Contemplating Wisdom

The God Part of the Brain

2010-10-14T06:10:00.005-05:00

Got coffee? Then let's get started. A third stream of similarity for religious ideas is related to the popular inquiry in several new books reflecting in-depth studies of the brain that ask the question: "Is there a physical location in our bodies that serves as a connecting point to God?" The newest medical techniques, that weren't available even ten years ago, allow us to study specific brain activity and provide research opportunity in mapping the brain during spiritual activity. This research brings us to the brink of possibly determining if there is a part of the our anatomy that is responsible for our God awareness.

For those who are purely scientist, the location of this brain activity gives credence to the discussion that religion, and therefore God, is no more than a natural function of our bodies, thus, there is nothing beyond our humanness. For those persons at the other end of the debate the location of brain activity during spiritual experiences gives rise to the affirmation there is a physical explanation for how and where our bodies are able to connect to that which is beyond our existence.

The idea that a part of our body serve as a connection for the Eternal is, of course, not new. In the oldest religious traditions—for example the Indian Aryans who understood that the Brahman, being itself, was also the ground of the human psyche (Armstrong, The Case for God)—we find religious practices, rituals, and initiations where directed toward discovering the human connection to this transcendence.

In the Indian Aryan writings, called the Upanishads, we can trace the earliest development not only of a human connection but the idea that all things share this essence of the eternal. Being itself is an integral part of creation and the two cannot be separated. We can know and experience this essence but not by intellectual “belief” or knowledge. Rather, it is through tedious perfection of spiritual exercises and rituals aimed at emptying our individual self.

Totally the opposite of western religious thinking is this idea that the Ultimate Reality cannot be known through logical discourse and that all attempts to explain or rationalize one's way to finding God are useless. (I should point out here that what we in the Western tradition of monotheism call “God” is not necessarily thought of in the same way in Eastern religious traditions but rather as something beyond being or anthropological existence. The similarity that I’m addressing is not about our concepts of God being similar but about our understanding of the human ability to make a connection with that existence). These ancient traditions highlighted self emptying, doing rather than thinking, silence, meditation, yoga, and a host of other means to find internally a connection to ultimate being.

There are expressions of this similarity in Judaism and in the Christian tradition where we see mysticism and later monasticism as a style of ritual life and self-emptying. For these various expressions that cut across many religious traditions, including variants in Christianity, the means of spiritual access to awareness is held in higher esteem than that of intellectual pursuit.

The importance of identifying these three similarities comes at a time in human history when the speed of communication and travel is pushing us in theological circles toward finding a reconciling medium within the divergent religious traditions. The goal is not one of assimilating, combining, or unification but rather finding a path toward acceptance and tolerance. Be assured these differences are not insignificant and most theological discourse admits that finding a single religious path is impossible because of these differences. However, what these similarities offer is a basic understanding of what drives humanity in our search toward the ultimate goal of knowing the source of our existence—if in fact that is something that can be known. Gotta warm my coffee.

Santa Fe Coffee

2010-10-04T06:11:00.002-05:00

I’ve been thinking about this second similarity of religions for a few days and it just so happens that I’m away this week in Santa Fe, NM. The local coffee is superb and I’ve already had more than I need. So, grab whatever it is you have and let’s talk more about religious similarities. Given that the God we speak of transcends existence and being, then such ideas transcend language as well. That means our language is limited to the point we cannot speak directly about God. The best we can do is use words that are bound to our existence, our being (not God’s), and our ability to comprehend. Therefore, we must accept that all speech about God is going to be severely limited. No matter what or how we say it our words will always fall short of the totality of what can be meant when we say God.

That leaves us with the alternative: to use metaphor and symbol to convey our limited knowledge of God. And because metaphors and symbols are open to wide interpretation so that no single one is going to be complete, unquestionable, or unbiased, we cannot take these limited means of speaking of God literally. They are stories, pictures, parables, parallels, and descriptions that we use, knowing their limitations, because that’s all we have. To take any of these as being literal does two things we already know can’t be done. One, it puts a boundary around God and two, it supposes there is nothing else to be learned or said of God.

For Christians this extends further into our interpretation of Jesus as the embodiment or symbol of God. When John says at the opening of his gospel that Jesus is the “Word” we know he is using metaphor. The Greek word “Logos” that John uses has a deeper meaning but it too is symbolic of an idea about the nature of that which is transcendent and to which all is grounded. When John the Baptist says, “Behold the Lamb of God,” we know he is using metaphor. We call Jesus the “Good Shepherd” though he never herded sheep. The list of metaphors for Jesus and God is long but none is exhausting.

Symbols and metaphors, whether they are a single word or a long story, point us toward that which we name ‘God’. To take any symbol, metaphor, or story literally is to put our faith in the symbol rather than in what it points toward. It requires great faith to keep moving toward that to which our symbols point knowing we can never grasp the entirety of that which we seek. The overwhelming human temptation is to mistakenly make the symbol an idol.

In religions studies the transcendent nature of God can become problematic. Ancient tribes tended to give up on gods that were so far removed from them that they had no impact on their lives. In Greek mythology the developing generations of gods progressed from gods that were beyond to those that live in the world on Mt Olympus. The Creator God of Genesis 1 becomes the imminent God who gives life with breathe in chapter 2. The God of Abraham for Judaism becomes the God who Christians believe comes to live among us; and it is widely believed still does.

A key metaphor in most religions is a creation story that gives an account of a god that transcends creation but participates in the formation of the existence we know. The stories are not intended to be literal or factual but rather a means of ritual that allows participants to affirm their belief that their god has power over chaos and provides an order to life that is dependable and trustworthy. It is in this power that creates and this force that perpetually maintains order that we can experience the mysterious essence of that which is beyond being; more coffee?

Ground of Our Being

2010-09-18T07:46:00.004-05:00

While this title may sound theological, it is really about coffee. One day I’ll open a coffee shop for those who desire to simply hang-out and share their experiences of life and the truths they have learned.

Okay, got coffee now where was I? Oh, yes, the three similarities in world religions. Perhaps I should clarify for I don't want to give the impression that it is the religious ideas that are similar but rather the general principles under which we operate in our search for that which we call God—by whatever name or title.

Ancient worshipers understood there to be an energy or force at the very core of creation that was responsible for holding everything together and empowering nature’s ability to regenerate itself. The seasons of the year, the birthing of off-spring, and the precise repetition in the movement of the stars, moon, and sun were a witness of that invisible force which kept creation in constant renewal.

As language became more sophisticated the recording of these expressions moved from drawings on cave walls to what we in our bias would say are a more intellectual discussion depicted in the art of writing.

The major religions of the world hold a variety of interpretations expressing that this source of all existence is beyond “Being”, transcends anything that we know or can be known, cannot be entirely described, or defined. The logical of this affirmation is that we who are ‘beings’ can only know that which is in existence. Therefore, that which is beyond existence we can only catch a fleeting glimpse of as its nature is revealed in the things that are created. Some would surely protest that this last statement is saying more than what is possible.

In the first stories of Genesis in the writings of Judaism there is the depiction of this God beyond creation who brings order from the chaos by using the mere force of words. From an unidentifiable place the power of the words, “let there be….,” creates and it is the force of these words that keeps the world from falling back into chaos and darkness. Then follows a second creation story in which there is a different manifestation of that which is divine portrayed as a being that personally gets involved in shaping and breathing life into the clay that becomes humanity. Later this God who walks daily in the garden will become less visible and less personable.

Religious expression is part of our human experience and yet we struggle to balance our awareness of what can and cannot be known. What is important for us to make note of are the rituals by which humanity has always sought to connect with this energy that is at the core of our existence. Throughout history people have searched out those places where the awareness of this sacred energy is most vividly felt. Along with these sacred places where we are closest to that which is beyond being is an understanding that we can in some way be touched by that energy when making ourselves available through a variety of methods that have proven successful in prior generations or which become new to us through changing experiences.

To say it as briefly as I can, that which some choose to give the name "God" is beyond “being”, transcends all that is known, and cannot be fully known, yet some small part may be experienced in places and rituals that open us to the possibility of that presence in creation.

Coffee’s cold, let’s warm it up before tackling the second similarity.

Three Important Questions

2010-09-11T09:45:00.007-05:00

This may take a while so grab your cup. I've been reading for the past two years on the subject of religious development. Archaeological discoveries in the last year allows us to now date religious development as far back as 17,000 years. Though the actual site under examination was uncovered 55 years ago it has taken that many years to begin, literally, mining the artifacts. It is, as you can imagine, terribly tedious work to avoid destroying an ancient treasure that could never be replaced if damaged.

Now I know some will find this information heartening while others will find it disturbing. The reason being that many who find their faith in the Judea-Christian tradition take literally the premodern, Biblical assumption that creation began around 6000 BCE. The discovery of early religious development is good but too early can cause issues with some people's faith.

In the study of religious life in human existence it is clear that the roots of our tradition don't go as deep as do the roots of other traditions. Yet there are significant similarities found in these traditions that are as important as our own.

Some folks may, undoubtedly, find it disturbing for Christian thinkers to consider that anything of value could be discovered in other religious traditions. But my particular religious affiliation has from its roots taken a considerable amount of tolerance towards divergent views shared by our compatriots among the varied branches of our great tradition. This tolerance has opened the door for not only those who share our brand of faith having something of value but that great value can be found in other religious as well.

Now that's not to say that all roads lead to the same destination for clearly some religious traditions have very different goals than our own. Yet when our paths come close or parallel one another it would be nonsensical if we failed to acknowledge what we have in common. Nor should we avoid those comparisons when the fact that we can make such similar analogies reinforces that which is common in our humanness.

This might lead us down a path of, “So why believe the way we do and why be concerned about whether others ever hear what we have to say about God?” The words of Shubert Ogden, my theology professor, have stayed with me the longest, “I am what I choose to be because it has the most decisive answer to my questions.” The key word in this statement is “decisive”. It is the answer to our questions about God that makes a life changing difference. Which is not to say for someone else that their way of understanding God cannot also be decisive for them. Nor does it say that when someone is offered an understanding that is of greater value that they would make a different choice. What is important is that it be decisive for us and that we carry the witness of that difference in how live in the world so that our characterization of God speaks as loud as our ideas.

Karen Armstrong in her book A Case For God, identifies three significant similarities in the roots of our human religious traditions. I'll list these here and then come back later with the details.

What do we understand about that which is the ultimate reality?
How we speak about this ultimate reality in story, symbol, and myth?
Where is the God awareness grounded in our humanness?

Let me warm that up for you. I'll be back.

Avatar

2010-09-01T06:45:00.006-05:00

In the movie Avatar there is a scene near the beginning where the female lead rescues the hero by saving him from the wild, dog-like creatures that are about to overpower him. She wounds one animal then, after scattering the others, returns to the body of the dying animal to say a few ritualistic words before ceremonially ending his misery. Anthropologist, paleontologist, and archaeologists who study the paintings and carvings of premodern man suggest that the earliest of rituals were evoked by a supreme respect for all life. The traces of these rituals date back more than 17,000 years when hunting was survival. The rituals were not created for the purpose of worship but rather the expression of what the hunters came to understand as this sacred connection: life was taken that life might continue. There was a bond between the hunted and the hunter.

Rites of passage were the means of determining the preparedness of young men to hunt but also how well they understood this connectedness. These rites were a means for experiencing that which would transform youth into men and a transformation that expressed the experience of becoming at-one with that connection. Later, the development of agriculture would make the rites of hunting less significant but along with the new way of survival came new forms of rituals that recognized the human connectedness to earth, rain, and fire.

Tribal differences would lead to differing interpretations of what exactly is the connectedness. And, as mentioned in earlier posts, not all societies developed their notions of the Sacred along the same time line; some went in variant directions while others saw no need to continue toward more modern reasoning. Some ancient forms of ritual and worship by being less complex have once again become desirable. The common thread in our human history is this inescapable human need to connect with whatever it is that is at the core of all existence and from which life itself flows.

Post modern thinking has raised the thought that ritual and religion are unnecessary. To that end western society is moving in a direction that views established forms of religious expression obsolete while at the same time deifying scientific ways of obtaining that which humans have always sought: what connects us to life? Are the rituals of scientific discovery any more than a means for discovering that which is beyond our human ability to comprehend? Is the drive of scientific research any less than the primitive desire to reach as far as our human capacity will allow?

Perhaps it is an over simplification but comparing the cultural and religious transition from hunters to farmers would seem to me to be unavoidable. The search is still what it has always been: what is “ultimate reality”?

Coffee's good this morning so let me pour you another cup?

Galileo

2010-08-24T06:22:00.002-05:00

Got your coffee?

Previously I referenced the story of Galileo whose theory on the sun being the center of our solar system contradicted the Biblical interpretation of Earth being the center. The Church forced Galileo to recant, cease his writing, and though he was not executed for his heresy he would spend the rest of his life as a prisoner.

This same struggle is coming home to the Christian faith and the church in a world that has moved beyond modern to post-modern while the faith of many remains in a distant world of the past. The fastest growing segment in our population are those who indicated they are "non-religious". Being non-religious does not mean they are without a God consciousness or have no desire to develop an awareness of the part of their existence that is spiritual. Rather they are saying that the state of current religious practices and explanations of life don't work for them.

The challenge of modern religious life is to do what societies have always done: find new ways to interpret the wisdom of ancient seers into understandable concepts for our time.

That doesn't mean those who have found comfort in established ways of viewing that which is sacred have to give up what they cherish or accept what doesn't have meaning for them. Or at least in a perfect world that would be the case. Unfortunately those who feel the challenge to set off in search of new universes of faith are misconstrued as being a threat, "What? How can you not see value in what is so important to me?" The fact that we have many religions, and within any given religion many flavors of expression, should in itself be validation for the likelihood if not necessity to explore new ways of understanding.

It does mean, however, for established institutions to survive we must be in the process of nurturing both that which is in existence and that which is coming into existence. We can already see on the horizon some of our cherished institutions ceasing to be relevant and passing from significant, if not literal, existence. Unfortunately our human nature tends to move us in the direction of being like the institutional leaders of Galileo's time--who found themselves on the wrong side of truth by refusing to face the decline of what they held sacred--thus risking the loss of the most brilliant and talented of our children who are simply seeking answers to questions most of us are not interested in asking?

More coffee?

Allegory

2010-08-18T06:23:00.008-05:00

Allegory is defined as "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another." The purpose of allegory is to provide a parallel example that is understandable to a subject that is not as easily understood.

Synonyms for allegory are parable, moral, symbolism, and story. Some of the more famous allegories are John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and the writings of C.S. Lewis, especially The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. Gulliver's Travels is a classic allegory about British political life during a particular time in history. The Christian book Revelation is an allegory written in a form called "apocalyptic" meaning end of time. Revelation has stirred a number of Christian pop culture books called the Left Behind series. An unusual book that recently made the best seller's list is The Shack; a story that challenges many classical concepts of God and offers some some disturbing ones. Movies tell a story and many have the nature of allegory like James Cameron's Avatar.

Now I offer these last three because they are typical of the use of allegory in religious and early scientific circles. Socrates used allegory as a means to interpret the Greek system of gods in moving toward a rational 'science' of the universe. Two centuries later Philo of Alexandria would use allegory in a similar fashion to Plato as a way of interpreting and paralleling Jewish concepts of God and creation with that of the Greek philosophers.

Jewish leaders from the sect of the Pharisees were faced with the survival of their religion after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Instead of Temple worship being the central focus they re-focused Judaism to a religion based on the Torah. In making the ancient book come alive they found new interpretations for modern times by seeing in the old stories 'allegory'. The resulting tradition became known as midrash, the interpretation of scriptures for what was happening in their today-world.

More effectively and a few decades ahead of the Pharisees were the Christians who by the middle of the first century were allegorizing the Jewish text of the Bible as a means of understanding the mission and person of Jesus. Some scholars reference the whole of the Gospels as an allegory based on the Jewish Bible where texts are lifted from their context in order to explain the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Such texts from the Psalms, Isaiah, and even early Genesis were deemed as prophetic in that they gave a foreshadowing of what was to come. In the first century Christians found comfort in allegorically interpreting what they considered to be previously hidden meaning in texts promising a Messiah like Jesus.

A classical example is Isiah's suffering servant (53) written several hundred years before the time of Jesus to describe the suffering of God's people captive in Babylon has become the consummate allegory of Jesus. "He was wounded for our transgression, he was bruised for our inequities, the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him and by his stripes we are healed." So steeped are today's Christians in this allegorical interpretation that we would never question that this text is anything other than a proclamation of Jesus when it's original intent was about the quite suffering and triumph of Israel while surviving in Babylon.

Allegory serves the same purpose as metaphor when speaking about the unspeakable. The totality of God is beyond our understanding so we characterize parts of God in an effort to understand those limited qualities that are available for us to grasp. When we say God is our Rock, our Fortress, or even our Father it is not meant to be taken literally but symbolically communicating a limited attribute of an unlimited quantity.

The danger in such parallels is when their partial definition becomes a concrete, unshakable definition. For example, in the past several decades we have moved to be less masculine in use of metaphorical language. Even though we know God is beyond gender many still bristle with the idea that God is not male even though the Bible occasionally uses feminine metaphors to describe God.

Instead of seeing the metaphor or allegory in the Bible stories we take them literally. Conflict arises when our experience of life does not match what the Bible describes simply because the descriptions are limited by knowledge current at the time of the writing. And the real conflict is trying to decide which texts can then not be taken literally? Do we stone the offenders, refuse to wear cotton-polyester clothing, not use crop rotation as a means to feed the masses, or force women to be silent in church because an ancient text says so?

But then if we rationalize away the importance of one text, where do we stop? At stake is the very nature of that which we deem sacred. How then can we view texts as sacred, holy, and therefore sufficient to provide us with what we need? More coffee anyone?

Time Is The Escort of Wisdom

2010-08-10T05:53:00.007-05:00

The past is massive. So much so that we tend to shrink it to manageable sized sound bites. For example we often think of human development as happening in a straight line. That is, different cultures divided by thousands of miles and separated by light years of diverging thoughts all arriving at the ultimate conclusions at about the same time.

Closer analysis reveals that in the big picture there are similarities related to human development but that doesn't mean they were anywhere near being alike. In our western world (think of that as Asia Minor, Europe, and much later the Americas) religious and scientific development has its key roots in Greek/Roman and Jewish cultures. Theses cultures come clashing together when the church, harmless as a dove but wise as a serpent (Jesus' words not mine) slithered into the Roman Empire.

About the time the earliest Greeks were beginning to “philosophize” on the origins of the universe the Israelite were exiles in far away Babylon. The Babylonian culture presented its on conflicts as the very different people of Abraham and Moses attempted to remain a distinct society clinging to their traditions and wisdom. It was in this conflictual time that the earliest stories took written form in defense of a Hebrew conceptualization of God.

In response to popular Babylonian accounts of creation replete with the violent warring of gods over the property of existence, the Hebrew God unfolds creation in a manner that is rather peaceful and thus brings order to chaos. This God does not do battle but rather walks in the peaceful garden in which all of creation is consecrated as 'good' and blessed. By comparison to the Babylonian accounts these stories of Genesis were unique in their depiction of God. However, they were more primitive by the cultural standards being exhibited along the Mediterranean.

Though very different still there is thread of human thinking evolving toward very similar paths aimed at answering the big questions, “Why are we here and why is the world the way it is?” Clearly the dominant power would be the way of the Greek/Roman societies as they would eventually emerge to dominate and because of this domination would eventually draw the disciples of Jesus into that more sophisticated world.

But just because their world was more sophisticated by what we now deem as modern—seeing as how we are the product of this development and to which we owe most of our current thinking—does not mean that the more primitive way of expressing theology did not have great value or, more importantly, truth. Nor does it mean we must jettison modern thinking and enter the more primitive in order to explore the meanings and truths found by there.

Let me get another cup and when I get back we can look closer at what the ancient Jewish theologians were doing as their part in what eventually become dominant western thinking.

Faith or Reason

2010-07-27T05:39:00.005-05:00

Pour another cup and let's see what there is to think about this morning. The beginning of 'reason' can be traced to some of these early philosophers mentioned below. Centuries later we see reason being refined by enlightenment, science, physics, and quantum physics so that the path of faith and reason have diverged. But is that how it all started.

For the earliest thinkers, reason was a path to faith. Whether you approach it from the study of Greek philosophers who sought to find the divine connection through reason or the Jewish thinking of men like Philo, who paralleled the understanding of “logos” with the Rabbinic Wisdom literature, the concepts of faith and reason are inseparable.

Post-modern thinking tends to make us choose reason over against faith. To those at the extreme end of being rational minded, faith has little or no importance, it is useless. Only reason is essential to understand what is necessary in life. And for those at the other end, faith requires becoming a part of and claiming by experience that which cannot be obtained through reason. So the perpetual battle continues. One trumpeting their way over the other.

People often ask me, “What does your church believe about.....?” The fallacy of modern faith is that we are so engaged in the context of our post-modern world heavily into logic that even faith must be couched in the language of reason. Faith is tends to be equated with fact. The goal or object of faith tends to be the concrete statement of logic, “I believe this to be the ultimate truth.....” Once identified as the unquestionable truth, written in stone, forever unchangeable, then 'faith' is actually no longer needed for we have truth surrounded, captured. Now our only necessity is to let no one steal the truth from us. Nothing could be further from the meaning of faith.

The Greek language had a word for this kind of thinking but it was not the word used by either the philosophers or the gospel writers when it spoke about faith. The word for faith meant commitment, trust, loyalty, and engagement. Faith was ordering our lives by that to which we commit ourselves. Having faith like that of Jesus, that is, being committed to the way of Jesus, to the understanding of how God calls us to live as did Jesus, and to live by the example of Jesus was to 'believe' in Jesus or to believe in the way Jesus believed. It was commitment to a way of understanding God and life. Before being called Christians, the people of Jesus were called 'People of the Way'.

For those who gave us philosophy and science and the Hebrews thinkers who formed the context of Jesus' life, faith and reason were all part of the same path. As we become more of one we tend to deny the importance of the other. Faith and reason are powerful forces that we must use together to propel us to the pinnacle of our human potential. Don't listen to those who say we must throw one or the other aside.

Oops. The coffee stopped. Time for a fresh cup.

Trust For Life

2010-07-20T06:25:00.007-05:00

Historian, thinker, teacher, and theologian Albert Outler wrote that a definition of God is "that in which we put our ultimate trust for life." In the course of living as humans in this great universe at different points we come both to acknowledge and/or deny that there is something beyond our ability to grasp. Denial is a so-very-human reaction as it is our refusal to accept that we are not the captains of our own destiny. Denial is a relatively modern concept when considering that ancients who were considered "atheist" were given that designation not because they believed in "no god" but rather because they rejected the god that was traditionally designated by the thinking of their society.

The early philosophers mentioned above are vitally important to the development of our now post-modern thinking for these basic premises: 1) knowledge of god can be achieved 2) but only in part, and 3) what we know or experience or see of god is achieved through the things that are evident in creation. Certainly there is much more but these three form the beginning of ancient philosophy. Reaching such a conclusion entails also the "how" of knowing god. The premise of early philosophy was that god could be experienced through the process of thinking, contemplation, and the deepest of inquiries into the nature of things.

By focusing on Western development of religious concepts I don't want to give you the impression that there is not a great deal to be learned from Eastern patterns of thought. But sense the West is where most of my experience is located you'll have to forgive me for not knowing as much about these other great traditions. In the West the coming together of Greek/Roman thinking and Judaism continued along their path and gave birth to a new path with the coming of Christianity. This new path is sparked by the life and teachings of Jesus who called his contemporaries to loyalty, trust, and commitment of what he saw in the most ancient lessons of the Law of Moses. Jesus called his disciples to the new possibilities and phrased this idea as a new "kingdom" or a new realm in which God's desires would be fulfilled. His basis for life together was keeping the Law but taking it to even greater extremes. Jesus exhibited and called for greater trust in that which the people of Judaism already knew about God and how they were to live together.

At the basis of this was trusting in what they knew to do as told in the Law but going beyond the misrepresentations of Law given them by the ruling religious elite. He called for a new day where the community took responsibility for the poor and disenfranchised. Loving God was equated with loving neighbor, doing to others as you would have them do to you, and even to the extreme of loving your enemies. The Church which formed after his death began immediately to care for the least of their community. Jesus' commitment as reflected in his teachings was to have "faith" in the God identified by these principles and thereby live a life that reflected God's intentions in creation. By so doing we could live as God's people in the realm where God's desires and designs for life were carried out.

Jesus believed in and was committed to these principles and the God made visible by them. So when the Apostle Paul, who is the earliest of interpreter of Jesus, says that we are to have the "faith of Jesus" he includes that the ability to live as Jesus lived could come only by a transformation, a changing of our minds, and a refocusing that comes from an internal rearranging of priorities. "Let your whole being be transformed by the renewing of your minds," is how he expressed this in light of his own experience.

Having the 'faith' like that of Jesus is reinforced in Paul's letter when he quotes a hymn that has already preceded him in the church, "let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who humbled himself...." We are to be like Jesus with a faith that allows us to trust that in keeping God's design for our life together we will find life as it is intended and be reassured of God's presence with us.

Faith like that of Jesus is to put our ultimate trust for life in that which Jesus trusted. Get another cup and when I get back I want to ramble a bit about that word 'faith'.

Perfect Storm

2010-07-13T06:28:00.004-05:00

Terrific disasters and successes are often described as "the perfect storm" meaning that a number of events must come together at the same time in order to produce such history altering occasions. In weather events perfect, and not so perfect, storms have been referred to as "an act of God". When we can't explain the horrible tragedy or even the uncanny good that happens to someone, religious folk often say something about "God's will" or a new spiritualist expression, "it's a God thing". When life takes an unpredictable turn or clearly changes abruptly from what is normally expected our first reaction is to blame or congratulate God for the event.

This goes back to some very primitive feelings that life is not predictable and certainly not in our realm to control. Therefore, it must be that which is greater and beyond us that is in control. And though we don't always understand the why, it is totally in the interest of self-assuring to believe that there is a greater power and higher wisdom that knows why it is happening so we, therefore, have to take what is given us as a positive.

On the surface I don't find much wrong with this reasoning but it is a bit shallow, I think. For example, when earth, wind and fire changes our lives, to what extent is such happenings manipulated by that which we term God as a means of goodness or judgment upon us? Or is it more just the way nature happens, or the result of our being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or some decision someone (perhaps ourselves) made that put us in the place of combating horrific odds of success or failure?

Now, to be sure, the predictable boundaries of human behavior and creation's ebb and flow are so reliable that we can pronounce such borders as dangerous to cross. Jump out of a tree and gravity will see to it that pain comes quickly. However, the cause of such judgments are not always evident. In ancient times, before satellites, radar and predicting computer models, we simply declared an "act of God", meaning, we know there is an explanation but we have no idea what it is. Today, scientific minds know the why or that if the why is not immediately known further research will one day find the answer. We stake our lives on it.

Historical events are very much the same. Life bounces along with human development or decline until circumstances happen that make a radical and significant change. It is a statement of our 'faith' when we say that God is behind these things. Faith meaning 'trust' in the way that creation and human life for millions of years has born out that we are moving towards a greater good. Behind that greater good is what we refer to when we state that God's work or 'hand' can be seen in history.

The very brief history of what Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Philo brought to the historical landscape at the time of Jesus cannot be lightly emphasized. All of the earliest Christian writers, especially Paul and the composers of the four Gospel stories of Jesus' life, were Greek speaking Jewish Christians. They had a foot in both the Jewish and modern Greek/Roman world. They were trying to interpret the best of Judaism's monotheistic understanding of how God has been involved in our human existence in the context of a culture whose philosophy lent itself to similar thinking. The result was moving light years forward in religious development that would shape and be shaped by a world moving toward modernity.

A modern mind would be correct to look at these events and say it was no more than just a perfect storm or highly predictable coincidence. But just as correct would be a mind of faith that sees behind all human history a force moving creation towards a greater good. Both assumptions are a matter of where we choose to put our trust for life.

Finish that coffee and we'll pick this up again.

Think Faster

2010-07-09T06:20:00.004-05:00

Coffee is good for getting you up to speed so grab a cup.

Our modern world and its technology has a way of deceiving us with the belief that knowledge has always moved throughout the world at current speeds. Not so today and much less so in ancient times. Interesting that some of the most progressives thinkers were limited to certain locals and in fact their writings languished for want of a broader means of communication. The printing press would change that but even then that great invention does not compare to the instant access we have to thought, reason, and logic.

In the same time frame of Jesus was living in Palestine there was a tremendously important thinker writing in the Greek community of the city of Alexandria, built by and named for the Greek Emperor Alexander the Great. Philo was a Jewish philosopher and theologian living in the Hellenistic world. Because the Jewish community was large, diverse and scattered, Philo was a bridge for philosophical thought knowing the importance of interpreting his tradition in the dominant culture so that Jews would not be persecuted and at the same time dragging his fellow countrymen into a progressively modern world.

Philo was at heart a Platonist, that is, he believed that the essence of God could not be known. God was above and beyond (transcending) all creation. But, God could be experienced and was made known (immanent) by the things God had made and was doing (power to create). Read the first chapter of Paul's book to the Romans and you can hear this same thinking from someone who writes shortly after the time of Philo.

Philo correlated Plato's idea of "forms", that is the incarnation of that which is not visible but is eternal and real, with the Jewish concept of God's intentional design for creation. The key word Philo used was 'logos', which in Greek means dialogue or speech. In Hebrew thought it is God's power that is made visible in the 'spoken word'. In the Genesis creation story God literally speaks and the power of Word (logos) makes it happen.

The word used to express this visible power of God in Hebrew is 'shekinah' but there is no Greek equivalent for that word. Philo chose the word 'logos' to convey this Hebrew concept of God's power at work.

The other important contribution made by Philo was using the Greek concept of 'allegory' or story as a means of explaining and interpret these eternal and transcendent concepts about the universe and God. Allegory is originally a Greek word that means using one thing to explain or disguise another. When we interpret a story or parable and say "this is the meaning behind what is in the story" we are allegorizing the story. Gulliver's Travels is an allegory as is the interpretation given to the Biblical texts in Revelation by some current writers. This form of simplifying difficult concepts was made popular by the early Greek philosophers and was also prominent in the Jewish world of Rabbinic interpretation of Hebrew texts.

Philo laid the ground work for the earliest Apostle's and Church fathers to take the traditional thinking of the Hebrew Jesus and interpret his concept of God into the fast moving world of Greek and Roman culture. Some will ask, "Wait a minute, or you saying that it was the quirky timing of history that is responsible for the spread of Christianity? What about that Spirit talk of Biblical proportions?" Call it by Philo's word, or Rabbinic word, or Christian word, it all depends on the language and culture you bring to it. The importance is not what word but what those words mean. Drink up, the rest is history.

I Think Therefore.....

2010-07-03T06:17:00.007-05:00

Ahhh! Is there thinking before coffee? If you haven't had your second cup you likely finished my title with, "..therefore I am." That rational thought would not come for some centuries. As civilization moved forward the discipline of thinking was a new discovery. Western society, philosophy, theology, science, and religion and most of what we are was finding its foundation in the exercise of rational thought. Though there are other great thinkers for sure, the Greeks are where we Westerners usually begin. Socrates challenged those who heard him to enter into "dialogue" with one's self and others for the purpose of being rational. Socrates established that the universe was rational, could be explored by reason and that one could reach a spiritual peace through such intellectional pursuit.

Plato took up where Socrates began by surmizing reason to be that which comes to us from outside ourselves. Thought is that which captures us or draws us towards itself. That which draws us is real and perfected whereas this world is only an imperfect reflection of that which is. Plato called this perfected otherness, "forms". The universe was based on these "forms" that existed out beyond what we know. Like other Greeks, Plato and Scorates did not quibble over multiple gods but took such as a fact of existence. Near the end of his writings Plato devised a creation "myth", not to be taken literally, but a parable of sorts to give a path for reasoning to follow. Such myth enabled a person to enter the process of thought and since thinking was divine, thinking put the thinker into participation with that which was God. Plato's mythological Creator was a divine craftsman, skillfully putting the universe in order. But this was not the ultimate God for that God was too far removed to be knowable. Like Socrates, Plato's universe was intelligible, knowable, and achievable through the spiritual exercise of thought.

Aristotle linked more concretely Plato's idea of the universe being intelligible and the concept of "forms" with reason being man's form and therefore to reach completeness as a human one must pursue reason. Reason is a divine activity and therefore man could practice it only in so far as touching that within that is divine. Aristotle thought creation itself to be both divine and the center of the all that exists. These two points would later cause great consternation with future theologians of the Chruch and would shape Western thought for centuries to follow. Like Plato, Aristotle's God was far removed and not the Creator but the "First Cause" that set it all in motion. And like many of the great thinking movements of their time, these three thinkers thought "philosophy" to be a spiritual discipline.

If this sounds a bit unusual to you it is likely because we have long accepted that rational thinking, the pursuit of answering the big questions about life, is a natural part of what we are suppose to be doing. These early Greeks laid that foundation for us. Philosophy was the first efforts at science even though the two would later separate into distinct disciplines and divide again with theology as well as spawn others like pyschology. This Greek world was developing about 300 years before the birth of Jesus and about the time most Protestants identify the ending of our Old Testament when those prophets of Judaism were sharpening the concept of monotheism. In many ways the Greek culture was more sophisticated, more highly developed, and very progressive but the people in the wilderness of Palestine had something to offer the world as well.

More coffee?

The Complete Idiot's Guide

2010-06-29T05:07:00.014-05:00

Hard to put a finger on the exact date but somewhere around the time personal computers were baffling everyone there appeared the most astoundingly simple books, "Computing for Dummies" and "The Complete Idiots Guide to Computing". Clearly I was born too early for these books spawned a concept that would have made my sophomore year so much easier. Today there are a plethora of "Dummies" for every subject including the one I needed most: philosophy.

Perhaps a bit more serious are two books recently discovered that have helped me wade through the swamp to a stable ground for understanding the history of thinking: Karen Armstrong, "A Case for God" (she is on the best sellers list more than once) and Robert Wright, "The Evolution of God" (more accurately the evolution of philosophy and religion but titles sell books you know).

There are few original thinkers currently among us six billion on this third rock from the sun and I'm not going to guess how many billions have come before us. I don't count myself among those gifted thinkers but rather as one who struggles to discover what the truly talented are saying that I might glean for my own life. "Thank you, gifted people, for doing the heavy lifting." I'm not breaking new ground on these pages anymore than other simple authors but merely using this space to put into words how serious thinkers have helped me find my way out of darkness to a place of light where lives meaning, purpose, and a sense of peace. The invitation to journey with me is always out to those who have similar desires--and plenty of coffee.

The very idea of intellect or reason being such a path is relatively new if you count from the very beginning of the universe, or, just the part where we human's come into the picture. Aristotle lived around 300 years before the current era and was one of Plato's most brillant students. His thinking, built on that of his teacher and Socrates, affected the course of philosophy, theology, and science until the modern period of Enlightenment. In fact, these three disciplines were all but inseperable thanks to Aristotle.

Where Plato was heavy into mathmatics Aristotle was more a biologist spending years in Asia Minor dissecting animals to study their evolution and decay. The science of Aristotle encapsulated the idea that everything in existence was moving toward a goal, i.e., had a purpose to fulfill, that gave it direction. He tagged it a "final cause". Aristotle thought the universe was eternal so his definition of God was not the Creator but a more distant "First Cause", the Unmoved Mover that set it all in motion. His God was impersonal and did not fit former concepts be they Jewish, Greek or Roman. He was convinced, however, that with proper dedication to training the intellect, one could experience this remote diety to some small degree.

The ability to reason and to move reason further into contemplation was for Aristotle that which seperated man from all else in creation. Plato had established "Forms"as the reality of which life was a mirror. For Aristotle reason was man's "Form", the culmination of that for which man was destined to be. Like many in his time Aristotle believed that thought and the capacity to reason was activated by the object of of reason's focus, therefore, to comtemplate God was in some manner to participate in the life of the divine.

According to Karen Armstrong the "discourse about God" was for Aristotle the primary philosophy because it was about the highest form of being. The practice of philosophy was not merely the gathering of knowledge or practicing theory but was an activity that involved spiritual transformation.

Obviously great philosophers such as Aristotle have too many layers for me to peel through here, but, grab a second cup and when I get back we'll sip our way through how these three founding fathers of philosophy shaped the world of Western thought by their influence on other great thinkers.

When The Sun Comes Up You Better Be Running

2010-06-24T05:18:00.011-05:00

Grab a cup and let's talk. There is an old saying, "When the sun comes up every gazelle knows that to survive the day he must be one step faster than the fastest lion. When the sun comes up every lion knows he must be one step faster than the slowest gazelle if he is to survive. So whether you are a lion or a gazelle, when the sun comes up you better be running."

In the ancient world survival was the primary concern but on the road to the Forum a funny thing happened. Civilization matured as agriculture changed the way people lived, as societies evolved, as cities were formed, and eventually people didn't have to run. Thinking became a parlor sport. Well, actually more than just thinking, contemplation: How did I get here and what am I suppose to be doing?

The chief architects for contemplation in Western thought were three Amigos: Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates was so focused on contemplation and dialogue about thinking that he refused to write down his thoughts. Plato was his student and what we know of Socrates comes from the pen of Plato.

Plato regarded mathematics as a spiritual exercise that could lead the "thinker" or philosopher away from his own sense perceptions and toward a place of abstraction from which he could see the world differently--as it really was not as it was perceived. His idea of "Forms" evolved from the way ancients perceived thought. Where as we might say, "I think therefore I am," it seemed more logical to those of Plato's generation that thoughts are what happen to us and not what we create in our minds. Accepted logic was that ideas found us or happened upon us, and therefore our thoughts are an imperfect reflection of that which is real beyond us.

For Plato, Forms were the real, more perfect thing and our existence was not. Through the power of reason the philosopher could reach an awareness of those things that existed on a higher level of being. This may sound somewhat strange to our modern minds but at the same time most religious thinkers today conceive of that which is eternal existing beyond our reach, more perfect than this life, and we all know this existence has an expiration date.

In Plato's philosophy, how we came to be can only be expressed by story or myth since the ultimate deity could never be known in its entirety or even explained if one was to know. "Now we see through a glass darkly," is how the early Christian thinker Paul expressed this idea that the totality of that which is beyond us is unknowable. We know in part but not in whole.

Plato concluded there was a divine craftsman who shaped the world and we could know that deity through thought but this was not the supreme, unknowable God. Plato taught that by the contemplation of the planets, stars, moon, sun, and the whole of the cosmos one could see that creation was a living organism with a rational mind, and soul.

In Quantum Physics what is known is beyond our perception but can be verified in the language of mathematics. Plato was among the first to propose that the language of the cosmos, that which is beyond us and the source of all that exists, is mathematics. Mathematics is at its core perfectly rational and since the universe can be known mathematically, so too must the universe be rational. Thus, philosophical exploration, the predecessor to modern science, is a spiritual discipline.

More coffee?

The Un-examined Life

2010-06-18T09:14:00.003-05:00

“The unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates 400 years before the current era. Socrates is understood by many to be the father of modern day philosophy even though he would likely not recognized what philosophy has become. The beginning of that quote reads, “ It is the greatest good for a man (sic) to discuss virtue every day....”

Socrates' goal was virtue, or, finding the best life possible. But unlike our modern philosophy his dialogue was not about promoting intellectual ascent to ideas nor was the dialogue he engaged in intent on bludgeoning an opponent into intellectual submission. For Socrates dialogue was a spiritual experience of self emptying. The highest knowledge is to reach a point of silence arrived at when a person has exhausted all they know and realizes that they really don't know.

Unlike the modern day talking heads we see on television and Internet who seem maliciously intent on beating us up with what they know for certain, Socratic conversion, or changing of the mind, was to achieve the knowledge that there is more to this than we could ever know for certain.

Fear is often our salvation but fear can also be our greatest nemesis. Fear can save us or destroy us. Fear of the unknown is almost unbearable and yet for Socrates admitting that we don't know was the source of creative imaginations that explored life with no holds barred. on the other hand, once we arrived at certainty we stopped progressing toward that which is the ultimate good (virtuous) life.

A large segment of modern day “Faith” communities seem afraid of not knowing. They are very certain about what is real, true, virtuous and, from my perspective, strive to avoid living by faith. Faith is a contradiction as described in the book called Hebrews as a certainty of what is not known or knowable (my interpretation). In other words when we think we have all the answers and we have God safely surrounded by our intellectual boundaries we have moved beyond faith to certainty.

The beauty of true faith allows us to be open to dialogue no matter what path it takes for in the end we will still not know what we know. Instead of saying that we must live by “certainty”, the Apostle Paul affirmed we must “live by faith”. Faith is knowing that God is beyond our knowing.

Coffee cold? Let me warm yours up.

Words That Didn't Exist Ten Years Ago

2010-06-11T05:36:00.011-05:00

With technical help from friend and web site designer Nathan Delle I recently redesigned our church's web presence www.fumcgarland.org. And, thanks to Google Analytic, I realize just how important are web communications in this age of the Internet. We are urged by those who know to have a presence on things that didn't exist a few years ago: The Web, Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs. Why? Because it is the culture of communications for the current and next generation.

A quick scan of history finds numerous examples of how popular religious figures used the changing landscape of communications to reach the masses with words of hope and courage. John Wesley was mortified when invited to take the preached word out of the Holy Church and onto the hillside outside the mines of England. The success was phenomenal and evolved into putting preachers on horseback to literally "pony express" a message of hope to where the people lived.

At the turn of the 20th century Aimee Semple McPherson used the emerging culture of radio to pioneer a renewal of spiritual energy in America. Modern Evangelical preachers were quick to adopt the use of radio and television to shape an understanding of Christianity that is not indicative of all who are Christian but certainly the most recognized.

It is not an oversimplification to say that the success of the Christian message can be traced to its adapting to popular culture. Though Jesus spoke Arabic in a culture where the holy writ was recorded in Hebrew while the earliest writings of the Church now canonized into our modern day Bible were all written in Greek. The culture in which the church grew to world wide stature was not that of a Jewish prophet but of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

The most influential, early Church Fathers were products of this Greek culture. They bridged the message of Jesus as experienced in the life of first century notables like Peter and Paul into a cohesive understanding for a totally different people. Though the culture of Jesus was worlds apart from theirs, they already shared an affinity for the principles he espoused. How to scaled the wall that divided them was a matter for cultural interpretation.

Grab a cup and when we get back I want to take you on a journey to see how these early philosophers impacted modern thinking in areas that are often beyond our ability to imagine much less comprehend. And that in itself is a major part of how it all began--imagination, that is, not the coffee.

It's Been A While

2010-06-05T09:53:00.004-05:00

Time to pick up where I left off. In case you were wondering, I felt like I said all I needed to say. So why start again? Well, I've continued to read and reflect on many issues, some too narrow or technical to be inspirational. In the last month or so I've read and re-read Karen Armstrong's book, A Case For God. It has challenged and changed my thinking in an important way.

A Case For God starts at the beginning of religious exploration and really grounds itself in the thinking of the earliest of the great philosophers, Socrates. Plato and Aristotle would come later but Socrates set the stage for thinking that has carried us for centuries and should still be our model for the now post-modern era.

Socrates' premise in regards to the eternal questions, "how did we come to exist and what are we doing here?" is simply "we don't know and there is no way to find out." So why are we talking about it? Well, in admitting that we don't know gives us the freedom to explore, question, be creative, and most of all, listen to one another. It is in the creating of doubt about that which we think we know that new possibilities open up.

What has changed in my thinking over the last year relates to what I learned in seminary; that theology above all has to be logical and systematic. Systematic meaning it all has to connect. Connection that avoids contradiction is good but if we are not careful it too often evolves into a closed system; a tidy, neat package that balances and makes sense but leaves no room for other possibilities.

We have this human necessity to find the ultimate and final truth when reality is that it is likely not there. In fact, the more we accept that truth is so massive we can never boil it down to a few simple principles the sooner we are able to explore the unlimited. Possibilities are, after all, unlimited.

In Armstrong's book she encourages thinking, listening, and openness. She challenges those who are able to interpret this openness and who have a desire to be progressive in religious understanding should be busy about challenging others to a similar approach.

So this year's blogging will be about helping those who don't have the time to read extensively in ongoing religious developments can find something to stir their thinking. They say such thinking keeps our minds alert and will help us to stave off mental deterioration. I'm all for that. Coffee helps too. Get out the old percolator and stay tuned.

Violence and Judgment

2009-09-01T09:02:00.005-05:00

Well, been off visiting youngest daughter who has a new coffee pot you’d have to see to believe. So while drinking fancy coffee I started thinking about why all of my contemplations of the past few months have been so important, i.e., the ideas of evil and forgiveness and how these things are represented in the life and death of Jesus.

When I look at what I see and hear of Christianity in our modern world it seems to be dominated by the idea of judgment and violence. Old ways of thinking about why Jesus died and how that suffering has set things on the proper road towards rescuing all of creation paints a violent, helpless picture of God held hostage by a vaporous power of evil. In such I find little redeeming value. If Jesus is the symbol of God’s love and compassion how can we say then that such a God would require suffering and violence?

Thinking that violence can in anyway lead to peace now or eternal peace later just doesn’t equate in my thinking. The violence committed against Jesus is not what God intended or designed. I don’t see it even as a “fallback” plan in light of a first case scenario falling through. The violence against the good Jesus did is characteristic of humanity’s greatest fault. Fear that we will lose place or power makes it convenient to reason that we will overcome our fears through violence.

To further justify this violence with an appeal to some sense of cosmic justice that will re-balance the scales of human corruption also violates the basic tenants of our image of God. If God is truly the one, true power in the universe then nothing else can hold God to a standard that violates God’s nature.

Will we be held accountable for the injustices we do in the world? Of course we will just as we are everyday of our lives. We cannot live in a way that violates the fabric of creation’s intent without somehow harming ourselves. Our selfishness and greed may harm the least powerful at first but it will also catch us up in its web of self-deceit. The appearance that some get away with their crimes is just that, appearance only.

Now, where did I put that cup?

If I Had A Hammer

2009-08-14T05:30:00.003-05:00

Wow, that's a big cup you have? Okay, back to the why question. Darwin’s theory identifies in the evolution of species the idea that suffering is an integral part of creation’s development. We know that when DNA replicates there often occurs gene abnormalities and mutations referred to as “errors”. From these, amounting to no more than slight differences, comes either better fitness for survival or lesser fitness prone to extinction. The better fitted characteristics survive, the lesser suffer against their environment and eventually perish. The evil we call suffering is literally part of the process of survival.

It is important to make note of this insight because it negates a long standing, primitive human trait to feel that when a disaster happens it is because some deserving judgment has been rendered on the guilty. Knowing suffering is part of the process of life refutes the assumption such suffering is the result of mistakes in a previous life, a parent’s sins becoming the judgment against their child, and even of a first generation of human choices resulting in a guilty judgment against all who follow. Augustine’s ‘original sin’ should be filed alongside the idea that the sun revolves around the earth.

Accept or reject evolutionary theory, human experience has led Semitic religions to conclude that even if the world was created good it has been in a downward spiral from that point forward. Most Eastern religions assume that the world was bad from the beginning so there is no possibility of good and suggest the only response is to escape as quickly as possible.

German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) shaped the course of modern thinking by rejecting these hypotheses of ancient philosophy and religion with the premise now etched into Enlightenment thought that the world is progressing, continually moving, and shaping itself towards its intended potential of positive goodness. To believe that there is a Source of all that is created, an Ultimate Being responsible for the process that began our existence, or that God—by a name of your own choosing—is moving us toward that which is a greater good, we still have to answer the question: How is it that suffering plays such a significant part in creation if God is good?

On the stage of science if we speak of anything deemed as rational it must have a measurable, perceivable purpose or goal. Johann Herder’s philosophical premise supported by the evolution of creation and human consciousness is that we are moving toward a higher intelligence whose goal might be perceived as that of perfecting human life. Progress, or evolution, can be hypothesized, identified, and measured making it a reasonable subject of scientific examination.

The development of human consciousness—I think therefore I am—is an essential part of this progression. In order for there to be a progression towards that which is deemed good over bad (beauty over chaos as a moral virtue) there must also be in the mix of development the possibility to move between that which leads to failure as well as that which leads to success. To have only the choice of success/goodness would not be a choice and thus totally change the process as it now exists. Consider this: if the process changes then so would the end result, i.e., a totally different existence than the one that is now ours.

The necessary possibility for either success or failure might appear as “chance” or “random” happenings, that is, not necessarily an intended part of the process even if it is part of the inevitable if indeed human development is moving towards the goal of perfecting intelligence and existence. The fact that evil happens is not what is necessarily intended nor is the consideration of whether this perfection is reachable relevant. What matters is the movement towards that goal.

There are likely a few missing pieces in my explanation of John Polkinghorne’s theory (Science and Providence, 1989, London: SPCK) of the “free process defense” but here’s my layman’s analysis. In building a home to provide safety and security for my family my intention (goal) is to fasten the beams of the structure using nails and a hammer. Included in reaching my goal is the intention to hit the nail with the hammer and not the nail on my finger. Yet the latter is always an unintended possibility. I rationally make the choice to move toward the goal because it is a good thing to provide shelter for my family knowing the possibility of the unintended harm is always there. However, that possibility becomes less as I progress to greater efficiency with the hammer and become more intelligent in the placement of my hand.

Time for more coffee?

Taking Evil Seriously

2009-08-08T07:10:00.005-05:00

Grab your cup and buckle in. This part of the ride is a bit bumpy. The question of how it is that Jesus saves leads to another puzzling question: if there is a God who is good, why is there evil from which we need to be saved?

Even if we conclude there is a god responsible for creation then what kind of god is it that designs a world fraught with danger? And if god is indeed responsible for the design and is in control of keeping that design working then it is not hard to conceive of god as being vengeful, unjust, or just plain fickle. Considering the world’s chaos and suffering it is not illogical to conclude there is no reason, no good, and no god behind the working of creation.

But first, let’s identify what we mean by evil. We humans create tremendous evil for ourselves and for others by the self-serving, shortsighted choices we make. A child is killed by a drunk driver and we say, “Why did God allow that to happen?” If God has culpability the culpability is limited to giving humans the freedom of choice. I’ll say more about that a little later.

Then there is the evil that some still believe is an “act of god” rather than what science would call “natural disaster”. The power of nature to cause good or harm seems to be a matter of scale: too much or too little of a good thing spells disaster. Modern science and technology have given us a better perspective on the working of creation so we no longer consider it chance or in the hands of a whimsical and unpredictable creator.

One of my favorite books is When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Harold Kushner in which he addresses suffering of the innocent at the hands of nature. Kushner suggests that just as humans have freedom of choice so too does nature have a degree of freedom to do what it does best. When circumstances reach an extreme, wind can become violent, rains can make floods, lightning does kill, and when the Earth’s plates slip it literally shakes our foundation. All of these natural features that possess both beauty and danger are in some way responsible for making earth inhabitable. Thus it would seem evil and good are partners in a creative dance.

Perhaps freedom is too generous a term for what happens in nature though random is not exactly right either since nature’s wrath is predictable. Some years ago a tragic flood swept through a river basin in Colorado wiping out homes and killing innocent people. At first the horrible news was deemed to be one of those “acts of god”. But after the initial tragedy it was quietly noted in the news that the temptation to build along this fantastically beautiful canyon was so great that many ignored the warning about the sites being in a hundred-year-flood plain. Those who made the choice to live in this particular canyon were literally gambling with their lives that that such a flood would not occur.

Close in proximity to natural disasters are pestilence and disease. Through medical science we continue to discover the causes of disease, learn how to prevent future diseases, and develop the means to eradicate such evil. Affects of culture, life style, stress, diet, the use of chemicals and other aspects of our social fabric both cause or limit disease. And of course, once introduced into our DNA heredity can makes disease a ticking bomb.

Science gives us understanding and method for controlling much of what is labeled as “natural” evil in our world. The lesson is a hard one but we are ever so slowly progressing towards bringing our human behavior into harmony with that of the natural world. The potential for eliminating evil is one element of rescuing humanity that requires a lifetime of perfecting our method.

Human evil is addressed by the Christian writer we know as Paul in his credo to the Church at Rome as he says, “That which I know to do I don’t do. And that which I know not to do is what I most often do. Woe is me.” The more we know the greater the challenge to get it right.

But knowing what is evil, what are the causes of evil and how to avoid or control evil does not answer the question, why evil at all? Oops, that’s the coffee maker beeping. Must be ready; let me get a cup and I’ll tell you what I think.

Go Easy On The Caffeine

2009-07-30T05:13:00.003-05:00

Now the problem is that coffee has caffeine and caffeine makes your heart rate go up, the flow of blood to your brain increases and the brain generates thoughts that weren’t there before. So, caffeine is good right? Yes, but then there is always the postulate that too much of a good thing can go the other way. Too much caffeine can result in too much blood pressure, wear you out, challenge your other organs, or worse case scenario lead to explosion in some part of your brain. So watch it! Me? In spite of my bravado I try to limit myself to one cup in the morning spread over three or four refills. That way my brain thinks I’m drinking more than I really am.

Have another cup?

I not only write early, with cup near by, but I read more than I write. In doing so I ran across this in one of my latest reading adventures by Robert Wright, The Evolution of God. Near the end (p. 440) Wright draws a conclusion on the idea of salvation and how its meaning has varied through history and in various religious understandings. The variations move between personal or individual salvation and social or political salvation. So let I’ll wrap up my thoughts on how it is that Jesus saves by sharing Wrights broader insights—even though you would likely have to read the book before understanding the full scope of his meaning:

“Fortunately, it turns out that everyone does seek salvation. The word ‘salvation,’ remember, comes from a Latin word meaning to stay intact, to remain, whole, to be in good health. And everyone, atheist, agnostic, and believer alike, is trying to stay in good mental health, to keep their psyche or spirit intact, to keep body and soul together. They’re trying, you might say, to avert chaos at the individual level.
So the basic challenge of linking individual salvation to social salvation can be stated in equally symmetrical yet more secular language: the challenge is to link the avoidance of individual chaos to the avoidance of social chaos. Or: link the pursuit of psychic intactness to social intactness. Or: link the pursuit of personal integrity to social integrity. Or: link the pursuit of psychic harmony with social harmony.”

Though “salvation” is a rather churchy word—meaning we don’t usually hear that word outside those doors—it is a reasonable word to use when speaking about our human desire to live a peaceful life composed of both personal peace, peace in our community and peace in our world. Wright ties these together. One does not exist without the other.

I can drink to that. Oops! I’ll pour you a little more. Emphasis on little.

Are We There Yet?

2009-07-27T06:41:00.002-05:00

Now where was I? Oh, yes, pour another cup, I remember, it was about the progress of human redemption and how the change in our thinking is transforming our whole state of being. We don’t always get it right but we know, for examples, that human slavery is not acceptable, the helpless are not to be exploited, that violence and war are not to be waged for acquisition of that which belongs to another, and, in general, there are certain inalienable rights bestowed upon humans that we believe are endowed by the Creator. Converting our knowledge to universal practice takes longer but the mechanisms for achieving these higher principles are clearly revealed to us in a variety of religious traditions.

For those who choose to be Christians we see these truths revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus. In Jesus we are challenged to follow more than just the letter of the law. He sets for us a higher ideal that transcends the old ways of setting values in concrete or writing them in stone. For Jesus the greater law of human redemption is that which arises from human consciousness. The Hebrew prophet Jeremiah saw that day coming when the best of our human values is to be written on our hearts. To possess the faith of Jesus is to believe that we are guided by and obligated to live by internal principals rather than outside rules or rulers. We know we are to be better than we are but failing to live up to what we know does not negate the power in knowledge to transform us.

Jesus stated the obvious that how we treat those who are, as we, children of the Creator affects our lives as well—known as “do unto others….”. Certainly this applies to those with whom we share this planet but we are realizing an age old concept that if we neglect or exploit creation our careless actions harm us as well. We are growing in our awareness that there are consequences to every self-centered—or to use an old fashioned biblical term ‘sinful’—way of living.

The life and teachings of Jesus take on new meaning when we move beyond “salvation” being about the individual soul’s eternal destination but is about preserving our life together, our communities, all of humanity, and the planet we share. When we exploit natural resources, hoard that of which there is too little, and neglect those who are most harmed by human greed, we give to evil a power that it would not have otherwise. Like gravity and inertia there are natural, moral laws built into the very nature of our existence. The greatest benefits in life occur as we strive to bring our actions into harmony with the forces of creation that are in essence “good”.

Correcting our self-center behavior is a life long process. Forgiveness lifts the burden of our guilt, opens our eyes to our mistakes, picks us up, puts us back on the right road, but forgiveness does not in and of itself save the world. If we continue without change no amount of forgiveness will save us. Rather forgiveness is the power that enables us to change our way of thinking and allow our thinking to transform how we live.

Having experienced dramatic transformation himself the Apostle Paul in the Christian tradition writes about the change as one in which his whole being is literally transformed by the renewing (changing) of his mind. Paul affirms the same for the life of those he persuades to acquire for themselves the faith like that of Jesus. The possibility of that transformation, be it of heart or mind, was not only the experience of Paul but of countless others who would come after him. Through church history, men and women who have literally been changed by what they have come to know with their hearts and with their minds express their belief that they have been touched by that which is the Eternal. I know that of which Paul speaks for I have found that same transformation to be true in my own life.

You look like you could use another cup. Me, too; be right back.

You Realize We Only Have A Few Billion Years

2009-07-24T06:22:00.010-05:00

Careful, this cup is hot. This is a new blend and it’s really smooth. So…if you ask me, “Why Jesus?” here is my answer: first, to show in the life of Jesus and his teachings the potential we have in how we live and that we have denied the very best of the potential God has placed in us. Second, in Jesus we see the ultimate picture of God setting right our relationship through love and forgiveness offered without price. Third, in the crucifixion of Jesus we see our human nature that blindly rejects and denies that God’s way will get us where we desire to be. And fourth, the power of goodness witnessed in the resurrection is an emphatic statement that nothing in life or death can defeat God’s desires to achieve for creation the highest good.

Now if you were to ask of me, “What would you like to see in the Church of tomorrow?” I’d say for starters, let’s seriously rethink some key elements of what church goers hear sung, preached and taught in most churches every Sunday. Anselm’s 11th century theory that the powers of evil have captured the human spirit and therefore God must offer a ransom, or sacrifice, or something to balance the scales of injustice in order to restore that relationship doesn’t make sense to contemporary thinkers.

For those being raised in a modern society where the scientific and technological world speaks a language grounded in the material, concrete, and verifiable it is imperative we delete metaphors from the dark ages, run a virus sweep through our language of cosmic mysticism, and do a complete reinstall of the operating system. Scientific reasoning is the new platform by which all that is real in life is being measured. The Church must find a language that translates the truth of our tradition into this new world paradigm. Eleventh century ideas are just what they are, antiquated, nonsensical, and incomprehensible in the 21st century.

I think this is what Girard has done (see June 11 posting) by taking a route similar to that of Abelard with an exploration of both human and social behavior. Again, it is a context with which contemporary minds can grapple. Granted, as pointed out by some, Girard’s theory may have the same weakness as that of Abelard. Inspiration and knowledge of our corrupted thinking have not blossomed into the elimination of human cruelty as we continue to witness horrific evil at the hands of those who should have learned better. We may not have arrived at a final answer but at least Girard offers one that makes sense in our post modern world.

If we are to address seriously the statement “Jesus Saves” and claim that it has meaning in the world of today we must also face the reality of why isn’t there a greater progression away from human evil?

That’s a fair question but we must be fair as well in hearing a valid response that says there is progress in overcoming human evil. Perhaps not as quickly or as perfectly as we’d all like but a good look at human history, as short as it is, reveals highs and lows in individual and societal salvation. If viewed from the beginning of religious awareness to where we are now I think it can be said that we are moving in a positive direction toward human goodness and redemption.

In the Church we often say that faith is not an end in itself but is found in the journey. So it may well be with “salvation”. Our part is commitment to the journey but it is a journey that will take a life time and beyond. And so with the total salvation of creation and humanity; it may well be beyond us in time. Scientist measure that the future of our universe can be calculated as at several billion years before the sun burns out and the expansion of our solar system begins to contract. Compare the significant development in human evolution as measured in only a few thousand years and I suggest we can’t give up too soon on what is taking shape in our human existence. For example...wait, I’d better start another pot. This is starting to feel like it could take longer.

The Devil Made Me Do It! Yeah, Right.

2009-07-19T06:10:00.003-05:00

Well, its Sunday morning, coffee pot is brewing, and I’m getting ready for church. What better time to talk about “evil”. Evil has always been a sticky question for people of faith. From where does evil come and, if God is good, why does evil exist? There’s much to be said about happenings that we deem to be destructive evil but for this cup of coffee let me stick with some of our more antiquated ideas.

Ancient thinkers have pictured God as having an adversary, a competing power, often called Satan or The Devil. I like the insightful Star Wars designation as “The Dark Side”. The anthropomorphic (human-like) attributes we apply to evil are quiet natural in the history of religious development.

We project human qualities onto God even though we know that God is not limited or bound by such features. Communication about God in metaphoric terms that parallel our human experience helps us connect with God. The same need for metaphoric images is at work when envisioning evil. We give evil anthropomorphic (human-like) qualities that tend to make evil real, fearsome, and an adversary with greater than human powers. A theological problem develops when we imagine the powers of this adversary as equaling the power of God.

Primitive gods were as likely to be bad as good, ill tempered, unpredictable, and just down right adversarial to humans. In the earliest of religious thinking even creation was not considered “good”. These ancient ideas were in the cultures surrounding biblical people and posed significant obstacles to monotheism. There is good reason to believe that even though Judaism championed monotheism, up until the time of King Josiah other gods were not only prevalent among those who lived in the land, the worship of other gods was tolerated. Monotheism became the Law of the land in Judaism after Israel’s return from exile in Babylon.

Though the idea of a competing evil power is part of Biblical thought it is not compatible with the premises of monotheism. It is also not compatible with modern thinking any more than the Biblical affirmation that the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, or that the planet has four corners. Evil is what we create individually or collectively by our counter productive choices based on greed, fear, hate, envy, deceit, and the dire need to control our destiny. Evil is real and it is powerful and when it is allowed to permeate a community it can seemingly develop a life of its own.

Somewhere deep in our DNA there is the need to blame evil onto someone or something else. The Genesis story tellers capture that in the character of Adam after he eats the forbidden fruit. When God questions Adam about the evil he has set loose on creation he answers, “The woman, whom you gave me, made me do it.” We not only blame others for our evil we make our enemies the epitome of evil or whatever necessary to see them as less than human. By seeing them as evil and making them less than human it is then easier to hate them, treat them with disdain, heap all manner of evil upon them, even to the point of killing. We fight evil with evil and the result is escalating evil.

When viewing how it is that we are restored to that relationship intended at creation I do not see God as being held hostage to any power or justice other than God’s own. There is no force greater or equal that could make demands of God. Forgiveness that restores our relationship comes solely from God’s capacity to love and willingness to forgive.

Oops, getting late. I’m going to take this cup with me while you let that sink in.

So Why Jesus and Why Did He Die?

2009-07-14T06:24:00.002-05:00

I see you already have your cup. Good. Where did I leave off? Oh, yes, that question about why Jesus and was it really necessary for his life to turn out the way it did? Around the middle of the last century, noted British preacher Leslie Weatherhead wrote an insightful little book entitled The Will of God. The book has served as an excellent answer to that question for many years. Though I think Weatherhead’s answer needs updating his premise is still strong. Jesus’ rejections and death was not God’s intention, desire, or will. Rather, like so many of the prophets before Jesus, it was God’s desire that the people accept him and his teaching. The purpose of Jesus is the same as many prophets before him, to show us a Creator who loves us, who created us to love sacrificially, and including forgiving others as we have been forgiven.

Though we as disciples consider Jesus to be unique in revealing God’s nature, some of his most poignant teachings are actually taken from earlier writings in Judaism. Jesus quotes scripture, encourages questioners to do what they know, and most notably raises long established Biblical principles to an even higher standard of conduct. For example, “You’ve heard it said you shall not murder but I say that if you hate your brother you are just as guilty”. Or as when identifying the most important of the Law is to love God and love neighbor. Jesus shows us the way to God’s love and forgiveness by taking what was already known of God and moving it to the next step.

The uniqueness of Jesus may not be in reversing the previous image held of God or of offering one not seen before. There are some horrific images of God in early Judaism as vengeful, unforgiving, and arbitrary when demanding the death of those who are outside the circle of God’s people. A closer reading will find beneath these inconvenient texts the earliest picture of the God Jesus reveals. Jesus’ life and teachings solidify this often missed image of a God who loves creation above all else.

Jesus’ death had to be a not-intended-possibility just as with prophets before him (can you say John the Baptist) but death is never the end of the story for it is in the resurrection we discover that God has the last word and it is always “life”. The presence of God as seen in Jesus’ resurrection lives on with his disciples. The Spirit of the Risen Christ directs the beginning of the church, becomes visible at the death of Stephen, confronts Paul on the Damascus Road, guides the Apostles as they spread the good news throughout the world and continues to be present in the lives of countless saints—and sinners—until today.

To the point, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection declare God’s love and forgiveness. God’s forgiveness puts us in a right relationship as we are rescued from the downward spiral of our self-serving ways, set straight on the path from which we have fallen (on which we may occasionally stumble or take a wrong turn) and empowered to live above our own expectations. In Jesus we not only learn of this forgiveness but we find freedom from our guilt, we are accepted even when we don’t always get it right, and by Jesus’ affirmation we raise the quality of our living in our commitment to the principles of love and forgiveness. Being “saved” is at the same time an eye-opening, transforming awareness of what is already in existence and becomes a continual process throughout our life.

I need more coffee and then I want to back up to that problem of evil. I’ll hurry.

Tracing Out The Crack In Faith's Wall

2009-07-11T06:56:00.010-05:00

Grab your cup I’ve made a full pot this morning. We’re going to need it. Some years ago it dawned on me there were some things about the understanding of faith I grew up with that no longer seemed reasonable. I was in disagreement with Anselm, even though I didn’t know it was Anselm’s at the time.

Along with the growing crack in the wall of my faith came the question, “When exactly in the story of human history did God’s saving act take place?” If, as Anselm suggests, the death of Jesus was the key to balancing the scales of injustice, tilted because we dishonored God through our self-center disobedience, when exactly was the moment justice restored spiritual equilibrium? Was it at Jesus’ birth, the moment of his death, the dawning of his resurrection, at the point in which we ask forgiveness, or is there another time?

In searching for that answer I realized that the most important moment for me in the Jesus story is when he utters from the cross, “Father, forgive them. They do not know what they are doing.” Other sayings, sermons and parables are no less important but for me it is at this moment that all the teachings of Jesus regarding how we are loved, and how we should love others, is exemplified. Jesus’ forgiveness is directed at the very people who put him on the cross. They are at that very moment calling for his death. They are not asking for his forgiveness and if it is offered they would surely throw it back in his face. Yet, Jesus forgives them.

In that moment Jesus symbolizes the magnitude of God’s grace and it is that infinite capacity of God to forgive wherein we find that which saves us. Here is love that exceeds our human ability to love. It is this love which rescues us from all that would take away from life. We are saved in that we are put right with God solely by God’s forgiveness for no other reason than God chooses to do so.

You can’t go back in time and reverse neither the mistakes you’ve made nor the harm you have done. In love and regret we might try, and try we should, but we can’t erase the hurt, the damage, or the brokenness of our actions. Our only hope is forgiveness that can lift us out of our past and empower us to move into a new, promising future.

So when did that forgiveness begin? In Anselm’s theory it is at the cross, when Jesus dies the price is paid to re-balance our dishonoring God and the price paid is sufficient because of his innocence and therefore God can now forgive us.

But how can we say that God’s forgiveness doesn’t begin until the cross? What about the many utterances of forgiveness Jesus gives before the cross? In fact, all through Jesus’ life and ministry he is forgiving those who don’t ask for nor deserve forgiveness. Occasionally when someone asks for healing Jesus gives them forgiveness as well.

So when does God’s forgiveness begin? I offer my apology to the writer or preacher who planted this idea in my head for I have long since forgotten its source. But if we hold to the idea of God that Paul describes as, “the One in whom we live and move and have our being” then we must also see that this source of our being knows everything about us including what we have been and what we will be. If all of life is in God and there is in the capacity of God to know all things past, present and future, it is also reasonable to state that such a God is one who knew before creation that our human qualities would get in the way.

If that is reasonable, and I think it is, it remains that God continued with creation knowing where human freedom would lead. That being the case then I have to believe that God’s forgiveness begins before creation.

Okay, before you ask, let me: So why Jesus? Why the cross? What was the purpose if forgiveness was already given? That’ll take more coffee than I have this morning. Gotta run for now but finish your cup and I’ll get right back with that answer.

A Deep Necessity for the Highest Potential

2009-07-06T19:18:00.017-05:00

Glad you didn’t give up on me. Coffee’s still warm so let’s push on. When in my memory I see that neon cross bearing the words “Jesus Saves” it serves to remind me of something I reluctantly admit: I need help. For no matter how hard I’ve tried I have not lived up to my own expectations, much less God’s. The humbling truth to which I have reluctantly arrived is: my efforts at making myself ‘good enough’ have and will always fall short. Spiritually speaking, I concluded a long time ago that if it is all up to me, I'm toast.

Like the climbers plucked from the mountain peak in a snow storm, being "saved" is the sudden awareness that we've reached a point where we can't manufacture our own rescue. It means we can in no way, with whatever strength of character or amount of good deeds dig ourselves out, pull ourselves up, or re-create ourselves in a fashion that would measure up to the image intended at creation by the Spiritual Being from which all of life flows. The potential posited in each of us can be delightfully challenging and at the same time horribly overwhelming.

Anselm was right to understand the Apostle Paul as saying there is nothing we humans can do that will balance the scales of the injustice. Anselm is right again in believing that only God can do that. But here is where I think Anselm misses the mark for a modern world. We humans are so drawn to the dramatic; we can’t take our eyes off the train wreck, the race cars crashing around the track, or help ourselves from gawking at an accident on the freeway. In our rush to the most horrific part of the Jesus story, the cruelty and injustice of his death, we miss the significance of what Jesus taught by his life.

Anselm created a spiritual analogy that spoke clearly to his culture. As long as the world accepted the ancient thinking that reality is first and foremost spiritual his analogy continued to be effective. But for a modern world that is more and more turning to a scientific reality there is something missing. Modern thinkers need that which is concrete, visible and tested. That's what I see in the humanness of Jesus' life and how in his teachings he mirrored God's nature.

In the story of his life,long before the tragedy of the cross, Jesus shows that overcoming temptation and evil is possible. Paul makes the comparison that Jesus is the “new Adam”. That in Jesus we find one like Adam only this one gets it right. The life of Jesus then leads us to the conclusion that in our human nature there is that possibility of overcoming evil and, even though we may never live up to it, we should never cease striving for anything less than what God intends. I like what the Apostle Paul says, “The good that I intend to do I don’t and the evil I try to avoid is exactly what I end up doing. What can deliver me?” Paul concludes, “Thank God, through Jesus Christ.” Jesus gives us reason for hope.

You are right if you think this sounds familiar since Abelard, just a century after Anselm, said much the same thing. Abelard contended that it is Jesus’ life and his commitment to principles of right and justice in the face of death that serve as a moral inspiration for us to live up to nothing less than the best of our human potential.

But is inspiration really enough? And is this really any different than what Girard has suggested that it is in the “ah-hah” moment when our eyes are opened and we see in Jesus that “scapegoating” and violence are not the way to human freedom or salvation?

But what if…What if that which saves us and puts us right has nothing to do with the degree to which we are inspired by Jesus’ morality, courage, or willingness to give himself for a cause? What other purpose might Jesus' life and death served?

Here's a thought: What if Jesus’ teachings and life are about declaring or, to borrow Roger Haight's expression, a "symbol" of what has been the reality of our relationship with God from the beginning of creation?

Okay, better make another pot this is going to be more than a two cup conversation. Be right back.

This Should Come With A Warning Label

2009-07-01T06:32:00.006-05:00

Ummm. That coffee really smells good this early in the morning. Grab your cup. Let’s take a new look at that old adage, “Jesus Saves”. You realize, of course, my reason for writing is to see how my understanding works with those of you who are involved in the same search for making sense of this in a fast changing world of reason.

I should warn you that in no way am I in the same game with some of the theologians and writers I’ve cited. In fact, most of my own understanding has come from reading and hopefully absorbing a tiny amount of their wisdom. And, I keep reading and searching for better ways to understand and express my faith. My understanding is in a constant state of evolution.

Along the way I realized that the expression, “Jesus Saves” was raising other questions for me: “From what exactly is it that Jesus saves?” And, “What does Jesus provide that makes this happen?” Other issues and questions surface as well but these will likely take us to the bottom of this pot of coffee.

Here’s where my search has taken me. Most religious traditions assume the existence of a spiritual dimension to the universe. Religious reasoning, along with philosophy in its infancy, surmise the spiritual realm as being what is “real” while the material world (that which we see and feel) is merely a reflection of that which is spiritual. Therefore, the spiritual realm is eternal, and thus permanent, while the material world is really temporary since it is constantly passing from existence.

Then along came the Enlightenment and turned this thinking upside down. Scientifically speaking, only that which is material, concrete, and can be tested is real. That which is deemed spiritual is no more than a reflection of reality at best or a development of our psyche at worse.

A significant connection between the material and spiritual worlds, since we are passing from this existence to what is hopefully a future spiritual existence, is the understanding that a person’s goodness in this life will lead them to happiness in that future dimension--the eternal, spiritual world that is forever. To be sure not all religions have the same concept of that spiritual world nor do they share the same final goal. Some see this life as an all-or-nothing, you only go ‘round once in life, and you must make the most of your opportunity in the here-and-now if you hope to have an eternal, future life.

In some religious contexts the process of passing to that future life is a bit more prolonged and perhaps problematic. How we live in the present determines the future form in which we will return again and again (reincarnation) to this material world in an on going attempt to reach a state of unification with the eternal.

This is certainly an over simplification of other world religions and probably a disservice to their theological concepts but for those who come from a western, Christian mind set my goal is simply to add perspective and give some context besides our own. There is one other important note to be added: the world’s better evolved religious communities hold to a general consensus that our humanness is in some form or fashion a real drag on obtaining that ultimate life with, or unity with, that which is eternal and spiritual.

Therefore, something has to happen in this life in order to allow that more perfect life to become a reality for us. Making that “happen” for those who speak in Christian terms is the meaning of the concept “being saved”. Because our humanness gets in the way and we are by our own efforts unable to make that happen, we need someone or something or the eternal being to rescue us.

That is the claim Anselm makes of Jesus: in his innocent suffering, he becomes our substitute to balance the scales of justice and restore us to the original spiritual relationship intended by the Creator from the beginning thus allowing us access to that eternal, spiritual life both now and when this material, temporary life reaches its end.

I hope that isn’t a look of confusion but just in case I find caffeine always helps with this kind of thinking. Have another cup.

When A Rose Is Not A Rose

2009-06-26T08:52:00.003-05:00

Nothing smells quite like freshly ground coffee. The aroma makes it taste even better, don’t you think? I do my best thinking along side a cup; early in the morning. Which was a good thing this morning as I realized I inadvertently used a word last posting assuming you would know what I meant. Not an unusual word but a choice that might leave some scratching their heads. Allow me to take a short side trip.

Unless you’re an English major you probably haven’t used the word “metaphor” in conversation since getting out of school. When we speak of something spiritual—that which we cannot see, taste, touch, hear—whether it refers to a being or an experience, the only way we can have such a conversation is to use ‘words’ that are descriptive. The problem with spiritual matters is: how do you describe something you can’t see, hear, or touch? Answer: we use words that compare the ‘spiritual’ with those things that we experience as concrete, material, or, if not, at least common to our knowledge.

I’m not an English major but let me attempt to distinguish between a metaphor and a simile—I’m going to get mail on this one. A simile is descriptive and uses ‘as’ or ‘like’. You might say, “My love is like a red, red rose.” But an entirely different level of comparison happens if you say, “My love is a red, red rose.” The comparison is deeper, relies on an assumed shared experience, and asks us to accept one thing as being another. Such a comparison is called a metaphor.

When I ask someone to give me a quality or description of God a common response is, “God is love”. And, even though love is not something you can put under a microscope or grow in a laboratory, enough of us have experienced love of one kind or another so we have a common understanding of the meaning we are attempting to convey. We understand the mystery of love, or at least have waded into it far enough to have grasped the concept, and therefore to compare that to God carries a reasonable and intelligent understanding about “God”.

In the writings of Judaism there are many names for and descriptions of God. Among these are, “God is my fortress” or “God is my rock”. Some even become local to a limited setting, “The Lion of Judah” or “The rose of Sharon”. That’s not to say that God is literally a fortress, a rock, a flower, or a lion. The word is drawing a comparison of a quality that has been experienced or that has a deeper meaning so others who share this common experience would likely nod in agreement, “Yes, that is how I see God.” Such metaphorical, poetic if you will, usage helps us attach concrete images to that which can only be imagined. Since I cannot open your mind to look inside, words are as close as I can get to verifying that you comprehend what I mean when I say “God”.

Communication hits a snag when one of us decides that the metaphor we are using is more than a description and must be taken literally. The metaphor that God is our heavenly Father is not intended to declare that God is male or female yet some will stake their faith on the understanding that God is a masculine Being. Perhaps that is why Moses forbids any graven images lest we take too literally and make concrete the metaphors and images we use to understand what cannot be fathomed by our finite minds. When we limit God to the dimensions of a single or even a collection of metaphors we box God in, we define God as having limits.

I can see you need another cup. Stick with me on this for it’s about to take a serious turn. I’ll be right back.

Not Everyone Sees It That Way

2009-06-22T08:56:00.003-05:00

Sorry to take so long. Grab a cup and let’s talk a bit about where all this might be going. When a theory has been around for as long as Anselm’s we make it almost sacred. And, in the life of the church, that is what has happened. Anselm’s substitution theory is steeped in our hymns, our theology, and literally so deep in our vocabulary that we cannot speak Christian without it.

Most folks in the church would be surprised to learn that the metaphor for interpreting how Jesus’ death saved the world did not appear until the middle centuries of the current era. It seems almost heresy to acknowledge that Anselm’s theory was not part of Jesus’ own teachings. That’s how difficult it is for us to see past this idea of Jesus’ suffering and death being the punishment he absorbed for our sins.

Now there is a positive side to Anselm’s metaphor and that is the love of God Jesus portrays by putting himself in our place. But for modern thinkers can that image balance the injustice of a God who would require the innocent to suffer? However, we need more than just what is wrong with Anselm’s imagery. A new generation seeking to equate a God consciousness with a modern world view has a need for fresh metaphors that will give eyes to Jesus’ life and death as having a greater purpose than suffering. We need an understanding that will move God beyond these obstacles.

On previous pages I have offered a few suggestions. You’re invited to hold on to any one, or more than one, if it makes sense to you. In my reading of scripture and early church fathers there was no single metaphor for how Jesus saves. Paul used several images in his letters to the churches including that of sacrifice, substitution, ransom (not that of modern day “holding for ransom” but rather the purchasing of freedom for a slave who had become indebted to a master), adoption, and even God marking a new beginning with Jesus being the new Adam. Clearly Paul was searching for the most effective metaphor to convey the work of God realizing that some parallels would strike a harmonious chord with his listeners more so than others.

As mentioned previously, Girard’s “scapegoat” theory, that shares similarities with Abelard’s “moral influence”, has stirred a number of books: James Alison, Raising Abel and J. Denny Weaver The Nonviolent Atonement are but two. These writers offer options for our consideration that might be more palatable with modern minds. It is the options that are important here not just the conclusions. We don’t have to toss the baby out with the bath water. There are other ways to see the life and death of Jesus that can have meaning and inspire faith.

Okay, out of coffee and I haven’t delivered all of what I promised. So let me grind a few beans and when that’s done I’ll tell you what works for me. No promise it will work for you but that’s for you to decide.

The Elephant In The Room

2009-06-17T12:56:00.003-05:00

Thank you, it is good coffee. Comes from Central Market; Dallas Blend. I try to stick with decaf myself so one cup's my limit. But you’re welcome to more.

Where was I? Oh, yes, there is a long list of well respected theologians, as well as atheist, who have recently published books attempting to understand the human condition and our relationship to the universe. The late, highly respected theologian William Placard summarized his view recently in an essay, that served as a guide for this series of blogs, but admits that none,including his own, are sufficiently perfect. What some find as inspiring others simply say doesn’t work for them. Girard’s theory, cited in the previous column, has indeed redirected the conversation but if Jesus was to be the ultimate scapegoat, Placard points out, the past 2000 years have not lessened our human ability to perpetuate this destructive process.

Granted, a number of folks will say, “Hey wait. Why fix what isn’t broken?” These obviously find Anselm’s theory working quite well for them and if you fall into this category I’d suggest you stick with Anselm. But the elephant in the room is that it isn’t working for a growing number of our youth who are not only leaving Christianity but denying the need for any religion.

Safe to say no one has deployed a “silver bullet” or come up with the “killer app” that is the be-all-to-end-all when it comes to the answer for how God saves the world. And though Christianity is the largest religious body--with something like 2 billion adherents in a world of 6 billion people--it is no longer the fastest growing, nor has it historically done well in cultures where other religious beliefs seem to have greater traction. The most telling truth may be in our own backyard where, in spite of record numbers of people flocking to mega churches, the fasting growing segment of the population, who are also the youngest, are not Christian or Muslim but non believers.

Finding a sufficient answer will require acknowledging the need for one. This does not mean we throw out what others find acceptable. But we will have to agree that since all of our answers require metaphor, that is, comparison to something concrete in this world, we can expect no one analogy to be perfect. As Anselm’s “substitutionary atonement” theory fit the understanding of his society we need to find an acceptable metaphor for future generations in our developed world.

Let me warm your coffee and I’ll give you a few suggestions of where top thinkers are going with this question.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Enlightenment

2009-06-11T09:33:00.004-05:00

We can talk while the coffee's brewing. Not quite a century later Peter Abelard objected to Anselm’s 12th century interpretation of how it is that Jesus’ death saves the world. Abelard thought he had a better idea and believed what Jesus did was show that we could live at a higher level of human kindness than previously accepted. The love of Jesus portrays not only the supreme love God has for us but becomes the inspiration for the love we can have for God and for our neighbor.

Abelard’s “moral influence” theory has been judged by history as being a bit too optimistic as the following centuries did not produce the inspirational change in lives it proposed. So even though Anselm’s theory of Jesus being our substitute was slightly wounded it lived on as the most prevalent view of how Jesus saves.

Not until the 19th and 20th century when cultural influences from the enlightenment spurred renewed debate have other weighty theories begun to emerge. Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulen challenged Anselm’s thinking in his book Christus Victor in 1931. Aulen focused on the earliest years of the Church when the dominant view was that humans, due to sin, had fallen under the control of Satan. In Aulen’s theory, God defeats Satan by deceiving him with the fully divine, fully human character of Jesus--someone Satan could not redirect towards selfish evil. Though popular for several decades the enlightened, scientific world was increasingly weary of the personification of evil as having power over humans or that evil could hold humans hostage and God helpless.

Philosopher Rene Girard, born in France in 1923, was American educated and spent most of his career at Stanford, offers a classic modern view of how Jesus saves that does not include the need for a cosmic figure of evil. In three books Girard proposes our human need for a “scapegoat”, i.e., someone or a group of people to be identified as the source of our problem and the focus of our rejection.

The emerging science of psychology framed the human problem as based in our competitive nature that desires what belongs to others mostly because they wanted it first. Our desire to have what belongs to others leads to violence. To deflect our desires and the resulting violence in order that we might securely live in community we direct our violence toward a scapegoat. Modern scapegoats have been Jews and Communists while today gays and illegal immigrants are good examples.

Girard’s scapegoat theory has recently inspired a number of books, several a year in fact, by some very highly respected theologians. Appealing to the enlightened, modern mind is the symbol of Jesus as the definitive example of a scapegoat being innocent. Girard sites other Biblical and historical characters whose lives conveyed the same truth. The point being that violence does not expel violence. The saving act of Jesus has been to reveal this truth and how acknowledging it breaks the cycle of violence. Girard’s hope, and that of many others, is by opening our eyes to the fallacy of deceit and violence the reign of God becomes a reality as we then learn to live in peace.

Coffee’s ready. You’re going to need it for what comes next.

The Past Holds Secrets To The Future

2009-06-08T11:16:00.005-05:00

Grab a cup I want to tell you about one of the most influential preachers in Church history. Anselm of Canterbury goes back to the 1100’s, born in Italy, educated in France, and appointed by the Pope to England. Well traveled this theologian and preacher engaged the hot religious topic of his day: How does the life and death of Jesus save the world? Anselm’s new thinking not only made sense to his listeners but is still the most dominant theory in evangelical Christianity. The question for today is will this 900 year-old theory remain relevant for the 21st century?

In Anselm’s day there was a rigid social order. You were born into a social class that ranged from royalty to peasantry and that class determined your role in society. Behavior, respect and honor were given to the upper class and those below were expected to be gracious. If a peasant, slave or commoner were to offend someone above them there were certain retributions encountered in order to repay or re-balance this dishonor.

Anselm applied this common example to the logic of how Jesus saves. God being the pinnacle of royalty is dishonored by our sin, our lack of respect for God’s creation, and our immorality that takes creation in a direction God did not intend. Justice demands some form of re-balancing in the social order to restore the loss of honor caused by our sin.

The problem, like that in the rigid social order of his day, is if you are at the bottom of the social order you have no proper status to repay someone at the top of the social order. Someone of equal royal status must intercede for you.

Anselm proposed that the role of Jesus is to be the one who intercedes, sacrifices his life, and becomes our substitute for re-balancing the injustice and restoring the honor due God. Anselm’s theory is referred to today as “subsitutionary atonement”.

As in most concepts of how God works in relationship to creation, Anselm’s theory was not without critics. Less than a century later Peter Abelard raised a moral objection, “How cruel and wicked that anyone should demand the blood of an innocent person as the price for anything…still less that God should consider the death of his son so agreeable that by it he should be reconciled to the whole world!” In other words, how can God feel good about any innocent person suffering or count it as credit to another’s sin?

Though at the heart of what most of us hear taught, preached, and regularly sing in our hymns this moral objection seems to register with many today. The heroic suffering of Jesus has for centuries been used to perpetuate the suffering and injustice of the innocent when at times the Church has encouraged abuse of the innocent by declaring suffering to be honorably like that of Jesus and one of the ways we enter into Christ likeness.

In a new age of human rights Anselm’s theory has been losing respect. When the progressive world is on record objecting to the dehumanization and abuse of people on the basis of race, class, or gender, can we morally continue to interpret the saving act of Jesus along the lines of what some would say could be construed as divine child abuse?

Well, I guess no theory is absolutely perfect. The world is changing and Abelard’s objection to Anselm’s theory is more pertinent today than ever before. But first, I’m out of coffee; don’t go away. You’ll want to hear about Abelard’s theory for how Jesus saves that is making a comeback in our modern world.

Growing Up Near The Buckle of the Bible Belt

2009-06-03T18:13:00.004-05:00

Mom and Dad Wisdom lived near the buckle of the Bible belt; drove us to Sunday school every Sunday right passed that church with the neon cross flashing the truth known to all, “Jesus Saves”. There was no debate about “how” just that it was an unquestioned fact. Little did mom and dad suspect they were part of a society raising a generation that would question everything. Even the church’s sacred orthodoxy would not be safe in an increasingly scientific, modern world.

The Apostle Paul was the first published writer of the early church and clearly his calling was to take Jesus to the Gentiles—the Greek/Roman communities of the Empire. Paul translated the life and thinking of this Semitic prophet to a community more familiar with Greek philosophy than Jewish theology. The early church fathers were from these same communities, long familiar with wrestling the ancient questions regarding the world, the universe, from where it all came, and who was in control, if anyone.

Most modern scholars recognize the influence of Aristotle and Plato on the culture in which the understanding of Jesus was being shaped. For the first few centuries the church focused more on his person with questions about how and if Jesus was God. And, if Jesus is God, how then did that fit into the picture of monotheism (one God)? Great historical road maps were hammered out during the first four centuries resulting in creeds and doctrines like that of The Trinity, The Apostle’s Creed and especially the Nicene Creed. Read again this last creed and you’ll since the deep struggles were about the nature of Jesus more so than how Jesus saved.

There was an underlying premise to these discussions similar to that of the world being flat--no one would really think otherwise for another thousand years. The premise of these earliest philosophers and scientist was an understanding this “creation” in which we lived was not the real world. The real world was actually the "spiritual" world of God (or in this Greek/Roman culture, the world of many different gods contesting for power). The physical world was both a reflection of and the result of what was happening in that parallel universe that remained unseen. The “cosmos” out there beyond the world we can see is God’s world. That world was real and permanent. This world was not.

The Church’s mission, to build a bridge between the Greek/Roman world and Jewish orthodoxy, was aided by the common human quest to explain the ongoing battle between the powers of good and evil. Satan, from the Jewish context, as a fallen angel represented that which was evil and dark (darkness coming from ancient Persian thought that influenced both Jewish and Greek thinking). Goodness, represented by God/Jesus, was the nature of all that was light and positive. John’s gospel to the Hellenistic community at the end of the first or beginning of the second century begins, “…[I]n him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” nsrv

Convincing this new world that Jesus was the decisive witness of God’s power to over come evil and thereby save humans in this world and the next would depend on making a convincing case for Jesus being God in human form; totally divine and totally human. The Greek/Roman culture with its rich history in philosophy and mythology became a fertile garden in which the church grew by leaps and bounds.

Overcoming evil in this world and providing a path to that spiritual (real) world became a matter of having faith like that of Jesus; faith that God’s power was sufficient to conquer darkness. Following the way of Jesus, possessing faith in God as did Jesus, and thereby belonging to the “saved” community through baptism made you one in Christ. Being “In” Christ meant you were safely saved for that real world to come. Case closed.

But closed only until the 12th century when archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm, would translate Jesus’ role as spiritual savior in a different way. His thinking would become the lens through which most Christians today understand how Jesus Saves.

Let me warm-up your coffee. Back before you know it.

2009-05-16T07:06:00.008-05:00

“Hmmm, haven’t done that in a long time,” was the first thing that popped into my mind. It was in response to a request to preach, or teach, a series on how to understand the Christian doctrine of The Trinity, i.e., One God in Three Persons. My guess is that most of us have wrestled with this image of God and either come away with an analogy that works for you, or have been left totally confused or have decided to just accept this on faith while leaving the details to heavier thinkers.

But in a modern world were the fastest growing segment of our population is prone to find fault with any concept of God and where people of other faiths want to know our understanding of God, leaving the sticky details to someone else can be problematic.

As far back as the first century the Church has struggled to explain Jesus’ divine nature, his connection to the "One" God found in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the profound evidence of God’s work in the world that continues in Jesus’ absence.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that you won’t find the doctrine of Trinity spoken of in the Bible, at least not in a direct way. What we have are words and stories that portray God as directly involved in the creation and maintenance of the world while at other times such work is attributed to God’s Spirit. In the “New” Testament there is the story of Jesus along with the earliest history account of how the church was formed by the work of the Spirit and the letters from church leaders that chronicle the Spirit of the Risen Christ continuing to work in and through them. As the Church struggled to connect these three the doctrine of the Trinity emerged.

Books upon books have been written on this doctrine but can this holy mystery of the One who is Three be made simple or is it doomed to eternal confusion? If you’re like me some of the best analogies leave me scratching my head. And, though you may choose to stop reading now, I don’t promise these to be any better.

But, before going further, keep this in mind when developing your understanding of God: all of what we communicate about God has one, very big, obvious limitation, we can only use words to describe our experience of God. Usually we use our words to draw comparisons to things that are more concrete and universal in our experience. There is no other way. Words and comparisons are all we have. Attempting to prove otherwise will only confirm the obvious.

So with that limitation and being a pretty simple thinker, here are two analogies that help me see the picture in the puzzle. Both speak of our perception of God related to time and space. Our perception of and relationship to any being determines how we experience that being and thus our description of what that being is like. Example: I am one person but I am to some a father, to another a husband, to another a son, and to some a pastor—sorry, I know I should have stopped at three.

When we speak of God as Creator (or Father), Redeemer (or Son), and Sustainer (or Spirit) we are expressing at a particular time and place how we, or others, have experienced God.

A second comparison coincidentally involves one of the essential elements for life. Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and it is found in three forms: solid, a liquid, and a gas. The characteristics of water are different depending on the circumstances in which it is found yet it is at its core, H2O. No matter the form the basic composition remains unchanged.

I’ll let you take it from here. Until next time, are there other analogies you find helpful?

– Pastor Gene

just getting started

2009-05-10T10:33:00.000-05:00

If you'd like to follow the search for wisdom, sign up. I'll log in several times a week to publish thoughts and ramblings. Some will reflect books I'm reading, sermons on which I'm working, and even ask for help with the above. --GW