Individualism, particularly in its modern forms, is a toxic plague to the Western world. It has produced generation after generation of persons raised to believe they could behave as they wished with little to no consequences. Persons who saw themselves as the locus of their social circles and their own achievements as having prime importance. These tendencies may seem harmless enough, but on a societal scale they produce an unsustainable set of cultural values. If people believe they are totally independent of one another, they will not care for one another. This idea can be broadly termed apathetic individualism since it is the individual who has no interest in their fellow citizens thoughts, ideas or behaviors and the value that this is the way society should be.
Apathetic Individualism is what I call a micro-worldview, because people hold it in isolation to other ideas and ideologies, which do not appear to cohere together. For instance, clearly no one believes that we shouldn't care what our family members think or how our friends feel. This principle is meant to be applied to strangers and society at large. Even still, this idea has extremely unsettling implications. These include; the complete deconstruction of community, the elimination of humility as a virtue and the decoherence of personal rights and liberties.
Destruction of Community;
Broadly speaking a community is a group of people attached by common experience, identity, interests, goals etc. By definition then, a community cannot exist where each individual sees their own experience, identity, interests and goals as set a part from and against all other individuals. This belief is not only toxic to communities, it's absolutely lethal.
Granted, there is the qualification noted above that this micro-worldview is not universally applicable. However, even though there are the exceptions of friends and family, these exceptions appear completely arbitrary. This is because the reasoning used to establish the claim that we shouldn't care what other people think is generally the power others have over us if we do care what they think.
To unpack this reasoning a bit more, suppose that someone is in an argument with their significant other. Suppose further that this someone yells at their partner that they are worthless, ugly and unlovable. A reasonable reaction of this someone's partner would be to deny having any emotional investment in said someone's opinion. In other words, denying that she cared what he thought. To admit we care about one another's opinion of us then, is to give them power over us. However, the people closest to us then have the most power over us since we, by definition, care more about what they think. So if this reasoning is to be applied anywhere, it should be applied to our family and friends.
Moreover, to suggest that we should not care what others think of us because we cannot afford to allow them to have any power or influence over us, is to suggest that others having power over us is bad. Thus, hidden in this idea is the assumption that we should be completely free of the influence of others. In other words, to be a completely self-empowered individual.
The Elimination of Humility;
Supposing the ethic that we should be a completely self-empowered individual is true, it seems also to follow that we should believe our individuality and self-expression is of the upmost importance. This is incompatible with the traditional view that humility is to be valued. Humility, if it is to be defined with any meaning, must carry with it the notion that we ought not to think of ourselves too much, nor think too much of ourselves.
Humility then, requires a right and proportional view of oneself in contrast and with respect to one's community and society at large. However, if we ought not to care what others think of us, then we must see our selves only in relation to ourselves. In other words, we are self-defining and self-empowered. Self-expression, no matter how belligerent or inconsiderate, must be seen as appropriate and even encouraged.
The Decoherence of Human rights and liberties;
To say someone has a right is to say that they deserve an object or service. Conversely, to say someone has a liberty is to say they deserve to be allowed to perform an action, provide a service or possess an object. Simultaneously, to say someone deserves something is to say someone else owes them said thing.
Given these ideas, to say we shouldn't care what other people think creates a self-defeating view of human rights and liberties. This is because such views discourage and demonize virtually any action which gives one person power over another. So if I deserve money from another person, I need them to give me that amount of money. But supposing they fail to do so I am left vulnerable. Conversely, if I owe another person a certain amount of money, I am obligated to give them said amount of money and if I fail to do so, I can be punished or discredited as a member of the community.
Furthermore, if we shouldn't care what others think of us or what they think in general, it seems natural to dually suppose that we shouldn't care what they think they deserve from us. We should only care about what we deserve; self-expression and empowerment. But here's the rub; how can we care about what we deserve without also caring about what others think about what they owe us? Liberties and rights, then, do not make sense given the micro-worldview that we shouldn't bother ourselves about the thoughts and opinions of others.
With the decoherence of human rights and liberties, the elimination of humility and the deconstruction of communities, it is difficult to see how society could possibly function. Society, by definition, involves a group of people interacting with one another but if we fail to value the beliefs of others, then we fail to interact with them on any meaningful level. The conclusion of all of this is simply that if the micro-worldview described above is absolutized, it leads to the complete unraveling of society itself. This should, at the very least, lead us to question the validity of apathetic individualism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional clarifications and discussion;
It is clear that people don't hold to the worldview that we ought not care what others think in isolation. Many would argue that we should choose carefully who we care about and whose opinions we value. This position appears to make a great deal of sense, at least more sense than simply believing that others opinions don't matter. However, this also carries with it at least 2 main difficulties. Firstly that others opinions affect us whether we choose to value them or not and secondly that choosing whose opinions we value seems to assume that we already have the self-empowerment to choose whose opinions matter to us.
With regard to the first difficulty, it is a matter of fact that we cannot live in isolation. Other people's beliefs and opinions impact us on a day to day basis on every level of life. The president of the United States along with Congress can decide to implement a draft into the military in order to go to war. The way our neighbors and coworkers vote affects the laws which we must abide. The attitudes of drivers around us on our way to work, largely govern their behavior on the road and our reactions to them. We cannot simply announce that these people's opinions hold no value in our lives. The fact is, to function in society, we must value the opinions of others whether we recognize it or not.
This leads to the second difficulty, which is closely related to the first. To believe we can choose whose opinions we value is to assume that we have the power to choose who affects our lives or not. To value something is to give it significance and meaning. So to say you have the power to choose whose beliefs and opinions matter to you is to assume that you distribute meaning and significance to other people. When stated explicitly, this appears to be absurd and completely ridiculous because it is absurd and completely ridiculous.
If we do not have the power to choose who affects us and who does not, then we are forced to care about what others think about us and about everything and everyone we interact with on a daily basis. If we must care about what others think then we must reject apathetic individualism. Given this, we should also reject even the view that we should simply choose carefully whose opinion we value.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Better Viewpoint;
Given the conclusions above, it seems that we should care about everyone's opinion equally. Clearly this will not do, merely because it is not possible. We cannot value a stranger we are not even aware of in the same way we value our parents or siblings even though the actions and opinions of both can affect us a great deal. The better viewpoint then is to place a subjective sort of value on the opinions and values of certain people more than others, purely on the basis of our limitations, not our importance. I value the opinion of my father, not because I simply desire to bless him but because he brought me into this world and so he deserves my respect. I won't value the opinions of a total stranger as much because I have no connection to them and so have fewer obligations to them. I must value that which is actually most important to me, not what appeals to me the most. I do not matter in the grand scheme of things, I only matter in relation to those who value me.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Responsibility vs Independance; A Case Study in Evangelical Culture
http://www.faithit.com/can-you-really-live-life-significance-without-significant-other-um-yes-because-god/?c=tsal
Throughout our culture there is a permeable tension between having duties to others and desiring to be completely autonomous, independent and worry free. We simultaneously encourage the formation of families (understood as a group bonding through blood relation, social roles and mutual obligation) and living an adventurous life, free of responsibilities to others. In Evangelicalism, this tension becomes particularly prevalent. For most of the 20th century, Evangelicals have shared the belief that raising a family is always better than not doing so. Interestingly, in the 21st century this tendency is being reversed. Take the article above where the author tries to argue that both singleness and marriage are good things. But is it really that simple, where the answer is just that both are equally good? I don't think so, it seems instead that there are numerous ethical issues at play. These include; responsibilities to parents and ancestors, spiritual/vocational calling, and the merits of individualism.
Responsibilities to parents and ancestors;
A great sin of western culture is it's whole-sale elimination of familial pride/identity. In other words, we don't think of ourselves as owing our parents anything. We don't gain pride from our families, so much as embarrassment. Think, for instance, about your last name. What does it mean to you? Not much probably, but up until the late 19th century last names meant a great deal to people. Your family name carried with it honor, shame and tradition.
When it comes to marriage, we don't think of ourselves as needing to carry on our family lineage. But don't we have real obligations to do so? Christ, nor Paul, nor any of the apostles gave any command to follow our family traditions, but they did seem to hold the general attitude that we should reform only that which needs to be reformed. Take the book of Philemon, where Paul addresses the issue of slavery. He does not call slaves to rebellion, nor masters to set their slaves free. Paul new that doing so would cause needless death and suffering. Instead, Paul encouraged peace, kindness and gentleness between a slave and his master. The traditions of slavery were not the problem, but the abuse slave owners bestowed on their slaves was.
Should we not act in the same way towards our parents? Is it not an abuse to our parents and family lineage to simply throw out all of their traditions for the sake of individuality? I believe it is, reform should be sought perhaps, but we should try to carry on our family lineages and carry on the traditions we were raised with. This clearly means being married and raising children, so in many cases I would argue that marriage is better than singleness.
Spiritual/vocational calling;
Now the backlash, or the flip-side to the reasoning shown above, is the clear priority of Christ above family. This is taught in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." How do we reconcile this chain of thinking with Paul's attitudes described above? It seems to me that a bit of context is necessary here. First of all, Jesus is clearly using hyperbole here, otherwise he completely contradicts himself in his statement to Nicodemus in Mark 12:30-31. Second of all, Jesus is speaking to Jews, whose families would never support them following some miracle worker claiming to be the Messiah who would later found a religion bent on radically changing traditional Judaism.
The point then seems to be that there are necessary changes to be made in following Christ. If your family is hostile towards the gospel, you must be able to leave your family in pursuit of the gospel. Now, this clearly does not mean that if our parents are unsupportive of us sharing the gospel, we must completely denounce them. Nor does this mean that we must all become radical evangelists, traveling the world in pursuit of sharing the gospel to foreign nations. On the contrary, we are called by Christ to be sober in our thinking and to realize the gravity of the decisions we make.
17Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them (1 Corinthians 7:17-20 NIV).
The Merits of Individualism;
The passage above leaves an eerie stench in the nose of any self-appraised individualist. There is a deep sense in Christianity that our lives do not belong to us, despite what our culture tells us. At the same time, Christianity has traditionally encouraged total submission to God and commitment to Christ as a member of His body; the Church. The great culture war, however, is not between the Church and "secular" culture, but is most prominent within the Church.
On the one hand, individualism seems to fill the Church with a rejuvenated energy unseen for many decades. It allows for a self-empowered framework of preaching where every Christian is crucially important for the spreading of the gospel and every Christian holds the power of the gospel and the life of Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Knowing God personally and being known by God under this framework is the core of the Christian life, as well as being empowered by God to make a difference. To our minds these statements just seem basic; they are obviously true, what other way is there to describe the gospel? This narrow mindedness, however, is precisely individualisms downfall. It's too narrow in its scope and too shallow in its interests. As such, individualism brings with it a great deal of blind spots. It allows ideas to seep in without notice, patterns of thought to take hold without much reflection and action to be encouraged without hesitation.
When it comes to marriage, individualism can be incredibly harmful, not only in what marriage means but in deciding whether or not to become married. The focus becomes entirely on how marriage fits in with my personal plan and God's personal schedule for my life. Take the article posted above. The only factor that matters is your personal situation, where God has a specific "season" in mind for both marriage and singleness. I'm afraid this attitude is too simplistic, the question of marriage does depend on the situation a person is in. However, there are also underlying philosophies which help us make sense of our situations in order to decide which "season" we are in.
Deciding to pursue marriage or not is not a purely individual decision. Marriage does not occur in a vacuum. Our decisions on marriage, therefore, must take into account our family status, our calling by God, our family traditions and our standing in the Church. Our responsibility in these matters is not only to our prospective spouse, but also all those with whom we live and love. In some cases this requires us to remain single, in others we are called by God to be married. In both, God has given us the ability to discern His will for our lives.
Throughout our culture there is a permeable tension between having duties to others and desiring to be completely autonomous, independent and worry free. We simultaneously encourage the formation of families (understood as a group bonding through blood relation, social roles and mutual obligation) and living an adventurous life, free of responsibilities to others. In Evangelicalism, this tension becomes particularly prevalent. For most of the 20th century, Evangelicals have shared the belief that raising a family is always better than not doing so. Interestingly, in the 21st century this tendency is being reversed. Take the article above where the author tries to argue that both singleness and marriage are good things. But is it really that simple, where the answer is just that both are equally good? I don't think so, it seems instead that there are numerous ethical issues at play. These include; responsibilities to parents and ancestors, spiritual/vocational calling, and the merits of individualism.
Responsibilities to parents and ancestors;
A great sin of western culture is it's whole-sale elimination of familial pride/identity. In other words, we don't think of ourselves as owing our parents anything. We don't gain pride from our families, so much as embarrassment. Think, for instance, about your last name. What does it mean to you? Not much probably, but up until the late 19th century last names meant a great deal to people. Your family name carried with it honor, shame and tradition.
When it comes to marriage, we don't think of ourselves as needing to carry on our family lineage. But don't we have real obligations to do so? Christ, nor Paul, nor any of the apostles gave any command to follow our family traditions, but they did seem to hold the general attitude that we should reform only that which needs to be reformed. Take the book of Philemon, where Paul addresses the issue of slavery. He does not call slaves to rebellion, nor masters to set their slaves free. Paul new that doing so would cause needless death and suffering. Instead, Paul encouraged peace, kindness and gentleness between a slave and his master. The traditions of slavery were not the problem, but the abuse slave owners bestowed on their slaves was.
Should we not act in the same way towards our parents? Is it not an abuse to our parents and family lineage to simply throw out all of their traditions for the sake of individuality? I believe it is, reform should be sought perhaps, but we should try to carry on our family lineages and carry on the traditions we were raised with. This clearly means being married and raising children, so in many cases I would argue that marriage is better than singleness.
Spiritual/vocational calling;
Now the backlash, or the flip-side to the reasoning shown above, is the clear priority of Christ above family. This is taught in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." How do we reconcile this chain of thinking with Paul's attitudes described above? It seems to me that a bit of context is necessary here. First of all, Jesus is clearly using hyperbole here, otherwise he completely contradicts himself in his statement to Nicodemus in Mark 12:30-31. Second of all, Jesus is speaking to Jews, whose families would never support them following some miracle worker claiming to be the Messiah who would later found a religion bent on radically changing traditional Judaism.
The point then seems to be that there are necessary changes to be made in following Christ. If your family is hostile towards the gospel, you must be able to leave your family in pursuit of the gospel. Now, this clearly does not mean that if our parents are unsupportive of us sharing the gospel, we must completely denounce them. Nor does this mean that we must all become radical evangelists, traveling the world in pursuit of sharing the gospel to foreign nations. On the contrary, we are called by Christ to be sober in our thinking and to realize the gravity of the decisions we make.
17Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them (1 Corinthians 7:17-20 NIV).
The Merits of Individualism;
The passage above leaves an eerie stench in the nose of any self-appraised individualist. There is a deep sense in Christianity that our lives do not belong to us, despite what our culture tells us. At the same time, Christianity has traditionally encouraged total submission to God and commitment to Christ as a member of His body; the Church. The great culture war, however, is not between the Church and "secular" culture, but is most prominent within the Church.
On the one hand, individualism seems to fill the Church with a rejuvenated energy unseen for many decades. It allows for a self-empowered framework of preaching where every Christian is crucially important for the spreading of the gospel and every Christian holds the power of the gospel and the life of Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Knowing God personally and being known by God under this framework is the core of the Christian life, as well as being empowered by God to make a difference. To our minds these statements just seem basic; they are obviously true, what other way is there to describe the gospel? This narrow mindedness, however, is precisely individualisms downfall. It's too narrow in its scope and too shallow in its interests. As such, individualism brings with it a great deal of blind spots. It allows ideas to seep in without notice, patterns of thought to take hold without much reflection and action to be encouraged without hesitation.
When it comes to marriage, individualism can be incredibly harmful, not only in what marriage means but in deciding whether or not to become married. The focus becomes entirely on how marriage fits in with my personal plan and God's personal schedule for my life. Take the article posted above. The only factor that matters is your personal situation, where God has a specific "season" in mind for both marriage and singleness. I'm afraid this attitude is too simplistic, the question of marriage does depend on the situation a person is in. However, there are also underlying philosophies which help us make sense of our situations in order to decide which "season" we are in.
Deciding to pursue marriage or not is not a purely individual decision. Marriage does not occur in a vacuum. Our decisions on marriage, therefore, must take into account our family status, our calling by God, our family traditions and our standing in the Church. Our responsibility in these matters is not only to our prospective spouse, but also all those with whom we live and love. In some cases this requires us to remain single, in others we are called by God to be married. In both, God has given us the ability to discern His will for our lives.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Misunderstanding honor/shame cultures;
http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/overcoming-the-culture-of-shame/
But is this really true? And how could it be true when the first Christian communities abided by an honor-shame system? The answer is simply that Louie doesn’t understand that there are different kinds of honor-shame systems. His main argument against shame based cultures is that they are emotionally stifling, that is they don’t allow us to express normal emotions. He writes,
Louie is confusing shame with its particular expression in Asian culture. Even accepting all the psychological claims (which all assume a hyper-individualist culture is best), not all honor-shame cultures see expressing emotional distress or anguish as a shameful act. During the time of Christ, for instance, Jews and many other Mediterranean societies saw nothing wrong with crying in public after being disgraced or tearing your clothes in anguish over a tragedy or wrongdoing (Pilch & Malina, Handbook of Biblical Social Values p 56)
All this being said, of course there are legitimate issues and social problems caused by honor-shame cultures. For instance, group cohesion and solidarity often causes groups to become extremely exclusive and in some cases even violent against other groups. But just because a cultural system has a tendency towards causing these problems doesn’t mean that we should just throw out the entire system! After all, we live in an individualistic society and there are just as many social problems today as there ever was in any collectivist society; depression, suicide, mass shootings, sexual slavery, gang wars, drugs etc.
“Shame is a perverse and distorted belief that we are inherently unworthy of love.” This is where much of psychology and Biblical teaching clash, even though no one seems to want to admit it. Scripture does teach that we are inherently unworthy of love and that we do deserved to be punished eternally. Psychologists are almost universally against this mentality, calling it damaging and dangerous to our mental health. It may be damaging to our mental health if being healthy means being happy. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. You can believe that you deserve punishment while still desiring to be reconciled to God and the Church. This is the entire point of mercy and grace.
The true gospel of psychology; God can make you feel better about yourself. What nonsense.
Sam Louie, a therapist specializing in overcoming addictive behaviors, writes in this article why shame based cultures are actually damaging to Christian communities. He states at one point,
Because he is elevated above any nation, tribe, or ethnic identity that tries to hold us back spiritually, Christ offers forgiveness and mercy with the power to break the bonds of cultural shame. As Christians, then, we can live in authentic community that gives us the freedom to risk exposing our vulnerabilities to one another. Members of the body of Christ must be free to acknowledge our hurts and struggles so we can be known and healed.
In psychological circles we call this a "false self," because the reality and vitality of life is cut off from the person who refuses to acknowledge any feelings or thoughts deemed unacceptable to them or their culture. For millions of Asians, this false self is a defense and construct needed to protect the ego as we strive to earn approval and acceptance. Unless it is confronted and torn down, the individual will stay locked in a cycle of cultural shame that can stifle his soul that craves to be released from bondage.
All this being said, of course there are legitimate issues and social problems caused by honor-shame cultures. For instance, group cohesion and solidarity often causes groups to become extremely exclusive and in some cases even violent against other groups. But just because a cultural system has a tendency towards causing these problems doesn’t mean that we should just throw out the entire system! After all, we live in an individualistic society and there are just as many social problems today as there ever was in any collectivist society; depression, suicide, mass shootings, sexual slavery, gang wars, drugs etc.
But it gets worse, because Louie makes a further argument that shame based cultures cannot allow for forgiveness either from others or ourselves;
Guilt can be healthy since it helps us acknowledge mistakes we need to correct and leads us to think of ways to rebuild ourselves and our relationships with others---including with God. Shame, by contrast, is a perverse and distorted belief that we are inherently unworthy of love. Consequently when you feel shame, instead of wanting to be corrected, you feel you deserve to be persecuted, punished, and tormented. A shame-based person doesn't know how to feel healthy guilt.
This is what I mean when I say Christianity is being psychologized. We think we somehow have to conform to the pseudo-scientific interpretations of various studies and experiments performed by psychologists. But we cannot simultaneously believe that all feelings of anguish and despair are somehow evil and believe that we are deeply sinful creatures unless we define sin in terms of feeling depressed and self-hatred. This idea is damaging for the Christian community because it prevents us from actually dealing with the fact that we are not usually good people, that we do wrong others and that we do deserve punishment!
Whatever your cultural or social upbringing, Jesus can heal and change you. He can transform your heart and free you from the emotional or spiritual bondage. No matter how weak, defective, or incompetent you may feel, God can transform your shame for his glory. This good news needs to be shared among millions of Asians---some in our own churches---who are still suffering in shameful silence.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Inductive study of the Bible: Is It Biblical?
A question that is often asked is how should we study the Bible? This is an extremely important question because how we study the Bible will often determine the theological conclusions we come to by it. The question of studying scripture has a theological term attached to it; hermeneutics. This is simply the method by which we interpret scripture. In any hermeneutic there is a series of theological/philosophical assumptions which act as its foundational principles. Curiously, inductive methods have become an incredibly popular way to study scripture. While these methods vary widely in their practical out workings, they share a common hermeneutic.
Inductive Method: Observation, Interpretation, Application
Observation and Interpretation:
This “Inductive” Method is named such because of its strong emphasis on observational awareness of the text. Just as a scientist studies nature through observation, so the faithful Christian must observe the holy scriptures to derive it’s sacred truths. This is a basic assumption which originated among pastors largely during the first Great Awakening during the 19th century. The influences of both the enlightenment and the overwhelming advance of science led Christians to believe that scripture was to the believer as nature was to the scientist. The negative side to this way of studying scripture is that it tends to neglect context. If scripture is truly God’s message to us, so this reasoning goes, then its truths should be accessible to anyone who reads it. One online article puts it this way;
"Because observation is discovering what the passage is saying, it requires time and practice. You'll discover that the more you read and get to know a book of the Bible, the more its truths will become obvious to you. You'll be awed at the wealth of spiritual riches contained in even the shortest books of the Bible—and you will have discovered it yourself! You will know that you know!”
By extension then, the linguistic, historical and cultural context become unnecessary for study and interpretation of a text. They are ‘supplemental’ helps. And well what’s wrong with this? Frankly it results from an abuse in the concept of scripture’s clarity. Traditionally, the reformers say the clarity or perspicuity of scripture was meant in a limited way, such that only those teachings essential to the salvation of an individual were clear and obvious to see. However, after a multifold theological revolution (and some would say devolution) this teaching was expanded to mean all spiritual/scriptural truths. Today it is safe to say that most evangelicals believe that all scripture is plain and clear in all of its teachings. This is a dangerous idea not only because it promotes all sorts of sophomoric argumentation and anti-intellectualism but also because it doesn’t take the full effects of sin seriously. If all our capacities are impaired by sin then our ability to reason has been impaired as well. To both the Catholic church and the Reformers this meant that scripture could not simply be read carefully and understood completely through a few hours of study. Catholics for centuries believed that the mysteries of scripture must be unveiled by those heavily disciplined both in mind and spirit. The Reformers as well, taught that scripture must be studied rigorously, utilizing all scholarship that is relevant and available.
Application:
A second major concern of this first inductive method is that it appears to assume that all scripture has direct application to our lives. More than this, many articles I’ve read seem to place the worth and usefulness of scripture solely in its personal application. There is perhaps no better way to see American pragmatism laid bare than in the evangelical obsession with the practical application of scripture. One article writes;
"This [Application] is taking the plain meaning from God's Word and putting it to practical use. This is about, 'how shall I respond' to the Word. What sin to get rid of, what commands to yield too, the pitfalls to avoid, what I need to be and do, what area I need to discover and grow in, the actions to engage in, and the promises we are to keep, what is God calling me to do?”
Inductive Method: Observation, Interpretation, Application
Observation and Interpretation:
This “Inductive” Method is named such because of its strong emphasis on observational awareness of the text. Just as a scientist studies nature through observation, so the faithful Christian must observe the holy scriptures to derive it’s sacred truths. This is a basic assumption which originated among pastors largely during the first Great Awakening during the 19th century. The influences of both the enlightenment and the overwhelming advance of science led Christians to believe that scripture was to the believer as nature was to the scientist. The negative side to this way of studying scripture is that it tends to neglect context. If scripture is truly God’s message to us, so this reasoning goes, then its truths should be accessible to anyone who reads it. One online article puts it this way;
"Because observation is discovering what the passage is saying, it requires time and practice. You'll discover that the more you read and get to know a book of the Bible, the more its truths will become obvious to you. You'll be awed at the wealth of spiritual riches contained in even the shortest books of the Bible—and you will have discovered it yourself! You will know that you know!”
By extension then, the linguistic, historical and cultural context become unnecessary for study and interpretation of a text. They are ‘supplemental’ helps. And well what’s wrong with this? Frankly it results from an abuse in the concept of scripture’s clarity. Traditionally, the reformers say the clarity or perspicuity of scripture was meant in a limited way, such that only those teachings essential to the salvation of an individual were clear and obvious to see. However, after a multifold theological revolution (and some would say devolution) this teaching was expanded to mean all spiritual/scriptural truths. Today it is safe to say that most evangelicals believe that all scripture is plain and clear in all of its teachings. This is a dangerous idea not only because it promotes all sorts of sophomoric argumentation and anti-intellectualism but also because it doesn’t take the full effects of sin seriously. If all our capacities are impaired by sin then our ability to reason has been impaired as well. To both the Catholic church and the Reformers this meant that scripture could not simply be read carefully and understood completely through a few hours of study. Catholics for centuries believed that the mysteries of scripture must be unveiled by those heavily disciplined both in mind and spirit. The Reformers as well, taught that scripture must be studied rigorously, utilizing all scholarship that is relevant and available.
Application:
A second major concern of this first inductive method is that it appears to assume that all scripture has direct application to our lives. More than this, many articles I’ve read seem to place the worth and usefulness of scripture solely in its personal application. There is perhaps no better way to see American pragmatism laid bare than in the evangelical obsession with the practical application of scripture. One article writes;
"This [Application] is taking the plain meaning from God's Word and putting it to practical use. This is about, 'how shall I respond' to the Word. What sin to get rid of, what commands to yield too, the pitfalls to avoid, what I need to be and do, what area I need to discover and grow in, the actions to engage in, and the promises we are to keep, what is God calling me to do?”
1st note the use of the word plain. I seldom here a pastor talk about studying scripture without describing its meaning as utterly clear and plain. For a discussion on this topic see my earlier post on fideism and anti-intellectualism. What I wish to discuss here is this bizarre assumption present in almost every church I have ever been a member of or attended that the conclusions of studying scripture must primarily be a personal perspective on it. That is to say an understanding of how scripture fits into our lives.
My criticisms of emotionalism, emotivism and feel-goodism in the Church apply here as well. This isolates the Christian life and totally prevents any well thought out theological reflection of scripture. This is precisely because such a pragmatic and personalist approach only asks questions with personal pronouns in them and sees more abstract questions such as the function and role of the Holy Spirit both in the Trinity and in the life of the Church as meaningless speculation. Even when such questions are entertained, they are treated only briefly and with a surface analysis under this system.
To my mind, focusing on personal application totally misses the point of scripture itself, which is to edify the entire the Church as a whole. Whatever application you gain personally from scripture should center on the role you play in strengthening the Church and spreading the gospel. Whatever personal study is done on scripture it should be done with the goal of internalizing deep truths of both God and creation, mind and spirit as well as wisdom and truth. For instance look at 1 Peter chapter 1:13-21
"Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father whojudges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lambwithout blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you 21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."
I will say this again and again, no author in either the Old or New Testaments makes a definite separation between theological doctrine such as the resurrection of Christ and the life of the individual Christian. The deep truths of Christ’s atonement and resurrection permeate the life of the Church so thoroughly that the two cannot be separated in any meaningful way. Paul states in this passage that we are to be holy (v 15) for the sake and by the power of Christ (v 19) and His grace afforded by Christ’s death and resurrection (v 21).
Like emotionalism, this pragmatic approach to scripture fails to see this blatantly obvious point of scripture simply because it approaches scripture with the wrong set of questions.
An Alternative Method: To my mind there is no reason to develop cutesy 3 step methods to studying scripture, especially those with vague and abstract descriptions of supposedly practical guidelines. If you really are serious about studying scripture you can't just read scripture you have to study the context in which it was written in.
When it comes to reading a portion of scripture you cannot gain a complete understanding of it unless you also read the entire book surrounding it. So if you want to study the book of Job don't start in the middle, read it beginning to end, preferably in one sitting. This is important because it allows you to identify the purpose and overarching themes of the passage you wish to study in depth. You will also need to gain a sense of grammatical structure of a passage. Thus it will be necessary to understand sentence structure and parts of speech. I've found sentence diagramming to be useful tool towards this end. Other resources that will be needed are; a good Greek/Hebrew lexicon (i.e. blueletterbible), a socio-rhetorical/social commentary on the book in question, a historical/critical commentary on the book in question, as well as introductions and dictionaries on the Old and New Testaments. A nice Systematic Theology book wouldn't be all that useless either.
"But that's so much reading the Bible's meaning should be plain, not this complicated right?"
- The more basic teachings of scripture are fairly simple and easy to grasp yes (it is easy to grasp the essence of the gospel that Jesus died for our sins, for instance). However, if you want to grasp deeper wisdom from scripture, you do have to use the brain God gave you and use it to the fullest.
An excellent book to get you started on studying scripture in a more rigorous way, even without many scholarly resources would be "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart. Its pretty cheap and extremely helpful in clearing up your thinking during personal study.
Like emotionalism, this pragmatic approach to scripture fails to see this blatantly obvious point of scripture simply because it approaches scripture with the wrong set of questions.
An Alternative Method: To my mind there is no reason to develop cutesy 3 step methods to studying scripture, especially those with vague and abstract descriptions of supposedly practical guidelines. If you really are serious about studying scripture you can't just read scripture you have to study the context in which it was written in.
When it comes to reading a portion of scripture you cannot gain a complete understanding of it unless you also read the entire book surrounding it. So if you want to study the book of Job don't start in the middle, read it beginning to end, preferably in one sitting. This is important because it allows you to identify the purpose and overarching themes of the passage you wish to study in depth. You will also need to gain a sense of grammatical structure of a passage. Thus it will be necessary to understand sentence structure and parts of speech. I've found sentence diagramming to be useful tool towards this end. Other resources that will be needed are; a good Greek/Hebrew lexicon (i.e. blueletterbible), a socio-rhetorical/social commentary on the book in question, a historical/critical commentary on the book in question, as well as introductions and dictionaries on the Old and New Testaments. A nice Systematic Theology book wouldn't be all that useless either.
"But that's so much reading the Bible's meaning should be plain, not this complicated right?"
- The more basic teachings of scripture are fairly simple and easy to grasp yes (it is easy to grasp the essence of the gospel that Jesus died for our sins, for instance). However, if you want to grasp deeper wisdom from scripture, you do have to use the brain God gave you and use it to the fullest.
An excellent book to get you started on studying scripture in a more rigorous way, even without many scholarly resources would be "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stewart. Its pretty cheap and extremely helpful in clearing up your thinking during personal study.
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Science and Philosophy: Which is Better? Part 1
The relationship between science and philosophy has been a highly controversial and complex topic. It has also been one of very little discussion between scientists and philosophers, with scientists assuming that science is prima-facie more important than philosophy while philosophers are in large disagreement on the issue. Yet, whether scientists like it or not, it is beyond dispute that science sprouted from philosophy and perhaps even religion. Philosophies of the enlightenment praised human reason and the power of the mind to discover the world around it. This led directly to the industrial era, electricity, mass access to refrigeration etc. Even before the enlightenment, however, philosophers of nature, as they were called, desired to discover the inner workings of God's creation. This brought about numerous advances in agriculture, medicine, the understanding of human biology, the movement of planets and various rudimentary models of our solar system. The crux of the issue then, is whether or not science has supplanted philosophy in its usefulness and is thus superior to philosophy as a discipline.
What is science?
A bizarre mystery and point of contention in the realms of both philosophy and science is the question of what the heck science actually is and what counts as science. If science is defined simply as an inductive method then this would rule out most of evolutionary biology, cosmology and anthropology as these fields perform their research largely based on making inferences from the available data to the best explanation of that data (i.e. inferring common descent from the fossil record). In other words, large portions of science are abductive in their methods. However, if we say that science is any discipline that employs inductive and abductive reasoning then all study of history, archeology, sociology, and psychology must be seen as science as well.
Another issue is the relation between science and mathematics. Whereas science is taught as being a primarily inductive method mathematics is seen as largely deductive in its reasoning. Mathematicians prove equations with as much precision and certainty as possible and no induction seems clearly needed in their work. And yet much of science is essentially mathematics. Physics in particular involves copious amounts of calculus and experimental equations which form the core of all cosmological theories regarding the way our universe works.
Science then involves a variety of methods and so it doesn't seem helpful to define science in terms of methodology alone. Perhaps then science can be best defined and distinguished from philosophy in terms of subject matter. All of what is agreed to be science relates primarily to what is empirical and scientific study always seems to aim at gaining a better understanding of the way all things empirical work. In contrast history, linguistics, sociology and other humanistic disciplines aim to understand more about how we as people work. Given this framework, however, there is no clear point of distinction between science and other disciplines. Rather we can see the range of academic disciplines as a spectrum with each field overlapping with other fields. This makes sense of why all sorts of discipline seem to have such fascinating implications for each other. Unfortunately this view also makes it dually difficult to assign value to one discipline over another.
What is Philosophy?
Unlike other disciplines, philosophy is not defined by its method or its subject matter. Thus, as expected, there is enormous disagreement among philosophers (and everyone else) over what philosophy is. Indeed all well-developed methods of research and study in academia have their roots in philosophy. In addition, unlike science and most humanities philosophy is not directed towards finding the right answers, but the right questions. Even so, philosophy does wrestle with the underlying reality of the universe science studies. For instance, a major question in philosophy is whether or not mind has primacy over matter or vice-versa. In other words whether all matter is really information or whether information is really just a set of useful fictions employed by material based minds to understand matter. Obviously we have to take some sort of position on these issues, whether we realize it or not we make assumptions and assertions about the fundamental nature of reality. In this way everyone is a philosopher and philosophy permeates everything we do and believe.
Is science more “useful” then philosophy?
In some senses, at least, we can answer this with a definite yes. In other ways, however, the very question seems ill posed. Clearly philosophy as the discipline of questioning and thinking never directly led to major advances in technology at the rate we see today. In this sense science is clearly more useful than philosophy.
But the central question is whether or not science is better at answering questions of fundamental reality than philosophy. In this case, however, the question itself seems slightly flawed because as noted above neither philosophy nor science seems to be clearly defined by methodology, but rather by subject matter. Science is restricted to the material realm, the observable universe and perhaps universes like it. Philosophy, however, has branches in many matters of observable reality (questions of epistemology and ethics for example) but also goes deeper than this and questions whether or not the universe is all there is.
So basically if science is more useful or the only useful way to understand reality, then we must deny that there is much else other than what is observable to us in some way or if there is something else, we have no access to it. In other words to suggest that science has overtaken philosophy requires certain philosophical assumption. Given this, for belief in the superiority of science to be coherent it must include enough use for philosophy to justify its philosophical viewpoints. Moreover, if this sort of scientism is to be justified it must leave room for debate of its philosophical viewpoints and admit the validity of philosophical objections (such as objections to naturalism).
Aha! But how does one deal with the argument that all philosophical questions are becoming scientific questions? Well even supposing the trend of philosophy converting to science were true, this is still just another way of putting the position described above. Embedded is the assumption that the empirical is all there is. All arguments for this position, however, seem more philosophical in nature and less scientific. For instance, if there were something other than and outside nature why can we explain everything within nature by nature? Of course, this question is only pressing to various philosophical positions if its presupposition that everything within nature is explainable by nature is true. However, the logic and inferences made from that to the position that nature is all there is are firmly philosophical, and can be challenged on philosophical grounds. For instance, the position that anything outside of nature would need to interact with nature could be questioned. In addition, the position that everything within nature is explainable by nature could also be debated on philosophical grounds. For example, it is not at all obvious that morality is entirely explainable by natural/empirical processes and material objects despite what many neurologists and evolutionary psychologists think.
So now the question is whether or not areas of philosophy are being taken over by science?
Again to a degree this is obviously so. Science began as a new empirical approach to nature. As knowledge of nature grew, so did the methods of studying it. New fields of science became born as more was discovered about the basic elements of matter, biology and the nature beyond earth. As such philosophy became ill suited to study nature with the degree of detail scientists were employing.
Today there are numerous fields of science which claim to replace philosophy as the meaningful form of analysis; neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, cosmology, quantum physics and quantum mechanics, to give the most notable examples.
Neurobiology:
Many scientists who are doing cutting edge research on the brain believe they are finding the essence of human consciousness. Their basic claim, as it is relevant to this study, would be that philosophy is no longer needed to study the mind or what it means to have thoughts. A number of experiments and evidences are brought forward in support of this conclusion;
Libet experiments:
Benjamin Libet, a neurobiologist, carried out a series of experiments to see what exactly happens in the brain when making simple decisions like moving your hand. He found that 300 milliseconds before activity in the frontal cortex began increasing, areas of the brain responsible for movement became more active. Libet argued that this must mean that our consciousness does not really drive our decisions, but merely facilitates them. If this is true then we really have no free will and our conscious thoughts are more or less determined by chemical reactions in our brains. However, Libet makes one glaring assumption that our consciousness just is neural activity within our frontal cortex. More than this, even accepting that our consciousness emerges from neural activity in our brain Libet’s argument doesn’t logically follow. It could just as easily be the case that the increased activity in our motor cortex is for the purpose of preparing for a persons conscious decision and not the decision itself.
Moreover, Libet’s experiment is not evidence at all of science replacing philosophy, but science informing philosophy. We see science providing data by which philosophers can analyze, interpret and draw implications. This is nothing new, science has been performing this function for centuries. This process may involve a sort of replacement of philosophy as certain possibilities become unlikely given the scientific evidence. However, here the reverse has also happened, where science has actually added content to and stimulated philosophical discussion.
http://www.bethinking.org/human-life/the-libet-experiment-and-its-implications-for-conscious-will
Many scientists have pointed to the general advance of neurobiology in explaining consciousness to support their scientistic thesis. Their reasoning is essentially if our consciousness lies outside of our brains why does all our behavior seem to be linked to neurological activity? Moreover, why do things like our memories and emotions seem to be correlated to specific areas of our brain?
As far as I can tell, this reasoning is again assuming what it is trying to prove; that all consciousness starts with neurological activity. But suppose the reverse is true, that the conscious mind is causing the nuero-chemical reaction. The analogy has often been given by philosophers of a pianist playing a piano. Every note and sound coming out of a piano can be explained by the various parts in the piano itself. However, it is still equally true that they are all explained by the skills of the pianist. How could this be dis-proven through empirical observation or study? We can object that such an assertion might have a certain ad-hocness to it or even that its inability to be empirically disproven makes it a proposition without a truth value (aka meaningless, incoherent etc.). However, these would clearly be logical and philosophical objections, not scientific ones and so it could not be clearly said that science is replacing the philosophy of mind, just that philosophical arguments support a more materialistic view of consciousness and this is another weak sort of scientism we’ll discuss in part II.
Interesting discussions on quantum physics and philosophy:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/what-physics-learns-from-philosophy.html?_r=0
What is science?
A bizarre mystery and point of contention in the realms of both philosophy and science is the question of what the heck science actually is and what counts as science. If science is defined simply as an inductive method then this would rule out most of evolutionary biology, cosmology and anthropology as these fields perform their research largely based on making inferences from the available data to the best explanation of that data (i.e. inferring common descent from the fossil record). In other words, large portions of science are abductive in their methods. However, if we say that science is any discipline that employs inductive and abductive reasoning then all study of history, archeology, sociology, and psychology must be seen as science as well.
Another issue is the relation between science and mathematics. Whereas science is taught as being a primarily inductive method mathematics is seen as largely deductive in its reasoning. Mathematicians prove equations with as much precision and certainty as possible and no induction seems clearly needed in their work. And yet much of science is essentially mathematics. Physics in particular involves copious amounts of calculus and experimental equations which form the core of all cosmological theories regarding the way our universe works.
Science then involves a variety of methods and so it doesn't seem helpful to define science in terms of methodology alone. Perhaps then science can be best defined and distinguished from philosophy in terms of subject matter. All of what is agreed to be science relates primarily to what is empirical and scientific study always seems to aim at gaining a better understanding of the way all things empirical work. In contrast history, linguistics, sociology and other humanistic disciplines aim to understand more about how we as people work. Given this framework, however, there is no clear point of distinction between science and other disciplines. Rather we can see the range of academic disciplines as a spectrum with each field overlapping with other fields. This makes sense of why all sorts of discipline seem to have such fascinating implications for each other. Unfortunately this view also makes it dually difficult to assign value to one discipline over another.
What is Philosophy?
Unlike other disciplines, philosophy is not defined by its method or its subject matter. Thus, as expected, there is enormous disagreement among philosophers (and everyone else) over what philosophy is. Indeed all well-developed methods of research and study in academia have their roots in philosophy. In addition, unlike science and most humanities philosophy is not directed towards finding the right answers, but the right questions. Even so, philosophy does wrestle with the underlying reality of the universe science studies. For instance, a major question in philosophy is whether or not mind has primacy over matter or vice-versa. In other words whether all matter is really information or whether information is really just a set of useful fictions employed by material based minds to understand matter. Obviously we have to take some sort of position on these issues, whether we realize it or not we make assumptions and assertions about the fundamental nature of reality. In this way everyone is a philosopher and philosophy permeates everything we do and believe.
Is science more “useful” then philosophy?
In some senses, at least, we can answer this with a definite yes. In other ways, however, the very question seems ill posed. Clearly philosophy as the discipline of questioning and thinking never directly led to major advances in technology at the rate we see today. In this sense science is clearly more useful than philosophy.
But the central question is whether or not science is better at answering questions of fundamental reality than philosophy. In this case, however, the question itself seems slightly flawed because as noted above neither philosophy nor science seems to be clearly defined by methodology, but rather by subject matter. Science is restricted to the material realm, the observable universe and perhaps universes like it. Philosophy, however, has branches in many matters of observable reality (questions of epistemology and ethics for example) but also goes deeper than this and questions whether or not the universe is all there is.
So basically if science is more useful or the only useful way to understand reality, then we must deny that there is much else other than what is observable to us in some way or if there is something else, we have no access to it. In other words to suggest that science has overtaken philosophy requires certain philosophical assumption. Given this, for belief in the superiority of science to be coherent it must include enough use for philosophy to justify its philosophical viewpoints. Moreover, if this sort of scientism is to be justified it must leave room for debate of its philosophical viewpoints and admit the validity of philosophical objections (such as objections to naturalism).
Aha! But how does one deal with the argument that all philosophical questions are becoming scientific questions? Well even supposing the trend of philosophy converting to science were true, this is still just another way of putting the position described above. Embedded is the assumption that the empirical is all there is. All arguments for this position, however, seem more philosophical in nature and less scientific. For instance, if there were something other than and outside nature why can we explain everything within nature by nature? Of course, this question is only pressing to various philosophical positions if its presupposition that everything within nature is explainable by nature is true. However, the logic and inferences made from that to the position that nature is all there is are firmly philosophical, and can be challenged on philosophical grounds. For instance, the position that anything outside of nature would need to interact with nature could be questioned. In addition, the position that everything within nature is explainable by nature could also be debated on philosophical grounds. For example, it is not at all obvious that morality is entirely explainable by natural/empirical processes and material objects despite what many neurologists and evolutionary psychologists think.
So now the question is whether or not areas of philosophy are being taken over by science?
Again to a degree this is obviously so. Science began as a new empirical approach to nature. As knowledge of nature grew, so did the methods of studying it. New fields of science became born as more was discovered about the basic elements of matter, biology and the nature beyond earth. As such philosophy became ill suited to study nature with the degree of detail scientists were employing.
Today there are numerous fields of science which claim to replace philosophy as the meaningful form of analysis; neurobiology, evolutionary psychology, cosmology, quantum physics and quantum mechanics, to give the most notable examples.
Neurobiology:
Many scientists who are doing cutting edge research on the brain believe they are finding the essence of human consciousness. Their basic claim, as it is relevant to this study, would be that philosophy is no longer needed to study the mind or what it means to have thoughts. A number of experiments and evidences are brought forward in support of this conclusion;
Libet experiments:
Benjamin Libet, a neurobiologist, carried out a series of experiments to see what exactly happens in the brain when making simple decisions like moving your hand. He found that 300 milliseconds before activity in the frontal cortex began increasing, areas of the brain responsible for movement became more active. Libet argued that this must mean that our consciousness does not really drive our decisions, but merely facilitates them. If this is true then we really have no free will and our conscious thoughts are more or less determined by chemical reactions in our brains. However, Libet makes one glaring assumption that our consciousness just is neural activity within our frontal cortex. More than this, even accepting that our consciousness emerges from neural activity in our brain Libet’s argument doesn’t logically follow. It could just as easily be the case that the increased activity in our motor cortex is for the purpose of preparing for a persons conscious decision and not the decision itself.
Moreover, Libet’s experiment is not evidence at all of science replacing philosophy, but science informing philosophy. We see science providing data by which philosophers can analyze, interpret and draw implications. This is nothing new, science has been performing this function for centuries. This process may involve a sort of replacement of philosophy as certain possibilities become unlikely given the scientific evidence. However, here the reverse has also happened, where science has actually added content to and stimulated philosophical discussion.
http://www.bethinking.org/human-life/the-libet-experiment-and-its-implications-for-conscious-will
Many scientists have pointed to the general advance of neurobiology in explaining consciousness to support their scientistic thesis. Their reasoning is essentially if our consciousness lies outside of our brains why does all our behavior seem to be linked to neurological activity? Moreover, why do things like our memories and emotions seem to be correlated to specific areas of our brain?
As far as I can tell, this reasoning is again assuming what it is trying to prove; that all consciousness starts with neurological activity. But suppose the reverse is true, that the conscious mind is causing the nuero-chemical reaction. The analogy has often been given by philosophers of a pianist playing a piano. Every note and sound coming out of a piano can be explained by the various parts in the piano itself. However, it is still equally true that they are all explained by the skills of the pianist. How could this be dis-proven through empirical observation or study? We can object that such an assertion might have a certain ad-hocness to it or even that its inability to be empirically disproven makes it a proposition without a truth value (aka meaningless, incoherent etc.). However, these would clearly be logical and philosophical objections, not scientific ones and so it could not be clearly said that science is replacing the philosophy of mind, just that philosophical arguments support a more materialistic view of consciousness and this is another weak sort of scientism we’ll discuss in part II.
Interesting discussions on quantum physics and philosophy:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/what-physics-learns-from-philosophy.html?_r=0
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
More Objections to Theistic Evolution
As I’ve stated before on this blog I have no qualms with those who reject evolution on a scientific basis. I only am interested in defending the view that you can believe in evolution while taking scripture seriously. Interestingly there is a lot of push back against this idea. Much of it is just pure misunderstanding but some of it does seem to present some legitimate questions and problems to the theistic evolutionist stance. I aim to answer some of these objections here.
Objection 1: If theistic evolution is true then why does Genesis portray God as creating everything through separate acts of creation?
My thinking is the Bible is written this way to emphasize that what most cultures considers gods (the earth, moon, sun, stars) were actually created by one God. This is also why, I think, the creation story in Genesis is so lacking in the fantastic imagery we see in other creation accounts. If the author wanted to write the Genesis creation story as a critique and polemic against other creation accounts it would make sense to bluntly state what God has created and what other gods haven’t.
Moreover, how else is the author of the Bible supposed to write that God created the heavens and the earth? And even supposing he did write it with perfect scientific accuracy do you seriously want me to believe than anyone but him would understand it in a culture that had only the most basic technologies? Ancient Near Eastern cultures didn’t see accuracy in the same way we do. Their numerical systems were not mathematic or calculating but symbolic and largely based on cultural nuance and estimations. Time was not seen as something to be measured but rather the passing of one event to another, the duration of which being rather inconsequential. The chronology of events was not as important as their theme.
So I don’t see this objection as holding much weight.
Objection 2: In what sense is man separated from animal on theistic evolution?
If man is not merely a physical being but also has a soul, a non-physical rational mind then how did God put such a soul in man through the process of evolution? If it was an act of special creation then why did God use such a special creation here and not elsewhere in creation? If it wasn’t an act of special creation then the soul developed naturally over time in which case what is the real difference between man and beast?
A few problems with this. Firstly, there are many differing views on what it means to be made in the image of God. My own view is that it is primarily ontological and functional. It is ontological in the sense that we have rational and mental faculties that allow us to think on a level animals cannot. And it is functional in the sense that we have been given a special purpose by God to follow His natural law and be stewards over creation. But to say these two aspects of human nature developed over time in an evolutionary sense doesn’t require us to say that apes are partially made in the image of God and so on. It could be that this sort of spiritual evolution developed in a massive jump after apes, similar to the jump during the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion occurred over a 10 million year period where thousands of new species suddenly evolved. This occurred because basic skeletal structures, spinal columns and nervous systems developed out of more basic forms of life, allowing for a greater diversity of species to form. Similarly, hominids with souls may have only come into existence after brains had become sophisticated enough to express them.
Moreover, supposing God did implant a soul in the first hominid species or perhaps only homo-sapiens in what sense would this make theistic evolution ad-hoc or inconsistent? It seems entirely plausible that God could use special creation to use the brain mankind gained through heaven to place a soul or mind into and that He did this to separate man from the rest of creation as His image bearers.
Objection 3: How does death before the fall fit into Resurrection theology?
One interesting objection to theistic evolution is that because the Resurrection was a conquering of physical death as much as spiritual death, physical death must be seen as a symptom of the fall. Thus physical death could not exist before the fall. My response to this is simple, the problem isn’t physical death in itself but shameful death. Christ’s death on the cross was as much a ritual of humiliation as it was a sacrifice. Crucifixion was a horrendously shameful act that demeaned a person to perhaps the greatest extent possible in society. If physical death as a whole was really the issue, it seems strange that Christ would need to be killed by crucifixion which included so much shame and suffering. Why not just have Christ be beheaded or poisoned? But if we see physical death as perverted by the fall and made shameful to all who experience it and are forced to face God’s wrath afterwards, it makes sense that to conquer death Christ would have to die the most painful and shameful death possible.
This view also makes sense of the punishments God gives to Adam, Eve and the Serpent. All three of these figures are described as being brought below the other; the serpent is brought below Eve, Eve is brought below Adam and Adam is brought below creation. The central issue isn’t that they will die, but die in a fallen state. Given this there seems little issue with supposing that death existed before the fall. We could also further state that death would have led people to a sort of heaven where they awaited resurrection to glory if the fall had never happened. Perhaps such physical death was virtually painless and without shame. Perhaps Christ would have become incarnate anyway to walk with mankind and unite mankind to Himself. The point is death before the fall causes no theological issues or confusions if one actually takes the time to think it through.
Objection 4: Isn’t evolution inherently purposeless and unguided?
Yes and no. Evolution is unguided only in the sense that scientists have no way to accurately predict which adaptations will develop or where they will lead. We can’t predict what species will evolve next. But this doesn’t mean that God couldn’t be working behind the scenes to bring evolutionary processes to His intended ends. We can compare this to a man choosing a random series of numbers and asking another man to try to predict which number will come next. There is no way for the second man to reliably predict what the first man will choose next, but this doesn’t mean there is no one intentionally choosing the sequence of numbers.
Christians who believe that evolution requires this kind of purposelessness have got their ideas of evolution from staunch atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who have been strongly criticized by both the philosophical and scientific community for making scientifically unjustifiable claims about the nature of evolution and its implications.
You can say that creation is an important Christian doctrine, but it is absurd to say that you cannot take the Bible or theology seriously and believe in an old earth, the Big Bang Theory or even evolution. These issues within the doctrine of creation are not hills to fight and die on. As 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear the center of Christian thought and hope is the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ. This is the point we must defend; the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. Instead Christians insist on centering the debate between skeptics and Christians on evolution and the numerous scientific issues involved therein.
Objection 1: If theistic evolution is true then why does Genesis portray God as creating everything through separate acts of creation?
My thinking is the Bible is written this way to emphasize that what most cultures considers gods (the earth, moon, sun, stars) were actually created by one God. This is also why, I think, the creation story in Genesis is so lacking in the fantastic imagery we see in other creation accounts. If the author wanted to write the Genesis creation story as a critique and polemic against other creation accounts it would make sense to bluntly state what God has created and what other gods haven’t.
Moreover, how else is the author of the Bible supposed to write that God created the heavens and the earth? And even supposing he did write it with perfect scientific accuracy do you seriously want me to believe than anyone but him would understand it in a culture that had only the most basic technologies? Ancient Near Eastern cultures didn’t see accuracy in the same way we do. Their numerical systems were not mathematic or calculating but symbolic and largely based on cultural nuance and estimations. Time was not seen as something to be measured but rather the passing of one event to another, the duration of which being rather inconsequential. The chronology of events was not as important as their theme.
So I don’t see this objection as holding much weight.
Objection 2: In what sense is man separated from animal on theistic evolution?
If man is not merely a physical being but also has a soul, a non-physical rational mind then how did God put such a soul in man through the process of evolution? If it was an act of special creation then why did God use such a special creation here and not elsewhere in creation? If it wasn’t an act of special creation then the soul developed naturally over time in which case what is the real difference between man and beast?
A few problems with this. Firstly, there are many differing views on what it means to be made in the image of God. My own view is that it is primarily ontological and functional. It is ontological in the sense that we have rational and mental faculties that allow us to think on a level animals cannot. And it is functional in the sense that we have been given a special purpose by God to follow His natural law and be stewards over creation. But to say these two aspects of human nature developed over time in an evolutionary sense doesn’t require us to say that apes are partially made in the image of God and so on. It could be that this sort of spiritual evolution developed in a massive jump after apes, similar to the jump during the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion occurred over a 10 million year period where thousands of new species suddenly evolved. This occurred because basic skeletal structures, spinal columns and nervous systems developed out of more basic forms of life, allowing for a greater diversity of species to form. Similarly, hominids with souls may have only come into existence after brains had become sophisticated enough to express them.
Moreover, supposing God did implant a soul in the first hominid species or perhaps only homo-sapiens in what sense would this make theistic evolution ad-hoc or inconsistent? It seems entirely plausible that God could use special creation to use the brain mankind gained through heaven to place a soul or mind into and that He did this to separate man from the rest of creation as His image bearers.
Objection 3: How does death before the fall fit into Resurrection theology?
One interesting objection to theistic evolution is that because the Resurrection was a conquering of physical death as much as spiritual death, physical death must be seen as a symptom of the fall. Thus physical death could not exist before the fall. My response to this is simple, the problem isn’t physical death in itself but shameful death. Christ’s death on the cross was as much a ritual of humiliation as it was a sacrifice. Crucifixion was a horrendously shameful act that demeaned a person to perhaps the greatest extent possible in society. If physical death as a whole was really the issue, it seems strange that Christ would need to be killed by crucifixion which included so much shame and suffering. Why not just have Christ be beheaded or poisoned? But if we see physical death as perverted by the fall and made shameful to all who experience it and are forced to face God’s wrath afterwards, it makes sense that to conquer death Christ would have to die the most painful and shameful death possible.
This view also makes sense of the punishments God gives to Adam, Eve and the Serpent. All three of these figures are described as being brought below the other; the serpent is brought below Eve, Eve is brought below Adam and Adam is brought below creation. The central issue isn’t that they will die, but die in a fallen state. Given this there seems little issue with supposing that death existed before the fall. We could also further state that death would have led people to a sort of heaven where they awaited resurrection to glory if the fall had never happened. Perhaps such physical death was virtually painless and without shame. Perhaps Christ would have become incarnate anyway to walk with mankind and unite mankind to Himself. The point is death before the fall causes no theological issues or confusions if one actually takes the time to think it through.
Objection 4: Isn’t evolution inherently purposeless and unguided?
Yes and no. Evolution is unguided only in the sense that scientists have no way to accurately predict which adaptations will develop or where they will lead. We can’t predict what species will evolve next. But this doesn’t mean that God couldn’t be working behind the scenes to bring evolutionary processes to His intended ends. We can compare this to a man choosing a random series of numbers and asking another man to try to predict which number will come next. There is no way for the second man to reliably predict what the first man will choose next, but this doesn’t mean there is no one intentionally choosing the sequence of numbers.
Christians who believe that evolution requires this kind of purposelessness have got their ideas of evolution from staunch atheists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett who have been strongly criticized by both the philosophical and scientific community for making scientifically unjustifiable claims about the nature of evolution and its implications.
You can say that creation is an important Christian doctrine, but it is absurd to say that you cannot take the Bible or theology seriously and believe in an old earth, the Big Bang Theory or even evolution. These issues within the doctrine of creation are not hills to fight and die on. As 1 Corinthians 15 makes clear the center of Christian thought and hope is the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ. This is the point we must defend; the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. Instead Christians insist on centering the debate between skeptics and Christians on evolution and the numerous scientific issues involved therein.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Emotivism and Emotion in the Church Part 2
Ok so now that I’ve outlined what the problems emotionalism causes are I’m going to explain why I think emotionalism itself is a problem scripturally and theologically.
Scriptural arguments for emotionalism;
Yada: knowing God intimately?
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know [yada] and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me."
Exodus 33:13 “Teach me your ways so that I may know [yada] you and continue in your favor.”
Habakkuk 2:14 "The knowledge [yada] of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the seas."
The Hebrew root word for “knowing” “understanding” “becoming acquainted with” etc. is Yada. It is claimed over and over again that because of verses where yada is used to imply knowing someone sexually, this must mean that yada is meant everywhere as intimate knowledge of someone. This is simply false, as noted above yada is a root word for knowledge. This means it covers all kinds of knowledge and we have no reason to think that the ancient Hebrews believed all forms of knowledge were “intimate”, at least not in the same sense we use the word today. Even when the word does refer to knowledge of a person, it doesn’t automatically mean sexual relations or the emotional equivalent. Rather it can refer to anything from a casual acquaintance to a close friend or family member. So no, God wanting us to know Him doesn’t mean he wants us to know Him as a wife knows her husband, nor does it mean that He wants some platonic equivalent of emotional intimacy, at least not necessarily.
Examples of bad exegesis of the word “yada”; https://sites.google.com/site/kudeshet/the-hebrew-perspective/developing-intimacy-with-god---yad-yadah-yada-judah, http://www.ibethel.org/articles/2007/09/01/yada-yada-yada
Actual Hebrew Lexicon of the word; http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3045&t=KJV
Abba: Is God our daddy?
Romans 8:15 “The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
Mark 14:36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
Galatians 4:6 “Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Many claim that this word “Abba” refers to the way a child endears their father with tenderness and intimacy aka calling him “daddy”. There is actually very little evidence that Abba has this childish connotation. It comes from a New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias who wrote in 1971 that Abba resembled the chatter of a small child and thus it would have been seen as offensive to Jesus’ contemporaries for him to use such a familiar and informal term when speaking of God.
In reality Abba is the only word in aramaic for father, so Jesus didn’t have any other option. While Jeremias was right in that it was not strictly formal or ceremonial, it was as James Barr puts it “a solemn, responsible, adult address to a Father”. Indeed most scholars today recognize Joachim’s thesis as unsupported by the linguistic evidence.
Examples of bad exegesis for the word Abba; http://www.gotquestions.org/Abba-Father.html
Actual Lexicon entry for the word; http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5&t=KJV
Articles used as sources; http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-does-abba-mean-daddy/
Bride of Christ: Are we married to Jesus?
As a dude, I find the idea propagated by many pastors that every individual Christian is somehow married to Christ in an intimate and romantic fashion unsettling. It may be an attractive idea for women, but the implications are that Christ would be polygamous and married to His Fathers children, unless we are the Fathers sons and daughters… in law? What a ridiculous idea! Obviously bridal imagery in scripture is just that, imagery. Its drawing parallels between a husband and Christ in order to give us something to compare it to. But in this light the question still arises; does the Bible employ the analogy of the love between a husband and wife and the individual believer’s love for Christ?
There are 2 passages that seem to most strongly support the affirmative answer to this question:
- Hosea 2:19-20 “And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.”
Despite this being one of the strongest passages in support of the position that the individual is to love Christ with the same level and kind of emotional passion that he loves his spouse, this actually isn’t saying much. Honestly if you read the whole chapter, its fairly clear that the “you” is plural and refers to God’s people as a whole. Moreover, if this was meant to say God has multiple marriage like relationships with all of His followers, why does He state that He shall only have one wife?
- 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 “I am anxious for you with the deep concern of God himself--anxious that your love should be for Christ alone, just as a pure maiden saves her love for one man only, for the one who will be her husband. But I am frightened, fearing that in some way you will be led away from your pure and simple devotion to our Lord, just as Eve was deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden.”
This is probably the best support for the emotionalists position with reference to bridal imagery. Clearly it refers to the individuals love for Christ. However, this passage seems to be speaking in terms of degree, not necessarily of kind. It says stay faithful to Christ in the same way a woman who is engaged stays faithful to her future spouse. In other words; don’t commit idolatry and stay true to your commitments. Unless you say love just is an intimate emotional passion for a person (an assertion which I don’t think can be justified Biblically) I fail to see how this verse really supports the interpretation that I and every other Christian have the deep kind of emotional bond in a modern marriage. But then if you say that, then this passage doesn’t have any more support for emotionalism than any other passage on God’s love.
Sloppy teachings on bridal imagery; http://www.creatingfutures.net/single.html; "Do we live our lives as if we are betrothed to Christ? As singles, do people look at us and see that we are in love. You know what I mean. You have seen people in love. They spend every spare moment with their lover. They will do silly things for and with their lover. They will talk for hours on the phone, even if it is long distance. They make plans for the future. They become inseparable. There is a look in their face.” If this is the way the Christian life is supposed to be lived, you would think Paul, Peter or one of the other New Testament writers would talk about how much they just love talking to Christ and how good He makes them feel. Good luck finding that, most of the time Paul speaks of himself as a bondservant of Christ aka a slave to Christ, not Christ’s girlfriend (Christ is our Lord, not our lover). I will grant however that most articles and sermons written on this issue correctly see Christ’s bride as being the Church collectively as two parties in covenant relationship. Whatever elements of Christ’s affection towards Christians present in bridal imagery passages, if there are any, are secondary to this central message.
Agape: God’s intimate love for us?
Ok so we’ve established that God relating to us as Father not to the Church as a bride entails a deep emotional connection with God. But what about God’s love for us in general? If emotionalism is correct than God’s love for us is centrally His desire to be in relationship with us. This relationship, in turn, entails a deep emotional connection whereby God allows us to feel things we’ve never felt before at certain times (usually in helping others or worshipping God) and bringing us closer to Himself in these emotional experiences.
If I have not made this clear before allow me to make it clear now; I reject the viewpoint described above in its entirety. God’s love as it is expressed in scripture, if anything is a tough love not intended to bring us into an emotionally based relationship with God but obedience to God and unity with God (which doesn’t mean emotional attachment). This is a crucial point of contention for the emotionalist. If they are wrong about what God’s love is, they are wrong in how they frame the purpose of Jesus death and resurrection and they are wrong about the essence of the Christian life. Also a disclaimer to avoid any confusion. The rejection of the above view doesn’t require that we believe God is a cold, distant God not involved in our experiences or lives at all. It just means that emotional and experiential elements to the Christian life are secondary in importance to our ethical and role based duties to God and our neighbor. In other words, you don’t have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to be saved (gaaaasssspp).
J.P. Holding and a number of Biblical scholars have realized, however, that both the exegetical and contextual evidence of passages pertaining to God’s love for us do not have the connotations we attach to them. Holding writes; "A key difference in understanding the meaning of agape is to recognize that our culture is centered on the individual, whereas ancient Biblical society (and 70% of societies today) are group-centered. What is good for the group is what is paramount. Hence when the NT speaks of agape it refers to the "value of group attachment and group bonding" [Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 196]. Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first.”
Scholars Bruce J. Malina and John Piltch point out that love in the ancient world was not about emotional passion but social attachment and the role you played in another persons life. As such to hate someone is just not to love them and vice versa. This means that both love and hate on the part of God are not descriptions of His emotional attitudes towards us but the role He plays in looking after our best interests.
This makes sense of how Christ could at one moment speak of turning the other cheek and in the next moment call Pharisess hypocrites, white washed tombs and broods of Vipers. In that world, love and hate weren’t personal, no one got offended if you confronted them about their behavior or some such thing. Confrontation was the norm. It also makes sense of passages in the Old Testament such as the story of Jacob and Esau where God states “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.” Also of particular interest in that same story is this passage; “Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.” This passage makes no sense under a modern understanding of love. We would say that there’s nothing about selling your birth right that indicates you hate it, it only means you don’t care about it. In ancient Mediterranean societies, however, love was seen in terms of attachment; you either are attached to your birth right, or you aren’t, there can be no in between.
So what about specific passages about love? How much sense does this model of love as social attachment make of these passages;
- 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” At first glance, verse 3 seems to refute the idea that the Biblical authors saw love as attachment, not emotional attitudes. After all if you can give all that you have away and die as a martyr but still not have love that seems to indicate love has more to do with your emotional motivations than your attachment to individuals and groups as a duty-bound servant. However, As Malina and Pilch point out, Paul is trying to distinguish charismata (charisma, courage, heroism) from agape (group allegiance, attachment to others). In other words someone might aim to give all they have to the poor and die as a martyr to leave an honorable and heroic legacy and not have any interest towards looking out for others interest. So this passage is saying that we need pure motivations, but its not saying those pure motivations require pure emotional attitudes.
Whether or not you accept what Holding, Malina and Pilch have to say, its clear that the default view of love is not our modern western conceptions. Even if love does have to do with emotional attitudes in the Biblical world, this doesn’t mean that God’s love for us implies an emotionally attached relationship. The Biblical view of love on both models points towards a more wholistic approach where our motives and actions are in harmony towards furthering the will of God and where God’s love towards us entails a looking out for humanities best interests and a will for individuals to grow in righteousness. And nothing about this central truth requires us to have personal relationships with God. That is a view someone can take, but it is dangerous to say that having a relationship with God is what the gospel’s all about.
Sources; http://books.google.com/books?id=cMrQOr9GmhoC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=John+Pilch+on+1+Corinthians+13:3&source=bl&ots=WSNMzdDOEk&sig=oeqkUTDWQaEEVxF5UONuXYBIPDw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zKLIU7-AL9CDogThyIKoAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=John%20Pilch%20on%201%20Corinthians%2013%3A3&f=false, http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.php
Imago Dei: Relational creatures?
Another claim often made by emotionalists is that we were created in the image of God to be in personal relationships. They cite as evidence the fact that God created Eve so that Adam wouldn’t be alone and that God walked with both Adam and Eve in the Garden. While its undoubtedly true that part of being made in the image of God is our cognitive capacity for communication and personal relationships it seems equally true that the primary aspect of our being made in the image of God is our stewardship over God’s creation as His representatives. Involved in this is our identity as moral creatures who make moral decisions and are meant to live according to God’s purposes.
Again nothing about this requires the emotional relationship that many Christians describe where God. For instance in collectivist societies individuals are not nearly as introspective as we are in the West. So they don’t see interpersonal relationships the same way we see them. For them group identity is more important than individual identity so they don’t think in terms of how they feel about the group but what role they play in the group. So if we define within our view of imago dei a western view of personal relationships where two or more people have this great connection and get along very well in their personalities (a word which didn’t even exist until a little over a century ago) then we could be unintentionally saying all other cultural perspective are lacking the imago dei.
This is partly why I frame the Image of God in terms of stewardship over creation and ethical responsibility as these transcend cultural boundaries and truly get at the heart of who we are as human beings.
Sources; Pilch J. & Malina B. (2009). Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody MA; Hendrickson publishers.
http://anthropology-updates.blogspot.com/2012/05/individualism-collectivism.html
Is eternal life knowing God?
In John chapter 17 Jesus is recorded praying to the Father; “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Well this settles it, eternal life is knowing Christ personally. Not exactly, the trouble is that “knowing” someone has a diverse range of meanings. Does this passage mean that we know God as the triune God who sent Jesus Christ and live according to that knowledge? Does it mean that we actually have conversations with this triune God? Does it mean we know God as we know our father? I think the first option would be the best, simply because it is the most simple. Knowing God is simply recognizing Him as the true God, learning His will and living it out through the power and life of the Holy Spirit. Again nothing about this requires a personal relationship so we have no justification for defining salvation in such terms.
Unity in Christ: becoming intimate with Christ?
John 17 also contains this passage; “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the worldmay believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
Aha, being in Christ and Christ being in us, that’s so intimate its almost erotic. This has to prove that salvation, whether individual or group centered involves personal intimacy. Well not really, the language of being in Christ or Christ being in us was employed by Christ in a collectivist society where individual identity was shaped by group identity (you are one with the body of Christ). Its saying we do not form our own identity as Christians, our identity is shaped by Christ such that our goals must be His goals, our desires must be His desires. The way we relate to Christ then is not as two equal persons seeking an mutual emotional connection but truly as a potter forms clay. As such it is not us who lives but Christ in us. This is not a description of a literal person abiding inside of our souls so much as the power of Christ to conform us to Himself. And again nothing about this implies a personal relationship in the sense of two people seeking an emotional connection based on personality.
Sources; http://books.google.com/books?id=zqoJj4WhJXAC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Bruce+Malina+on+John+17:3&source=bl&ots=f6PkGfY17b&sig=ag9BbAYge-tw2W72LYOvJub0LHE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3VnJU5ncONK6oQSblILICg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Bruce%20Malina%20on%20John%2017%3A3&f=false, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/selfesteem.php
Worshipping in Spirit means worshipping emotionally?
What is the purpose of worship? If it is truly to give glory to God through hymns and proclamations of thanksgiving and God’s truth and goodness should we not have some passion for God something more than a stoic devotion to Him? Well yes, obviously we are going to have passion. But I think this passion is more like the passion we have for a great leader or someone we are inspired to follow in the sense that you don’t have to know such people personally for them to evoke passionate feelings in you (I don’t think God has a favorite color or a favorite kind of music etc. so its not like we can get to know Him in that respect). As such pastors like John Piper are right to say that we should enjoy God for who He is and we should celebrate what He has done for us in worshipping His character.
I would also deny the idea that worship is where God fills us with a sense of euphoria or even a special sense of peace. Such an experience of God is not intrinsic to worship and so we shouldn’t expect to feel God’s presence every time we engage in worship. In addition to this, more often than not in the Bible God’s presence brought a sense of terror in the hearts of His followers, so I would question why we assume God is going to make us feel comforted by His presence at all times. It seems equally possible that God will convict us in worship about a grave sin we have committed and we should be sensitive to that feeling of guilt as much as we should about comfort and peace.
So I can easily grant the claim that there is an emotional aspect to worship and an emotional aspect to worshipping in Spirit in John 4:24, its just not the level nor the kind of emotion expressed by so many pastors today.
Useful resources on the study of worship; http://books.google.com/books?id=XV3MSDLAt6kC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=richard+rohrbaugh+social+commentary+on+worship&source=bl&ots=-BsOGjabYt&sig=CxmrzKBQtP3FfL6N3PjU1nNs-P4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=auvJU6DDIJbhoATdyoKYDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=richard%20rohrbaugh%20social%20commentary%20on%20worship&f=false
The Indwelling Spirit: God inside of us?
What is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is often portrayed as a separate consciousness, communicating with us on a constant basis through our own thoughts, emotions and externally through our own actions and the actions of those around us. This is all done in an effort on the Spirits part to conform our moral and spiritual character and nature to that of Christ’s. Moreover, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is often cited as a testament to our intimacy with God because God is not only with us but in us.
Hank Hanegraff from Christian Research Ministries writes; “...to say that the Holy Spirit is in you is not to point out where the Holy Spirit is physically located, but rather to point out that we have come into a special, intimate, personal relationship with Him through repentance. Similarly, when Jesus says, “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38), He is not speaking of physical location but intimacy of relationship.” However when it comes to explaining what this intimate personal relationship entails, Hanegraff only comes up with this; "To deny that the Holy Spirit is spatially locatable within us is not to deny that He is activelylocatable within us, working redemptively within the deepest part of our beings to conform us into the image of Christ. Far from detracting from our nearness to the Holy Spirit, the classical Christian view intensifies the intimacy of our special relationship to the Creator as well as the benefits of our redemption.” Ok, but how is this intimate? What about the Spirit’s active part in our lives requires this personal intimacy Hank is describing? If, as described above, being in Christ primarily means our being conformed to the identity of Christ through self-denial and selfless love then The Spirit doesn’t really need to communicate all that much with us to allow us to fulfill our purpose, let alone communicate with us as a unique personality. Such interaction makes no sense if the whole point of our relationship with the Spirit is to be like the Spirit in all His communicable attributes (i.e. righteousness, selflessness, holiness, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, self-control, peace, patience, love and goodness).
But perhaps Christians leaders and Pastors like Hanegraff are suggesting that the Spirit is affectionate and loving in a nurturing fashion, similar to that between a mother and her child and not so much between two friends or even lovers. Such affection wouldn’t involve communication so much as feelings of comfort in times of distress. But if this characteristic is central to our relationship with the Spirit we hit a scriptural wall when it comes to Acts where the Spirit acts as a supportive role almost solely in the ministry of the Apostles and is never mentioned as supporting them personally. Luke, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor Barnabas ever report feeling comforted by the Spirit in times of distress such as in the numerous times Paul was imprisoned and beaten. The Spirit brings the Apostles visions, provides them with the power to perform miracles and convicts them to evangelize. So again, it seems we must see these intimate nurturing aspects of the Spirit as secondary to His role as a guide to Christ-likeness and Kingdom building.
Aha! But what about verses like John 14:26 where the Holy Spirit is identified as the Comforter? This seems to conclusively demonstrate that the primary identity of the Spirit in us is that of a comforter! Well actually this leads us to the ambiguity of words in Greek when translated to english. The greek word here is paraklētos Which has a fairly broad set of meanings. The basic idea of it, however, seems to be centered on that of a helper or aid. But if this is true than “comforter” properly translated doesn’t have the therapeutic connotations so often attached to that word in modern society. It simply mean the Spirit is there to aid us in the mission God assigned to us. But there still could be a sense in which the Spirit gives us feelings of comfort and peace at times. The point is these must be seen as secondary to His central goal in breathing life into the Church through the ministries of Christians.
But what about external signs that the Spirit is there for us? These are certainly present in scripture, but they are perhaps more rare and less romantic than many would like to imagine. The Holy Spirit is never portrayed as forming a gust of wind around us or floating a flower down before us to let us know we’ll be ok. The signs from the Spirit are usually less cryptic and more direct. For instance, in Acts 16 the Spirit literally just prevents all attempts on the part of Paul to enter into Asia, and instead sends him a vision of a Macedonian calling for help. Not much interpretation is required to understand the Spirits message here. Even more so, events like this only happened every few years or so in the life of the Apostles, the founders of the Church! It seems foolish to suppose they would occur on a regular basis in our lives.
Sources; http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.php, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3875&t=KJV, http://www.equip.org/articles/the-indwelling-of-the-holy-spirit/#christian-books-3
Scriptural conclusion; By my roughly brief analysis of the wide range of passages used to support emotionalism and relationship theology I don’t find the case for seeing salvation in terms of a personal relationship with Christ very compelling. More often than not it seems more assumed that we have a personal relationship with Christ than scripturally established and no one seems to have bothered to build an in depth exegetical case for the idea or even develop what it really means to have a relationship with Christ. It’s always spoken of in very vague terms of “being intimate with Christ” “feeling His love” “having Christ in us” etc. So I suppose that at the very least I encourage Christians to really flesh out what they mean by a personal relationship with Christ because in every sense I could think of it actually meaning something it either seems to be a more confusing way of putting the message of the gospel or a needless (and perhaps even dangerous) addition to it.
Theological Objections to the gospel as a relationship;
On top of these scriptural considerations as well as the sociological problems discussed in part 1 I also have theological qualms with emotionalism. Going back to Part 1 you'll recall I defined emotionalism as; "the view that the Christian life is best understood as an individual transformation through an emotional and intimate relationship with God and that Christ’s atonement and resurrection were meant to establish said intimate relationships."
You'll also recall I tied this definition to various attributes of emotionalism; seeing God as our therapist, lover, friend, and/or daddy, seeing our interactions under these relationship frameworks as being primarily emotional and scriptural (since it would be impossible to hold that we can have verbal communication with God on a regular basis), and seeing our relationship with God as therefore being primarily internal and thereby primarily existing in the individual.
Before I engage in a theological critique of this viewpoint I want to make clear that what I am talking about isn't a doctrine that you either adhere to or not, rather its an emphasis on the way God relates to us. My point is that the personal and emotional aspects in the way we relate to God have been grossly over-exaggerated in the Church. I do not however deny that there is an emotional and personal aspect to salvation (such a view would also lead to troubling implications).
Theology is Pointless;
If we agree with the average evangelical and say that God is literally a person present in our minds then theology seems to be on the chopping block along with scripture. Revelation becomes immediate and ever present. Of course, most churches add that experiencing God means reading scripture and obeying God's word in order to balance the tension between God's immanence in our lives through our intimate relationship with Him and His transcendence above and away from us in His holy and righteous nature. My worry is that merely by saying being in Christ means being in a personal affectionate relationship with Him it is unclear how scripture is really helpful. After all Christ is right there with you at all times on a mental and emotional level, what need do we have for scripture if that is really the case? Moreover, why should we listen to theologians or pastors in theological and ethical instruction if it doesn't match up with our immediate direct connection to Christ?
I don't see how we can emphasize our closeness with Christ to the degree that emotionalism requires without sacrificing the revelation of God through sources outside ourselves. We have to say that Christ is really quite distant from us as individuals but also powerfully impacting our lives as our Lord and God through scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
A Church Club;
A corollary of this would be that under an emotionalist framework the Church itself becomes an optional gathering of individual Christians desiring to share their experience with Christ. If we have this direct connection to Christ where He tells us directly what His will is for our lives its unclear what need is for the Church. Again churches will qualify that the Church has a common relationship with Christ and that Christ uses the Church to exhort individual believers and fill them up spiritually. However, this doesn't seem to be enough to really treat the Church with the amount of importance both Christ and the writers of the NT put on the Church however. I cannot find a reading of Paul or Peter where they do not see the Church as the core of God’s activity on earth. They both go to great lengths to establish communities of Christians devoted to sharing and living the gospel. Paul doesn’t seem to understand any sense of a Christian life outside the Church. Therefore participation in the Church cannot be viewed as merely optional or beneficial for the individual believer, its absolutely essential to the individual believer.
But if this is true it seems equally difficult to imagine that at the same time salvation is primarily an internal affair of emotional and spiritual well-being. Salvation seems simultaneously internal and external; we are changed by our closeness to the Will and identity of God and then are sent out to fulfill His will and calling. This change within us, however, cannot be seen as a single event but as a process. The Church facilitates this process but more importantly we have a role to play in the Church. Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ with many members, each playing an integral role to the function of the whole. Each member is defined by their specific calling or gifting to perform tasks such as evangelism, teaching, shepherding, counseling etc.
Thus salvation is also external in that the plans God has for us have little to do with us relative to the Church and her mission. Emotionalism, by defining closeness with God as a state of deep spiritual connection with God within yourself doesn’t seem to allow for this view of the Church. Emotionalism sees the Church as primarily a service for the individual Christian in nourishing his daily walk with Christ. While a person can be saved and not participate in the Church for a time, I do not think a truly faithful child of God can ignore or neglect the Church indefinitely. Emotionalism, particularly in its stronger forms, states positively that Christians can do this and this emotionalist attitude has captured the hearts and minds of most evangelicals.
Antinomianism;
Emotionalism also has interesting implications for one’s view of the law, grace, faith and works. If Christ really did atone for our sins and conquer death to get closer to us on a personal level and changing us through a personal relationship then any good works we do must be a direct result of this relationship. This is certainly in line with Orthodoxy (good works are a result of God’s grace) but oddly Christians have repeatedly juxtaposed a relationship with Christ and religiousness. A relationship with Christ is described as a vibrant and living faith and religion is seen as empty rule following and obedience. These two seem to be portrayed as so opposed that one cannot have rules or obligations to follow without neglecting Christ and faith in Him. In an article entitled "God Hates Religion” we read:
"But relationship with God cannot be found through religion. In fact, religion is the biggest roadblock to seeking a relationship with God. Religion is simply Man trying to reach out to God by doing something that he thinks will please God. “If I can do enough, say enough, pray enough, give enough, sacrifice enough perhaps God will show me favor”. Every religion is based upon this “works theology”. Neither ceremony, liturgy, creeds, sacraments nor money have ever brought one soul into a reconciled relationship to God. Abstaining from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, illicit sex and the places that provide them is a healthy thing to do but cannot of itself restore a broken relationship with God. Giving up a favorite food or drink, reciting ‘program prayers’ or self mutilation does nothing to convince or satisfy God."
Scriptural arguments for emotionalism;
Yada: knowing God intimately?
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know [yada] and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me."
Exodus 33:13 “Teach me your ways so that I may know [yada] you and continue in your favor.”
Habakkuk 2:14 "The knowledge [yada] of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the seas."
The Hebrew root word for “knowing” “understanding” “becoming acquainted with” etc. is Yada. It is claimed over and over again that because of verses where yada is used to imply knowing someone sexually, this must mean that yada is meant everywhere as intimate knowledge of someone. This is simply false, as noted above yada is a root word for knowledge. This means it covers all kinds of knowledge and we have no reason to think that the ancient Hebrews believed all forms of knowledge were “intimate”, at least not in the same sense we use the word today. Even when the word does refer to knowledge of a person, it doesn’t automatically mean sexual relations or the emotional equivalent. Rather it can refer to anything from a casual acquaintance to a close friend or family member. So no, God wanting us to know Him doesn’t mean he wants us to know Him as a wife knows her husband, nor does it mean that He wants some platonic equivalent of emotional intimacy, at least not necessarily.
Examples of bad exegesis of the word “yada”; https://sites.google.com/site/kudeshet/the-hebrew-perspective/developing-intimacy-with-god---yad-yadah-yada-judah, http://www.ibethel.org/articles/2007/09/01/yada-yada-yada
Actual Hebrew Lexicon of the word; http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3045&t=KJV
Abba: Is God our daddy?
Romans 8:15 “The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
Mark 14:36 “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
Galatians 4:6 “Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Many claim that this word “Abba” refers to the way a child endears their father with tenderness and intimacy aka calling him “daddy”. There is actually very little evidence that Abba has this childish connotation. It comes from a New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias who wrote in 1971 that Abba resembled the chatter of a small child and thus it would have been seen as offensive to Jesus’ contemporaries for him to use such a familiar and informal term when speaking of God.
In reality Abba is the only word in aramaic for father, so Jesus didn’t have any other option. While Jeremias was right in that it was not strictly formal or ceremonial, it was as James Barr puts it “a solemn, responsible, adult address to a Father”. Indeed most scholars today recognize Joachim’s thesis as unsupported by the linguistic evidence.
Examples of bad exegesis for the word Abba; http://www.gotquestions.org/Abba-Father.html
Actual Lexicon entry for the word; http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5&t=KJV
Articles used as sources; http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-does-abba-mean-daddy/
Bride of Christ: Are we married to Jesus?
As a dude, I find the idea propagated by many pastors that every individual Christian is somehow married to Christ in an intimate and romantic fashion unsettling. It may be an attractive idea for women, but the implications are that Christ would be polygamous and married to His Fathers children, unless we are the Fathers sons and daughters… in law? What a ridiculous idea! Obviously bridal imagery in scripture is just that, imagery. Its drawing parallels between a husband and Christ in order to give us something to compare it to. But in this light the question still arises; does the Bible employ the analogy of the love between a husband and wife and the individual believer’s love for Christ?
There are 2 passages that seem to most strongly support the affirmative answer to this question:
- Hosea 2:19-20 “And I will take you for my wife forever; I will take you for my wife in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love, and in mercy. I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the Lord.”
Despite this being one of the strongest passages in support of the position that the individual is to love Christ with the same level and kind of emotional passion that he loves his spouse, this actually isn’t saying much. Honestly if you read the whole chapter, its fairly clear that the “you” is plural and refers to God’s people as a whole. Moreover, if this was meant to say God has multiple marriage like relationships with all of His followers, why does He state that He shall only have one wife?
- 2 Corinthians 11:2-4 “I am anxious for you with the deep concern of God himself--anxious that your love should be for Christ alone, just as a pure maiden saves her love for one man only, for the one who will be her husband. But I am frightened, fearing that in some way you will be led away from your pure and simple devotion to our Lord, just as Eve was deceived by Satan in the Garden of Eden.”
This is probably the best support for the emotionalists position with reference to bridal imagery. Clearly it refers to the individuals love for Christ. However, this passage seems to be speaking in terms of degree, not necessarily of kind. It says stay faithful to Christ in the same way a woman who is engaged stays faithful to her future spouse. In other words; don’t commit idolatry and stay true to your commitments. Unless you say love just is an intimate emotional passion for a person (an assertion which I don’t think can be justified Biblically) I fail to see how this verse really supports the interpretation that I and every other Christian have the deep kind of emotional bond in a modern marriage. But then if you say that, then this passage doesn’t have any more support for emotionalism than any other passage on God’s love.
Sloppy teachings on bridal imagery; http://www.creatingfutures.net/single.html; "Do we live our lives as if we are betrothed to Christ? As singles, do people look at us and see that we are in love. You know what I mean. You have seen people in love. They spend every spare moment with their lover. They will do silly things for and with their lover. They will talk for hours on the phone, even if it is long distance. They make plans for the future. They become inseparable. There is a look in their face.” If this is the way the Christian life is supposed to be lived, you would think Paul, Peter or one of the other New Testament writers would talk about how much they just love talking to Christ and how good He makes them feel. Good luck finding that, most of the time Paul speaks of himself as a bondservant of Christ aka a slave to Christ, not Christ’s girlfriend (Christ is our Lord, not our lover). I will grant however that most articles and sermons written on this issue correctly see Christ’s bride as being the Church collectively as two parties in covenant relationship. Whatever elements of Christ’s affection towards Christians present in bridal imagery passages, if there are any, are secondary to this central message.
Agape: God’s intimate love for us?
Ok so we’ve established that God relating to us as Father not to the Church as a bride entails a deep emotional connection with God. But what about God’s love for us in general? If emotionalism is correct than God’s love for us is centrally His desire to be in relationship with us. This relationship, in turn, entails a deep emotional connection whereby God allows us to feel things we’ve never felt before at certain times (usually in helping others or worshipping God) and bringing us closer to Himself in these emotional experiences.
If I have not made this clear before allow me to make it clear now; I reject the viewpoint described above in its entirety. God’s love as it is expressed in scripture, if anything is a tough love not intended to bring us into an emotionally based relationship with God but obedience to God and unity with God (which doesn’t mean emotional attachment). This is a crucial point of contention for the emotionalist. If they are wrong about what God’s love is, they are wrong in how they frame the purpose of Jesus death and resurrection and they are wrong about the essence of the Christian life. Also a disclaimer to avoid any confusion. The rejection of the above view doesn’t require that we believe God is a cold, distant God not involved in our experiences or lives at all. It just means that emotional and experiential elements to the Christian life are secondary in importance to our ethical and role based duties to God and our neighbor. In other words, you don’t have to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to be saved (gaaaasssspp).
J.P. Holding and a number of Biblical scholars have realized, however, that both the exegetical and contextual evidence of passages pertaining to God’s love for us do not have the connotations we attach to them. Holding writes; "A key difference in understanding the meaning of agape is to recognize that our culture is centered on the individual, whereas ancient Biblical society (and 70% of societies today) are group-centered. What is good for the group is what is paramount. Hence when the NT speaks of agape it refers to the "value of group attachment and group bonding" [Malina and Neyrey, Portraits of Paul, 196]. Agape is not an exchange on a personal level and "will have little to do with feelings of affection, sentiments of fondness, and warm, glowing affinity." It is a gift that puts the group first.”
Scholars Bruce J. Malina and John Piltch point out that love in the ancient world was not about emotional passion but social attachment and the role you played in another persons life. As such to hate someone is just not to love them and vice versa. This means that both love and hate on the part of God are not descriptions of His emotional attitudes towards us but the role He plays in looking after our best interests.
This makes sense of how Christ could at one moment speak of turning the other cheek and in the next moment call Pharisess hypocrites, white washed tombs and broods of Vipers. In that world, love and hate weren’t personal, no one got offended if you confronted them about their behavior or some such thing. Confrontation was the norm. It also makes sense of passages in the Old Testament such as the story of Jacob and Esau where God states “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated.” Also of particular interest in that same story is this passage; “Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.” This passage makes no sense under a modern understanding of love. We would say that there’s nothing about selling your birth right that indicates you hate it, it only means you don’t care about it. In ancient Mediterranean societies, however, love was seen in terms of attachment; you either are attached to your birth right, or you aren’t, there can be no in between.
So what about specific passages about love? How much sense does this model of love as social attachment make of these passages;
- 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” At first glance, verse 3 seems to refute the idea that the Biblical authors saw love as attachment, not emotional attitudes. After all if you can give all that you have away and die as a martyr but still not have love that seems to indicate love has more to do with your emotional motivations than your attachment to individuals and groups as a duty-bound servant. However, As Malina and Pilch point out, Paul is trying to distinguish charismata (charisma, courage, heroism) from agape (group allegiance, attachment to others). In other words someone might aim to give all they have to the poor and die as a martyr to leave an honorable and heroic legacy and not have any interest towards looking out for others interest. So this passage is saying that we need pure motivations, but its not saying those pure motivations require pure emotional attitudes.
Whether or not you accept what Holding, Malina and Pilch have to say, its clear that the default view of love is not our modern western conceptions. Even if love does have to do with emotional attitudes in the Biblical world, this doesn’t mean that God’s love for us implies an emotionally attached relationship. The Biblical view of love on both models points towards a more wholistic approach where our motives and actions are in harmony towards furthering the will of God and where God’s love towards us entails a looking out for humanities best interests and a will for individuals to grow in righteousness. And nothing about this central truth requires us to have personal relationships with God. That is a view someone can take, but it is dangerous to say that having a relationship with God is what the gospel’s all about.
Sources; http://books.google.com/books?id=cMrQOr9GmhoC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=John+Pilch+on+1+Corinthians+13:3&source=bl&ots=WSNMzdDOEk&sig=oeqkUTDWQaEEVxF5UONuXYBIPDw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zKLIU7-AL9CDogThyIKoAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=John%20Pilch%20on%201%20Corinthians%2013%3A3&f=false, http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatlove.php
Imago Dei: Relational creatures?
Another claim often made by emotionalists is that we were created in the image of God to be in personal relationships. They cite as evidence the fact that God created Eve so that Adam wouldn’t be alone and that God walked with both Adam and Eve in the Garden. While its undoubtedly true that part of being made in the image of God is our cognitive capacity for communication and personal relationships it seems equally true that the primary aspect of our being made in the image of God is our stewardship over God’s creation as His representatives. Involved in this is our identity as moral creatures who make moral decisions and are meant to live according to God’s purposes.
Again nothing about this requires the emotional relationship that many Christians describe where God. For instance in collectivist societies individuals are not nearly as introspective as we are in the West. So they don’t see interpersonal relationships the same way we see them. For them group identity is more important than individual identity so they don’t think in terms of how they feel about the group but what role they play in the group. So if we define within our view of imago dei a western view of personal relationships where two or more people have this great connection and get along very well in their personalities (a word which didn’t even exist until a little over a century ago) then we could be unintentionally saying all other cultural perspective are lacking the imago dei.
This is partly why I frame the Image of God in terms of stewardship over creation and ethical responsibility as these transcend cultural boundaries and truly get at the heart of who we are as human beings.
Sources; Pilch J. & Malina B. (2009). Handbook of Biblical Social Values. Peabody MA; Hendrickson publishers.
http://anthropology-updates.blogspot.com/2012/05/individualism-collectivism.html
Is eternal life knowing God?
In John chapter 17 Jesus is recorded praying to the Father; “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Well this settles it, eternal life is knowing Christ personally. Not exactly, the trouble is that “knowing” someone has a diverse range of meanings. Does this passage mean that we know God as the triune God who sent Jesus Christ and live according to that knowledge? Does it mean that we actually have conversations with this triune God? Does it mean we know God as we know our father? I think the first option would be the best, simply because it is the most simple. Knowing God is simply recognizing Him as the true God, learning His will and living it out through the power and life of the Holy Spirit. Again nothing about this requires a personal relationship so we have no justification for defining salvation in such terms.
Unity in Christ: becoming intimate with Christ?
John 17 also contains this passage; “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the worldmay believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. 26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
Aha, being in Christ and Christ being in us, that’s so intimate its almost erotic. This has to prove that salvation, whether individual or group centered involves personal intimacy. Well not really, the language of being in Christ or Christ being in us was employed by Christ in a collectivist society where individual identity was shaped by group identity (you are one with the body of Christ). Its saying we do not form our own identity as Christians, our identity is shaped by Christ such that our goals must be His goals, our desires must be His desires. The way we relate to Christ then is not as two equal persons seeking an mutual emotional connection but truly as a potter forms clay. As such it is not us who lives but Christ in us. This is not a description of a literal person abiding inside of our souls so much as the power of Christ to conform us to Himself. And again nothing about this implies a personal relationship in the sense of two people seeking an emotional connection based on personality.
Sources; http://books.google.com/books?id=zqoJj4WhJXAC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Bruce+Malina+on+John+17:3&source=bl&ots=f6PkGfY17b&sig=ag9BbAYge-tw2W72LYOvJub0LHE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3VnJU5ncONK6oQSblILICg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Bruce%20Malina%20on%20John%2017%3A3&f=false, http://www.tektonics.org/qt/selfesteem.php
Worshipping in Spirit means worshipping emotionally?
What is the purpose of worship? If it is truly to give glory to God through hymns and proclamations of thanksgiving and God’s truth and goodness should we not have some passion for God something more than a stoic devotion to Him? Well yes, obviously we are going to have passion. But I think this passion is more like the passion we have for a great leader or someone we are inspired to follow in the sense that you don’t have to know such people personally for them to evoke passionate feelings in you (I don’t think God has a favorite color or a favorite kind of music etc. so its not like we can get to know Him in that respect). As such pastors like John Piper are right to say that we should enjoy God for who He is and we should celebrate what He has done for us in worshipping His character.
I would also deny the idea that worship is where God fills us with a sense of euphoria or even a special sense of peace. Such an experience of God is not intrinsic to worship and so we shouldn’t expect to feel God’s presence every time we engage in worship. In addition to this, more often than not in the Bible God’s presence brought a sense of terror in the hearts of His followers, so I would question why we assume God is going to make us feel comforted by His presence at all times. It seems equally possible that God will convict us in worship about a grave sin we have committed and we should be sensitive to that feeling of guilt as much as we should about comfort and peace.
So I can easily grant the claim that there is an emotional aspect to worship and an emotional aspect to worshipping in Spirit in John 4:24, its just not the level nor the kind of emotion expressed by so many pastors today.
Useful resources on the study of worship; http://books.google.com/books?id=XV3MSDLAt6kC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=richard+rohrbaugh+social+commentary+on+worship&source=bl&ots=-BsOGjabYt&sig=CxmrzKBQtP3FfL6N3PjU1nNs-P4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=auvJU6DDIJbhoATdyoKYDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=richard%20rohrbaugh%20social%20commentary%20on%20worship&f=false
The Indwelling Spirit: God inside of us?
What is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is often portrayed as a separate consciousness, communicating with us on a constant basis through our own thoughts, emotions and externally through our own actions and the actions of those around us. This is all done in an effort on the Spirits part to conform our moral and spiritual character and nature to that of Christ’s. Moreover, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is often cited as a testament to our intimacy with God because God is not only with us but in us.
Hank Hanegraff from Christian Research Ministries writes; “...to say that the Holy Spirit is in you is not to point out where the Holy Spirit is physically located, but rather to point out that we have come into a special, intimate, personal relationship with Him through repentance. Similarly, when Jesus says, “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:38), He is not speaking of physical location but intimacy of relationship.” However when it comes to explaining what this intimate personal relationship entails, Hanegraff only comes up with this; "To deny that the Holy Spirit is spatially locatable within us is not to deny that He is activelylocatable within us, working redemptively within the deepest part of our beings to conform us into the image of Christ. Far from detracting from our nearness to the Holy Spirit, the classical Christian view intensifies the intimacy of our special relationship to the Creator as well as the benefits of our redemption.” Ok, but how is this intimate? What about the Spirit’s active part in our lives requires this personal intimacy Hank is describing? If, as described above, being in Christ primarily means our being conformed to the identity of Christ through self-denial and selfless love then The Spirit doesn’t really need to communicate all that much with us to allow us to fulfill our purpose, let alone communicate with us as a unique personality. Such interaction makes no sense if the whole point of our relationship with the Spirit is to be like the Spirit in all His communicable attributes (i.e. righteousness, selflessness, holiness, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, self-control, peace, patience, love and goodness).
But perhaps Christians leaders and Pastors like Hanegraff are suggesting that the Spirit is affectionate and loving in a nurturing fashion, similar to that between a mother and her child and not so much between two friends or even lovers. Such affection wouldn’t involve communication so much as feelings of comfort in times of distress. But if this characteristic is central to our relationship with the Spirit we hit a scriptural wall when it comes to Acts where the Spirit acts as a supportive role almost solely in the ministry of the Apostles and is never mentioned as supporting them personally. Luke, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor Barnabas ever report feeling comforted by the Spirit in times of distress such as in the numerous times Paul was imprisoned and beaten. The Spirit brings the Apostles visions, provides them with the power to perform miracles and convicts them to evangelize. So again, it seems we must see these intimate nurturing aspects of the Spirit as secondary to His role as a guide to Christ-likeness and Kingdom building.
Aha! But what about verses like John 14:26 where the Holy Spirit is identified as the Comforter? This seems to conclusively demonstrate that the primary identity of the Spirit in us is that of a comforter! Well actually this leads us to the ambiguity of words in Greek when translated to english. The greek word here is paraklētos Which has a fairly broad set of meanings. The basic idea of it, however, seems to be centered on that of a helper or aid. But if this is true than “comforter” properly translated doesn’t have the therapeutic connotations so often attached to that word in modern society. It simply mean the Spirit is there to aid us in the mission God assigned to us. But there still could be a sense in which the Spirit gives us feelings of comfort and peace at times. The point is these must be seen as secondary to His central goal in breathing life into the Church through the ministries of Christians.
But what about external signs that the Spirit is there for us? These are certainly present in scripture, but they are perhaps more rare and less romantic than many would like to imagine. The Holy Spirit is never portrayed as forming a gust of wind around us or floating a flower down before us to let us know we’ll be ok. The signs from the Spirit are usually less cryptic and more direct. For instance, in Acts 16 the Spirit literally just prevents all attempts on the part of Paul to enter into Asia, and instead sends him a vision of a Macedonian calling for help. Not much interpretation is required to understand the Spirits message here. Even more so, events like this only happened every few years or so in the life of the Apostles, the founders of the Church! It seems foolish to suppose they would occur on a regular basis in our lives.
Sources; http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.php, http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3875&t=KJV, http://www.equip.org/articles/the-indwelling-of-the-holy-spirit/#christian-books-3
Scriptural conclusion; By my roughly brief analysis of the wide range of passages used to support emotionalism and relationship theology I don’t find the case for seeing salvation in terms of a personal relationship with Christ very compelling. More often than not it seems more assumed that we have a personal relationship with Christ than scripturally established and no one seems to have bothered to build an in depth exegetical case for the idea or even develop what it really means to have a relationship with Christ. It’s always spoken of in very vague terms of “being intimate with Christ” “feeling His love” “having Christ in us” etc. So I suppose that at the very least I encourage Christians to really flesh out what they mean by a personal relationship with Christ because in every sense I could think of it actually meaning something it either seems to be a more confusing way of putting the message of the gospel or a needless (and perhaps even dangerous) addition to it.
Theological Objections to the gospel as a relationship;
On top of these scriptural considerations as well as the sociological problems discussed in part 1 I also have theological qualms with emotionalism. Going back to Part 1 you'll recall I defined emotionalism as; "the view that the Christian life is best understood as an individual transformation through an emotional and intimate relationship with God and that Christ’s atonement and resurrection were meant to establish said intimate relationships."
You'll also recall I tied this definition to various attributes of emotionalism; seeing God as our therapist, lover, friend, and/or daddy, seeing our interactions under these relationship frameworks as being primarily emotional and scriptural (since it would be impossible to hold that we can have verbal communication with God on a regular basis), and seeing our relationship with God as therefore being primarily internal and thereby primarily existing in the individual.
Before I engage in a theological critique of this viewpoint I want to make clear that what I am talking about isn't a doctrine that you either adhere to or not, rather its an emphasis on the way God relates to us. My point is that the personal and emotional aspects in the way we relate to God have been grossly over-exaggerated in the Church. I do not however deny that there is an emotional and personal aspect to salvation (such a view would also lead to troubling implications).
Theology is Pointless;
If we agree with the average evangelical and say that God is literally a person present in our minds then theology seems to be on the chopping block along with scripture. Revelation becomes immediate and ever present. Of course, most churches add that experiencing God means reading scripture and obeying God's word in order to balance the tension between God's immanence in our lives through our intimate relationship with Him and His transcendence above and away from us in His holy and righteous nature. My worry is that merely by saying being in Christ means being in a personal affectionate relationship with Him it is unclear how scripture is really helpful. After all Christ is right there with you at all times on a mental and emotional level, what need do we have for scripture if that is really the case? Moreover, why should we listen to theologians or pastors in theological and ethical instruction if it doesn't match up with our immediate direct connection to Christ?
I don't see how we can emphasize our closeness with Christ to the degree that emotionalism requires without sacrificing the revelation of God through sources outside ourselves. We have to say that Christ is really quite distant from us as individuals but also powerfully impacting our lives as our Lord and God through scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
A Church Club;
A corollary of this would be that under an emotionalist framework the Church itself becomes an optional gathering of individual Christians desiring to share their experience with Christ. If we have this direct connection to Christ where He tells us directly what His will is for our lives its unclear what need is for the Church. Again churches will qualify that the Church has a common relationship with Christ and that Christ uses the Church to exhort individual believers and fill them up spiritually. However, this doesn't seem to be enough to really treat the Church with the amount of importance both Christ and the writers of the NT put on the Church however. I cannot find a reading of Paul or Peter where they do not see the Church as the core of God’s activity on earth. They both go to great lengths to establish communities of Christians devoted to sharing and living the gospel. Paul doesn’t seem to understand any sense of a Christian life outside the Church. Therefore participation in the Church cannot be viewed as merely optional or beneficial for the individual believer, its absolutely essential to the individual believer.
But if this is true it seems equally difficult to imagine that at the same time salvation is primarily an internal affair of emotional and spiritual well-being. Salvation seems simultaneously internal and external; we are changed by our closeness to the Will and identity of God and then are sent out to fulfill His will and calling. This change within us, however, cannot be seen as a single event but as a process. The Church facilitates this process but more importantly we have a role to play in the Church. Paul describes the Church as the body of Christ with many members, each playing an integral role to the function of the whole. Each member is defined by their specific calling or gifting to perform tasks such as evangelism, teaching, shepherding, counseling etc.
Thus salvation is also external in that the plans God has for us have little to do with us relative to the Church and her mission. Emotionalism, by defining closeness with God as a state of deep spiritual connection with God within yourself doesn’t seem to allow for this view of the Church. Emotionalism sees the Church as primarily a service for the individual Christian in nourishing his daily walk with Christ. While a person can be saved and not participate in the Church for a time, I do not think a truly faithful child of God can ignore or neglect the Church indefinitely. Emotionalism, particularly in its stronger forms, states positively that Christians can do this and this emotionalist attitude has captured the hearts and minds of most evangelicals.
Antinomianism;
Emotionalism also has interesting implications for one’s view of the law, grace, faith and works. If Christ really did atone for our sins and conquer death to get closer to us on a personal level and changing us through a personal relationship then any good works we do must be a direct result of this relationship. This is certainly in line with Orthodoxy (good works are a result of God’s grace) but oddly Christians have repeatedly juxtaposed a relationship with Christ and religiousness. A relationship with Christ is described as a vibrant and living faith and religion is seen as empty rule following and obedience. These two seem to be portrayed as so opposed that one cannot have rules or obligations to follow without neglecting Christ and faith in Him. In an article entitled "God Hates Religion” we read:
"But relationship with God cannot be found through religion. In fact, religion is the biggest roadblock to seeking a relationship with God. Religion is simply Man trying to reach out to God by doing something that he thinks will please God. “If I can do enough, say enough, pray enough, give enough, sacrifice enough perhaps God will show me favor”. Every religion is based upon this “works theology”. Neither ceremony, liturgy, creeds, sacraments nor money have ever brought one soul into a reconciled relationship to God. Abstaining from drugs, alcohol, tobacco, illicit sex and the places that provide them is a healthy thing to do but cannot of itself restore a broken relationship with God. Giving up a favorite food or drink, reciting ‘program prayers’ or self mutilation does nothing to convince or satisfy God."
My problem with this attitude is that it rubs very close to antinomian ideals (that sanctification is optional for the Christian). If our relationship to Christ is what saves us, and this relationship doesn’t involve changing us to perform good works, than what on earth is the point of a relationship with Christ? In addition, this attitude seems to go against most Church tradition and scripture on sacramental rituals. Even the most staunch memorialist (we only take communion in remembrance of Christ, it is not a means of grace) would say that both communion and baptism is an important part of the Christian life and most definitely pleases God. As the author of Hebrews states; “It is impossible to please God without faith” but faith is also what motivated the Patriarchs and the Prophets to obedience to God. Rule following, therefore is not the core of the issue, its rule following with the goal of earning our own salvation. Christians can gladly speak of obligations to God and good works as a necessity, just not as a necessity to earn salvation. Rather, obedience to God through good works is the believers participation in the salvation Christ afforded her by living the life of mutual servitude she was created to live. Christians who speak of religion vs relationship may have this in mind when they make statements like the one quoted above, but it sure seems like a confusing way to make a fairly simple point, and all for the sake of cultural relevance.
In addition to this there seems to be a false dichotomy between doing something because we have a duty to do it and doing something because we have a desire to do it. The simple fact of the matter is that it is good to desire to love and serve God as well as our neighbor because it is our duty to do so. Desiring to do our duties and fulfill our obligations is the same as being loving if you really think about it. If you are doing your duties begrudgingly then you really don’t desire to do them but desire an effect or benefit of doing them.
Sources; http://definingthenarrative.com/god-hates-religion/, https://bible.org/seriespage/christian-obligations-romans-13,
A side issue for those interested in Catholic teachings; http://catholicism.org/faith-and-good-works.html
Destroying Christian ethics;
Emotionalism also seems to have a general negative effect on Christian ethics; it discourages the discussion of them. In its stead the Christian life is solely about growing spiritually. If Christianity becomes all about interpersonal (maybe intrapersonal) relationships with God then living as a Christian becomes more about maintaining an emotionally healthy relationship with God then it does about obedience to Him and self-sacrifice to the Church. In other words Christianity becomes therapeutic and psychologized. To see this, one only has to look at the top 100 best selling Christian books on amazon or barnes and noble websites. The majority talk more about self improvement in regards to attitude and inner peace than they do about tangible ethical issues in the Christian life.
In contrast to this the Didache, written around 100 A.D. (just 67 years after the death of Christ), outlines the Christian life in terms of ethical obligations and moral principles;
Chapter 1:
1)There are two ways: one of Life - one of Death, each having great differences between them.
2) The way of life is this:
First, You must love the One who formed you;
Second, you must love your neighbor in the same manner as yourself. Do not do to others, what you yourself would not want done to you.
3) And these are our teachings:
Bless the ones who curse you. Pray for your enemies. Fast for your persecuters. Do you expect a great reward if you only love those who love you? Do the Gentiles not conduct themselves accordingly? But if you practice love to those who hate you, your enemies will vanish.
4) Refrain from the impulses of your selfish nature and the self-serving world. If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the left to be likewise stiked. This discipline will lead to your perfecting. If someone forces you to go one mile in service, go with him a second. If someone robs you of your robe, freely give him your coat. If someone takes anything from you, don't ask that it be returned, for what good would that do?
5) Give to all who ask, and don't expect return; for your Parent in heaven wills that everyone should be recipients of our free gifts. Great rewards await anyone who gives according to the commandment; for that person is guiltless. A negative return is given to the one who receives but has no need, for he will pay the penalty for why he received for nothing but greed, and under examination will be required to divulge everything concerning his choices, and will not be freed from his obligations until everything owed is paid.
6) On the other hand, the one who is in need and receives is guiltless. Let your gifts rest in in your sweaty hands, until you know to can discern to whom you should give.
Chapter 2:
1) This is the second commandment of the Teaching;
2) You must not murder; nor given to adultery; nor molest children; nor practice immorality; nor theft; nor a practicioner of black magic; nor a practicioner of witchcraft; nor a terminator of unborn children; nor any sort of infanticide; nor one who unlawfully seek to take ownership of your neighbor's possessions,
3) You must not commit perjury nor be given over to false testimony, nor speak evil, nor hold grudges.
4) You must not be deceitful nor fickle; for to be fickeled is a snare of death.
5) Your speech must never be false, nor meaningless, but confirmed by action.
6) You must never be greedy, nor accumulate riches, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant; nor given over to plot evil against your neighbor.
7) You must not hate anyone; but some you must correct, and pray for others, and some you must love even more than your own life.
Emotionalism also seems to have a general negative effect on Christian ethics; it discourages the discussion of them. In its stead the Christian life is solely about growing spiritually. If Christianity becomes all about interpersonal (maybe intrapersonal) relationships with God then living as a Christian becomes more about maintaining an emotionally healthy relationship with God then it does about obedience to Him and self-sacrifice to the Church. In other words Christianity becomes therapeutic and psychologized. To see this, one only has to look at the top 100 best selling Christian books on amazon or barnes and noble websites. The majority talk more about self improvement in regards to attitude and inner peace than they do about tangible ethical issues in the Christian life.
In contrast to this the Didache, written around 100 A.D. (just 67 years after the death of Christ), outlines the Christian life in terms of ethical obligations and moral principles;
Chapter 1:
1)There are two ways: one of Life - one of Death, each having great differences between them.
2) The way of life is this:
First, You must love the One who formed you;
Second, you must love your neighbor in the same manner as yourself. Do not do to others, what you yourself would not want done to you.
3) And these are our teachings:
Bless the ones who curse you. Pray for your enemies. Fast for your persecuters. Do you expect a great reward if you only love those who love you? Do the Gentiles not conduct themselves accordingly? But if you practice love to those who hate you, your enemies will vanish.
4) Refrain from the impulses of your selfish nature and the self-serving world. If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the left to be likewise stiked. This discipline will lead to your perfecting. If someone forces you to go one mile in service, go with him a second. If someone robs you of your robe, freely give him your coat. If someone takes anything from you, don't ask that it be returned, for what good would that do?
5) Give to all who ask, and don't expect return; for your Parent in heaven wills that everyone should be recipients of our free gifts. Great rewards await anyone who gives according to the commandment; for that person is guiltless. A negative return is given to the one who receives but has no need, for he will pay the penalty for why he received for nothing but greed, and under examination will be required to divulge everything concerning his choices, and will not be freed from his obligations until everything owed is paid.
6) On the other hand, the one who is in need and receives is guiltless. Let your gifts rest in in your sweaty hands, until you know to can discern to whom you should give.
Chapter 2:
1) This is the second commandment of the Teaching;
2) You must not murder; nor given to adultery; nor molest children; nor practice immorality; nor theft; nor a practicioner of black magic; nor a practicioner of witchcraft; nor a terminator of unborn children; nor any sort of infanticide; nor one who unlawfully seek to take ownership of your neighbor's possessions,
3) You must not commit perjury nor be given over to false testimony, nor speak evil, nor hold grudges.
4) You must not be deceitful nor fickle; for to be fickeled is a snare of death.
5) Your speech must never be false, nor meaningless, but confirmed by action.
6) You must never be greedy, nor accumulate riches, nor a hypocrite, nor malicious, nor arrogant; nor given over to plot evil against your neighbor.
7) You must not hate anyone; but some you must correct, and pray for others, and some you must love even more than your own life.
Speaking about how psychology relates to Christian living is actually quite beneficial, but such discussions have replaced ethical discussion that the early Church clearly seemed committed to teaching in many Christian circles. If the Didache was read aloud in churches today, it would most likely be labeled a document of legalism even though Paul writes much the same way in His epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. In contrast to this, daily devotionals speak more about having a positive attitude and encouragement than they do about serious issues of morality and doctrine. For instance Max Lucado writes in his devotional Grace For the Moment;
“It’s time to let God’s love cover all things in your life, All secrets. all hurts. All hours of evil, minutes of worry… Picture a dup truck full of love. There you are behind it. God lifts the bed until the love starts to slide. slowly at first, then down, down down until you are hidden buried, covered in His love.”
All of Lucado’s writings are like this and all of them are equally centered on making Christians feel better. This is pure therapy and cannot be viewed as the core of Christian living. But I fear it is seen as such by many Christians today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)