The immediately following post presents a draft of Chapter 4 for Through The Wilderness.
Readers, especially those who happen upon this blog for the first time, may find it helpful to scroll down to the beginning entry and read up.
The chapter sequence and content for the penultimate version (i.e., the copy that is submitted to publishers)may be changed from this present draft. Of course, the final published version will go through an additional editorial process.
Please feel free to make comments. The blog is set up for "anonymous" comments; therefore, no sign in/sign up is required for comments.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 4
HOW CAN JUDEO-CHRISTIANS BELIEVE HOLY SCRIPTURE AND ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF MODERN SCIENCE?
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-8
First and foremost, Judeo-Christians should neither attempt to demonstrate the existence of God with science nor participate in futile efforts to impose legal constraints on basic scientific research. Using science to prove or, for that matter, to disprove God as the creator and absolute sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, distorts both science and religion because the methodologies intrinsic to each discipline differ in many respects.(1) The issue does not concern superiority but how Judeo-Christianity and science support and complement each other to give a more integrated explanation of God’s creation and continuing involvement in human affairs. We would be well-served by adhering to Albert Einstein’s cogent summarization: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.(2) Analogous “leaps of faith”(3) undergird Judeo-Christianity and science; hence, from first principles both persuasive descriptions of reality can speak to each other without negative confrontations.
Once we cross from unbelief to belief, the entire edifice of Judeo-Christianity can be constructed. Theological arguments have led to somewhat modified structures, e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant, Baptist vs. Methodist, but all rest upon the same pillar: Belief in God manifest through the Holy Trinity.(4) Holy Scripture compels us, in the words of St. Augustine, to first believe and then to know.(5) That is, we come into the Community of Believers through faith in God as the supreme power in the universe. We cannot know as opposed to know about God unless we first believe in God. If scientific experiments were able to demonstrate that God created and rules, faith or belief would be irrelevant. Jesus always called his disciples and others who heard to enter the Kingdom of God through belief.(6)
We may use our intellectual prowess to establish a rationale for believing in God but, despite the fervor and astuteness of our mental struggles, each of us must cross from unbelief to belief, hopefully with the assistance of an informed faith. Some individuals, such as those born into and raised in the Community of Believers, will find a relatively narrow and shallow gap they must traverse. Other persons will come up against a wide and deep chasm, an abyss. Regardless of the distance and depth we face, the transit must be made by a leap of faith because God cannot be proven beyond a final degree of doubt with the tools available to science. Throughout the history of Judeo-Christianity, many theologians, philosophers, and scientists have written treatises on this point: We go from unbelief to belief through faith, not an a priori proof.
A devotional reading of Holy Scripture assists many Judeo-Christians in making the leap of faith. Individuals who hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura(7) may not worry about any perceived differences between scientific findings and Holy Scripture but will find belief by trusting that God will one day reconcile all such distinctions. Other Judeo-Christians with a more scientific orientation may negotiate the crossing with the realization that Holy Scripture was never intended to be a scientific textbook. Instead, Holy Scripture gives us information about the who, what, and why rather than the when(8) and how of creation, two subjects that belong to the purview of science.
Two thought experiments can serve as an introduction to the “leap of faith” at the core of science. First, let us imagine we about to toss a coin, with well-defined Heads and Tails sides, into the air, and we ask, “What is the probability, or odds, that the coin will come to rest with the Heads side up?” If we discount the vanishingly small chance that the coin will land and stay on its edge, the probability of Heads showing at rest is 0.5 (i.e., 50%, 1:1, or even odds). We next visualize eight more legitimate tosses, each of which improbably results in Heads up. After these nine consecutive Heads up, we ask, “What is the probability that the tenth toss will show Heads up?” The answer is still 0.5. Statistics instructs us that the random nature of results from a sufficiently large and even number of legitimate tosses ultimately will produce an equal number of Heads and Tails. Emphatically, no force operates in nature to pre-determine that the tenth toss is more likely to be Tails rather than Heads, despite the successive run of Heads. People who do not grasp this point gamble at their peril.
The second thought experiment addresses tossing a ball into the air. We ask, before the toss, “What will happen to the ball?” The answer is that the ball will rise to a height dependent upon the strength of the toss and then return to ground level. We have great confidence in this expectation: We have never observed anything different throughout human history. Objects projected into the air with accelerations insufficient to escape the Earth’s gravitational field or to go into a stable orbit have always returned to ground level.
What is the linkage between the first and second though experiments? The former teaches us that nothing from the extensive previous observations of objects propelled into the air operates in the second thought experiment to force those objects back to ground level. Some persons will immediately respond, “Gravity brings these objects back to earth.” More accurately, all these observations allow the formulation of the Law of Gravity in its basic expression. Nevertheless, we cannot be sure before the next toss that an object thrown into the air will fall back to ground level. The best we can do is to expect with a high probability approaching, but always less than 1.0, that the object will come back down.
Scientific laws, therefore, do not rest upon absolute certainty but on events of extremely high statistical probability. Scientists make their “leaps of faith” across this inherent uncertainty because experience shows the universe operates with predictably reproducibility according to scientific laws we can discover and elucidate. Without this consistency, our lives would be intolerably chaotic with an untrustworthy creator. All the subsets of science, e.g., mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc., can be built upon the framework laid down by the “leap of faith” from irrationality(9) or chaos to high probability and reliable reproducibility but not to certainty.
I dispute the claim that religion, in contrast to science, necessitates abandonment of rationality in favor of irrationality. As a scientist who was born into and who has persisted within the Judeo-Christian Community of Believers, I can attest that equivalent mental acuity must be applied to both theology and science. Our God-given minds allow us to test and verify the “revelations” of religion and science. The scientific method operates to promote this veracity for science.(10)
How do we evaluate the truth and relevance of religious revelations in the absence of evidence like the hard or objective data available to science? Let us first consider a common non-rational but real phenomenon, falling in love. Although science has made great strides in unmasking the chemistry and physiology of why and how two humans fall in love with each other, no completely rational explanation of the process has been put forth. Genuine falling love may transcend objectivity but our intellects must come into play once the full bloom or rush of emotion subsides in order to evaluate the possibility that we have succumbed to the spell of a powerful but transitory state of enchantment. Our family and friends can help us with this assessment.
For some people, a “Damascus Road Experience” like that of St. Paul becomes a non-rational highlight of their lives, in some ways analogous to falling in love, albeit more intense. Holy Scripture informs us about the power of St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. St. Paul himself testifies that he was a Jewish scholar, and the epistles he authored show a fine mind at work. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with his training and character for St. Paul to have applied his intellect to differentiate between a nightmarish irrational occurrence and a non-rational but real event, even if it was outside the realm of objective rationality. I suspect the time St. Paul spent blinded allowed him an opportunity to dissect what had happened. Unless, St. Paul was a lunatic, a supposition highly unlikely from the content and characteristics of his writings, we can be confident that his non-rational encounter withstood the test of his rational mind. Additionally, St. Paul could not have undertaken his mission to the Gentiles if other Judeo-Christians had not quizzed him in detail about, and then agreed with, the truth of his “Damascus Road Experience”.
Once we make the initial lead of faith, all our religious convictions must withstand rigorous tests, as in science. We should apply our minds to even the fundamental aspects of our religious convictions. For example, we must disregard such bumper sticker concepts as, “God said it and that means it’s true.” Why? Holy Scripture contains many internal contradictions and does not always accord with what we have learned about the ancient and modern worlds.(11) We need to comprehend what Holy Scripture actually says before embracing the bumper sticker proclamation. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest Judeo-Christian theologians, spoke pertinently to the point: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic (i.e., Judeo-Christian) not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.(12)
As discussed above, science rests upon statistical design and control. Similarly, a type of statistical verification also pertains to religion. Observations, a form of data, collected over the centuries show predictably favorable and often dramatic changes in lives after people transition from unbelief to belief, including genuine love for brothers and sisters, ministry to the poor and disenfranchised, and other aspects of feeding Christ’s sheep. Critics of this proposition may counter, “Yes, but often accompanied by or even supplanted with anticipated unfavorable changes such as intolerance and persecution of non-believers.” St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, among many others, equip us with the proper response to this criticism: People who advocate and follow these negative outcomes from the leap of faith do not understand what Holy Scripture actually means.
Science will not incorporate God as a factor in its research methods. Simply put, scientists have no reason to write God into any equation, hypothesis, theory, or scientific law. Let us look at a straightforward example, a physical, chemical, or biochemical process that combines A with B to yield C, written in shorthand as:
A + B = C
Once we add in conditions for temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc., the equation thoroughly defines the process. It would be irrational to say something like, "If God isn’t included, the transformation from A and B to C cannot occur" because we can identify all the parameters necessary for the reaction to take place without putting God into the equation. Importantly from the perspective of science, unexplained phenomena do not serve as “proofs” of God’s existence and miraculous power but, rather, pose fertile areas for future scientific research.
While we do not need God in the above equation, science and religion may reason together about how to use the knowledge represented by such equations. Let us turn to another equation, one that appears disarmingly simple from a cursory inspection:
E = mC2
We recognize this relationship or Scientific Law as a summary of one of Albert Einstein’s major contributions to our knowledge about God’s creation: A massive amount of energy (E) can be obtained from a small amount (mass or m) of a substance (e.g., Uranium 235 or Plutonium) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (where C = 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second). This theoretical relationship first found a pragmatic utility in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. The awesome power that can be unleashed from nuclear weapons and, as well, the tremendous potential benefits that could come from nuclear power illustrate why science and religion must speak to each other: For the first time in human history, we have the potential to destroy creation with thermonuclear and biological weapons or to alter the human genome, the molecular essence of our humanity, with genetic engineering.
The great majority of scientists consider the unfettered right to follow all lines of scientific inquiry with the same passionate commitment as do Judeo-Christians regard freedom to worship. All attempts to apply legislative or theological restrictions to research through coercion will ultimately fail. How, then, can Judeo-Christianity and science properly interact? By observing the following guideline: Judeo-Christianity legitimately can provide a moral input for, and control of, scientists within the Judeo-Christianity community.(13) For example, Judeo-Christian scientists might of their own volition forego research (a) with stem cells from human fetal tissues but choose to focus on stem cells from umbilical cords or adult sources, (b) on thermonuclear and biological weapons, or (c) into manipulation of the human genome for any purpose other than therapy to cure or prevent disease.
Admittedly, some Judeo-Christian scientists and, perhaps, many non-Judeo-Christian scientists, will not ascribe any degree whatsoever of immorality to the above areas of research. The critical point remains: Such potentially contentious topics mandate rational discussion from the viewpoints of science and religion. Judeo-Christians must engage in our prophetic mission, not to predict the future but to point out consequences like those that followed the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A discussion of the morality of this first use of nuclear weapons lies outside the scope of this chapter; but, we can ask if our national leaders understood the potential consequences beyond termination of the conflict. Thus, was there any contemplation within a Judeo-Christian context about how our use of atomic weapons against the Empire of Japan might inevitably lead to the Cold War with its tremendous consumption of human and material treasure? We can, of course, also speculate about how the availability of these terrible weapons may have prevented another global war through mutual fear of destroying God’s creation.
Science expands our knowledge about God’s creation, and when properly conducted constitutes a form of worship. Accordingly, the conversation between Judeo-Christianity and science ought to take place with mutual respect.
Footnotes
1) Many volumes have been written on this distinction but the crucial point relates to the manner in which data are collected. Scientists apply the scientific method, which rests upon hypothesis testing through the acquisition of objective (observational, experimentally obtained) data. For religion, non-rational experiential data provide the focal point, at least for the initial phase. This difference in methodologies is covered in more detail later in this chapter.
(2) Reference
(3) The term, "leap of faith", is commonly attributed to Søren Kierkegaard, although he used "leap to faith" in his book, The Concept of Anxiety.
(4) For the purposes of this discussion, the Judeo-Christian “religion” refers to the belief in God, revealed through the Holy Trinity, whereas Judeo-Christian “theology” applies to the many doctrines that have grown from this basic understanding, e.g., Predestination, Free Will, Transubstantiation within Holy Communion, and Papal Infallibility to name only a few. These differing theological interpretations contributed to the formation of our various Judeo-Christian denominations.
(5) Give reference.
(6) The miracles reported in Holy Scripture do not so much offer “proof’ of God and the divinity of Jesus as they illustrate the benefits of living within the Kingdom of God.
(7) Sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, refers to the doctrine that Holy Scripture provides the only authority, and contains all knowledge necessary for belief in God. Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
(8) The Genesis descriptor, In the beginning, does not specify how long in the past the universe began.
(9) Irrationality, which negates logic and reason, has no place in science or religion. Prime examples of irrationality are astrology – the idea that planets and stars influence our fate, the benevolent powers of crystals, the fallacy that we can communicate with the dead, and that God manipulates the minutia of the universe through violation of the natural laws God established with the initial act of creation.
(10) Chapter 5
(11) Pertinent examples among many are: Which of the two contradictory Genesis creation stories is more correct; on what day did Jesus die; did Jesus go to his death calmly or in agony; did or did not Jesus himself claim to be the only Son of God; is the Holy Trinity explicitly defined in Holy Scripture or is this doctrine the result of tradition?
(12) Give reference.
(13) Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941.
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements--surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?" Job 38:4-8
First and foremost, Judeo-Christians should neither attempt to demonstrate the existence of God with science nor participate in futile efforts to impose legal constraints on basic scientific research. Using science to prove or, for that matter, to disprove God as the creator and absolute sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, distorts both science and religion because the methodologies intrinsic to each discipline differ in many respects.(1) The issue does not concern superiority but how Judeo-Christianity and science support and complement each other to give a more integrated explanation of God’s creation and continuing involvement in human affairs. We would be well-served by adhering to Albert Einstein’s cogent summarization: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.(2) Analogous “leaps of faith”(3) undergird Judeo-Christianity and science; hence, from first principles both persuasive descriptions of reality can speak to each other without negative confrontations.
Once we cross from unbelief to belief, the entire edifice of Judeo-Christianity can be constructed. Theological arguments have led to somewhat modified structures, e.g., Catholic vs. Protestant, Baptist vs. Methodist, but all rest upon the same pillar: Belief in God manifest through the Holy Trinity.(4) Holy Scripture compels us, in the words of St. Augustine, to first believe and then to know.(5) That is, we come into the Community of Believers through faith in God as the supreme power in the universe. We cannot know as opposed to know about God unless we first believe in God. If scientific experiments were able to demonstrate that God created and rules, faith or belief would be irrelevant. Jesus always called his disciples and others who heard to enter the Kingdom of God through belief.(6)
We may use our intellectual prowess to establish a rationale for believing in God but, despite the fervor and astuteness of our mental struggles, each of us must cross from unbelief to belief, hopefully with the assistance of an informed faith. Some individuals, such as those born into and raised in the Community of Believers, will find a relatively narrow and shallow gap they must traverse. Other persons will come up against a wide and deep chasm, an abyss. Regardless of the distance and depth we face, the transit must be made by a leap of faith because God cannot be proven beyond a final degree of doubt with the tools available to science. Throughout the history of Judeo-Christianity, many theologians, philosophers, and scientists have written treatises on this point: We go from unbelief to belief through faith, not an a priori proof.
A devotional reading of Holy Scripture assists many Judeo-Christians in making the leap of faith. Individuals who hold fast to the doctrine of sola scriptura(7) may not worry about any perceived differences between scientific findings and Holy Scripture but will find belief by trusting that God will one day reconcile all such distinctions. Other Judeo-Christians with a more scientific orientation may negotiate the crossing with the realization that Holy Scripture was never intended to be a scientific textbook. Instead, Holy Scripture gives us information about the who, what, and why rather than the when(8) and how of creation, two subjects that belong to the purview of science.
Two thought experiments can serve as an introduction to the “leap of faith” at the core of science. First, let us imagine we about to toss a coin, with well-defined Heads and Tails sides, into the air, and we ask, “What is the probability, or odds, that the coin will come to rest with the Heads side up?” If we discount the vanishingly small chance that the coin will land and stay on its edge, the probability of Heads showing at rest is 0.5 (i.e., 50%, 1:1, or even odds). We next visualize eight more legitimate tosses, each of which improbably results in Heads up. After these nine consecutive Heads up, we ask, “What is the probability that the tenth toss will show Heads up?” The answer is still 0.5. Statistics instructs us that the random nature of results from a sufficiently large and even number of legitimate tosses ultimately will produce an equal number of Heads and Tails. Emphatically, no force operates in nature to pre-determine that the tenth toss is more likely to be Tails rather than Heads, despite the successive run of Heads. People who do not grasp this point gamble at their peril.
The second thought experiment addresses tossing a ball into the air. We ask, before the toss, “What will happen to the ball?” The answer is that the ball will rise to a height dependent upon the strength of the toss and then return to ground level. We have great confidence in this expectation: We have never observed anything different throughout human history. Objects projected into the air with accelerations insufficient to escape the Earth’s gravitational field or to go into a stable orbit have always returned to ground level.
What is the linkage between the first and second though experiments? The former teaches us that nothing from the extensive previous observations of objects propelled into the air operates in the second thought experiment to force those objects back to ground level. Some persons will immediately respond, “Gravity brings these objects back to earth.” More accurately, all these observations allow the formulation of the Law of Gravity in its basic expression. Nevertheless, we cannot be sure before the next toss that an object thrown into the air will fall back to ground level. The best we can do is to expect with a high probability approaching, but always less than 1.0, that the object will come back down.
Scientific laws, therefore, do not rest upon absolute certainty but on events of extremely high statistical probability. Scientists make their “leaps of faith” across this inherent uncertainty because experience shows the universe operates with predictably reproducibility according to scientific laws we can discover and elucidate. Without this consistency, our lives would be intolerably chaotic with an untrustworthy creator. All the subsets of science, e.g., mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc., can be built upon the framework laid down by the “leap of faith” from irrationality(9) or chaos to high probability and reliable reproducibility but not to certainty.
I dispute the claim that religion, in contrast to science, necessitates abandonment of rationality in favor of irrationality. As a scientist who was born into and who has persisted within the Judeo-Christian Community of Believers, I can attest that equivalent mental acuity must be applied to both theology and science. Our God-given minds allow us to test and verify the “revelations” of religion and science. The scientific method operates to promote this veracity for science.(10)
How do we evaluate the truth and relevance of religious revelations in the absence of evidence like the hard or objective data available to science? Let us first consider a common non-rational but real phenomenon, falling in love. Although science has made great strides in unmasking the chemistry and physiology of why and how two humans fall in love with each other, no completely rational explanation of the process has been put forth. Genuine falling love may transcend objectivity but our intellects must come into play once the full bloom or rush of emotion subsides in order to evaluate the possibility that we have succumbed to the spell of a powerful but transitory state of enchantment. Our family and friends can help us with this assessment.
For some people, a “Damascus Road Experience” like that of St. Paul becomes a non-rational highlight of their lives, in some ways analogous to falling in love, albeit more intense. Holy Scripture informs us about the power of St. Paul’s encounter with the risen Lord. St. Paul himself testifies that he was a Jewish scholar, and the epistles he authored show a fine mind at work. It would have been thoroughly in keeping with his training and character for St. Paul to have applied his intellect to differentiate between a nightmarish irrational occurrence and a non-rational but real event, even if it was outside the realm of objective rationality. I suspect the time St. Paul spent blinded allowed him an opportunity to dissect what had happened. Unless, St. Paul was a lunatic, a supposition highly unlikely from the content and characteristics of his writings, we can be confident that his non-rational encounter withstood the test of his rational mind. Additionally, St. Paul could not have undertaken his mission to the Gentiles if other Judeo-Christians had not quizzed him in detail about, and then agreed with, the truth of his “Damascus Road Experience”.
Once we make the initial lead of faith, all our religious convictions must withstand rigorous tests, as in science. We should apply our minds to even the fundamental aspects of our religious convictions. For example, we must disregard such bumper sticker concepts as, “God said it and that means it’s true.” Why? Holy Scripture contains many internal contradictions and does not always accord with what we have learned about the ancient and modern worlds.(11) We need to comprehend what Holy Scripture actually says before embracing the bumper sticker proclamation. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of our greatest Judeo-Christian theologians, spoke pertinently to the point: The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic (i.e., Judeo-Christian) not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.(12)
As discussed above, science rests upon statistical design and control. Similarly, a type of statistical verification also pertains to religion. Observations, a form of data, collected over the centuries show predictably favorable and often dramatic changes in lives after people transition from unbelief to belief, including genuine love for brothers and sisters, ministry to the poor and disenfranchised, and other aspects of feeding Christ’s sheep. Critics of this proposition may counter, “Yes, but often accompanied by or even supplanted with anticipated unfavorable changes such as intolerance and persecution of non-believers.” St. Augustine and St. Aquinas, among many others, equip us with the proper response to this criticism: People who advocate and follow these negative outcomes from the leap of faith do not understand what Holy Scripture actually means.
Science will not incorporate God as a factor in its research methods. Simply put, scientists have no reason to write God into any equation, hypothesis, theory, or scientific law. Let us look at a straightforward example, a physical, chemical, or biochemical process that combines A with B to yield C, written in shorthand as:
A + B = C
Once we add in conditions for temperature, pressure, catalysts, etc., the equation thoroughly defines the process. It would be irrational to say something like, "If God isn’t included, the transformation from A and B to C cannot occur" because we can identify all the parameters necessary for the reaction to take place without putting God into the equation. Importantly from the perspective of science, unexplained phenomena do not serve as “proofs” of God’s existence and miraculous power but, rather, pose fertile areas for future scientific research.
While we do not need God in the above equation, science and religion may reason together about how to use the knowledge represented by such equations. Let us turn to another equation, one that appears disarmingly simple from a cursory inspection:
E = mC2
We recognize this relationship or Scientific Law as a summary of one of Albert Einstein’s major contributions to our knowledge about God’s creation: A massive amount of energy (E) can be obtained from a small amount (mass or m) of a substance (e.g., Uranium 235 or Plutonium) multiplied by the square of the speed of light (where C = 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second). This theoretical relationship first found a pragmatic utility in the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. The awesome power that can be unleashed from nuclear weapons and, as well, the tremendous potential benefits that could come from nuclear power illustrate why science and religion must speak to each other: For the first time in human history, we have the potential to destroy creation with thermonuclear and biological weapons or to alter the human genome, the molecular essence of our humanity, with genetic engineering.
The great majority of scientists consider the unfettered right to follow all lines of scientific inquiry with the same passionate commitment as do Judeo-Christians regard freedom to worship. All attempts to apply legislative or theological restrictions to research through coercion will ultimately fail. How, then, can Judeo-Christianity and science properly interact? By observing the following guideline: Judeo-Christianity legitimately can provide a moral input for, and control of, scientists within the Judeo-Christianity community.(13) For example, Judeo-Christian scientists might of their own volition forego research (a) with stem cells from human fetal tissues but choose to focus on stem cells from umbilical cords or adult sources, (b) on thermonuclear and biological weapons, or (c) into manipulation of the human genome for any purpose other than therapy to cure or prevent disease.
Admittedly, some Judeo-Christian scientists and, perhaps, many non-Judeo-Christian scientists, will not ascribe any degree whatsoever of immorality to the above areas of research. The critical point remains: Such potentially contentious topics mandate rational discussion from the viewpoints of science and religion. Judeo-Christians must engage in our prophetic mission, not to predict the future but to point out consequences like those that followed the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A discussion of the morality of this first use of nuclear weapons lies outside the scope of this chapter; but, we can ask if our national leaders understood the potential consequences beyond termination of the conflict. Thus, was there any contemplation within a Judeo-Christian context about how our use of atomic weapons against the Empire of Japan might inevitably lead to the Cold War with its tremendous consumption of human and material treasure? We can, of course, also speculate about how the availability of these terrible weapons may have prevented another global war through mutual fear of destroying God’s creation.
Science expands our knowledge about God’s creation, and when properly conducted constitutes a form of worship. Accordingly, the conversation between Judeo-Christianity and science ought to take place with mutual respect.
Footnotes
1) Many volumes have been written on this distinction but the crucial point relates to the manner in which data are collected. Scientists apply the scientific method, which rests upon hypothesis testing through the acquisition of objective (observational, experimentally obtained) data. For religion, non-rational experiential data provide the focal point, at least for the initial phase. This difference in methodologies is covered in more detail later in this chapter.
(2) Reference
(3) The term, "leap of faith", is commonly attributed to Søren Kierkegaard, although he used "leap to faith" in his book, The Concept of Anxiety.
(4) For the purposes of this discussion, the Judeo-Christian “religion” refers to the belief in God, revealed through the Holy Trinity, whereas Judeo-Christian “theology” applies to the many doctrines that have grown from this basic understanding, e.g., Predestination, Free Will, Transubstantiation within Holy Communion, and Papal Infallibility to name only a few. These differing theological interpretations contributed to the formation of our various Judeo-Christian denominations.
(5) Give reference.
(6) The miracles reported in Holy Scripture do not so much offer “proof’ of God and the divinity of Jesus as they illustrate the benefits of living within the Kingdom of God.
(7) Sola scriptura, Latin for by scripture alone, refers to the doctrine that Holy Scripture provides the only authority, and contains all knowledge necessary for belief in God. Sola scriptura demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
(8) The Genesis descriptor, In the beginning, does not specify how long in the past the universe began.
(9) Irrationality, which negates logic and reason, has no place in science or religion. Prime examples of irrationality are astrology – the idea that planets and stars influence our fate, the benevolent powers of crystals, the fallacy that we can communicate with the dead, and that God manipulates the minutia of the universe through violation of the natural laws God established with the initial act of creation.
(10) Chapter 5
(11) Pertinent examples among many are: Which of the two contradictory Genesis creation stories is more correct; on what day did Jesus die; did Jesus go to his death calmly or in agony; did or did not Jesus himself claim to be the only Son of God; is the Holy Trinity explicitly defined in Holy Scripture or is this doctrine the result of tradition?
(12) Give reference.
(13) Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium, 1941.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Writing Again
The immediately following post contains the draft of Chapter 3 from Through The Wilderness. This chapter, and well as as the other previous posted, probably will undergo considerable "final" editing once I complete the entire draft manuscript. For instance, I may need to switch materials between chapters. Anyway, hope you enjoy the chapter as it is.
Activities and responsibilities surrounding Andrea's hip replacement, and keeping our yard/garden and home in shape severely impacted my "serious" writing efforts. Now that Andrea is well on the way to a full recovery, I anticipate more time and effort being devoted to my writing.
As usual, I welcome comments on my blog postings.
Blessings.
Activities and responsibilities surrounding Andrea's hip replacement, and keeping our yard/garden and home in shape severely impacted my "serious" writing efforts. Now that Andrea is well on the way to a full recovery, I anticipate more time and effort being devoted to my writing.
As usual, I welcome comments on my blog postings.
Blessings.
THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 3
POLITICS: WHY AND HOW SHOULD CHRISTIANS PARTICIPATE?
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4
Groups of people make decisions and embark upon courses of action through an inherently political process but politics usually refers to the art and, hopefully, the science of government. When applied to a nation, politics pertains to the administration and control of its internal and external affairs to provide peace, prosperity, and protection of the citizenry. We sometimes disparage politicians, especially when their unethical behavior becomes public knowledge, but we should keep in mind that democratic republics such as the United States particularly depend upon effective, even if not efficient, politics.
Two passages from Holy Scripture present a compelling rational for Judeo-Christians to participate in politics at all levels, from the local to the international:
John 21:15-17 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
Matt. 22:17-21 “Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin used for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” Then he said to them, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
Three times Jesus commanded Peter to feed Jesus’ sheep. A three-fold pronouncement in Holy Scripture signifies a profoundly serious intent from the Deity. The sheep include persons both within and those currently outside the Christian fellowship; the food in Jesus’ imperative symbolizes physical, spiritual, and emotional nourishment. The Community of Believers follows the teaching of Jesus by furnishing the needed food. Appropriate military protection definitely falls within the context of nourishing Jesus’ sheep in our fallen world. Accordingly, I do not exclude the unfortunate necessity for sometimes taking up arms against unjust ruling authorities that do not care for Jesus’ sheep. (1, footnotes at end)
A superficial reading of Jesus’ response about the propriety of paying taxes to the hated Roman Empire suggests Judeo-Christians have separate duties toward God and earthly powers. Thus, Jesus might be interpreted to have endorsed the medieval demarcation between the profane (secular) and holy (religious) spheres of or lives. I think a deeper meaning holds. Jesus thoroughly understood that everything in creation, seen and unseen, belongs to God; hence, the Roman Emperor owned nothing. Jesus does not tell us to withdraw all support from governments. Instead, he instructs us to remind them that their power, treasure, authority, and responsibilities must be applied to God’s purposes.(2) We must be vigilant to eschew the ultimate danger Holy Scriptures teaches concerning governments:(3) That these earthly institutions can become objects of worship and demand our fidelity through misplaced patriotism and lack of clarity about our primary loyalty. Emphatically, neither the United States nor any other government as presently constituted is equivalent to the Kingdom of God. In fact, all governments, including our democratic republic, at times operate in direct contradiction to the Gospel.
Jesus wants his sheep fed so that the relevant question becomes not Should we be involved in the political process? but How can Judeo-Christians wield political power to ensure compliance with Jesus’ mandate? We empower our representatives through elections to aid the Community of Believers in our task. Governments must fulfill this obligation or be changed, hopefully through non-violent means, although the actual form of a ruling authority (e.g., democratic republic, monarchy) and its economic system (e.g., capitalism, socialism) may be less important to God than the commitment to feeding the sheep.
In answer to the how question, God gives us a powerful action plan incorporating four components - objective, strategy, tactics, and evaluation.
Objective An objective should be concise, unambiguous, and achievable as in Philippians 2:9-11: Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father.
This objective anticipates a worldwide theocracy ordained by God with Jesus Christ as God’s vicar or governor on earth.
Strategy Matthew 28:18-20 expresses the strategy that will take us to our objective: And Jesus came and said to them: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
We recognize this strategic statement as Christ’s Great Commission to his Disciples and, through them, to us.
Tactics The nature and application of tactics represent the most controversial element of the action plan. We need pragmatic tactics to implement the strategy that will lead us to our objective. Profession, proclamation, witnessing to, rejoicing in, and serving the risen Christ through ministry to our brothers and sisters constitute the most potent tactics. We should employ these tactics, which change hearts and minds, rather than wasting time and energy on passing secular (4) laws that seek both to designate the United States as a Judeo-Christian country and to require Biblically-derived beliefs and standards of behavior from all citizens. Jesus was very clear that even strict observance of the law absent an inward change (repentance, being born from above) does not lead to the Kingdom of God. Observance of God’s laws and secular laws consistent with Holy Scripture thus comes about through a desire to love, please and respect God, not through fear of punishment prescribed through the legal system.
The Constitution of the United States does not establish Judeo-Christianity as the official religion of this country.(5) Reading anything else into this seminal secular document corresponds to the same transgression often associated with “liberal activist” judges: Ignoring the plain words to make “laws” not explicitly defined in the Constitution. We slide down this slippery slope at the peril of our democratic republic.
The framers of the Constitution included Judeo-Christians, some of whom we today call evangelicals, and the Constitution invokes God, albeit without an overt reference to Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the primary authors of the Constitution were Deists who produced a religiously neutral document as evidenced by a reading of the plain words and the historical record surrounding the Constitutional Convention. We must be extraordinarily wary about altering the Constitution in such a way as to enfranchise or disenfranchise segments of our citizenry based upon religious affiliations.
The Constitutional Amendment that wreaked the havoc of Prohibition serves as a well-known reminder how virtue cannot be imposed through legislation when large numbers of citizens do not accept the presumptive immorality of the proscribed act. Murder is an even better illustration. The majority of believers and non-believers will affirm the evil of taking innocent lives by premeditated or capital murder. Some jurisdictions exact the harshest penalty, execution, for this crime forbidden by the Sixth Commandment. The State of Texas can be cited as the prime example of how legislation and Draconian punishment have not eliminated this heinous act.
Since the 1976 Supreme Court reinstitution of the death penalty, Texas has had the greatest state total of executions for capital one murder in the United States, 438 out of 1165 through June 2009. A discussion of the deterrent effects of execution on the reduction of murder rates can be confused by arguments about the various statistical methodologies behind the assessments. The fact remains: Murder still takes place in Texas and the rate has not appreciably changed, ranging from 5.9 to 6.8 murders/100,000 people during the 1997 to 2007 timeframe. Why? Because laws do not change hearts and minds.
Do we really expect the legal system to enforce Judeo-Christian morality on all citizens and, thereby, to bring the United States to Christ? Let’s turn the question around with a thought-experiment: Congress passes and the President signs bills outlawing Judeo-Christianity. These statues prohibit Judeo-Christians from practicing their religion in public and in private. Existing churches are demolished or converted to secular structures, and new churches cannot be constructed. Violators of the new laws face extremely harsh penalties equivalent to those perpetrated against Judeo-Christians in the Roman Empire. We can now ask, would these unjust circumstances keep resolute Judeo-Christians from their God-decreed tasks? Of course not. Our work would be more difficult but we would have no excuse for refusing to do God’s will. Again, secular laws do not change hearts and minds.
The history of our faith, especially Judeo-Christianity within the Roman Empire, shows why profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service, but not legislation, are best for the Community of Believers. In the first 3 to 3½ centuries after the death of Christ, Judeo-Christians had no legal protection within the Roman Empire. Roman laws and customs encouraged the torture and killing of Judeo-Christians due to their profession of Jesus Christ, not the Emperor, as Lord and Master. The Judeo-Christian refusal to serve in the Empire’s armed forces further exacerbated the situation. Despite these legal impediments, the number of Judeo-Christians increased from approximately 1000 in 40 C.E. to nearly 34 million (0.001% to 56.5% of the population) by the mid-Fourth Century C.E. This phenomenal growth rate of the Community of Believers has never been replicated, without the benefit of violent subjugation, not even in the supposedly Judeo-Christian United States.(6)
The early success of the Community of Believers contrasted the opposing Roman and Judeo-Christian doctrines for conversion of the world. The Empire assumed first victory, then peace. That is, domination of the world through military and economic supremacy leads to peace. In opposition, Judeo-Christians believed in first peace, then victory. Peace for Judeo-Christians denotes changes in hearts and minds that induce not only the absence of conflict but more significantly a state of reconciliation between God and humans, and among humans. Once this peace or shalom is achieved, victory comes in the form of a one-world government administered by Jesus Christ.
The Judeo-Christian approach convinced the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, to reverse the persecutions of his predecessors and to issue the 313 C.E. Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the Empire. Judeo-Christianity subsequently became the “official” religion of the Empire.(7) This quick summary glosses over Constantine’s political motivations and machinations but the concept holds: Judeo-Christianity flourished and became victorious without enabling legislation.
Some well-meaning believers cannot on principle abandon the idea of attempting to pass laws favoring Judeo-Christianity. This tactic involves enshrining Judeo-Christianity as the “official” religion of the United States through Supreme Court interpretations and amendments to the Constitution. Furthermore, the laws of the United States should directly reflect the religious laws contained in Holy Scripture. For instance, if Holy Scripture declares an activity such as adultery to be a sin, United States law should criminalize the activity. Of course, under the Constitution, these individuals have the right to utilize these tactics, ineffective as they will be.(8)
I prefer to concentrate my efforts on assuring a level playing field for all religions. For that reason I consider myself a strict constructivist who adheres to the Constitutional separation between Church and State. When a level playing field exists, history shows that Judeo-Christianity can more easily perform its mission, and will always triumph. The issue, emphatically, is not separation from but separation between. That is, Judeo-Christians best exert their influence on human affairs, including governments, without adopting or succumbing to the allure of earthly power. Indeed, some Judeo-Christians will find their area of service within, but without primary allegiance to, governments.
Under no circumstances should Judeo-Christians abandon the tactics of proclaiming and witnessing to the risen Christ. We must always speak out against evil while offering life-affirming alternatives. If we believe behaviors such as abortion, murder, thievery, allowing persons to go hungry, child and elder abuse, and failing to provide affordable health care to all persons are sins, we should forthrightly state our position and vigorously teach the Gospel. More importantly, we must live our lives in compliance with the Gospel message so that we witness for Christ to the world by walking the walk with him rather than by simply talking the talk about him.
Evaluation The evaluation component of the action plan is straightforward and can be observed in local congregations every Sunday. Are our tactics bringing more and more people into the Community of Believers? If so, we should continue with what we are doing. If not, we need to change our tactics and/or their application.
(1) Chapter X.
(2) From this perspective, an argument can be made that Judeo-Christians have complementary duties to the Kingdom of God and to earthly governments, but the former must always take precedence over the latter.
(3) Chapter Y.
(4) Secular includes criminal and civil laws.
(5) Gregoary A. Boyd in The Myth of a Christian Nation.
(6) without violent subjugation precludes the manner in which Islam was spread chiefly by military might during the early history of this religion.
(7) Many theologians, however, lament the Constantinian Bargan that arguably aligned Judeo-Christianity with earthly powers whose actions do not comply with the Gospel. This alliance produces misguided patriotism through a worship of governments or by uncritically assuming these institutions carry out the will of God because they are officially Judeo-Christian or ostensibly founded on Biblical principles.
(8) I have long wondered where individuals who follow this line of conversion find the Biblical justification for imposing their view of morality on other people through legal compulsion. Persuations without coercion, of course, is acceptable.
A superficial reading of Jesus’ response about the propriety of paying taxes to the hated Roman Empire suggests Judeo-Christians have separate duties toward God and earthly powers. Thus, Jesus might be interpreted to have endorsed the medieval demarcation between the profane (secular) and holy (religious) spheres of or lives. I think a deeper meaning holds. Jesus thoroughly understood that everything in creation, seen and unseen, belongs to God; hence, the Roman Emperor owned nothing. Jesus does not tell us to withdraw all support from governments. Instead, he instructs us to remind them that their power, treasure, authority, and responsibilities must be applied to God’s purposes.(2) We must be vigilant to eschew the ultimate danger Holy Scriptures teaches concerning governments:(3) That these earthly institutions can become objects of worship and demand our fidelity through misplaced patriotism and lack of clarity about our primary loyalty. Emphatically, neither the United States nor any other government as presently constituted is equivalent to the Kingdom of God. In fact, all governments, including our democratic republic, at times operate in direct contradiction to the Gospel.
Jesus wants his sheep fed so that the relevant question becomes not Should we be involved in the political process? but How can Judeo-Christians wield political power to ensure compliance with Jesus’ mandate? We empower our representatives through elections to aid the Community of Believers in our task. Governments must fulfill this obligation or be changed, hopefully through non-violent means, although the actual form of a ruling authority (e.g., democratic republic, monarchy) and its economic system (e.g., capitalism, socialism) may be less important to God than the commitment to feeding the sheep.
In answer to the how question, God gives us a powerful action plan incorporating four components - objective, strategy, tactics, and evaluation.
Objective An objective should be concise, unambiguous, and achievable as in Philippians 2:9-11: Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to glory of God the Father.
This objective anticipates a worldwide theocracy ordained by God with Jesus Christ as God’s vicar or governor on earth.
Strategy Matthew 28:18-20 expresses the strategy that will take us to our objective: And Jesus came and said to them: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
We recognize this strategic statement as Christ’s Great Commission to his Disciples and, through them, to us.
Tactics The nature and application of tactics represent the most controversial element of the action plan. We need pragmatic tactics to implement the strategy that will lead us to our objective. Profession, proclamation, witnessing to, rejoicing in, and serving the risen Christ through ministry to our brothers and sisters constitute the most potent tactics. We should employ these tactics, which change hearts and minds, rather than wasting time and energy on passing secular (4) laws that seek both to designate the United States as a Judeo-Christian country and to require Biblically-derived beliefs and standards of behavior from all citizens. Jesus was very clear that even strict observance of the law absent an inward change (repentance, being born from above) does not lead to the Kingdom of God. Observance of God’s laws and secular laws consistent with Holy Scripture thus comes about through a desire to love, please and respect God, not through fear of punishment prescribed through the legal system.
The Constitution of the United States does not establish Judeo-Christianity as the official religion of this country.(5) Reading anything else into this seminal secular document corresponds to the same transgression often associated with “liberal activist” judges: Ignoring the plain words to make “laws” not explicitly defined in the Constitution. We slide down this slippery slope at the peril of our democratic republic.
The framers of the Constitution included Judeo-Christians, some of whom we today call evangelicals, and the Constitution invokes God, albeit without an overt reference to Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the primary authors of the Constitution were Deists who produced a religiously neutral document as evidenced by a reading of the plain words and the historical record surrounding the Constitutional Convention. We must be extraordinarily wary about altering the Constitution in such a way as to enfranchise or disenfranchise segments of our citizenry based upon religious affiliations.
The Constitutional Amendment that wreaked the havoc of Prohibition serves as a well-known reminder how virtue cannot be imposed through legislation when large numbers of citizens do not accept the presumptive immorality of the proscribed act. Murder is an even better illustration. The majority of believers and non-believers will affirm the evil of taking innocent lives by premeditated or capital murder. Some jurisdictions exact the harshest penalty, execution, for this crime forbidden by the Sixth Commandment. The State of Texas can be cited as the prime example of how legislation and Draconian punishment have not eliminated this heinous act.
Since the 1976 Supreme Court reinstitution of the death penalty, Texas has had the greatest state total of executions for capital one murder in the United States, 438 out of 1165 through June 2009. A discussion of the deterrent effects of execution on the reduction of murder rates can be confused by arguments about the various statistical methodologies behind the assessments. The fact remains: Murder still takes place in Texas and the rate has not appreciably changed, ranging from 5.9 to 6.8 murders/100,000 people during the 1997 to 2007 timeframe. Why? Because laws do not change hearts and minds.
Do we really expect the legal system to enforce Judeo-Christian morality on all citizens and, thereby, to bring the United States to Christ? Let’s turn the question around with a thought-experiment: Congress passes and the President signs bills outlawing Judeo-Christianity. These statues prohibit Judeo-Christians from practicing their religion in public and in private. Existing churches are demolished or converted to secular structures, and new churches cannot be constructed. Violators of the new laws face extremely harsh penalties equivalent to those perpetrated against Judeo-Christians in the Roman Empire. We can now ask, would these unjust circumstances keep resolute Judeo-Christians from their God-decreed tasks? Of course not. Our work would be more difficult but we would have no excuse for refusing to do God’s will. Again, secular laws do not change hearts and minds.
The history of our faith, especially Judeo-Christianity within the Roman Empire, shows why profession, proclamation, witness, rejoicing, and service, but not legislation, are best for the Community of Believers. In the first 3 to 3½ centuries after the death of Christ, Judeo-Christians had no legal protection within the Roman Empire. Roman laws and customs encouraged the torture and killing of Judeo-Christians due to their profession of Jesus Christ, not the Emperor, as Lord and Master. The Judeo-Christian refusal to serve in the Empire’s armed forces further exacerbated the situation. Despite these legal impediments, the number of Judeo-Christians increased from approximately 1000 in 40 C.E. to nearly 34 million (0.001% to 56.5% of the population) by the mid-Fourth Century C.E. This phenomenal growth rate of the Community of Believers has never been replicated, without the benefit of violent subjugation, not even in the supposedly Judeo-Christian United States.(6)
The early success of the Community of Believers contrasted the opposing Roman and Judeo-Christian doctrines for conversion of the world. The Empire assumed first victory, then peace. That is, domination of the world through military and economic supremacy leads to peace. In opposition, Judeo-Christians believed in first peace, then victory. Peace for Judeo-Christians denotes changes in hearts and minds that induce not only the absence of conflict but more significantly a state of reconciliation between God and humans, and among humans. Once this peace or shalom is achieved, victory comes in the form of a one-world government administered by Jesus Christ.
The Judeo-Christian approach convinced the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, to reverse the persecutions of his predecessors and to issue the 313 C.E. Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the Empire. Judeo-Christianity subsequently became the “official” religion of the Empire.(7) This quick summary glosses over Constantine’s political motivations and machinations but the concept holds: Judeo-Christianity flourished and became victorious without enabling legislation.
Some well-meaning believers cannot on principle abandon the idea of attempting to pass laws favoring Judeo-Christianity. This tactic involves enshrining Judeo-Christianity as the “official” religion of the United States through Supreme Court interpretations and amendments to the Constitution. Furthermore, the laws of the United States should directly reflect the religious laws contained in Holy Scripture. For instance, if Holy Scripture declares an activity such as adultery to be a sin, United States law should criminalize the activity. Of course, under the Constitution, these individuals have the right to utilize these tactics, ineffective as they will be.(8)
I prefer to concentrate my efforts on assuring a level playing field for all religions. For that reason I consider myself a strict constructivist who adheres to the Constitutional separation between Church and State. When a level playing field exists, history shows that Judeo-Christianity can more easily perform its mission, and will always triumph. The issue, emphatically, is not separation from but separation between. That is, Judeo-Christians best exert their influence on human affairs, including governments, without adopting or succumbing to the allure of earthly power. Indeed, some Judeo-Christians will find their area of service within, but without primary allegiance to, governments.
Under no circumstances should Judeo-Christians abandon the tactics of proclaiming and witnessing to the risen Christ. We must always speak out against evil while offering life-affirming alternatives. If we believe behaviors such as abortion, murder, thievery, allowing persons to go hungry, child and elder abuse, and failing to provide affordable health care to all persons are sins, we should forthrightly state our position and vigorously teach the Gospel. More importantly, we must live our lives in compliance with the Gospel message so that we witness for Christ to the world by walking the walk with him rather than by simply talking the talk about him.
Evaluation The evaluation component of the action plan is straightforward and can be observed in local congregations every Sunday. Are our tactics bringing more and more people into the Community of Believers? If so, we should continue with what we are doing. If not, we need to change our tactics and/or their application.
(1) Chapter X.
(2) From this perspective, an argument can be made that Judeo-Christians have complementary duties to the Kingdom of God and to earthly governments, but the former must always take precedence over the latter.
(3) Chapter Y.
(4) Secular includes criminal and civil laws.
(5) Gregoary A. Boyd in The Myth of a Christian Nation.
(6) without violent subjugation precludes the manner in which Islam was spread chiefly by military might during the early history of this religion.
(7) Many theologians, however, lament the Constantinian Bargan that arguably aligned Judeo-Christianity with earthly powers whose actions do not comply with the Gospel. This alliance produces misguided patriotism through a worship of governments or by uncritically assuming these institutions carry out the will of God because they are officially Judeo-Christian or ostensibly founded on Biblical principles.
(8) I have long wondered where individuals who follow this line of conversion find the Biblical justification for imposing their view of morality on other people through legal compulsion. Persuations without coercion, of course, is acceptable.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
INADEQUACY OF THE SACRIFICIAL PARADIGM FOR SALVATION?
OPENING COMMENTS
Paradigm = a philosophical or theoretical framework or model.
I’m not sure this material will be incorporated into the final version of Through The Wilderness. I base my hesitation on two factors:
(1) Through The Wilderness focuses on posing appropriate questions to obtain useful answers. I haven’t yet defined a question that will generate an answer within the context of this book. Questions and answers relating to the sacrificial/substitutional paradigm carry great importance to me as a professing and struggling Judeo-Christian, irrespective of inclusion in, or exclusion from, Through The Wilderness.
The situation reminds me of a statement (paraphrased) from one of our notable authors/critics of the 20th Century: I don’t know what I think on that subject because I haven’t written about it. (One of these days I’ll find a reference to identify the lady who made this statement.) Perhaps my writing about the sacrificial paradigm or model will generate a question and answer I can incorporate into Through The Wilderness. As usual, I not only solicit but welcome comments and critiques.
(2) Many potential readers of Through The Wilderness quite likely will have severe reservations about, if not outright hostility to, this material that erroneously could be considered to strike at the traditional core of Judeo-Christianity.
I want people to read Through The Wilderness. Conservative and especially fundamentalist religious reviewers could generate negative reviews based upon this published material, which might scare off potential readers of the book. I’m not averse to participating in, or even starting, controversies based upon differing informed opinions; therefore, I may include this material under appropriate circumstances. I wouldn’t want to refrain from incorporating legitimate material solely to preserve readership.
I must note that reservations about the sacrificial, substitutional, or atonement model for salvation began in the early days of Judeo-Christianity and have continued to this time. Again, we may ask, What’s new under the sun? Nevertheless, I have never heard a sermon preached on any model for salvation other than this one, albeit sometimes with the invocation of God’s love. Perhaps I’ve been in the wrong churches?
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
Which of the following expressions most adequately explains how or why God forgives our sins, thereby leading to our salvation?
(1) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ, the exemplification of Jesus Christ’s great love for us and for God?
(2) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the great love Jesus Christ has for us and for God, as exemplified by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial life and death.
To my mind, these two statements offer profoundly different understandings. The first places the weight of forgiveness on the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ whereas the second emphasizes the love Jesus Christ has for us and for God as responsible for the forgiveness of our sins. That is, statement (1) more closely corresponds to the traditional sacrificial model for salvation.
SACRIFICIAL MODEL FOR SALVATION
The epistles of St. Paul (C.E. 3 – 62) and those attributed to him perhaps furnish the most extensive rationale for the sacrificial model of salvation:
Romans 3:25 whom (i.e., Jesus Christ) God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his (i.e., Jesus Christ’s) blood.
Romans 5:8-9 God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.
The sacrificial model can be summarized as follows:
(1) God is both just and merciful.
(2) Our Hebrew ancestors believed animal, including human, life force resides in blood.
(3) The Hebrew Scriptures link the forgiveness of sins with sacrifices to be performed by human sinners.
(4) Although sin offends God’s honor beyond human ability to compensate, God’s justice requires that blood with its life force must be spilled on the altar as compensation for sin. That is, God or God's sense of justice must be appeased in order for humans to escape the consequences of God’s judgment.
(5) Christ’s death (spilling of his blood) on the cross provides a one-time substitution or replacement for blood sacrifices.
(6) The sacrificial and compensatory death of the completely innocent (without sin) Jesus Christ, God’s beloved son, was demanded because only an integrated fully human and fully divine being could repay or atone for the infinite debt of all human sins.
(7) This sacrificial substitution or atonement brings humans and God’s creation back into the perfect unity destroyed by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and reestablishes the mutual loving relationship between God and humans.
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE SACRIFICIAL MODEL
My first reservations about the sacrificial substitution model probably began in Prof. Franz Joseph Kovar’s Philosophy 101 class during my senior year at LaGrange College. This class was required of all pre-ministerial students at the college. I took the course because of interest and to broaden my horizons beyond a double major in Biology and Chemistry. Although I would have graduated with an additional major in Mathematics had I taken Differential Equations instead of Philosophy 101, the later was, in retrospect, the single most valuable course I studied at LaGrange College.
Prof. Kovar remarked in one class, I do not understand why Christ had to undergo the sacrifice on the cross in order for God to forgive us our sins. Does this cruel sacrifice truly reflect the God of love we are called upon to worship?
Of course this statement infuriated most of the pre-ministerial students. The comment was not a surprise because Prof. Kovar made this declaration each year. Several of the pre-ministerial students, as if on cue, stood up. One announced, We will pray for you, Prof. Kovar, that you might receive the blessing of salvation through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.
Prof. Kovar replied, Pray for yourselves. Praying for others substitutes your arrogance for God’s wisdom.
My next formal discontent with the sacrificial model came when I facilitated an extraordinary Sunday School class at New Horizon United Methodist Church in South Florida. We used the Seasons of the Spirit lectionary-based material for the class. One Easter, the lesson commentary pointed out: Christ had free will and could have refused to die on the cross. If so, God would have continued to forgive sins as God has done throughout human history. Well, that statement was as mind blowing as Prof. Kovar’s declaration.
So, what are my reservations?
(1) My concept of God precludes some grand cosmic plan through which Christ was pre-ordained to come to earth at some future time in order to save us from our sins.
Such a plan would imply that God is both all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient), able to see and control events before they happen. To this point, let us consider a human circumstance or condition that could result in only two outcomes, A or B. If God already knows the outcome will be A, then God cannot choose B and, therefore, God cannot be, or chooses not to be, all-powerful. To expand, if God is all powerful and is free to choose either A or B, he cannot foresee the future or he would loose the power to choose. This idea requires considerable thought but is not new with me because it dates back to some of the early Church fathers.
(2) God forgave sins prior to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with this fact.
(3) Hebrew Scriptures consistently point out that regret, repentance, and the desire henceforth to lead a better, if not sin-free life, must come before any sacrifice: The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm51:17, for instance).
(4) Many Hebrew prophets and Jesus Christ himself inveighed heavily against the Jerusalem Temple, with its Sanhedrin elites, maintaining a monopoly on forgiveness of sins in conjunction with a corrupt sacrificial system.
(5) Once King Solomon completed the Jerusalem Temple, God commanded that it would be the only sanctioned site for Israelites to offer animal sacrifices. Performing sacrifices in any other place was a sin. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE; therefore, Jews to this day offer no more animal sacrifices because to do so would violate God’s prohibition. Accordingly and importantly, Jews believe they receive forgiveness of sins without the requirement of an animal sacrifice and the shedding of innocent blood with its life force. That is, prayer and repentance take the place of sacrifices in Judaism: Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Say to Him, forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the words of our lips instead of calves. (Hosea 14:3, for instance).
As an aside, I wonder if the modern day Jews will reestablish animal sacrifice when the Jerusalem Temple is rebuilt on the reclaimed Temple Mount presently occupied by Muslims?
(6) St. Paul himself offers models for salvation in addition to atonement through sacrificial death, including: (a) Ransoming or taking the place of a slave, debtor, or captive; (b) The Incarnation that unites humans and God; and (c) The entire life of Jesus.
Although I have tried to be a faithful and active member of the United Methodist Church since 1960, many of my theologian friends consider me a closet Presbyterian, the faith tradition in which I was raised. I must point out, therefore, that Anselm of Canterbury, generally recognized for his expansion of St. Paul’s sacrificial model, apparently did not emphasize the idea that Christ substitutes of bears the penalty for human sin. Martin Luther and John Calvin promulgated the penal substitution concept some centuries after Anselm. How such an idea ever caught on and became so widespread in its acceptance flummoxes me, and illustrates that not even agreement by the majority of Christians guarantees the correctness or validity of a theological concept.
(7) The sacrificial model promotes violence as sanctified by God and encourages us to submit to violence and suffering in imitation of Christ. (See Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of the Christ).
(8) How can we defend, much less worship, a just, loving, and merciful God who decreed that human sins could not be forgiven except through the condemnation and suffering of the righteous and innocent Jesus Christ? If God had the power to otherwise forgive sin and did not do so, how can we defend God’s wisdom and justice? To insist upon and hew to the sacrificial model means that a cruel and wicked despot pre-ordained innocent suffering and death to be the entire purpose of the Incarnation.
With the above reservations in mind, I totally reject any pleas or threats that I should abandon my God-given intellect and simply accept the traditional sacrificial model because it involves a divine mystery beyond human comprehension. This type of faith truly would be blind.
I think one of St. Augustine’s great dicta applies here, as suitably rephrased to avoid gender-specific language: If persons believe that Holy Scripture contradicts what they observe with their own eyes (i.e., through rationality and intellect), then those persons do not understand what Holy Scripture actually says.
WHY AND HOW DOES GOD FORGIVE SINS?
The Why appears straightforward: God, out of divine love for his creatures, desires reconciliation between himself and us for the estrangement arising from our inappropriate use of free will, i.e. our sins.
The issue of why God bestowed free will upon us has little relevance to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that we have free will as a result of our human condition. If we do not have free will because God pre-ordained and controls all aspects of human endeavors, then we cannot be guilty of sin and would not need salvation. I cover this point in Through The Wilderness.
Perhaps God organized creation in such a way that we humans have free will and, as a compensation for that blessings/responsibility, God also out of love offers us what we Methodists often term Prevenient Grace - after John Wesley.
The How constitutes a thornier issue, which would not be so difficult if the sacrificial model actually applied. Consideration of the How forces us to face squarely our concept of Jesus Christ and his role in our salvation.
I defy anyone to state an unequivocal explanation of Jesus Christ. Starting with, Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God, won’t work because that statement comes loaded with ambiguity. For instance, how can a divine being give birth to human being? Postulating a construct based upon the Holy Spirit and the idea that Jesus Christ represents a Man-God (fully human and fully divine) contains even more ambiguity.
The fact that we are saved appears clear on the basis of rational faith informed by Holy Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. (OK, as at least a titular Methodist, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to bring in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.) However, the relationship between the suffering and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and our salvation remains imprecise, even elusive.
Despite the imprecision, I offer the following approach for how God forgives our sins, keeping in mind that I am by no means commanding God what to do but commenting only what I think God does:
(1) Our loving God desires harmony and reconciliation with us, as stated above for the Why of forgiveness.
(2) Having given us the blessings and responsibility of free will while knowing full well that we will sin and become mired in estrangement, God lovingly offers us forgiveness in order to reestablish the harmony of creation, something we cannot accomplish through our own efforts.
(3) While God must be considered righteous and just, the absolute sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, has no obligation to demand a blood sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. God, out of love, offers mercy and love to trump harsh justice, punishment, and recompense.
(4) Jesus Christ, through his life and death, shows us how we should live and die in complete obedience to, and in harmony with, God.
(5) Through his life of complete obedience, Jesus Christ inevitably was led to sacrifice in his daily life and on the cross. One aspect of this sacrifice was eschewing the allure of sin available to him by virtue of free will. All of us experience this sacrifice when we do not succumb to temptation and refrain from indulging in desirable evil. Anyone, human or divine-human, who lives in complete obedience to and harmony with God likely will end up on a cross. This end becomes virtually certain when the obedience, like Christ’s, leads to a direct challenge of a major political power and rebellion against the established order.
(6) Sacrifice, even a substitutional or compensatory spilling of blood, does not bring forgiveness of sins. Regret, repentance, and a desire for the alteration of a sin-filled life constitute necessary prerequisites for forgiveness. Sacrifice, therefore, becomes a sign of the sinner’s repentance and forgiveness, not the cause of the forgiveness.
(7) We must comprehend the Incarnation and the suffering life and death of Jesus Christ from two integrated perspectives: (a) God’s mercy and boundless love for creation, and (b) God’s justice as the divine will and power to restore creation and human roles in it.
I do not insist on a complete understanding of how our sins are forgiven, and I will accept some imprecision based upon presently restricted human knowledge. An example from science illustrates my point: For decades we knew through experience that aspirin has many beneficial medicinal properties; however, the mechanism by which this pharmaceutical agent exerted its effect was unknown and only speculated. Not until research in the 1970's led to the Nobel Prize for Sir John Vane did we understand most of the mechanism. Nevertheless, aspirin worked quite well during the period of our ignorance.
The above paradigm for forgiveness and salvation works for me and constitutes a basis for further reflection and exploration. Hey, I’m saved through the grace of God regardless of my paradigm.
Paradigm = a philosophical or theoretical framework or model.
I’m not sure this material will be incorporated into the final version of Through The Wilderness. I base my hesitation on two factors:
(1) Through The Wilderness focuses on posing appropriate questions to obtain useful answers. I haven’t yet defined a question that will generate an answer within the context of this book. Questions and answers relating to the sacrificial/substitutional paradigm carry great importance to me as a professing and struggling Judeo-Christian, irrespective of inclusion in, or exclusion from, Through The Wilderness.
The situation reminds me of a statement (paraphrased) from one of our notable authors/critics of the 20th Century: I don’t know what I think on that subject because I haven’t written about it. (One of these days I’ll find a reference to identify the lady who made this statement.) Perhaps my writing about the sacrificial paradigm or model will generate a question and answer I can incorporate into Through The Wilderness. As usual, I not only solicit but welcome comments and critiques.
(2) Many potential readers of Through The Wilderness quite likely will have severe reservations about, if not outright hostility to, this material that erroneously could be considered to strike at the traditional core of Judeo-Christianity.
I want people to read Through The Wilderness. Conservative and especially fundamentalist religious reviewers could generate negative reviews based upon this published material, which might scare off potential readers of the book. I’m not averse to participating in, or even starting, controversies based upon differing informed opinions; therefore, I may include this material under appropriate circumstances. I wouldn’t want to refrain from incorporating legitimate material solely to preserve readership.
I must note that reservations about the sacrificial, substitutional, or atonement model for salvation began in the early days of Judeo-Christianity and have continued to this time. Again, we may ask, What’s new under the sun? Nevertheless, I have never heard a sermon preached on any model for salvation other than this one, albeit sometimes with the invocation of God’s love. Perhaps I’ve been in the wrong churches?
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS
Which of the following expressions most adequately explains how or why God forgives our sins, thereby leading to our salvation?
(1) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ, the exemplification of Jesus Christ’s great love for us and for God?
(2) The forgiveness of our sins is mediated through the great love Jesus Christ has for us and for God, as exemplified by Jesus Christ’s sacrificial life and death.
To my mind, these two statements offer profoundly different understandings. The first places the weight of forgiveness on the sacrificial life and death of Jesus Christ whereas the second emphasizes the love Jesus Christ has for us and for God as responsible for the forgiveness of our sins. That is, statement (1) more closely corresponds to the traditional sacrificial model for salvation.
SACRIFICIAL MODEL FOR SALVATION
The epistles of St. Paul (C.E. 3 – 62) and those attributed to him perhaps furnish the most extensive rationale for the sacrificial model of salvation:
Romans 3:25 whom (i.e., Jesus Christ) God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his (i.e., Jesus Christ’s) blood.
Romans 5:8-9 God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God.
The sacrificial model can be summarized as follows:
(1) God is both just and merciful.
(2) Our Hebrew ancestors believed animal, including human, life force resides in blood.
(3) The Hebrew Scriptures link the forgiveness of sins with sacrifices to be performed by human sinners.
(4) Although sin offends God’s honor beyond human ability to compensate, God’s justice requires that blood with its life force must be spilled on the altar as compensation for sin. That is, God or God's sense of justice must be appeased in order for humans to escape the consequences of God’s judgment.
(5) Christ’s death (spilling of his blood) on the cross provides a one-time substitution or replacement for blood sacrifices.
(6) The sacrificial and compensatory death of the completely innocent (without sin) Jesus Christ, God’s beloved son, was demanded because only an integrated fully human and fully divine being could repay or atone for the infinite debt of all human sins.
(7) This sacrificial substitution or atonement brings humans and God’s creation back into the perfect unity destroyed by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and reestablishes the mutual loving relationship between God and humans.
RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE SACRIFICIAL MODEL
My first reservations about the sacrificial substitution model probably began in Prof. Franz Joseph Kovar’s Philosophy 101 class during my senior year at LaGrange College. This class was required of all pre-ministerial students at the college. I took the course because of interest and to broaden my horizons beyond a double major in Biology and Chemistry. Although I would have graduated with an additional major in Mathematics had I taken Differential Equations instead of Philosophy 101, the later was, in retrospect, the single most valuable course I studied at LaGrange College.
Prof. Kovar remarked in one class, I do not understand why Christ had to undergo the sacrifice on the cross in order for God to forgive us our sins. Does this cruel sacrifice truly reflect the God of love we are called upon to worship?
Of course this statement infuriated most of the pre-ministerial students. The comment was not a surprise because Prof. Kovar made this declaration each year. Several of the pre-ministerial students, as if on cue, stood up. One announced, We will pray for you, Prof. Kovar, that you might receive the blessing of salvation through the sacrificial blood of Jesus Christ.
Prof. Kovar replied, Pray for yourselves. Praying for others substitutes your arrogance for God’s wisdom.
My next formal discontent with the sacrificial model came when I facilitated an extraordinary Sunday School class at New Horizon United Methodist Church in South Florida. We used the Seasons of the Spirit lectionary-based material for the class. One Easter, the lesson commentary pointed out: Christ had free will and could have refused to die on the cross. If so, God would have continued to forgive sins as God has done throughout human history. Well, that statement was as mind blowing as Prof. Kovar’s declaration.
So, what are my reservations?
(1) My concept of God precludes some grand cosmic plan through which Christ was pre-ordained to come to earth at some future time in order to save us from our sins.
Such a plan would imply that God is both all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-knowing (omniscient), able to see and control events before they happen. To this point, let us consider a human circumstance or condition that could result in only two outcomes, A or B. If God already knows the outcome will be A, then God cannot choose B and, therefore, God cannot be, or chooses not to be, all-powerful. To expand, if God is all powerful and is free to choose either A or B, he cannot foresee the future or he would loose the power to choose. This idea requires considerable thought but is not new with me because it dates back to some of the early Church fathers.
(2) God forgave sins prior to the appearance of Jesus Christ on earth. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with this fact.
(3) Hebrew Scriptures consistently point out that regret, repentance, and the desire henceforth to lead a better, if not sin-free life, must come before any sacrifice: The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm51:17, for instance).
(4) Many Hebrew prophets and Jesus Christ himself inveighed heavily against the Jerusalem Temple, with its Sanhedrin elites, maintaining a monopoly on forgiveness of sins in conjunction with a corrupt sacrificial system.
(5) Once King Solomon completed the Jerusalem Temple, God commanded that it would be the only sanctioned site for Israelites to offer animal sacrifices. Performing sacrifices in any other place was a sin. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE; therefore, Jews to this day offer no more animal sacrifices because to do so would violate God’s prohibition. Accordingly and importantly, Jews believe they receive forgiveness of sins without the requirement of an animal sacrifice and the shedding of innocent blood with its life force. That is, prayer and repentance take the place of sacrifices in Judaism: Take with you words, and turn to the Lord. Say to Him, forgive all iniquity and receive us graciously, so we will offer the words of our lips instead of calves. (Hosea 14:3, for instance).
As an aside, I wonder if the modern day Jews will reestablish animal sacrifice when the Jerusalem Temple is rebuilt on the reclaimed Temple Mount presently occupied by Muslims?
(6) St. Paul himself offers models for salvation in addition to atonement through sacrificial death, including: (a) Ransoming or taking the place of a slave, debtor, or captive; (b) The Incarnation that unites humans and God; and (c) The entire life of Jesus.
Although I have tried to be a faithful and active member of the United Methodist Church since 1960, many of my theologian friends consider me a closet Presbyterian, the faith tradition in which I was raised. I must point out, therefore, that Anselm of Canterbury, generally recognized for his expansion of St. Paul’s sacrificial model, apparently did not emphasize the idea that Christ substitutes of bears the penalty for human sin. Martin Luther and John Calvin promulgated the penal substitution concept some centuries after Anselm. How such an idea ever caught on and became so widespread in its acceptance flummoxes me, and illustrates that not even agreement by the majority of Christians guarantees the correctness or validity of a theological concept.
(7) The sacrificial model promotes violence as sanctified by God and encourages us to submit to violence and suffering in imitation of Christ. (See Mel Gibson’s The Passion Of the Christ).
(8) How can we defend, much less worship, a just, loving, and merciful God who decreed that human sins could not be forgiven except through the condemnation and suffering of the righteous and innocent Jesus Christ? If God had the power to otherwise forgive sin and did not do so, how can we defend God’s wisdom and justice? To insist upon and hew to the sacrificial model means that a cruel and wicked despot pre-ordained innocent suffering and death to be the entire purpose of the Incarnation.
With the above reservations in mind, I totally reject any pleas or threats that I should abandon my God-given intellect and simply accept the traditional sacrificial model because it involves a divine mystery beyond human comprehension. This type of faith truly would be blind.
I think one of St. Augustine’s great dicta applies here, as suitably rephrased to avoid gender-specific language: If persons believe that Holy Scripture contradicts what they observe with their own eyes (i.e., through rationality and intellect), then those persons do not understand what Holy Scripture actually says.
WHY AND HOW DOES GOD FORGIVE SINS?
The Why appears straightforward: God, out of divine love for his creatures, desires reconciliation between himself and us for the estrangement arising from our inappropriate use of free will, i.e. our sins.
The issue of why God bestowed free will upon us has little relevance to the present discussion. Suffice it to say that we have free will as a result of our human condition. If we do not have free will because God pre-ordained and controls all aspects of human endeavors, then we cannot be guilty of sin and would not need salvation. I cover this point in Through The Wilderness.
Perhaps God organized creation in such a way that we humans have free will and, as a compensation for that blessings/responsibility, God also out of love offers us what we Methodists often term Prevenient Grace - after John Wesley.
The How constitutes a thornier issue, which would not be so difficult if the sacrificial model actually applied. Consideration of the How forces us to face squarely our concept of Jesus Christ and his role in our salvation.
I defy anyone to state an unequivocal explanation of Jesus Christ. Starting with, Jesus Christ is the (only) Son of God, won’t work because that statement comes loaded with ambiguity. For instance, how can a divine being give birth to human being? Postulating a construct based upon the Holy Spirit and the idea that Jesus Christ represents a Man-God (fully human and fully divine) contains even more ambiguity.
The fact that we are saved appears clear on the basis of rational faith informed by Holy Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. (OK, as at least a titular Methodist, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to bring in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.) However, the relationship between the suffering and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and our salvation remains imprecise, even elusive.
Despite the imprecision, I offer the following approach for how God forgives our sins, keeping in mind that I am by no means commanding God what to do but commenting only what I think God does:
(1) Our loving God desires harmony and reconciliation with us, as stated above for the Why of forgiveness.
(2) Having given us the blessings and responsibility of free will while knowing full well that we will sin and become mired in estrangement, God lovingly offers us forgiveness in order to reestablish the harmony of creation, something we cannot accomplish through our own efforts.
(3) While God must be considered righteous and just, the absolute sovereign ruler of all that exists, seen and unseen, has no obligation to demand a blood sacrifice to satisfy divine justice. God, out of love, offers mercy and love to trump harsh justice, punishment, and recompense.
(4) Jesus Christ, through his life and death, shows us how we should live and die in complete obedience to, and in harmony with, God.
(5) Through his life of complete obedience, Jesus Christ inevitably was led to sacrifice in his daily life and on the cross. One aspect of this sacrifice was eschewing the allure of sin available to him by virtue of free will. All of us experience this sacrifice when we do not succumb to temptation and refrain from indulging in desirable evil. Anyone, human or divine-human, who lives in complete obedience to and harmony with God likely will end up on a cross. This end becomes virtually certain when the obedience, like Christ’s, leads to a direct challenge of a major political power and rebellion against the established order.
(6) Sacrifice, even a substitutional or compensatory spilling of blood, does not bring forgiveness of sins. Regret, repentance, and a desire for the alteration of a sin-filled life constitute necessary prerequisites for forgiveness. Sacrifice, therefore, becomes a sign of the sinner’s repentance and forgiveness, not the cause of the forgiveness.
(7) We must comprehend the Incarnation and the suffering life and death of Jesus Christ from two integrated perspectives: (a) God’s mercy and boundless love for creation, and (b) God’s justice as the divine will and power to restore creation and human roles in it.
I do not insist on a complete understanding of how our sins are forgiven, and I will accept some imprecision based upon presently restricted human knowledge. An example from science illustrates my point: For decades we knew through experience that aspirin has many beneficial medicinal properties; however, the mechanism by which this pharmaceutical agent exerted its effect was unknown and only speculated. Not until research in the 1970's led to the Nobel Prize for Sir John Vane did we understand most of the mechanism. Nevertheless, aspirin worked quite well during the period of our ignorance.
The above paradigm for forgiveness and salvation works for me and constitutes a basis for further reflection and exploration. Hey, I’m saved through the grace of God regardless of my paradigm.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
THROUGH THE WILDERNESS: CHAPTER 2
HUMAN FREE WILL: A GREAT GIFT OR AN ILLUSION?
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future”. Jeremiah 29:11
Holy Scripture presents two apparently contradictory and competing visions about how humans function within God’s created order – as the beneficiaries of free will versus vassals of predetermination (1):
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life---Deuteronomy 30:19
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30
Holy Scripture contains many verses that appear to support determinism or predestination, the doctrine that God decided from the beginning about everything that will happen, especially who goes to heaven or hell, and that humans can do nothing to change the course of events. God, through continuously executed prearranged purposes, meticulously controls what will happen to each person and nation. In essence, God must have the characteristics of an infinitely powerful computer capable of coordinating and integrating all events.
In keeping with their implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of predestination, sincere Judeo-Christians often express their faith with affirmations such as “If God closes a door, he will open a window;” “We didn’t pray hard enough, so God didn’t give us what we asked for;” and God has a plan for me.” These types of expressions reflect an underlying trust that our all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) God “sees” time - past, present, and future – as a unified whole or continuum in order to exert control at all levels of creation. We may, therefore, legitimately ask if humans actually possess the ability to act as free and autonomous beings? Put another way, do God’s designs preclude human free will, which at best could be only an illusion?
Reading “between the lines” reveals free will as a constant theme that runs throughout Holy Scripture: God tells us what is expected and says what will happen as consequences of our actions; but, divine edicts do not force us to select obedience or disobedience, good or evil. At our beginning, God permitted Adam and Eve the option, even when tempted by the Serpent, to eat or not to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Similarly, God told the Israelites to choose life or death, blessings or curses, with respect to obeying the Ten Commandments. Later Jesus firmly proclaimed what God wants us to do (Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. And---love our neighbors as ourselves.). Yet, no evidence shows that we are coerced onto this specific pathway. God did not form us as mindless automatons but implanted the capacity for free will within our genetic makeup. I confidently make this last statement with full awareness of the continuing controversy over the relative importance of heredity versus environment (nature versus nurture) and the contention of some scientists that the codes in our DNA predetermine not only who we are but also what we think and how we act.
Many theological treatises and discussions have attempted to reconcile the two concepts of predetermination and free will, including the proposition that human and cosmic realms are separate. That is, we may have free will on some aspects of our existence so that we may, of our own volition, brush or not brush our teeth today whereas we cannot affect cosmic phenomena or God’s original judgment as to which individuals were pre-selected or “elected” to receive salvation.
Judeo-Christians with expertise in physics postulate that the statistical uncertainty embedded in Quantum Mechanics might produce a reconciliation or synthesis between free will and determinism. I prefer a simpler approach, to cut through the discourses that mask the real issue: If we do not have free will, we cannot make choices because all is predetermined; if all is predetermined, we have no accountability; without accountability, we have no guilt for our sins; in the absence of guilt, we do not need the saving grace of Jesus Christ; and, hence, the entire structure of Judeo-Christianity collapses.
To my mind, an additional simplifying consideration argues for human free will: Suppose an individual human being faces a decision about future actions limited to only two choices, A or B. If God has the ability to foresee the future and already knows the individual will choose A, then God cannot be all powerful because God cannot direct the individual to make choice B. The only way God can be all powerful (or, at least extremely powerful) requires that the human must have unrestricted free will to choose A or B. This line of reasoning argues that God cannot be (or, chooses not to be) both all powerful and all knowing with the ability to foresee the future.(2) Accordingly, we can rationally infer that God embedded human free will into creation.
I believe God created and maintains the cosmos and all therein according to principles that, as our knowledge and understanding develop, we define as scientific laws. These laws apply not only to the “hard” or mathematically based sciences such as physics but also to biology, which is becoming increasingly and appropriately mathematical. I can resonate with calling these laws, “God’s Design or Plan”. I firmly reject, however, any notion that God violates the gift of human free will with a “program” that spells out in precise detail how I will react in every situation and, further, specifies my ultimate fate through foreknowledge and predestination.
Some Judeo-Christians experience traumatic insecurity when their belief that God directs all human activities is challenged. I cannot contemplate worshiping a tyrannical, loveless, and merciless deity who fashioned me without free will. At best this deity would be indifferent to human affairs, much like the Creator envisioned by the Deists (3). Rather than anxiety-provoking, I find the preeminence of free will liberating, albeit sobering. In summary, I think free will must be an integral component of God’s plan or predetermined design. That is, God designed and created humans from the beginning with the capacity for free will.
The above comments will neither resolve the differing views on predetermination versus free will nor do they offer an explicit way to reconcile the two perspectives. While I come down squarely in support of free will, reframing the question might possibly yield answers that will enable us to move forward together: Living our lives in accordance with which concept, predetermination or free will, better allows us to be co-creators with God?
If all in the cosmos is preordained, we have no obligation to work or co-create with God because we cannot influence events. We may then logically withdraw and, in effect, tell God: “Hey don’t bother me, everything is your responsibility.” If humans have free will, we can be co-creators with God by our own choosing. What role would the Community of Believers have in our co-creative endeavors? Teaching and helping us to make truly informed choices that will bring the Kingdom of God to fruition here on earth.
The struggle for worldwide domination between Fascism and the Western Democracies illustrates the economic and political implications arising from the contrasting views of free will and determinism. Some people believe this confrontation is, or inevitably will evolve into, a war between civilizations.
Fascism refers to an ideology that rejects ideas such as freedom and individual rights. Fascists advocate the elimination of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Under Fascism, the state or religious authorities direct and attempt to control all human activities through central planning and, if necessary, harsh application of force to implement the government’s dictates. Heretofore, Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler and Italy under Benito Mussolini best exemplified Fascism. Socialism and Communism can be regarded as offshoots of Fascism because of their similar commitment to central planning at the expense of a free market.
Today, Islamofascism represents an extreme manifestation of this repressive anti-modern ideology. Islamofascists come from a perverted branch of Islamic fundamentalism, consider themselves the moral guardians and saviors of their societies, and profoundly mistrust all notions of human progress as contrary to Allah’s divine action and intervention in the world. All nations must fulfill the will of Allah, which only Islamofascists possess the qualifications to interpret. Islamofascists intend to use all means possible, even violence and military conquest, to form a one-world government under Islamic authority.
Democracy and capitalism foundationally incorporate and rest upon principles derived from the doctrine of free will. In these systems, humans have the right to make choices, hopefully informed ones, and must live with the outcomes of those decisions. Neither democracy nor capitalism can exist without freedom of choice. Although some persons contend that many Western Democracies have been “tainted” by socialism, I argue that these societies, especially the democratic republic of the United States of America, provide the best current examples of free will in the political and economic spheres. The US Constitution can be easily viewed as a document producing a political system designed to ensure that the will of the majority is carried out through fair elections (4). As in the moral and theological arenas, participants in democratic and capitalistic societies have the right and responsibility to exert their free will, sometimes with beneficial outcomes and sometimes with less than desirable results. Nevertheless, free will rather than coercion drives the process.
(1) Although theologians and philosophers can sometimes usefully distinguish between determinism, predetermination, predestination, pre-ordination, pre-selection, and pre-election, I will use the terms more or less interchangeably. As a bottom line, these terms relate to the idea that, at the beginning of creation and perhaps before this mighty act, God specified all future events, including who would receive salvation, and the ultimate fate of the cosmos. Thus, God has a macro design for the cosmos and micro plans for each individual. In each case, no matter what humans do, the divine design and plans will be carried out.
(2) Greg Easterbrook in Beside Still Waters, pp. 160 – 187, gives an elegant exposition of this concept, and how God appears to grand and majestic, even infinite but is not all powerful.
(3) Reference to preceding Chapter.
(4) As presented in Chapter X, a major task of the Community of Believers in a democratic republic focuses on bringing the majority of citizens into that Community through proclaiming, professing to, witnessing to, and serving the risen Christ so that the free will of the electoral process produces a government and society completely consistent with the precepts of the Kingdom of God.
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future”. Jeremiah 29:11
Holy Scripture presents two apparently contradictory and competing visions about how humans function within God’s created order – as the beneficiaries of free will versus vassals of predetermination (1):
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life---Deuteronomy 30:19
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30
Holy Scripture contains many verses that appear to support determinism or predestination, the doctrine that God decided from the beginning about everything that will happen, especially who goes to heaven or hell, and that humans can do nothing to change the course of events. God, through continuously executed prearranged purposes, meticulously controls what will happen to each person and nation. In essence, God must have the characteristics of an infinitely powerful computer capable of coordinating and integrating all events.
In keeping with their implicit, if not explicit, acceptance of predestination, sincere Judeo-Christians often express their faith with affirmations such as “If God closes a door, he will open a window;” “We didn’t pray hard enough, so God didn’t give us what we asked for;” and God has a plan for me.” These types of expressions reflect an underlying trust that our all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and everywhere present (omnipresent) God “sees” time - past, present, and future – as a unified whole or continuum in order to exert control at all levels of creation. We may, therefore, legitimately ask if humans actually possess the ability to act as free and autonomous beings? Put another way, do God’s designs preclude human free will, which at best could be only an illusion?
Reading “between the lines” reveals free will as a constant theme that runs throughout Holy Scripture: God tells us what is expected and says what will happen as consequences of our actions; but, divine edicts do not force us to select obedience or disobedience, good or evil. At our beginning, God permitted Adam and Eve the option, even when tempted by the Serpent, to eat or not to eat fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Similarly, God told the Israelites to choose life or death, blessings or curses, with respect to obeying the Ten Commandments. Later Jesus firmly proclaimed what God wants us to do (Love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. And---love our neighbors as ourselves.). Yet, no evidence shows that we are coerced onto this specific pathway. God did not form us as mindless automatons but implanted the capacity for free will within our genetic makeup. I confidently make this last statement with full awareness of the continuing controversy over the relative importance of heredity versus environment (nature versus nurture) and the contention of some scientists that the codes in our DNA predetermine not only who we are but also what we think and how we act.
Many theological treatises and discussions have attempted to reconcile the two concepts of predetermination and free will, including the proposition that human and cosmic realms are separate. That is, we may have free will on some aspects of our existence so that we may, of our own volition, brush or not brush our teeth today whereas we cannot affect cosmic phenomena or God’s original judgment as to which individuals were pre-selected or “elected” to receive salvation.
Judeo-Christians with expertise in physics postulate that the statistical uncertainty embedded in Quantum Mechanics might produce a reconciliation or synthesis between free will and determinism. I prefer a simpler approach, to cut through the discourses that mask the real issue: If we do not have free will, we cannot make choices because all is predetermined; if all is predetermined, we have no accountability; without accountability, we have no guilt for our sins; in the absence of guilt, we do not need the saving grace of Jesus Christ; and, hence, the entire structure of Judeo-Christianity collapses.
To my mind, an additional simplifying consideration argues for human free will: Suppose an individual human being faces a decision about future actions limited to only two choices, A or B. If God has the ability to foresee the future and already knows the individual will choose A, then God cannot be all powerful because God cannot direct the individual to make choice B. The only way God can be all powerful (or, at least extremely powerful) requires that the human must have unrestricted free will to choose A or B. This line of reasoning argues that God cannot be (or, chooses not to be) both all powerful and all knowing with the ability to foresee the future.(2) Accordingly, we can rationally infer that God embedded human free will into creation.
I believe God created and maintains the cosmos and all therein according to principles that, as our knowledge and understanding develop, we define as scientific laws. These laws apply not only to the “hard” or mathematically based sciences such as physics but also to biology, which is becoming increasingly and appropriately mathematical. I can resonate with calling these laws, “God’s Design or Plan”. I firmly reject, however, any notion that God violates the gift of human free will with a “program” that spells out in precise detail how I will react in every situation and, further, specifies my ultimate fate through foreknowledge and predestination.
Some Judeo-Christians experience traumatic insecurity when their belief that God directs all human activities is challenged. I cannot contemplate worshiping a tyrannical, loveless, and merciless deity who fashioned me without free will. At best this deity would be indifferent to human affairs, much like the Creator envisioned by the Deists (3). Rather than anxiety-provoking, I find the preeminence of free will liberating, albeit sobering. In summary, I think free will must be an integral component of God’s plan or predetermined design. That is, God designed and created humans from the beginning with the capacity for free will.
The above comments will neither resolve the differing views on predetermination versus free will nor do they offer an explicit way to reconcile the two perspectives. While I come down squarely in support of free will, reframing the question might possibly yield answers that will enable us to move forward together: Living our lives in accordance with which concept, predetermination or free will, better allows us to be co-creators with God?
If all in the cosmos is preordained, we have no obligation to work or co-create with God because we cannot influence events. We may then logically withdraw and, in effect, tell God: “Hey don’t bother me, everything is your responsibility.” If humans have free will, we can be co-creators with God by our own choosing. What role would the Community of Believers have in our co-creative endeavors? Teaching and helping us to make truly informed choices that will bring the Kingdom of God to fruition here on earth.
The struggle for worldwide domination between Fascism and the Western Democracies illustrates the economic and political implications arising from the contrasting views of free will and determinism. Some people believe this confrontation is, or inevitably will evolve into, a war between civilizations.
Fascism refers to an ideology that rejects ideas such as freedom and individual rights. Fascists advocate the elimination of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Under Fascism, the state or religious authorities direct and attempt to control all human activities through central planning and, if necessary, harsh application of force to implement the government’s dictates. Heretofore, Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler and Italy under Benito Mussolini best exemplified Fascism. Socialism and Communism can be regarded as offshoots of Fascism because of their similar commitment to central planning at the expense of a free market.
Today, Islamofascism represents an extreme manifestation of this repressive anti-modern ideology. Islamofascists come from a perverted branch of Islamic fundamentalism, consider themselves the moral guardians and saviors of their societies, and profoundly mistrust all notions of human progress as contrary to Allah’s divine action and intervention in the world. All nations must fulfill the will of Allah, which only Islamofascists possess the qualifications to interpret. Islamofascists intend to use all means possible, even violence and military conquest, to form a one-world government under Islamic authority.
Democracy and capitalism foundationally incorporate and rest upon principles derived from the doctrine of free will. In these systems, humans have the right to make choices, hopefully informed ones, and must live with the outcomes of those decisions. Neither democracy nor capitalism can exist without freedom of choice. Although some persons contend that many Western Democracies have been “tainted” by socialism, I argue that these societies, especially the democratic republic of the United States of America, provide the best current examples of free will in the political and economic spheres. The US Constitution can be easily viewed as a document producing a political system designed to ensure that the will of the majority is carried out through fair elections (4). As in the moral and theological arenas, participants in democratic and capitalistic societies have the right and responsibility to exert their free will, sometimes with beneficial outcomes and sometimes with less than desirable results. Nevertheless, free will rather than coercion drives the process.
(1) Although theologians and philosophers can sometimes usefully distinguish between determinism, predetermination, predestination, pre-ordination, pre-selection, and pre-election, I will use the terms more or less interchangeably. As a bottom line, these terms relate to the idea that, at the beginning of creation and perhaps before this mighty act, God specified all future events, including who would receive salvation, and the ultimate fate of the cosmos. Thus, God has a macro design for the cosmos and micro plans for each individual. In each case, no matter what humans do, the divine design and plans will be carried out.
(2) Greg Easterbrook in Beside Still Waters, pp. 160 – 187, gives an elegant exposition of this concept, and how God appears to grand and majestic, even infinite but is not all powerful.
(3) Reference to preceding Chapter.
(4) As presented in Chapter X, a major task of the Community of Believers in a democratic republic focuses on bringing the majority of citizens into that Community through proclaiming, professing to, witnessing to, and serving the risen Christ so that the free will of the electoral process produces a government and society completely consistent with the precepts of the Kingdom of God.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Establishment of Traversing The Wilderness
For some time, especially since I was "fired" from my non-paying position as an opinion columnist for our local weekly newspaper, The Franklin County Citizen, family members and several friends have urged me to set up a blog. I decided to go with two blogs, this one and a daily blog (www.thefrosolonopatriarch.blogspot.com) that will encompass posts not directly related to my next book, Through The Wilderness.
I doubt that the few local KDP's (knuckle-dragging Philistines) who exerted "economic" pressure on the upper management of the newspaper chain that owns The Citizen have sufficient computer literacy to find this blog, much less agitate to have me removed from Blogspot. I was "fired" from The Citizen because, in the mistaken opinion of the KDP's, I am a pointy-headed liberal, elitist, secular humanist traveling under the false colors of a Christian, as reflected in my columns. Well, the Net accommodates a vide variety of opinions.
I cannot emphasize too strongly my desire for readers of this blog to make comments of aggreement, disagreement, etc. I anticipate that many comments will improve Through The Wilderness. That is, the posted chapters are drafts, definitely not final versions. While I prefer that comments be posted on this blog, thay also may be sent to me at www.frosolono@gumlog.net, with the understanding that I may post them on the blog myself. If anyone sends comments to me at my E-mail address and does not want to be identified as the author, I'll make the blog posts under the title, A Commentator.
Following this post are Through The Wilderness Introduction and Chapter 1, and a posting about Good and Evil, some of which will be included in a subsequent chapter of the book.
I doubt that the few local KDP's (knuckle-dragging Philistines) who exerted "economic" pressure on the upper management of the newspaper chain that owns The Citizen have sufficient computer literacy to find this blog, much less agitate to have me removed from Blogspot. I was "fired" from The Citizen because, in the mistaken opinion of the KDP's, I am a pointy-headed liberal, elitist, secular humanist traveling under the false colors of a Christian, as reflected in my columns. Well, the Net accommodates a vide variety of opinions.
I cannot emphasize too strongly my desire for readers of this blog to make comments of aggreement, disagreement, etc. I anticipate that many comments will improve Through The Wilderness. That is, the posted chapters are drafts, definitely not final versions. While I prefer that comments be posted on this blog, thay also may be sent to me at www.frosolono@gumlog.net, with the understanding that I may post them on the blog myself. If anyone sends comments to me at my E-mail address and does not want to be identified as the author, I'll make the blog posts under the title, A Commentator.
Following this post are Through The Wilderness Introduction and Chapter 1, and a posting about Good and Evil, some of which will be included in a subsequent chapter of the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
