I told my wife the other day that one of the ways I have seen her love for me throughout our relationship is that no matter what has happened, I have never felt like a failure in her sight. I have felt stupid, I have felt like a jerk, and I have felt insufficient to the task of loving her as I should, but I have never felt like a failure. Even when I felt insufficient, her kindness, gentleness, and compassion reminded me that I would always be insufficient, but that God had called us to be together, and through him I could love her as I have been commanded. Even when I felt like a jerk, she has forgiven me and accepted my apologies. We have not been married terribly long, less than 5 years, but in that time, I have managed to feel like a failure in many other situations, but never in her eyes.
As I told my wife, I have felt like a failure at work and with friends. I have never done any job perfectly, I have always made mistakes, and the response of my co-workers or my employers has always made me feel like a failure. I continued the work I had, but the fact that I could not complete the tasks that had been laid on me made me feel as though I had failed to live up to the expectations for me. Among friends I have likewise failed to live up to the ideals set for me, forgetting or failing to complete something I said I would do. Failure is, perhaps, inevitable for most of us in life, and it is a stinging feeling to stand before others knowing that they entrusted a task to you, and now you have harmed your reputation in their eyes by not fulfilling the task given you.
But, as I talked to my wife, I began to realize that it wasn't just her who had treated me with such open compassion. I told her that I think one of the reasons she and I both miss so many of the wonderful friends we made in Louisville was because they treated us with that same compassion. I could list name after name, but I fear that I would forget someone. The friends, the family, we were joined to in Louisville by the grace of Christ, never once condemned us or faulted us for any failing.
As I thought of those who opened their lives and their hearts to us, I realized just how important that love was to us. I know that even today I could call up any of the men who served in small groups with me, who came to be accountability partners, and I could share anything with them, and they would not consider me a failure, they would love me and encourage me with kindness and honesty. Don't misunderstand, they wouldn't condone sin in my life, they would challenge me to take steps to remove any moral corruption I might confess, but the fact that I had stumbled into sin would not make me a failure in their eyes, it would only serve as a way to draw us closer together as brothers and friends. I know that if I were obstinate they would be firm, and if I were confused they would offer wise counsel to correct me, and it is a wonderful feeling to know that I can count on those men, no matter what. Those who have become my brothers in Christ are as close to me, and some of them even closer, than the brothers I grew up with, because I know that no matter what, they will always be there to pray for me, to correct me, to rebuke me, and to celebrate with me, and I can only pray that I will likewise always be there for them if they need me.
This is how Job says friends should be. Specifically Job says, " A despairing man should receive loyalty from his friends, even if he abandons the fear of the Almighty." (Job 6:14, There is some debate on the best way to translate this sentence, but that's a discussion for another day.) Now, I'm not despairing, but I know that if I were, my brothers would not walk away from me. Even if I were to forsake the faith, I know that these men would pray for me, would encourage me, and would seek to win me back. The fact is that I would have to try and destroy the friendships that Christ has blessed me with, because my brothers love me, and they love me as Scripture describes love, not in the way of the world.
Do you have friends like these? Are you a friend like Job describes? If you cannot think of any friends you have like these, know that Christ is such a friend to sinners. If we will come to him, have faith in him as our Lord and Savior, no matter what failings we may have, he will not call us a failure when we come to be judged. Christ's compassion is beyond the compassion of my brothers, but they have demonstrated that compassion to me, and I encourage you, if you do not know that compassion, go to Christ and find forgiveness given freely. Do not fear that God will call you a failure, for he gave his own Son to redeem you and I; in Christ we are successful.
To my friends, my brothers and sisters in Louisville, Carrollton, Savannah, Atlanta, and wherever the Spirit may lead you: Thank you. I love you all, I pray for you often, and I ask that you too would pray for me. We cannot know what God has intended for our lives, and it may be that I shall never see some of you again, though I pray that God would let me rejoice with you once again. But, no matter what happens in this world, I know that one day I will rejoice with you at the throne of our God and Father. Once again: I love you. May God richly bless you and use you to expand his kingdom.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Why so Literal?
In modern politics no line is probably more laughable and more revealing than the line spoken by former President Bill Clinton during his grand jury testimony in addressing the question of whether he had sexual relations with Paula Jones. That infamous and oft quoted line is, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is." The line is revealing because it demonstrated the moral failures of a man who was willingly attempting to avoid honestly answering a question he understood. The line is laughable because it assumes the very thing it asks: by using the word, "is" directly after saying that it depends upon what "is" means, Clinton reveals he knows what "is" means. Unfortunately, what may be laughable and of limited political importance and duration can be serious and infinitely destructive in theology.
Let's take a look at a couple of examples and let me see if I can't shed a little light on what I mean. Starting with Romans 5:12 Paul lays out an argument for the power of Christ's death as a deliverance from sin. However, Paul's argument only works if there was a literal man, Adam, and if his sin inaugurated all other sin. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and on, Paul ties the actual historicity of Adam directly to the Gospel. What Paul makes clear is that if there were no literal man, Adam, and there were no literal single event of sin entering the world, then the death of Christ is meaningless for us as Christians.
Why is the death of Christ meaningless without the existence of Adam? Because Adam is our progenitor. Not only physically is Adam the first man, he is also the first representative of man before God. Adam was a type of Christ, so that if there is no literal Adam, then there is no type to which Christ refers. What that means is that if Adam is only a literary construct, then we have no corporate representative in him bringing sin upon all men. But, if we have no corporate representative in Adam, why should we assume we have a corporate representative in Christ?
The fact that Christ serves as a propitiation for the sins of all men is tied up in the fact that Adam serves as a corporate representative before God, a perfect man who sinned and thus introduced a sinful nature to his own. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." If there is no man, Adam, in whom we have all died, then what hope have we that we shall be made alive in Christ? Because Adam serves as our corporate representative, and because we have all partaken of a sin nature through Adam and Eve, so also we are able to partake of a spiritual nature because of the life of Christ, who is the spiritual representative before God for those of us who have faith in him.
But, some modern scholars would do away with a literal Adam. Some scholars argue that Adam is a literary figure, Genesis is not to be taken literally up through chapter 11, everything preceding Abraham is allegorical, or a literary story written to illustrated God's power as the one who organizes and brings order to the world. This is not a new argument, necessarily. For instance Origin and Augustine both argued for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1. Both of these church fathers argued that Genesis 1 could not be read as literal history because the idea of creation in seven days, or the idea of the days as literal periods of time, made no sense to them for different reasons.
My argument is not with those who would argue that Genesis 1 is allegorical, or that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be a story discussing how God ordered the earth and made man for the purpose of fellowship with him. However, those who hold that all of Genesis 1-10 cannot be history, those who reject the literal existence of Adam and Eve, those who deny that there was a unique creation of man that resulted in one couple who sinned in that Garden of Eden and who were cast out by God, those individuals do massive theological harm to the gospel of Christ. Those who deny the historicity of Adam and the way sin entered the world through a man are forced to do away with passages like Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jude 14. All of these passages refer to a literal Adam, and all of them tie the existence of Adam directly the gospel.
It is here that theologians begin to undertake gymnastics to avoid dealing with the text as it exists. Scholars argue that we can do away with Adam because it does not have any significant impact on the gospel. After all, why do we need to have Adam in order for sin to have entered into men and have become part of our nature? Why do we need to have Adam to recognize the power of the blood of Christ to forgive us our sins? Adam is only a matter of secondary importance, and doing away with Adam does not effect the death of Christ on our behalf, or the efficacy of his blood for our redemption.
But, doing away with Adam does away with Paul. For instance, Paul says that all of Scripture is inspired by God, specifically he says it is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) If Paul is wrong about there being a literal Adam then either God did not inspire him, or God got something wrong, or God allowed error on his part in what he inspired. In any of those conditions we are now left with Scripture that is potentially full of errors, Scripture that we must analyze carefully, dissect and correct, so that we are able to determine what is true and what is false. If that is the case then nothing in Scripture is safe from this examination, all of Scripture must be parsed and examined lest there be any historical error in it at all. And, even if we are able to determine some parts are accurate, what do we do with those sections we cannot empirically test?
For instance, if Paul is wrong about there being an Adam, and if Paul is wrong about the importance of Adam to the gospel, then what else is Paul wrong about? Obviously Paul's understanding of the gospel will no longer suffice, because his understanding relied upon an historical Adam. So what understanding will we replace Paul with? Who will become our teacher when we cannot trust Scripture to be accurate in what it teaches?
There are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to embrace the full criticism of Scripture that comes with removing Adam from the Bible. But, why should any truly rational person who accepts that Adam did not exist stop only there? Why shouldn't we question Paul? Why shouldn't we question Chronicles, reject Hosea as a prophet, (he references Adam as a literal man) do away with Luke, and then even question the necessity of the death of Christ himself?
When we engage in biblical criticism that questions the very integrity of Scripture, it is both revealing and laughable to the watching world. It is revealing to those who look on because they can see that we do not really trust our own holy book. We think that our holy book, that which claims to be inspired by God, is need of correction, because it is incompatible with a modern world. Our criticism is laughable because we still want to find some value in a set of stories written thousands of years ago, even though we don't think they are historically true or philosophically sound. While attempting to defend our bible we make it into a joke, because we are not willing to make the full commitment to treating it either as a sacred text, or a near eastern fable.
We do not need to reject science or reason to be Christians. Human genetics, modern technology, stem cells, antibiotics, gene therapy, microchips, and so much more has been discovered over the years, and none of these things contradict or contravene Scripture. But, when we say that there cannot be an Adam because evolutionary theory does not allow it, or when we say that Genesis cannot give a factual account of the creation of the world because geology contradicts it, then we are not simply accepting science, we are worshiping science and reason. I'm not saying that only those who accept a young earth are Christians, not at all; but those who reject the early chapters of Genesis or who mock Scripture based on what current scientific theory says, those people are a danger to the faith. They are a danger to the faith because they have placed Scripture under another authority, they have set themselves up as judges over the word of God, and they have found it wanting; and what then is there to act as a corrective if their wisdom leads them to reject the claims of the gospel entirely? When we accept those people who exalt science or human deliberation above the word of God, and place them in positions of authority, then we ought not be surprised when they dispute every doctrine and ridicule every portion of what we once though was sacred.
I know that what I have said will offend some. My intent is not to offend, but to point out the logical inconsistency we engage in when we attempt to ignore the plain meaning of Scripture because we think modern history and science trump with Word of God. Let us be consistent. Elijah said, "If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if Baal is God then follow him." Let us heed those words today: If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if human science and reason is greater than the God of the bible, then follow it.
Let's take a look at a couple of examples and let me see if I can't shed a little light on what I mean. Starting with Romans 5:12 Paul lays out an argument for the power of Christ's death as a deliverance from sin. However, Paul's argument only works if there was a literal man, Adam, and if his sin inaugurated all other sin. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and on, Paul ties the actual historicity of Adam directly to the Gospel. What Paul makes clear is that if there were no literal man, Adam, and there were no literal single event of sin entering the world, then the death of Christ is meaningless for us as Christians.
Why is the death of Christ meaningless without the existence of Adam? Because Adam is our progenitor. Not only physically is Adam the first man, he is also the first representative of man before God. Adam was a type of Christ, so that if there is no literal Adam, then there is no type to which Christ refers. What that means is that if Adam is only a literary construct, then we have no corporate representative in him bringing sin upon all men. But, if we have no corporate representative in Adam, why should we assume we have a corporate representative in Christ?
The fact that Christ serves as a propitiation for the sins of all men is tied up in the fact that Adam serves as a corporate representative before God, a perfect man who sinned and thus introduced a sinful nature to his own. We see this in 1 Corinthians 15:22 when we read, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." If there is no man, Adam, in whom we have all died, then what hope have we that we shall be made alive in Christ? Because Adam serves as our corporate representative, and because we have all partaken of a sin nature through Adam and Eve, so also we are able to partake of a spiritual nature because of the life of Christ, who is the spiritual representative before God for those of us who have faith in him.
But, some modern scholars would do away with a literal Adam. Some scholars argue that Adam is a literary figure, Genesis is not to be taken literally up through chapter 11, everything preceding Abraham is allegorical, or a literary story written to illustrated God's power as the one who organizes and brings order to the world. This is not a new argument, necessarily. For instance Origin and Augustine both argued for an allegorical reading of Genesis 1. Both of these church fathers argued that Genesis 1 could not be read as literal history because the idea of creation in seven days, or the idea of the days as literal periods of time, made no sense to them for different reasons.
My argument is not with those who would argue that Genesis 1 is allegorical, or that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be a story discussing how God ordered the earth and made man for the purpose of fellowship with him. However, those who hold that all of Genesis 1-10 cannot be history, those who reject the literal existence of Adam and Eve, those who deny that there was a unique creation of man that resulted in one couple who sinned in that Garden of Eden and who were cast out by God, those individuals do massive theological harm to the gospel of Christ. Those who deny the historicity of Adam and the way sin entered the world through a man are forced to do away with passages like Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Timothy 2:13, and Jude 14. All of these passages refer to a literal Adam, and all of them tie the existence of Adam directly the gospel.
It is here that theologians begin to undertake gymnastics to avoid dealing with the text as it exists. Scholars argue that we can do away with Adam because it does not have any significant impact on the gospel. After all, why do we need to have Adam in order for sin to have entered into men and have become part of our nature? Why do we need to have Adam to recognize the power of the blood of Christ to forgive us our sins? Adam is only a matter of secondary importance, and doing away with Adam does not effect the death of Christ on our behalf, or the efficacy of his blood for our redemption.
But, doing away with Adam does away with Paul. For instance, Paul says that all of Scripture is inspired by God, specifically he says it is breathed out by God. (2 Timothy 3:16) If Paul is wrong about there being a literal Adam then either God did not inspire him, or God got something wrong, or God allowed error on his part in what he inspired. In any of those conditions we are now left with Scripture that is potentially full of errors, Scripture that we must analyze carefully, dissect and correct, so that we are able to determine what is true and what is false. If that is the case then nothing in Scripture is safe from this examination, all of Scripture must be parsed and examined lest there be any historical error in it at all. And, even if we are able to determine some parts are accurate, what do we do with those sections we cannot empirically test?
For instance, if Paul is wrong about there being an Adam, and if Paul is wrong about the importance of Adam to the gospel, then what else is Paul wrong about? Obviously Paul's understanding of the gospel will no longer suffice, because his understanding relied upon an historical Adam. So what understanding will we replace Paul with? Who will become our teacher when we cannot trust Scripture to be accurate in what it teaches?
There are those who, for whatever reason, refuse to embrace the full criticism of Scripture that comes with removing Adam from the Bible. But, why should any truly rational person who accepts that Adam did not exist stop only there? Why shouldn't we question Paul? Why shouldn't we question Chronicles, reject Hosea as a prophet, (he references Adam as a literal man) do away with Luke, and then even question the necessity of the death of Christ himself?
When we engage in biblical criticism that questions the very integrity of Scripture, it is both revealing and laughable to the watching world. It is revealing to those who look on because they can see that we do not really trust our own holy book. We think that our holy book, that which claims to be inspired by God, is need of correction, because it is incompatible with a modern world. Our criticism is laughable because we still want to find some value in a set of stories written thousands of years ago, even though we don't think they are historically true or philosophically sound. While attempting to defend our bible we make it into a joke, because we are not willing to make the full commitment to treating it either as a sacred text, or a near eastern fable.
We do not need to reject science or reason to be Christians. Human genetics, modern technology, stem cells, antibiotics, gene therapy, microchips, and so much more has been discovered over the years, and none of these things contradict or contravene Scripture. But, when we say that there cannot be an Adam because evolutionary theory does not allow it, or when we say that Genesis cannot give a factual account of the creation of the world because geology contradicts it, then we are not simply accepting science, we are worshiping science and reason. I'm not saying that only those who accept a young earth are Christians, not at all; but those who reject the early chapters of Genesis or who mock Scripture based on what current scientific theory says, those people are a danger to the faith. They are a danger to the faith because they have placed Scripture under another authority, they have set themselves up as judges over the word of God, and they have found it wanting; and what then is there to act as a corrective if their wisdom leads them to reject the claims of the gospel entirely? When we accept those people who exalt science or human deliberation above the word of God, and place them in positions of authority, then we ought not be surprised when they dispute every doctrine and ridicule every portion of what we once though was sacred.
I know that what I have said will offend some. My intent is not to offend, but to point out the logical inconsistency we engage in when we attempt to ignore the plain meaning of Scripture because we think modern history and science trump with Word of God. Let us be consistent. Elijah said, "If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if Baal is God then follow him." Let us heed those words today: If Yahweh is God, then follow him, but if human science and reason is greater than the God of the bible, then follow it.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Christians and Politics
Where do we draw the line in political disagreements? For instance, there are those in conservative political circles today who make comments such as "the Kenyan in Chief" and "the African in the White House." While I will put aside the arguments people make in regards to whether these comments are racist, (I personally think people who utilize arguments like this intend certain racist implications) I do think Christians need to think about whether such comments should ever be heard coming across our lips, or seen coming across our keyboards. Regardless of whether you support or dislike any leader or President, don't you have a Scriptural command to submit to his authority as leader and to show him the respect due him as the one God has placed in charge of the country? (Romans 13:1-7, pay special attention to verse 7, "Respect to whom respect is owed.") Christians do not have the freedom to say whatever we like, we have an obligation to obey Scripture in regards to the words that come out of our mouths.
James says that the tongue can set things on fire, and is itself set on fire from hell. (James 3:6) What did he mean by that? Simple, our hearts are not pure. Christ says that from the abundance of a man's heart he will speak. (Matthew 12:34) Therefore, recognizing that we are undergoing sanctification, even while we are not yet perfect, we must be slow to speak. Our hearts are still idol factories, as Calvin put it, and therefore they are prone to lead us to speak devilish words as devilish idols fill them, unless we take the time to first bridle them with by the power of the Spirit of God.
Speaking hastily and disrespectfully of our leaders leads to our disgrace. Those who we might have had the opportunity to speak the gospel to are turned away because we are so busy denigrating the President, that we do not realize they still hold him in respect. Even if they do not hold him in respect, they may still think that the office of President is such that it is worth respecting, regardless of the one who sits in the chair. Is our personal animus or anger toward any individual worth losing the opportunity to speak to someone about Christ? (Yes, I think this admonition should apply to those currently in the position, and those who previously held the position. Are we any more justified in calling Bush an idiot than we are in calling Obama a traitor?)
In addition to this, our words demonstrate that we do not trust the sovereign God who establishes all authorities. In Ephesians chapter 1 we read that Christ has been placed high above all authorities and has all things under his feet. Is the American electoral system then able to thwart the will of God? Can we possible vote into office someone who God did not intend so that his will is not being accomplished?
Some may say, in response to all this, "Does that mean that we should support the anti-Christ when he appears?" We ought to always pray for all of our leaders. Scripture does not give us any indication that there is anyone we ought to exempt from our prayers. Likewise, if the anti-Christ has authority over us, then in every way that we are permitted to do so from Scripture, yes, we should submit to him (that is, in every way that we can obey him without disobeying God, we would be required to render obedience). This does not mean we submit to him in everything, it does not mean that we agree with him at all, but it does mean that we recognize that God has given him authority for a time, and we must submit to God's good will in recognizing whatever authority he has put in place.
Consider the relationship of Pharaoh and the Israelites. Could God have commanded Moses, "take your people and flee, do not regard Pharaoh as having any authority!" He could have, but he says that he raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of displaying his might. God wanted that Pharaoh (whichever he was) to have authority at that time so that the Lord could demonstrate his might over all things in bringing Israel out of Egypt. If we are spiritually Israel, then why should we assume that God would never want to do the same with us?
Note also that in Revelation it is said that those who overcome do so through not loving their lives. They overcame him by the blood of the lamb. The martyrs in heaven, who die for the faith, they are the victors. It is not the "Christian rebel" here on earth who overthrows a government through weaponry and violence who is given accolades in the throne room of heaven. It is the one who is faithful to Christ, who shares the witness of Christ, and who dies honoring God who is seen as victorious. (As I spoke with another brother about, this does not mean that men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who tried to assassinate Hitler, we wrong in using violence in their situations. I think the particularly situation in that place and time was such that Bonhoeffer did what he thought was the most moral thing he could because of the horror of the reality he was faced with. And I think he was right. But such situations are so far from the norm that giving justice to such considerations would require a whole other blog post.)
Politics is important. God has given Americans a way by which the average person may exercise some level of authority in how we are governed. We should never take that for granted or say, "I won't vote because I trust God will cause the person he wants to be elected." Such a fatalist position is never encouraged or defended in Scripture. But, at the same time, our words ought not be offensive when we speak of political opponents. More important than any election is the kingdom of God and spreading the gospel here on earth, and we must watch our tongues to that end.
What is the value in calling the President an impostor or a fraud? Why only insult or denigrate, when there is opportunity to build up? Remember, we are called to be people of encouragement, not people of discouragement. There are appropriate ways, and times, for making your disagreements with a particular politician or position known. But, is it worth it to damage your witness and lose the opportunity to represent Christ just for the sake of blowing off some steam? Let us act wisely in regards to what we say and how we say it, particularly in regards to such a divisive topic as politics.
James says that the tongue can set things on fire, and is itself set on fire from hell. (James 3:6) What did he mean by that? Simple, our hearts are not pure. Christ says that from the abundance of a man's heart he will speak. (Matthew 12:34) Therefore, recognizing that we are undergoing sanctification, even while we are not yet perfect, we must be slow to speak. Our hearts are still idol factories, as Calvin put it, and therefore they are prone to lead us to speak devilish words as devilish idols fill them, unless we take the time to first bridle them with by the power of the Spirit of God.
Speaking hastily and disrespectfully of our leaders leads to our disgrace. Those who we might have had the opportunity to speak the gospel to are turned away because we are so busy denigrating the President, that we do not realize they still hold him in respect. Even if they do not hold him in respect, they may still think that the office of President is such that it is worth respecting, regardless of the one who sits in the chair. Is our personal animus or anger toward any individual worth losing the opportunity to speak to someone about Christ? (Yes, I think this admonition should apply to those currently in the position, and those who previously held the position. Are we any more justified in calling Bush an idiot than we are in calling Obama a traitor?)
In addition to this, our words demonstrate that we do not trust the sovereign God who establishes all authorities. In Ephesians chapter 1 we read that Christ has been placed high above all authorities and has all things under his feet. Is the American electoral system then able to thwart the will of God? Can we possible vote into office someone who God did not intend so that his will is not being accomplished?
Some may say, in response to all this, "Does that mean that we should support the anti-Christ when he appears?" We ought to always pray for all of our leaders. Scripture does not give us any indication that there is anyone we ought to exempt from our prayers. Likewise, if the anti-Christ has authority over us, then in every way that we are permitted to do so from Scripture, yes, we should submit to him (that is, in every way that we can obey him without disobeying God, we would be required to render obedience). This does not mean we submit to him in everything, it does not mean that we agree with him at all, but it does mean that we recognize that God has given him authority for a time, and we must submit to God's good will in recognizing whatever authority he has put in place.
Consider the relationship of Pharaoh and the Israelites. Could God have commanded Moses, "take your people and flee, do not regard Pharaoh as having any authority!" He could have, but he says that he raised Pharaoh up for the very purpose of displaying his might. God wanted that Pharaoh (whichever he was) to have authority at that time so that the Lord could demonstrate his might over all things in bringing Israel out of Egypt. If we are spiritually Israel, then why should we assume that God would never want to do the same with us?
Note also that in Revelation it is said that those who overcome do so through not loving their lives. They overcame him by the blood of the lamb. The martyrs in heaven, who die for the faith, they are the victors. It is not the "Christian rebel" here on earth who overthrows a government through weaponry and violence who is given accolades in the throne room of heaven. It is the one who is faithful to Christ, who shares the witness of Christ, and who dies honoring God who is seen as victorious. (As I spoke with another brother about, this does not mean that men like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who tried to assassinate Hitler, we wrong in using violence in their situations. I think the particularly situation in that place and time was such that Bonhoeffer did what he thought was the most moral thing he could because of the horror of the reality he was faced with. And I think he was right. But such situations are so far from the norm that giving justice to such considerations would require a whole other blog post.)
Politics is important. God has given Americans a way by which the average person may exercise some level of authority in how we are governed. We should never take that for granted or say, "I won't vote because I trust God will cause the person he wants to be elected." Such a fatalist position is never encouraged or defended in Scripture. But, at the same time, our words ought not be offensive when we speak of political opponents. More important than any election is the kingdom of God and spreading the gospel here on earth, and we must watch our tongues to that end.
What is the value in calling the President an impostor or a fraud? Why only insult or denigrate, when there is opportunity to build up? Remember, we are called to be people of encouragement, not people of discouragement. There are appropriate ways, and times, for making your disagreements with a particular politician or position known. But, is it worth it to damage your witness and lose the opportunity to represent Christ just for the sake of blowing off some steam? Let us act wisely in regards to what we say and how we say it, particularly in regards to such a divisive topic as politics.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
A Missing Conscience
Most people don't think they are evil. I can't remember where that quote came from, but I find it to be true. Usually a thief will have some reason he steals, that is he justifies himself by saying that he has no choice, or he needs what he takes, or something of that nature. Likewise with almost anyone who commits a crime, and likewise with us too. We find plenty of reasons to excuse our actions, our thoughts, and our attitudes, after all, we're only human, right?
I worry that this generation seems to be even worse than previous generations at justifying nearly every act imaginable. I know that every generation seems to be the worst generation ever. I'm sure that 1500 years ago someone somewhere was making comments about how the kids don't respect their parents any more, hanging upside down half-naked from the pear trees in the yard instead of dutifully doing the chores they were assigned. But, we really do seem to have a moral disconnect in this generation, where people just don't understand that there are such things as good and evil. If I'm right, then that poses a certain difficulty for the church, because now we have to train people not only in Christian behavior, but in thinking about morality in general.
Don't get me wrong, this generation, the one I belong to and the one right after mine (I shudder sometimes when I realize that I am now old enough to note that there is a generation after mine, I suppose it is the inevitable result of the passing of time, but one does not think of that in youth) aren't complete moral anarchists. We still understand that stealing is wrong, usually. We still understand sleeping with another person's spouse is wicked, most of the time. We still get the fact that there are others around us and we should be considerate of them, with exceptions. I guess the real problem is that we've learned (wrongly) that nothing is really absolute, and so everything becomes relative, even morality.
Living in such an age isn't an entirely bad thing though. The truth is that for Christians we live in perhaps a better time than our parents grew up in, because of immorality. When we live and act according to the way Christ has commanded us, we really can be radically different. That doesn't mean that there are no good people left in the world, that only Christians have ethics, but that our ethic is distinct in this time and age. Our ethic is different because it calls upon us to consider others as better than ourselves, it requires us to be sacrificial in how we treat those we do not know. We live in a great age to demonstrate the difference between Christ and the god of this world.
I know some will ask, "What commands are you talking about?" Christ makes clear that love is the defining principle behind all the law and prophets. He says, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and and with all your soul,' this is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" He also says, "Whatever you would have someone do for you, do that for them. Upon this hangs all the law and the prophets." (Pardon if I messed up a word there, I'm quoting off the top of my head and I get my translations mixed up, sometimes combining them.)
But, I want to make clear my affirmation to what Paul says also, Christians are not under the law, we are under grace. We do not have to serve the law of love as though it will somehow make us righteous, rather because we are under the grace of Christ how we act ought to show that the law of love flows from us. We are no longer children, enslaved under the law so that love is a burden and a challenge, we are the children of God, coming to maturity in Christ, so that love is a gift given to us by our holy and righteous Savior. Why should we slave under the law, finding it a burden and a challenge, when we can embrace with great joy the opportunity to fellowship with the Spirit of God in doing good works?
Remember, we do those works which God has prepared for us to do, which he does through us. We are not struggling to be moral, we are righteous and forgiven, therefore how can we act in any way but that which is moral? To be immoral is to turn back to the flesh from which we were redeemed. Why should we now be enslaved again under that which we have been freed from by the awesome power of God?
We have an opportunity to live lives that really do set us apart from others. We can love like no one else. We can put others before ourselves and serve to the glory of God. We will be taken advantage of, we will be mocked and insulted, but we will also reach some who have been forgotten by a generation that no longer remembers how to think about morality. But, we need to think about what would do, we need to bring our minds under the control of the Spirit, that we might see how we can serve others, we need to be a people to whom morality matters.
If we would be a moral people, we cannot excuse ourselves or justify ourselves for anything, but we must acknowledge our failings. We have to reflect upon the fact that we do not always act morally, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Paul commands us to be not conformed any longer to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Unless we reflect upon our own thoughts and our own deeds, we can never fully reflect the glory of Christ as he would have us to do.
We are justified in Christ, so we have no need to condemn ourselves for our actions, but we also have no need to excuse our actions. We can face our immorality because we are forgiven. We can acknowledge our evil before God and pray that he will change us, so that an unjust generation might know the justification we have experienced. We can love because we are loved, and we must love or we make our God a liar. Let us contemplate in each action and in every situation, what does love look like in this situation; let us be consistent in loving God and loving our neighbor, not under the enslavement of law, but because we are free.
I worry that this generation seems to be even worse than previous generations at justifying nearly every act imaginable. I know that every generation seems to be the worst generation ever. I'm sure that 1500 years ago someone somewhere was making comments about how the kids don't respect their parents any more, hanging upside down half-naked from the pear trees in the yard instead of dutifully doing the chores they were assigned. But, we really do seem to have a moral disconnect in this generation, where people just don't understand that there are such things as good and evil. If I'm right, then that poses a certain difficulty for the church, because now we have to train people not only in Christian behavior, but in thinking about morality in general.
Don't get me wrong, this generation, the one I belong to and the one right after mine (I shudder sometimes when I realize that I am now old enough to note that there is a generation after mine, I suppose it is the inevitable result of the passing of time, but one does not think of that in youth) aren't complete moral anarchists. We still understand that stealing is wrong, usually. We still understand sleeping with another person's spouse is wicked, most of the time. We still get the fact that there are others around us and we should be considerate of them, with exceptions. I guess the real problem is that we've learned (wrongly) that nothing is really absolute, and so everything becomes relative, even morality.
Living in such an age isn't an entirely bad thing though. The truth is that for Christians we live in perhaps a better time than our parents grew up in, because of immorality. When we live and act according to the way Christ has commanded us, we really can be radically different. That doesn't mean that there are no good people left in the world, that only Christians have ethics, but that our ethic is distinct in this time and age. Our ethic is different because it calls upon us to consider others as better than ourselves, it requires us to be sacrificial in how we treat those we do not know. We live in a great age to demonstrate the difference between Christ and the god of this world.
I know some will ask, "What commands are you talking about?" Christ makes clear that love is the defining principle behind all the law and prophets. He says, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind, and and with all your soul,' this is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" He also says, "Whatever you would have someone do for you, do that for them. Upon this hangs all the law and the prophets." (Pardon if I messed up a word there, I'm quoting off the top of my head and I get my translations mixed up, sometimes combining them.)
But, I want to make clear my affirmation to what Paul says also, Christians are not under the law, we are under grace. We do not have to serve the law of love as though it will somehow make us righteous, rather because we are under the grace of Christ how we act ought to show that the law of love flows from us. We are no longer children, enslaved under the law so that love is a burden and a challenge, we are the children of God, coming to maturity in Christ, so that love is a gift given to us by our holy and righteous Savior. Why should we slave under the law, finding it a burden and a challenge, when we can embrace with great joy the opportunity to fellowship with the Spirit of God in doing good works?
Remember, we do those works which God has prepared for us to do, which he does through us. We are not struggling to be moral, we are righteous and forgiven, therefore how can we act in any way but that which is moral? To be immoral is to turn back to the flesh from which we were redeemed. Why should we now be enslaved again under that which we have been freed from by the awesome power of God?
We have an opportunity to live lives that really do set us apart from others. We can love like no one else. We can put others before ourselves and serve to the glory of God. We will be taken advantage of, we will be mocked and insulted, but we will also reach some who have been forgotten by a generation that no longer remembers how to think about morality. But, we need to think about what would do, we need to bring our minds under the control of the Spirit, that we might see how we can serve others, we need to be a people to whom morality matters.
If we would be a moral people, we cannot excuse ourselves or justify ourselves for anything, but we must acknowledge our failings. We have to reflect upon the fact that we do not always act morally, so that we can learn from our mistakes. Paul commands us to be not conformed any longer to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Unless we reflect upon our own thoughts and our own deeds, we can never fully reflect the glory of Christ as he would have us to do.
We are justified in Christ, so we have no need to condemn ourselves for our actions, but we also have no need to excuse our actions. We can face our immorality because we are forgiven. We can acknowledge our evil before God and pray that he will change us, so that an unjust generation might know the justification we have experienced. We can love because we are loved, and we must love or we make our God a liar. Let us contemplate in each action and in every situation, what does love look like in this situation; let us be consistent in loving God and loving our neighbor, not under the enslavement of law, but because we are free.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Something from Nothing
A fair warning advisory: This post contains both scientific descriptions and philosophical argumentation. I don't mean just a little, but a pretty good bit. I've tried to be as reader friendly as possible, but I take no responsibility for dizziness, headaches, or cranial combustion if you proceed further.
I'm not an economist. I'm also not a chemist, a biologist, a physicist or any other professional scientist. However, I do understand basic laws and logic. For instance a popular saying among economists is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This saying also applies to every other branch of science also, including physics.
Okay, I'm sure that some people are lost, or bored, already, so let me try and explain myself. In physics you have some basic principles, laws, which govern what is and is not possible. For instance, you have the laws of thermodynamics. There are, basically, four laws of thermodynamics, going from the zeroth law to the third law. Those theories or arguments which violate these laws are necessarily false.
For instance, the zeroth law states basically that if system A is equal to system B, and system B is equal to system C, then system A is equal to system C. Just a basic application of logic to real world events. A quick example might be if I am as tall as Jon, and Jon is as tall as Jen, then I am as tall as Jen. This rule works in all places and at all times, because it is a logically necessary truth.
The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter forms. Here is where things begin to get a little chintzy, if you will. For instance, I have heard it argued (I haven't done any reading on the subject in years) that at a subatomic level (that means that we are measuring things smaller than atoms, usually smaller even than just protons and neutrons, little bitty tiny things that are beyond human imagining in their small size) this does not hold perpetually true. Okay, time to clarify what I mean: at a subatomic level, in theory, quarks and anti-quarks can spontaneously occur, thus something pops into existence for a very short time (once the two collide their respective state cancels the other, thus reducing them back to nothing) and then it is gone again. However, on the whole the law stands, because the something that comes into existence cannot stay in existence for any length of time, it must necessarily meet with its anti-partner and cease to be.
The second law works in much the same way. The second law states that entropy increases, or that energy flows from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration. Again though, this law only holds true when we think of it in absolute terms. Because all things (things here being physical objects) have some form of particle existence, it is possible that for a short period there might actually be a decrease in entropy, or a gain in energy, for a system. Think of it this way: the second law is really a law of averages. Because air molecules bounce around they tend to disperse, bouncing off of one another and moving through "empty" space until they bounce off of something else. However, it is theoretically possible that if we waited long enough, all of the molecules could, from bouncing off of one another and the walls in the room, all move in the same direction at the same time and thus instead of spreading out group up in one section of the room. But, that situation wouldn't last long, the molecules would immediately start to spread back out again, thus proving the second law true, the energy of the molecules would move from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration.
The third law helps us make sense of all this stuff. Basically the third law says that as the energy in a system spreads out it reaches a constant minimum. Really the law says that as the heat in a system reaches absolute zero, the entropy in the system reaches a constant minimum. In effect this means that absolute zero cannot be reached (as it would require an absolute cessation of all energy) and at the same time means that there is some optimal minimum that all the energy in the universe will necessarily continue toward, until all usable energy is gone.
Okay, that's a lot of science, and I know that it was probably a bit confusing, but I promise we're getting to a pay off. The pay off is this: if we start with absolutely nothing in the universe, then it is necessarily true that we would always have absolutely nothing in the universe. We know this because the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, now that the universe exists, that it could come into existence currently. Moreover, if these laws are logical laws, that is they themselves are not governed by the existence of the universe, but govern the existence of the universe, then regardless of whether or not the universe exists, the laws still hold true.
On the other hand, if the laws of thermodynamics are in fact governed by the existence of the universe, then there is some higher law which governs them, or there is a necessary mutual dependence of the universe upon the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics upon the universe. If the second is true (trust me, by logical progression we eventually get there anyway, either with the laws of thermodynamics or whatever is behind them) then we are completely incapable of saying how the universe began anyway, because there is no law to which we can appeal to create the universe outside of the universe itself. Basically, if the only laws which exist in the universe are tied to the universe, then without the universe existing there is nothing to cause the universe to come into existence. Without time there is nothing to start time, because the moment prior to time beginning is not really an infinitely long nothing, it is just absolutely nothing, it is non-time. In non-time there cannot suddenly be the event of time, there can only be non-time.
What we are left with is the necessity of that law, whatever it was, that created the universe being independent of the universe. That is, something outside of space-time and all normal realms of causality just made the universe, all that there is, come into being suddenly and without any prior necessity. Logically and scientifically, this is impossible. The existence of the universe is itself a miracle without explanation. It is this inexplicable event that gives us a first reason for giving God the glory, for he alone is the one could create the entire universe from nothing.
Okay, now I know some people are thinking I just waived a mystical wand and got the conclusion I wanted, so I'm going to try and restate the argument above in brief, just for the sake of clarity. If the law that dictated the creation of the universe is interdependent with the universe for its existence, then it cannot explain the creation of the universe, because it could not have existed prior the universe itself. But, if the law that dictated the creation of the universe exists independent of the universe, then it would have been a one-time event law, dictating the creation of the universe and then dictating a universe wherein the laws of thermodynamics would prevent it from ever occurring again. Because the law is necessarily prevented from recurring by the laws of thermodynamics, there is simply no way to prove the law exists, because the events leading the creation of the universe cannot be tested or repeated in a lab. To argue that there is a scientific law that required the universe to come into existence is to state a philosophical position, not a scientifically provable position. To argue that God created the universe is just as much a philosophical argument, but at least seems more plausible to my mind than the alternative.
Why is the idea of God creating the universe more plausible to my mind? God is not bound by space-time, he is not necessarily constrained by the laws of creation, which he created. God is the only explanation that is sufficiently large, and sufficiently reasonable to explain why we have such an exquisitely ordered universe, and how that universe could come into existence from nothing. Can I understand how God could exist and make decisions in non-time? Can I comprehend how God could exist as a trinity, as a spirit, when literally nothing but him existed? Of course I can't explain or comprehend these things, but I know that without them being true I would be left with an illogical universe and the unexplainable mystery of existence. Instead of worrying about what I cannot explain though, I can instead give praise and glory to God, because he is just that wonderful, just that great, and he brings order to what would otherwise be pure insanity.
I bring all this up because Dr. Stephen Hawking has concluded that God is not necessary for the universe. He says, in the article linked above, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Dr. Hawking appeals to some unknown law of science and says that it is scientific law that makes it necessary that we exist. There is no reason to assume this is true, there is simply no law we can point to that says we must exist, the whole argument is a matter of philosophy, and, in reality, it is a matter of theology. Dr. Hawking has turned science into a god, he has declared that the personal God of Scripture is not necessary, and is not real. This is theology, it is the heart of man worshiping an idol so that he does not have to worship the only true and living God. This is the fulfillment of Romans 1:20-23.
Let us not become darkened. Let us not be fools before God. If the world would call us fools, if the greatest scientific minds of our generation would say our God is unnecessary and unreal, let us rejoice in that. For what they worship cannot save them; but our God, the glorious Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is able to save. In the end, all else will prove futile, but those who love God will be vindicated and be with him forever.
I'm not an economist. I'm also not a chemist, a biologist, a physicist or any other professional scientist. However, I do understand basic laws and logic. For instance a popular saying among economists is, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." This saying also applies to every other branch of science also, including physics.
Okay, I'm sure that some people are lost, or bored, already, so let me try and explain myself. In physics you have some basic principles, laws, which govern what is and is not possible. For instance, you have the laws of thermodynamics. There are, basically, four laws of thermodynamics, going from the zeroth law to the third law. Those theories or arguments which violate these laws are necessarily false.
For instance, the zeroth law states basically that if system A is equal to system B, and system B is equal to system C, then system A is equal to system C. Just a basic application of logic to real world events. A quick example might be if I am as tall as Jon, and Jon is as tall as Jen, then I am as tall as Jen. This rule works in all places and at all times, because it is a logically necessary truth.
The first law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only alter forms. Here is where things begin to get a little chintzy, if you will. For instance, I have heard it argued (I haven't done any reading on the subject in years) that at a subatomic level (that means that we are measuring things smaller than atoms, usually smaller even than just protons and neutrons, little bitty tiny things that are beyond human imagining in their small size) this does not hold perpetually true. Okay, time to clarify what I mean: at a subatomic level, in theory, quarks and anti-quarks can spontaneously occur, thus something pops into existence for a very short time (once the two collide their respective state cancels the other, thus reducing them back to nothing) and then it is gone again. However, on the whole the law stands, because the something that comes into existence cannot stay in existence for any length of time, it must necessarily meet with its anti-partner and cease to be.
The second law works in much the same way. The second law states that entropy increases, or that energy flows from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration. Again though, this law only holds true when we think of it in absolute terms. Because all things (things here being physical objects) have some form of particle existence, it is possible that for a short period there might actually be a decrease in entropy, or a gain in energy, for a system. Think of it this way: the second law is really a law of averages. Because air molecules bounce around they tend to disperse, bouncing off of one another and moving through "empty" space until they bounce off of something else. However, it is theoretically possible that if we waited long enough, all of the molecules could, from bouncing off of one another and the walls in the room, all move in the same direction at the same time and thus instead of spreading out group up in one section of the room. But, that situation wouldn't last long, the molecules would immediately start to spread back out again, thus proving the second law true, the energy of the molecules would move from a state of higher concentration to a state of lower concentration.
The third law helps us make sense of all this stuff. Basically the third law says that as the energy in a system spreads out it reaches a constant minimum. Really the law says that as the heat in a system reaches absolute zero, the entropy in the system reaches a constant minimum. In effect this means that absolute zero cannot be reached (as it would require an absolute cessation of all energy) and at the same time means that there is some optimal minimum that all the energy in the universe will necessarily continue toward, until all usable energy is gone.
Okay, that's a lot of science, and I know that it was probably a bit confusing, but I promise we're getting to a pay off. The pay off is this: if we start with absolutely nothing in the universe, then it is necessarily true that we would always have absolutely nothing in the universe. We know this because the laws of thermodynamics make it impossible, now that the universe exists, that it could come into existence currently. Moreover, if these laws are logical laws, that is they themselves are not governed by the existence of the universe, but govern the existence of the universe, then regardless of whether or not the universe exists, the laws still hold true.
On the other hand, if the laws of thermodynamics are in fact governed by the existence of the universe, then there is some higher law which governs them, or there is a necessary mutual dependence of the universe upon the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of thermodynamics upon the universe. If the second is true (trust me, by logical progression we eventually get there anyway, either with the laws of thermodynamics or whatever is behind them) then we are completely incapable of saying how the universe began anyway, because there is no law to which we can appeal to create the universe outside of the universe itself. Basically, if the only laws which exist in the universe are tied to the universe, then without the universe existing there is nothing to cause the universe to come into existence. Without time there is nothing to start time, because the moment prior to time beginning is not really an infinitely long nothing, it is just absolutely nothing, it is non-time. In non-time there cannot suddenly be the event of time, there can only be non-time.
What we are left with is the necessity of that law, whatever it was, that created the universe being independent of the universe. That is, something outside of space-time and all normal realms of causality just made the universe, all that there is, come into being suddenly and without any prior necessity. Logically and scientifically, this is impossible. The existence of the universe is itself a miracle without explanation. It is this inexplicable event that gives us a first reason for giving God the glory, for he alone is the one could create the entire universe from nothing.
Okay, now I know some people are thinking I just waived a mystical wand and got the conclusion I wanted, so I'm going to try and restate the argument above in brief, just for the sake of clarity. If the law that dictated the creation of the universe is interdependent with the universe for its existence, then it cannot explain the creation of the universe, because it could not have existed prior the universe itself. But, if the law that dictated the creation of the universe exists independent of the universe, then it would have been a one-time event law, dictating the creation of the universe and then dictating a universe wherein the laws of thermodynamics would prevent it from ever occurring again. Because the law is necessarily prevented from recurring by the laws of thermodynamics, there is simply no way to prove the law exists, because the events leading the creation of the universe cannot be tested or repeated in a lab. To argue that there is a scientific law that required the universe to come into existence is to state a philosophical position, not a scientifically provable position. To argue that God created the universe is just as much a philosophical argument, but at least seems more plausible to my mind than the alternative.
Why is the idea of God creating the universe more plausible to my mind? God is not bound by space-time, he is not necessarily constrained by the laws of creation, which he created. God is the only explanation that is sufficiently large, and sufficiently reasonable to explain why we have such an exquisitely ordered universe, and how that universe could come into existence from nothing. Can I understand how God could exist and make decisions in non-time? Can I comprehend how God could exist as a trinity, as a spirit, when literally nothing but him existed? Of course I can't explain or comprehend these things, but I know that without them being true I would be left with an illogical universe and the unexplainable mystery of existence. Instead of worrying about what I cannot explain though, I can instead give praise and glory to God, because he is just that wonderful, just that great, and he brings order to what would otherwise be pure insanity.
I bring all this up because Dr. Stephen Hawking has concluded that God is not necessary for the universe. He says, in the article linked above, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." Dr. Hawking appeals to some unknown law of science and says that it is scientific law that makes it necessary that we exist. There is no reason to assume this is true, there is simply no law we can point to that says we must exist, the whole argument is a matter of philosophy, and, in reality, it is a matter of theology. Dr. Hawking has turned science into a god, he has declared that the personal God of Scripture is not necessary, and is not real. This is theology, it is the heart of man worshiping an idol so that he does not have to worship the only true and living God. This is the fulfillment of Romans 1:20-23.
Let us not become darkened. Let us not be fools before God. If the world would call us fools, if the greatest scientific minds of our generation would say our God is unnecessary and unreal, let us rejoice in that. For what they worship cannot save them; but our God, the glorious Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he is able to save. In the end, all else will prove futile, but those who love God will be vindicated and be with him forever.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Hero Worship
I remember before graduating seminary talking to my wife about heroes. I was wondering if there was any culture, any civilization, that did not have some kind of heroic myths that were passed from generation to generation. Granted, I don't know every culture that has ever existed, and though my background is in history, most of my historical studies have been constrained to Medieval Europe, and have been more focused on technology, philosophy, and religion than stories. But, every civilization I can think of, from the ancient Greeks to the medieval Chinese, to the American Indians, all of them had stories about heroes. The heroes could differ from situation to situation, sometimes a man and sometimes a woman, sometimes a great warrior and sometimes a cunning trickster, but they were all heroes.
It seems to me a hero has to do at least two things in order to be a hero. A hero has to accomplish some great task that others were incapable of achieving, and a hero has to save either a person or a group of people. More than that though, the task accomplished has to be somehow attached to the act of saving. What I mean is that a hero cannot perform some incredible feat of evil, and then go on to save a group of people in a minor act and still be considered a hero. A true hero has to achieve an act of great nobility, and it must be the noble act which saves people.
I told my wife that Hamlet, I think, is a great example of a hero (though a tragic one). Think of Hamlet, a man who is born to a position of power and authority, who has that taken from him by a conniving and wicked uncle. Then, as his father's apparition confronts Hamlet with what has happened Hamlet realizes that he has basically two options: he can commit suicide, or he can try and avenge his father. To avenge his father Hamlet acts crazy, tries to drive away Ophelia, though he is unsuccessful, and ultimately dies. Yes, Hamlet is a tragic character, and his death could have been avoided, but he accomplishes a great good in that he slays his father's murderer and he rids the throne of Denmark of the stain that would have tainted it had Claudius lived.
I started thinking about heroes again because of the prevalence of comic book movies. I liked comics when I was growing up. I enjoyed Spider Man, X-Men, and any number of other heroes. I didn't care for the sometimes sermonizing and patronizing way some of the stories were written, but I liked the characters. Every kid imagines having amazing powers, but what I liked about the comics I read was that despite the characters' amazing powers, they always had a powerful evil they had to fight against. It was never enough that they had to fight some external foe, they always had some internal struggle they had to face at the same time, and conquering the latter would often lead to conquering the former.
It seems like that same formula is common with most heroes. Hercules became great because of the great deeds he performed, but he performed those great deeds because of his sometimes stupid actions. For instance, in one telling of the story of Hercules rescuing Alcestis, he traveled to Hades and wrestled with Thanatos (death) because he had been drinking instead of mourning with his friend. Similarly, it was because Hercules had been overcome with madness and had slain his own children that he was sentenced to perform the 10 labors (that became 12). Hercules great deeds were in response to his own failings, so that his actions were overcoming his personal faults.
I bring this up because it seems like we all need a hero. We need to believe in someone who demonstrates that men can overcome their own limitations and achieve greatness. We need to believe that we can strive to be like that person; we can be better than we are and do something great. We may think heroes are just myths, but it is the ideal of the hero that inspires us to try when it seems like all hope is lost.
As I thought about the heroes that have come down to us, and the heroes we have created I began to wonder something. Obviously, heroes live from generation to generation not just because they teach us, but because they inspire us, we want to believe in the heroic, even if we don't believe in a specific hero. But why? Why do we believe in the heroic? I wonder if it isn't because that is the way we were made by God, I wonder if he did not build the desire for heroes into us.
If God did build in that desire for heroes it would make a lot of sense. After all, one of the historic teachings of Christianity is that God calls all men to come to him for salvation. And what greater hero story can we have than the story of Christ himself? God took on the form of man, he took on the weakness and needs of humanity, faced temptation, refused to sin, and despite it all he was killed by men who were sold out to wickedness. But, even in the face of defeat, Christ rose from the dead, he rose and became the victor, though to every appearance he was the greatest loser of all time.
Because of the death and resurrection of Christ we can be better than we are without him. God gives us the Holy Spirit, so that we can live victoriously despite every defeat we seem to suffer. We have a true hero, who demonstrates to us that we can be heroic too. Not that we achieve anything apart from Christ, but we can do all things through him who died upon the cross for us. We long for heroes because we need a hero, we need someone who really can rescue us from every danger, even death itself.
I guess my point is that hero worship is okay. It is good for culture to have heroes, to believe that the sacrifice of one can be sufficient to rescue many. When people understand this they are more prepared to understand the gospel of Christ. We don't need to rage against the imperfect hero, but we need to point people to the perfect that inspires all other imitations. Christ is the archetype of the hero, suffering, a man like us, yet powerful, more than we could ever be, God himself in human form, our savior, our true and perfect hero. Hero worship is okay, when we are worshiping the one who really is our hero.
It seems to me a hero has to do at least two things in order to be a hero. A hero has to accomplish some great task that others were incapable of achieving, and a hero has to save either a person or a group of people. More than that though, the task accomplished has to be somehow attached to the act of saving. What I mean is that a hero cannot perform some incredible feat of evil, and then go on to save a group of people in a minor act and still be considered a hero. A true hero has to achieve an act of great nobility, and it must be the noble act which saves people.
I told my wife that Hamlet, I think, is a great example of a hero (though a tragic one). Think of Hamlet, a man who is born to a position of power and authority, who has that taken from him by a conniving and wicked uncle. Then, as his father's apparition confronts Hamlet with what has happened Hamlet realizes that he has basically two options: he can commit suicide, or he can try and avenge his father. To avenge his father Hamlet acts crazy, tries to drive away Ophelia, though he is unsuccessful, and ultimately dies. Yes, Hamlet is a tragic character, and his death could have been avoided, but he accomplishes a great good in that he slays his father's murderer and he rids the throne of Denmark of the stain that would have tainted it had Claudius lived.
I started thinking about heroes again because of the prevalence of comic book movies. I liked comics when I was growing up. I enjoyed Spider Man, X-Men, and any number of other heroes. I didn't care for the sometimes sermonizing and patronizing way some of the stories were written, but I liked the characters. Every kid imagines having amazing powers, but what I liked about the comics I read was that despite the characters' amazing powers, they always had a powerful evil they had to fight against. It was never enough that they had to fight some external foe, they always had some internal struggle they had to face at the same time, and conquering the latter would often lead to conquering the former.
It seems like that same formula is common with most heroes. Hercules became great because of the great deeds he performed, but he performed those great deeds because of his sometimes stupid actions. For instance, in one telling of the story of Hercules rescuing Alcestis, he traveled to Hades and wrestled with Thanatos (death) because he had been drinking instead of mourning with his friend. Similarly, it was because Hercules had been overcome with madness and had slain his own children that he was sentenced to perform the 10 labors (that became 12). Hercules great deeds were in response to his own failings, so that his actions were overcoming his personal faults.
I bring this up because it seems like we all need a hero. We need to believe in someone who demonstrates that men can overcome their own limitations and achieve greatness. We need to believe that we can strive to be like that person; we can be better than we are and do something great. We may think heroes are just myths, but it is the ideal of the hero that inspires us to try when it seems like all hope is lost.
As I thought about the heroes that have come down to us, and the heroes we have created I began to wonder something. Obviously, heroes live from generation to generation not just because they teach us, but because they inspire us, we want to believe in the heroic, even if we don't believe in a specific hero. But why? Why do we believe in the heroic? I wonder if it isn't because that is the way we were made by God, I wonder if he did not build the desire for heroes into us.
If God did build in that desire for heroes it would make a lot of sense. After all, one of the historic teachings of Christianity is that God calls all men to come to him for salvation. And what greater hero story can we have than the story of Christ himself? God took on the form of man, he took on the weakness and needs of humanity, faced temptation, refused to sin, and despite it all he was killed by men who were sold out to wickedness. But, even in the face of defeat, Christ rose from the dead, he rose and became the victor, though to every appearance he was the greatest loser of all time.
Because of the death and resurrection of Christ we can be better than we are without him. God gives us the Holy Spirit, so that we can live victoriously despite every defeat we seem to suffer. We have a true hero, who demonstrates to us that we can be heroic too. Not that we achieve anything apart from Christ, but we can do all things through him who died upon the cross for us. We long for heroes because we need a hero, we need someone who really can rescue us from every danger, even death itself.
I guess my point is that hero worship is okay. It is good for culture to have heroes, to believe that the sacrifice of one can be sufficient to rescue many. When people understand this they are more prepared to understand the gospel of Christ. We don't need to rage against the imperfect hero, but we need to point people to the perfect that inspires all other imitations. Christ is the archetype of the hero, suffering, a man like us, yet powerful, more than we could ever be, God himself in human form, our savior, our true and perfect hero. Hero worship is okay, when we are worshiping the one who really is our hero.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Paradox in God
I mentioned the idea of paradox yesterday, and I would like to develop that idea a little bit more today. Particularly I would like to develop the idea of paradox and how it relates to our conception of God, how it can, in fact, be informative for us as we think about God. In looking at how we can understand more about God as we understand paradoxes, we will need to touch on a classic idea of Christian apologetics. The idea I want to look at is the definition of God. As we examine the definition of God, I hope that we will understand the value of recognizing that there is a paradox present in our formulation of God, and how that paradox is resolved through our relationship with Christ.
Okay, when dealing with any paradox, or any apologetic, you have to be a little familiar with some of the basic rules of logic. But, you also have to be familiar with the definitions of some of the terms you may encounter. For instance, while the term "apologetic" is becoming more widely understood these days, many people still think of an apology as merely saying, "Sorry!" for something. When we discuss an apology in terms of apologetics though we do not mean you are asking for forgiveness, instead the term means you are setting up a logical defense for a position. So, what I want to examine is an apology (a rational defense) for the normal Christian understanding of God.
But, what is the normal Christian understanding of God, and why would it need a defense? Well, the normal understanding of God, as espoused by Christians throughout history, is that God is present everywhere, knows everything (including all possibilities and potential situations), is capable of doing any which he may desire, and is totally good, along with these attributes God is also totally holy (that is morally pure, separate from creation, and sufficient in himself). In addition to these points though, as matters of derivation, because God is holy he is also just, punishing perfectly for any breach of the moral law (because he cannot stand any impurity in his presence). Because he is all powerful he is capable of enforcing any punishment he might set out, and because he is all knowing there is no breach of morality of which God is unaware.
It is in this area that some people have argued there is a necessary contradiction: because God is holy he must be totally just, or else his holiness is compromised. But because God is all good he must be merciful because mercy is recognized as a good trait, particularly when those who are weaker humbly petition for mercy from a higher authority. Yet, if God is merciful he cannot be just, because when mercy is practiced justice necessarily abrogated by the act of mercy. So there exists a contradiction in the way Christians think of God: he cannot be both totally just and full of mercy (merciful) at the same time.
This is the beauty of theology. When we understand the doctrines of the faith and we begin to think about them logically we can understand how they are connected, where they conflict, and whether or not there may be some means of reconciliation available to us. In this case we are faced with what would have remained an apparent paradox to the observant Jew in the time of the prophets. God had commanded sacrifices to be performed constantly, he required ritual cleanliness before any could approach his thrown, but, at the same time, the prophets rebuked the people when they came before God with their sacrifices, because the people themselves were not pure. (Jeremiah 7)
What then could there be for a solution? We see in Psalm 32 that David extols the blessed state of the man who has been forgiven of his sins. And in 2 Samuel 12:13 we read that God had put away David's sin, as soon as he confessed. Yet, how could there be forgiveness for David without the appropriate sacrifice of a sin offering? How could God so quickly forgive David his iniquity when David had not yet performed the required rites incumbent upon him?
Every day two lambs were to be offered at the temple, and every day a bull was to be offered as a sin offering for the people of God. (Exodus 29) Yet, Hebrews makes clear that despite these offers being given day after day, the offerings were never able to cleanse the people from their sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4) An observant Jew would have been aware of this, recognizing that because God is totally just the blood of a bull cannot cleanse a man, and indeed it was not the blood at all that cleansed, but it was the faith of a man to come before God and ask for forgiveness. Throughout Scripture whenever men responded to God in faith, confessing Sin, humbly going to God and asking for forgiveness, God always has responded with mercy. But, on what basis could there be mercy, would this not conflict with his just and holy nature?
Christian apologetics can rightfully answer this question where no other religion can. In no other religion is there a satisfactory answer for how to resolve the paradox of God's justice and his mercy. If men strive by dint of great works to earn a place before God, they will always fail because no good work done now can erase the actions done in the past. If men say, "We know that God is a good God and capable of forgiving us," but they have nothing by which God may grant them such forgiveness, then they have a system that, at best, will not be logically sound. Whether by works or by simple hope, there is no way that anyone can argue that they have a holy God who is both just and merciful, because their God will necessarily be off balance in one direction or the other.
Some get around this by rejecting the idea of a holy God. That is, people think that God would not demand perfection, because no man can be perfect. Such a god tolerates some sin in his presence, or maybe he tolerates all sin, if you are a Universalist, but he might require some people to do some kind of post-death activity to get cleaned up enough to be with him for eternity. This god is a puny and pathetic god, a god who is not just, who is not holy, and who is incapable of cleansing those who would stand before him. There is no reason to serve this god, because it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you exist, eventually you could find a way to stand before him. This god, if we want to be strictly logical, is irrelevant to life, because he makes the sun to rise upon the innocent and the guilty, and when they die they all get to see his face as well.
But, the Christian God, he punishes to the full extent of his ability. He is totally holy, he proclaims that he will judge every disobedient person with fire and vengeance. (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9) There is nothing to laugh at in regards to his justice and power, and there is great reason to serve him and to obey his words. The true God, the only Father of Lights, his holiness is not diminished by his mercy. We have much to rejoice at because of this, because that holiness which now prevents us from drawing too near to him will one day be the holiness we will partake of in full!
But, how can God be both just and merciful? Our answer is the cross of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Because God is a just and righteous God, he demanded full payment for every sin. But, because God is a merciful and kind God, he provided a payment for us who could not satisfy the debt ourselves. Instead of sentencing all men to eternal separation from his holy presence, God placed his judgment upon his Son, so that Christ proclaimed on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Because God allowed his Son to die on the cross, because God chose to place the judgment due us on the lamb he provided, he preserved both his justice and his mercy.
There is a paradox in the Christian understanding of God, but it is a paradox that drives us to Christ. Our theology does not take us away from the glory of God, but leads us back to give God even more glory. We do not need to fear logic, but in examining logic, even when it claims a contradiction in our faith, we can acknowledge that our God is so great that he has saved us through a paradox of his own character, a paradox that makes him greater than any human conception of God could be. To this God, the only perfect and wonderful maker and savior of all men be the glory. Let us rejoice that in paradoxes God reveals himself, otherwise we would have only the promise of judgment and fear, instead of a hope for life and joy.
Okay, when dealing with any paradox, or any apologetic, you have to be a little familiar with some of the basic rules of logic. But, you also have to be familiar with the definitions of some of the terms you may encounter. For instance, while the term "apologetic" is becoming more widely understood these days, many people still think of an apology as merely saying, "Sorry!" for something. When we discuss an apology in terms of apologetics though we do not mean you are asking for forgiveness, instead the term means you are setting up a logical defense for a position. So, what I want to examine is an apology (a rational defense) for the normal Christian understanding of God.
But, what is the normal Christian understanding of God, and why would it need a defense? Well, the normal understanding of God, as espoused by Christians throughout history, is that God is present everywhere, knows everything (including all possibilities and potential situations), is capable of doing any which he may desire, and is totally good, along with these attributes God is also totally holy (that is morally pure, separate from creation, and sufficient in himself). In addition to these points though, as matters of derivation, because God is holy he is also just, punishing perfectly for any breach of the moral law (because he cannot stand any impurity in his presence). Because he is all powerful he is capable of enforcing any punishment he might set out, and because he is all knowing there is no breach of morality of which God is unaware.
It is in this area that some people have argued there is a necessary contradiction: because God is holy he must be totally just, or else his holiness is compromised. But because God is all good he must be merciful because mercy is recognized as a good trait, particularly when those who are weaker humbly petition for mercy from a higher authority. Yet, if God is merciful he cannot be just, because when mercy is practiced justice necessarily abrogated by the act of mercy. So there exists a contradiction in the way Christians think of God: he cannot be both totally just and full of mercy (merciful) at the same time.
This is the beauty of theology. When we understand the doctrines of the faith and we begin to think about them logically we can understand how they are connected, where they conflict, and whether or not there may be some means of reconciliation available to us. In this case we are faced with what would have remained an apparent paradox to the observant Jew in the time of the prophets. God had commanded sacrifices to be performed constantly, he required ritual cleanliness before any could approach his thrown, but, at the same time, the prophets rebuked the people when they came before God with their sacrifices, because the people themselves were not pure. (Jeremiah 7)
What then could there be for a solution? We see in Psalm 32 that David extols the blessed state of the man who has been forgiven of his sins. And in 2 Samuel 12:13 we read that God had put away David's sin, as soon as he confessed. Yet, how could there be forgiveness for David without the appropriate sacrifice of a sin offering? How could God so quickly forgive David his iniquity when David had not yet performed the required rites incumbent upon him?
Every day two lambs were to be offered at the temple, and every day a bull was to be offered as a sin offering for the people of God. (Exodus 29) Yet, Hebrews makes clear that despite these offers being given day after day, the offerings were never able to cleanse the people from their sins. (Hebrews 10:1-4) An observant Jew would have been aware of this, recognizing that because God is totally just the blood of a bull cannot cleanse a man, and indeed it was not the blood at all that cleansed, but it was the faith of a man to come before God and ask for forgiveness. Throughout Scripture whenever men responded to God in faith, confessing Sin, humbly going to God and asking for forgiveness, God always has responded with mercy. But, on what basis could there be mercy, would this not conflict with his just and holy nature?
Christian apologetics can rightfully answer this question where no other religion can. In no other religion is there a satisfactory answer for how to resolve the paradox of God's justice and his mercy. If men strive by dint of great works to earn a place before God, they will always fail because no good work done now can erase the actions done in the past. If men say, "We know that God is a good God and capable of forgiving us," but they have nothing by which God may grant them such forgiveness, then they have a system that, at best, will not be logically sound. Whether by works or by simple hope, there is no way that anyone can argue that they have a holy God who is both just and merciful, because their God will necessarily be off balance in one direction or the other.
Some get around this by rejecting the idea of a holy God. That is, people think that God would not demand perfection, because no man can be perfect. Such a god tolerates some sin in his presence, or maybe he tolerates all sin, if you are a Universalist, but he might require some people to do some kind of post-death activity to get cleaned up enough to be with him for eternity. This god is a puny and pathetic god, a god who is not just, who is not holy, and who is incapable of cleansing those who would stand before him. There is no reason to serve this god, because it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you exist, eventually you could find a way to stand before him. This god, if we want to be strictly logical, is irrelevant to life, because he makes the sun to rise upon the innocent and the guilty, and when they die they all get to see his face as well.
But, the Christian God, he punishes to the full extent of his ability. He is totally holy, he proclaims that he will judge every disobedient person with fire and vengeance. (2 Thessalonians 1:8-9) There is nothing to laugh at in regards to his justice and power, and there is great reason to serve him and to obey his words. The true God, the only Father of Lights, his holiness is not diminished by his mercy. We have much to rejoice at because of this, because that holiness which now prevents us from drawing too near to him will one day be the holiness we will partake of in full!
But, how can God be both just and merciful? Our answer is the cross of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Because God is a just and righteous God, he demanded full payment for every sin. But, because God is a merciful and kind God, he provided a payment for us who could not satisfy the debt ourselves. Instead of sentencing all men to eternal separation from his holy presence, God placed his judgment upon his Son, so that Christ proclaimed on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Because God allowed his Son to die on the cross, because God chose to place the judgment due us on the lamb he provided, he preserved both his justice and his mercy.
There is a paradox in the Christian understanding of God, but it is a paradox that drives us to Christ. Our theology does not take us away from the glory of God, but leads us back to give God even more glory. We do not need to fear logic, but in examining logic, even when it claims a contradiction in our faith, we can acknowledge that our God is so great that he has saved us through a paradox of his own character, a paradox that makes him greater than any human conception of God could be. To this God, the only perfect and wonderful maker and savior of all men be the glory. Let us rejoice that in paradoxes God reveals himself, otherwise we would have only the promise of judgment and fear, instead of a hope for life and joy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)