imposed on him, even if he is inconsistent in his objections.
By the way, from a historic standpoint, I think the person most responsible for the above view taking hold was 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (I am really stepping out of my element here, especially in discussing Kant whose writings are considered among the most difficult, and am probably inviting a smackdown from someone who may know better. Of course, I won't be the first blogger to not be impeded by a lack of expertise). Kant took the position that while God and the soul may exist, we couldn't make any definitive statements about them because we don't detect them with our senses. They can only exist in the mind because they don't correspond to sensible objects outside the mind. Therefore, such beliefs, while acceptable, are subjective and personal. In other words, "it's okay for you to believe what you believe about God, and it's okay for me to believe what I believe about God, and no one is right and no one is wrong, because we can't know any way." I hope you can see that the claim that God can't be known in a manner that corresponds to the way he actually is is itself an all-encompassing and definitive claim about God that excludes other types of claims. Kant has been internalized to such an extent that people don't realize their adherence to an 18th century German philosopher. They just express his beliefs in a "that's just the way it is," matter of fact sort of way. The irony is while we may all believe anything we want about God, belief in Kant is not quite so malleable. FYI, I am not a Kantian.
Interestingly, to the Kantians out there, the Apostle John writes: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life." 1 John 1:1-2. In the opening to his gospel, John puts it more pointedly: "The Word became flesh." In other words, the ideal about which Kant claimed we couldn't make any definitive statements (even as he made definitive statements) became the height of empirical accessibility - a living, walking, talking, flesh and blood human being who lived in a particular time, in a particular place among a particular people.
Again, regardless of what we may think, this is where we are at. Accordingly, if we intend to engage publicly and with the people we know and care about, it is important that we express ourselves in such a way that make it clear that our positions are not grounded in some private never-never land. What we say is "come now, let us reason together." The mere fact of God making himself known to us at all and speaking to us, ultimately in Jesus, was an act of remarkable accomodation and humility on his part. In Scripture, we find the hearers being addressed in their own language in terms accessible to them. We see this in Jesus' parables, and in Paul's interaction with the Gentiles in Acts. We can stand side by side and consider the landscape together as fellow travelers, even while being transparent and honest about what we think and know. To think that we can't do so would be to deny our common humanity as those made in God's image.
It would also be a denial of the goodness of God to all humanity and creation, as evidenced by the formation of entire civilizations and the outstanding contributions made by and among those who, though they are able to discern certain truths, even with insight and brilliance, do not acknowledge and give thanks to the one who is their source and sustainer. At the same time, also undeniable is the immense good that has come into the world through those who have acted specifically on their knowledge and trust of God who, in his being is personal and relational - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without the advent of Jesus Christ, this world would be a much more cruel place. I am aware of the litany of misdeeds, but to make those wrongs comprise the entire 2000-year Christian narrative is, at best, highly selective and plainly wrong.
Are there tensions that exist in the views I've expressed? Sure there are. One of the most dynamic aspects of the recognition of a God-centered, God-shaped reality is the widespread existence of tensions and paradoxes, which we are called to embrace. One of the ways we all fall into error is when we seek do away with the tensions by simply ignoring or eliminating one side or the other.
Right now, we face considerable challenges on particular issues concerning which there is strident disagreement. These issues, among others, pertain to the value of human life at its beginning and end; and to the uniqueness of the male-female sexual relationship, encompassing sexuality in general. Are these matters "religious?" Yes and no. They are in the broader sense of addressing what it means to be a human being; what it means to live well; on what basis we make decisions about ourselves and our bodies; what does our body's physical design tell us? do we as a society have an obligation to include in our community and protect human beings in all stages of life, especially when they are vulnerable? Am I simply an autonomous being obligated only to myself, or is the essence of reality moral and true, so that it shapes me instead of my shaping it? These issues are not "religious" in the purely subjective, detached from reality sense commonly thought of.
Also, these are not at all simply matters of the advancement of just laws, though that is important with respect to some of the issues identified above, but broader matters concerning the governing of our lives individually and together. That is why in discussing these things I do not expect people to say: "oh John, you are so reasonable. Thanks for sharing your views. I agree with you." While we may consider the nature of reality, we have our reasons for hiding from that reality, shading the truth, justifying our conduct. Even as we may imagine ourselves to be free, we are bound. We have personal, emotional, moral, financial, professional and spiritual commitments that direct us. Much is at stake for each of us.
Yet, I think it worthwhile to do the hard work of engaging on matters that affect us so deeply. I hope and believe that as we are willing to encounter reality as it presents itself to us on these issues that are so close to the essence of who we are, we will also find ourselves facing the One who made and sustains reality, not as one who condemns us for denying what was apparently true, but as the One who came from the Father full of grace and truth to transform us into people who do not live in denial. At the same time, there is an inherent goodness to ordering our lives in accordance with what is real and true along the way.
To know and understand that the essence of reality is God - transcendent, personal, moral, relational - who is both separate from and fills all time and space; and who entered into time and space as a human being who ultimately dies and rises in an act of unfathomable love in order bring reconciliation and renewal should and must influence every aspect of our being.
The issue which I in part raised in the post was how would we then relate to our fellow human beings made in the image of God, whose image, like ours, is tarnished and marred and broken due to our rebellion and rejection of the one who is truth, goodness and life itself. Do we stand above simply issuing religious sounding words that our hearers do not understand, or do we say, as even God himself said to his wayward people: "'Come now, let us reason together,' says the Lord." Isaiah 1:18.
It is vitally important to note that the New Testament is clear that the endpoint, purpose, meaning and understanding of Biblical revelation is found ultimately in the momentous pronoucement of the coming of God himself onto the stage of history, in the person of his Son, to bring redemption and restoration in his death and resurrection and to call to himself all those from every "tribe and language and people and nation" to entrust themselves to him. It is good news that the rule of the righteous and true king has come. "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other." Isaiah 45:22.
Therefore, I think the citing of Scripture's condemnations without the proclamation of their remedy in Jesus being the one who is condemned for us is a misuse of the Bible and damaging to its hearers. This is especially the case in a setting where the Bible is cited out of its context and there is no opportunity for discussion and explanation.
I want to be clear here that I am not saying it is always inappropriate to cite the Bible in public discussions. First, we should allow room for different approaches. Secondly, Scripture has much wisdom and knowledge to impart, and sometimes its jarring and pointed truth can get to the heart of the matter (I realize it may seem obscure in places and even strange to us 21st century individualists, but that is another discussion for another time). I think it is a matter of exercising sound judgment, understanding the context of the situation and those being addressed. For example, the Civil Rights movement was an overtly Christian movement that employed Scripture effectively both as the foundation and support of its just cause.
Someone might wonder whether I am taking the position in all this that the secular or relativistic person is the one who is neutral and objective, simply seeking to make reasonable judgments. Um, no. There is nothing neutral and objective about believing that either God does not exist or that God is unknowable (not only for that person but for anyone) or claiming that one believes in God or "spirituality," while only adopting those aspects of "spirituality" that are to one's taste or choosing. Each of these is a deep and personal commitment that has significant implications for how one views the world and makes decisions.
At the same time, with respect to our current situation, I think it important that we understand the perspective held by many of our friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow citizens. To them, expressions of religious belief or appeal to writings they categorize as religious are merely private and subjective beliefs having no connection to reason or reality. When they hear an overtly religious argument to support a position on a public matter, they find it to be an imposition that has no place in a public setting, especially if it involves legislation. Now, some may have noticed that sometimes religious arguments are well-received when they support a position that is favored. Also, all laws are an "imposition" of morality. In other words, people are inconsistent and their motivations are not often clear even to themselves. My point is not to explain or justify, but to try to understand. We should be sympathetic to someone who finds it threatening to have a religion he doesn't believe have its laws imposed on him, even if he is inconsistent in his objections.
By the way, from a historic standpoint, I think the person most responsible for the above view taking hold was 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (I am really stepping out of my element here, especially in discussing Kant whose writings are considered among the most difficult, and am probably inviting a smackdown from someone who may know better. Of course, I won't be the first blogger to not be impeded by a lack of expertise). Kant took the position that while God and the soul may exist, we couldn't make any definitive statements about them because we don't detect them with our senses. They can only exist in the mind because they don't correspond to sensible objects outside the mind. Therefore, such beliefs, while acceptable, are subjective and personal. In other words, "it's okay for you to believe what you believe about God, and it's okay for me to believe what I believe about God, and no one is right and no one is wrong, because we can't know any way." I hope you can see that the claim that God can't be known in a manner that corresponds to the way he actually is is itself an all-encompassing and definitive claim about God that excludes other types of claims. Kant has been internalized to such an extent that people don't realize their adherence to an 18th century German philosopher. They just express his beliefs in a "that's just the way it is," matter of fact sort of way. The irony is while we may all believe anything we want about God, belief in Kant is not quite so malleable. FYI, I am not a Kantian.
Interestingly, to the Kantians out there, the Apostle John writes: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life." 1 John 1:1-2. In the opening to his gospel, John puts it more pointedly: "The Word became flesh." In other words, the ideal about which Kant claimed we couldn't make any definitive statements (even as he made definitive statements) became the height of empirical accessibility - a living, walking, talking, flesh and blood human being who lived in a particular time, in a particular place among a particular people.
Again, regardless of what we may think, this is where we are at. Accordingly, if we intend to engage publicly and with the people we know and care about, it is important that we express ourselves in such a way that make it clear that our positions are not grounded in some private never-never land. What we say is "come now, let us reason together." The mere fact of God making himself known to us at all and speaking to us, ultimately in Jesus, was an act of remarkable accomodation and humility on his part. In Scripture, we find the hearers being addressed in their own language in terms accessible to them. We see this in Jesus' parables, and in Paul's interaction with the Gentiles in Acts. We can stand side by side and consider the landscape together as fellow travelers, even while being transparent and honest about what we think and know. To think that we can't do so would be to deny our common humanity as those made in God's image.
It would also be a denial of the goodness of God to all humanity and creation, as evidenced by the formation of entire civilizations and the outstanding contributions made by and among those who, though they are able to discern certain truths, even with insight and brilliance, do not acknowledge and give thanks to the one who is their source and sustainer. At the same time, also undeniable is the immense good that has come into the world through those who have acted specifically on their knowledge and trust of God who, in his being is personal and relational - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without the advent of Jesus Christ, this world would be a much more cruel place. I am aware of the litany of misdeeds, but to make those wrongs comprise the entire 2000-year Christian narrative is, at best, highly selective and plainly wrong.
Are there tensions that exist in the views I've expressed? Sure there are. One of the most dynamic aspects of the recognition of a God-centered, God-shaped reality is the widespread existence of tensions and paradoxes, which we are called to embrace. One of the ways we all fall into error is when we seek do away with the tensions by simply ignoring or eliminating one side or the other.
Right now, we face considerable challenges on particular issues concerning which there is strident disagreement. These issues, among others, pertain to the value of human life at its beginning and end; and to the uniqueness of the male-female sexual relationship, encompassing sexuality in general. Are these matters "religious?" Yes and no. They are in the broader sense of addressing what it means to be a human being; what it means to live well; on what basis we make decisions about ourselves and our bodies; what does our body's physical design tell us? do we as a society have an obligation to include in our community and protect human beings in all stages of life, especially when they are vulnerable? Am I simply an autonomous being obligated only to myself, or is the essence of reality moral and true, so that it shapes me instead of my shaping it? These issues are not "religious" in the purely subjective, detached from reality sense commonly thought of.
Also, these are not at all simply matters of the advancement of just laws, though that is important with respect to some of the issues identified above, but broader matters concerning the governing of our lives individually and together. That is why in discussing these things I do not expect people to say: "oh John, you are so reasonable. Thanks for sharing your views. I agree with you." While we may consider the nature of reality, we have our reasons for hiding from that reality, shading the truth, justifying our conduct. Even as we may imagine ourselves to be free, we are bound. We have personal, emotional, moral, financial, professional and spiritual commitments that direct us. Much is at stake for each of us.
Yet, I think it worthwhile to do the hard work of engaging on matters that affect us so deeply. I hope and believe that as we are willing to encounter reality as it presents itself to us on these issues that are so close to the essence of who we are, we will also find ourselves facing the One who made and sustains reality, not as one who condemns us for denying what was apparently true, but as the One who came from the Father full of grace and truth to transform us into people who do not live in denial. At the same time, there is an inherent goodness to ordering our lives in accordance with what is real and true along the way.
Tennis anyone
This article has been on the NY Times most emailed list ever since it appeared on August 20. The reason I link to it is simply because it is remarkably well-written. Its excellence as a written piece makes it worthwhile. Moreover, it is excellent writing about someone who himself so excels at what he does his brilliance evokes wonder and an almost reverent appreciation. According to the author, it is "beauty" that elicits such a response.
In his thoughtful new book, NT Wright identifies this stirring longing for beauty, along wiht our longings for truth, love, justice, spirituality and relationship as "echoes of a voice" that inhabits and fills reality.
In his thoughtful new book, NT Wright identifies this stirring longing for beauty, along wiht our longings for truth, love, justice, spirituality and relationship as "echoes of a voice" that inhabits and fills reality.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
TV or not TV
Speaking of kids watching television (that is what we were talking about, right?), the other day, as I was seated doing something I thought important, I observed a familiar and disturbing scene. Our 5-year old, Gabbie, and 2-year old, David, were transfixed to a Dora video (don’t worry. You either know Dora or you don’t. “Dora the Explorer” is not the issue). Naturally, my thoughts turned to the first chapter of Genesis (oh, you mean that’s not “natural?”)
Genesis 1 presents an account of the creation, culminating in the creation of human beings – male and female. What we find from the beginning is that, as those made in the image of God, the Creator, we were made to work, to be productive, to be creative. We were not made to be passive consumers, existing to be entertained. Now, in some respects, watching a program, attending a movie, etc., can be a way to appreciate someone else’s creativity. However, to turn to television, the internet, etc. as an antidote to boredom, or as a default choice, is a futile, mind-numbing, soul-crushing exercise that will only serve to increase the restlessness, boredom and sense of dislocation for anyone, child or adult.
So we should all get out and be productive creators, right? Well, yes, but Genesis 1 does not tell us the whole story. In Genesis 3, we see what the problem is – why we are not the creative producers we were designed to be. Genesis tells us about what is known as “the Fall” – Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s design for creation’s, including their own, flourishing under God’s gracious rule. God’s image in humanity is broken. As a result, everything becomes fractured and infected, including work, our creative activity, which is now difficult and painful and demanding. So, we shy away from work and creativity and resist it. And now, the opportunities to passively take and consume “entertainment,” to run from work’s struggle, are available as never before in history.
Thankfully, that is not the end of the story. In Genesis 3, we have God instilling the hope that he would not abandon us to our fallen, decaying, disintegrating state. From that point forward, all those who trusted in God – with Abraham being the paradigmatic figure – looked to him in hope that he would forgive, restore and renew. This he does in Abraham’s son, “the image of the invisible God,” the one by whom all things were created, and by whom there is a renewed and restored creation, which includes work.
Even now, as Jesus is “making all things new,” the effects of the fallen creation remain, as she “groans” for her full and final redemption and liberation upon Jesus’ return, when he will bring to completion that which he accomplished in his death and resurrection. And so we know that creative activity is good, but we also understand the nature of the struggle and are not confused by it, thinking the way out is through some form of “escape.” We create and produce with a real hope based on what God through Jesus Christ has done, is doing and will do. This includes activity that restores or renews, such as fixing something broken, ordering something disordered or simply cleaning. Furthermore, when our productivity is undertaken for the good of another, the renewing work of Christ is truly being reflected.
Conclusion: I really think my kids should watch less television and maybe try to build something with all those stray pieces of lego all over our home. Maybe it would help if I actually participated with them. Hmmm.
Conclusion 2: What I said about “Dora the Explorer” not being the issue isn’t true. I have been listening to her voice incessantly for way too long and I want her to go away.
Note: this post is not intended to instill feelings of superiority in those who work hard, especially if they are overworking. Obviously, the issues pertaining to creativity, work, rest, our self efforts to deal with our broken image (such as building our identity on our accomplishments) and God’s restoration of that image are plentiful.
Note 2: If you don't like it, you try coming up with a title.
Genesis 1 presents an account of the creation, culminating in the creation of human beings – male and female. What we find from the beginning is that, as those made in the image of God, the Creator, we were made to work, to be productive, to be creative. We were not made to be passive consumers, existing to be entertained. Now, in some respects, watching a program, attending a movie, etc., can be a way to appreciate someone else’s creativity. However, to turn to television, the internet, etc. as an antidote to boredom, or as a default choice, is a futile, mind-numbing, soul-crushing exercise that will only serve to increase the restlessness, boredom and sense of dislocation for anyone, child or adult.
So we should all get out and be productive creators, right? Well, yes, but Genesis 1 does not tell us the whole story. In Genesis 3, we see what the problem is – why we are not the creative producers we were designed to be. Genesis tells us about what is known as “the Fall” – Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s design for creation’s, including their own, flourishing under God’s gracious rule. God’s image in humanity is broken. As a result, everything becomes fractured and infected, including work, our creative activity, which is now difficult and painful and demanding. So, we shy away from work and creativity and resist it. And now, the opportunities to passively take and consume “entertainment,” to run from work’s struggle, are available as never before in history.
Thankfully, that is not the end of the story. In Genesis 3, we have God instilling the hope that he would not abandon us to our fallen, decaying, disintegrating state. From that point forward, all those who trusted in God – with Abraham being the paradigmatic figure – looked to him in hope that he would forgive, restore and renew. This he does in Abraham’s son, “the image of the invisible God,” the one by whom all things were created, and by whom there is a renewed and restored creation, which includes work.
Even now, as Jesus is “making all things new,” the effects of the fallen creation remain, as she “groans” for her full and final redemption and liberation upon Jesus’ return, when he will bring to completion that which he accomplished in his death and resurrection. And so we know that creative activity is good, but we also understand the nature of the struggle and are not confused by it, thinking the way out is through some form of “escape.” We create and produce with a real hope based on what God through Jesus Christ has done, is doing and will do. This includes activity that restores or renews, such as fixing something broken, ordering something disordered or simply cleaning. Furthermore, when our productivity is undertaken for the good of another, the renewing work of Christ is truly being reflected.
Conclusion: I really think my kids should watch less television and maybe try to build something with all those stray pieces of lego all over our home. Maybe it would help if I actually participated with them. Hmmm.
Conclusion 2: What I said about “Dora the Explorer” not being the issue isn’t true. I have been listening to her voice incessantly for way too long and I want her to go away.
Note: this post is not intended to instill feelings of superiority in those who work hard, especially if they are overworking. Obviously, the issues pertaining to creativity, work, rest, our self efforts to deal with our broken image (such as building our identity on our accomplishments) and God’s restoration of that image are plentiful.
Note 2: If you don't like it, you try coming up with a title.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
I want therefore I am
After picking up my seven-year old daughter, Ashley, from school today, I imposed on her a cruel and intolerable burden. Instead of going directly home, we stopped at a store, thus foiling Ashley's elaborate television watching plans. On the way to the store, the following discussion ensued:
Ashley: I don't want to go to the store (though seated and buckled, she was very much "foot-stomping" unhappy.)
Me: You can't always get what you want (singing - imagine Mick Jagger, only, you know, completely different.)
Ashley: I always have to get what I want.
Me: If you think you always have to get what you want, you are going to have a very unhappy life.
Ashley: But adults always get what they want.
Me: Incoherent response expressing vehement disagreement, something along the lines of "uh...doh...pff...tthaah...nu uh."
Ashley: Yes they do.
Me: (gathering my composure slightly) No they don't. They just complain about it differently than kids do. (I don't think that was a particularly edifying parental comment.)
Ashley: Yes they do (shockingly unpersuaded by my "I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" form of argument.) They can do whatever they want. But if kids can't do whatever they want, then adults shouldn't be able to do whatever they want either.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Ashley: I don't want to go to the store (though seated and buckled, she was very much "foot-stomping" unhappy.)
Me: You can't always get what you want (singing - imagine Mick Jagger, only, you know, completely different.)
Ashley: I always have to get what I want.
Me: If you think you always have to get what you want, you are going to have a very unhappy life.
Ashley: But adults always get what they want.
Me: Incoherent response expressing vehement disagreement, something along the lines of "uh...doh...pff...tthaah...nu uh."
Ashley: Yes they do.
Me: (gathering my composure slightly) No they don't. They just complain about it differently than kids do. (I don't think that was a particularly edifying parental comment.)
Ashley: Yes they do (shockingly unpersuaded by my "I'm rubber and you're glue, everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you" form of argument.) They can do whatever they want. But if kids can't do whatever they want, then adults shouldn't be able to do whatever they want either.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Problem
In my previous post I alluded to the classic problem of evil as the ultimate objection to the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God. Clearly, there is a lot of very bad stuff happening everywhere, all around us that causes us to ask, "where is justice? where is goodness? where is love?" The bottom line is this: if the one in control were good there wouldn’t be so much bad.
There are many who consider the presence of pain, suffering and evil to be an airtight argument refuting the existence of God. I think however this line of reasoning actually poses a problem for those who advance it. What they are responding to is a world in which they find all sorts of things that are objectionable, disturbing and awful. In other words, there is the way things are, which does not measure up to what they should be. There is not only what “is,” but also what “ought” to be. However, in a purely material universe, devoid of God, there is only “is,” leaving us without a basis for objections concerning the outworking of its mechanistic process. There is no “ought” to which we can appeal.
Furthermore, assuming for a moment that God – ultimate personal, moral reality - were only good but not ultimately powerful, evil and suffering would not be as perplexing as we experience them to be because it would not be in God’s power to restrain them. If God were powerful but not good – which seems to be the most common position even among those who claim a disbelief in God (I think “Seinfeld” pretty much got it right: Jerry: I thought you didn’t believe in God; George: I do for the bad stuff.) – we also would not experience evil and suffering as inconsistent with the essence of the way things should be because they would be consistent with God’s character, which would not require their elimination. However, it is because the essence of reality is all-powerful and good that evil and suffering are the exact problem we recognize them to be. Our visceral response to them only makes sense in light of God’s power and goodness since our expectation that things shouldn’t be this way are justified. The anguish that causes us to reflexively cry out “how?” and “why?” is not irrational babbling disconnected from the way things are, but firmly rooted in a reality that requires they be dealt with and ultimately eradicated.
It is worth noting at this point that in all our objections, there is an implied assumption not taken into account. Clearly, we, people, are the culprits in the overwhelming majority of the bad stuff that goes on. When we blame God for the state of our world and our own lives, we are actually blaming him for making us because we are the ones destroying our world, ourselves and each other. We are blaming him for making us with the capacity/freedom to choose. Implicitly, we are confessing our accountability for our wrongdoing. At this point, it would seem that the one who is all-powerful and good, to be true to his nature, would be compelled to include us in his eradication of evil and suffering. More than being a problem for us, evil and suffering are ultimately a problem for God.
Instead of leaving us to wallow in our angst or casting us aside, ultimate goodness and power came and dwelt among us. He did not remain detached, but entered into our mess, fully engaged with those he lived among. In his engagement, he confirmed for us that things aren’t they way they are supposed to be by his making whole human bodies that were broken, even displaying his power over the fate that awaits all of us, death itself.
And then, startingly, he went on trial, taking the finger of accusation that we point against God, even as he had done no wrong. He experienced injustice, pain, abuse, abandonment, humiliation and death. He not only absorbed the consequences and effects of evil and suffering, but he did so for us. Instead of our being included in the eradication of evil and suffering, it is Jesus who takes the evil and suffering and is eradicated. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Does God not care? In the face of evil, is it the case that a God who is good and loving cannot exist? More than giving us an answer, God gives us himself. Jesus Christ, who is all-powerful, surrenders all power in order to rescue and restore. By accepting humanity’s verdict that he is not good and not true and deserving of death, he exposes it for its inexcusable irrationality, thus setting us free from our enslavement to it.
I want to be clear here that the purpose of my writing is not to win an argument for “my” religion; or in having those who are not religious become so. I write as a fellow human being seeing and experiencing the same world as all of you and grappling with it. As I’ve already stated, I think the “problem of evil” compels certain conclusions about the nature of reality, different from those who commonly point to evil as “the problem.” In presenting Jesus as “the answer” to the problem, I hope it is clear by now that I do not offer him as one of a group of really important religious figures, along with Muhammed, Buddha, etc., who are all pretty much the same. I write about Jesus, as he has been given to us in the documents preserved for us in the New Testament, who made claims that the other prominent religious figures in history do not make – that he is God himself who has come to “seek and save that which is lost.” He does not only say, as all the others do, “here is teaching about God or about how to be good, follow it," though, he does, of course, teach profoundly. He says “come unto me, follow me, know me, trust in me, for in me is the life that is truly life.” I realize that in 2000 years, up to the present, the name of Jesus, the 1st century son of Israel, carries with it connotations, unrelated to who he is and what he did. I hope you consider setting those aside in thinking about what’s been presented; for it is intended as the pronouncement of genuine hope, not based on wishful thinking or sentiment, but firmly grounded in events that actually took place.
There are many who consider the presence of pain, suffering and evil to be an airtight argument refuting the existence of God. I think however this line of reasoning actually poses a problem for those who advance it. What they are responding to is a world in which they find all sorts of things that are objectionable, disturbing and awful. In other words, there is the way things are, which does not measure up to what they should be. There is not only what “is,” but also what “ought” to be. However, in a purely material universe, devoid of God, there is only “is,” leaving us without a basis for objections concerning the outworking of its mechanistic process. There is no “ought” to which we can appeal.
Furthermore, assuming for a moment that God – ultimate personal, moral reality - were only good but not ultimately powerful, evil and suffering would not be as perplexing as we experience them to be because it would not be in God’s power to restrain them. If God were powerful but not good – which seems to be the most common position even among those who claim a disbelief in God (I think “Seinfeld” pretty much got it right: Jerry: I thought you didn’t believe in God; George: I do for the bad stuff.) – we also would not experience evil and suffering as inconsistent with the essence of the way things should be because they would be consistent with God’s character, which would not require their elimination. However, it is because the essence of reality is all-powerful and good that evil and suffering are the exact problem we recognize them to be. Our visceral response to them only makes sense in light of God’s power and goodness since our expectation that things shouldn’t be this way are justified. The anguish that causes us to reflexively cry out “how?” and “why?” is not irrational babbling disconnected from the way things are, but firmly rooted in a reality that requires they be dealt with and ultimately eradicated.
It is worth noting at this point that in all our objections, there is an implied assumption not taken into account. Clearly, we, people, are the culprits in the overwhelming majority of the bad stuff that goes on. When we blame God for the state of our world and our own lives, we are actually blaming him for making us because we are the ones destroying our world, ourselves and each other. We are blaming him for making us with the capacity/freedom to choose. Implicitly, we are confessing our accountability for our wrongdoing. At this point, it would seem that the one who is all-powerful and good, to be true to his nature, would be compelled to include us in his eradication of evil and suffering. More than being a problem for us, evil and suffering are ultimately a problem for God.
Instead of leaving us to wallow in our angst or casting us aside, ultimate goodness and power came and dwelt among us. He did not remain detached, but entered into our mess, fully engaged with those he lived among. In his engagement, he confirmed for us that things aren’t they way they are supposed to be by his making whole human bodies that were broken, even displaying his power over the fate that awaits all of us, death itself.
And then, startingly, he went on trial, taking the finger of accusation that we point against God, even as he had done no wrong. He experienced injustice, pain, abuse, abandonment, humiliation and death. He not only absorbed the consequences and effects of evil and suffering, but he did so for us. Instead of our being included in the eradication of evil and suffering, it is Jesus who takes the evil and suffering and is eradicated. “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Does God not care? In the face of evil, is it the case that a God who is good and loving cannot exist? More than giving us an answer, God gives us himself. Jesus Christ, who is all-powerful, surrenders all power in order to rescue and restore. By accepting humanity’s verdict that he is not good and not true and deserving of death, he exposes it for its inexcusable irrationality, thus setting us free from our enslavement to it.
I want to be clear here that the purpose of my writing is not to win an argument for “my” religion; or in having those who are not religious become so. I write as a fellow human being seeing and experiencing the same world as all of you and grappling with it. As I’ve already stated, I think the “problem of evil” compels certain conclusions about the nature of reality, different from those who commonly point to evil as “the problem.” In presenting Jesus as “the answer” to the problem, I hope it is clear by now that I do not offer him as one of a group of really important religious figures, along with Muhammed, Buddha, etc., who are all pretty much the same. I write about Jesus, as he has been given to us in the documents preserved for us in the New Testament, who made claims that the other prominent religious figures in history do not make – that he is God himself who has come to “seek and save that which is lost.” He does not only say, as all the others do, “here is teaching about God or about how to be good, follow it," though, he does, of course, teach profoundly. He says “come unto me, follow me, know me, trust in me, for in me is the life that is truly life.” I realize that in 2000 years, up to the present, the name of Jesus, the 1st century son of Israel, carries with it connotations, unrelated to who he is and what he did. I hope you consider setting those aside in thinking about what’s been presented; for it is intended as the pronouncement of genuine hope, not based on wishful thinking or sentiment, but firmly grounded in events that actually took place.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Church-State, etc
Recently, a conservative commentator lamented the overtly religious underpinnings and expressions used to support positions concerning government and public policy. here. This set off a considerable amount of debate on a number of websites.
It's probably the case that if you were to talk to 15 Christians, you would get 15 perspectives as to how to negotiate the "church-state" terrain. My opinion, being mine, is, of course, the most subtle, nuanced, complex and insightful of any such perspectives (he said with all "modesty.")
To a great extent, I understand McDonald's frustrations. She is a person whose educational and social settings probably did not include religious vocabulary and phrasing in the course of discussion concerning public events or issues. As a manner of communication, such vocabulary probably made sense in a time in our history when the vernacular of the Bible may have been familiar to the populace on the whole, regardless of their particular beliefs (this is not an argument about the U.S. being a "Christian" nation or about how many times George Washington went to church). Today and for the past several decades, this approach adopts the language and understanding of a subculture and attempts to employ it in communication to society on the whole. In so doing, not only is there a failure to communicate, but, as in McDonald's case, a resentment is fostered.
Of course, I recognize the profoundly significant role religiously rooted movements have played in our nation's history. Also, I certainly do not begrudge my fellow citizens' right to express themselves in a manner they deem most fitting. However, in some respects, in our current cultural climate, I think this is poor theology. We share a common human nature and inhabit the same reality. Our primary method of interaction is through a shared language. Therefore, in discussing goings on within this shared reality, I should be able to speak in a manner that is accessible to its fellow inhabitants. From a theological standpoint, this is the realm of creation, which is common to all and subject to investigation through experience and reason. There are truths concerning the creation that are or should be evident to those who don't acknowledge the One who brought it into existence.
None of this is to say that God's existence is not evident through creation, or is simply a matter of "belief," in opposition to reason. As those who are not self-created, self-existent, self-sustaining beings, we are the products of a reality that precedes us. We, who are dependent and derivative, are personal, moral beings necessarily derived from a personal and moral reality, namely God.
At the same time, statements concerning God in general, such as those some consider "safe" in our public discourse, are merely religious sentiment. A general God is opaque and impenetrable. Christian proclamation states that he did not remain unreachable and distant, but that he came down. In speaking of the God who creates and commands, we are also referring to the God whose devotion to his creation extended to his coming down to become a human being.
Yet, this also does not mean that I consider beliefs concerning Jesus Christ to be merely private. From the beginning, Christians proclaimed the events concerning Jesus as public events subject to investigation. Furthermore, the Christian confession is "Jesus is Lord," meaning he is the one who reigns over all reality, which is subject to him. At the same time, the church proclaims that Jesus is the one who gave up all power and died in order to rescue and transform this fallen and broken world and we, its fallen and broken residents. Thus, those who claim and confess that Jesus is Lord and profess his salvation and renewal of our world ought only to advance these claims in the same manner Jesus brought about his salvation, without any force or manipulation, and certainly not by recourse to the coercive power of the state.
In general, I think the tensions that exist in the views I advance are best worked out in a setting where the state's capacity and functions are limited, and are not a vehicle or proxy for a vision of a moral or good society. I realize that any law will reflect a moral judgment. My point is that which we consider good should not necessarily be deemed the proper subject of legislation or government action.
If you read McDonald's piece, you noticed that she not only spoke about the role of religion in government, but she also expressed the presence of evil in the world as the basis for her disbelief in an all-powerful, all-good God - the classic "problem of evil." I hope to write about this some time soon.
It's probably the case that if you were to talk to 15 Christians, you would get 15 perspectives as to how to negotiate the "church-state" terrain. My opinion, being mine, is, of course, the most subtle, nuanced, complex and insightful of any such perspectives (he said with all "modesty.")
To a great extent, I understand McDonald's frustrations. She is a person whose educational and social settings probably did not include religious vocabulary and phrasing in the course of discussion concerning public events or issues. As a manner of communication, such vocabulary probably made sense in a time in our history when the vernacular of the Bible may have been familiar to the populace on the whole, regardless of their particular beliefs (this is not an argument about the U.S. being a "Christian" nation or about how many times George Washington went to church). Today and for the past several decades, this approach adopts the language and understanding of a subculture and attempts to employ it in communication to society on the whole. In so doing, not only is there a failure to communicate, but, as in McDonald's case, a resentment is fostered.
Of course, I recognize the profoundly significant role religiously rooted movements have played in our nation's history. Also, I certainly do not begrudge my fellow citizens' right to express themselves in a manner they deem most fitting. However, in some respects, in our current cultural climate, I think this is poor theology. We share a common human nature and inhabit the same reality. Our primary method of interaction is through a shared language. Therefore, in discussing goings on within this shared reality, I should be able to speak in a manner that is accessible to its fellow inhabitants. From a theological standpoint, this is the realm of creation, which is common to all and subject to investigation through experience and reason. There are truths concerning the creation that are or should be evident to those who don't acknowledge the One who brought it into existence.
None of this is to say that God's existence is not evident through creation, or is simply a matter of "belief," in opposition to reason. As those who are not self-created, self-existent, self-sustaining beings, we are the products of a reality that precedes us. We, who are dependent and derivative, are personal, moral beings necessarily derived from a personal and moral reality, namely God.
At the same time, statements concerning God in general, such as those some consider "safe" in our public discourse, are merely religious sentiment. A general God is opaque and impenetrable. Christian proclamation states that he did not remain unreachable and distant, but that he came down. In speaking of the God who creates and commands, we are also referring to the God whose devotion to his creation extended to his coming down to become a human being.
Yet, this also does not mean that I consider beliefs concerning Jesus Christ to be merely private. From the beginning, Christians proclaimed the events concerning Jesus as public events subject to investigation. Furthermore, the Christian confession is "Jesus is Lord," meaning he is the one who reigns over all reality, which is subject to him. At the same time, the church proclaims that Jesus is the one who gave up all power and died in order to rescue and transform this fallen and broken world and we, its fallen and broken residents. Thus, those who claim and confess that Jesus is Lord and profess his salvation and renewal of our world ought only to advance these claims in the same manner Jesus brought about his salvation, without any force or manipulation, and certainly not by recourse to the coercive power of the state.
In general, I think the tensions that exist in the views I advance are best worked out in a setting where the state's capacity and functions are limited, and are not a vehicle or proxy for a vision of a moral or good society. I realize that any law will reflect a moral judgment. My point is that which we consider good should not necessarily be deemed the proper subject of legislation or government action.
If you read McDonald's piece, you noticed that she not only spoke about the role of religion in government, but she also expressed the presence of evil in the world as the basis for her disbelief in an all-powerful, all-good God - the classic "problem of evil." I hope to write about this some time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)