www.act4u.wordpress.com
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009
The Truth about Theology is...
... it can help science and philosophy makes sense of the world.
Theology’s confessional reflection distinguishes between synchronic[1] diachronic[2] and achronic[3] truths and can improve upon science and philosophy. This begins with a reasoned adoption of biblical authority, not as scientific knowledge or philosophical construct, but as tenseless diachronic or timeless achronic truth.
Christian theology makes 3 claims:
1. The universe is not eternal but was created and continues to be re-formed according to physical laws.
2. Science and philosophy have already discovered many of these laws and can anticipate still unknown ones.
3. In time, the universe will be renewed where life will not be exhausted and human consciousness will persist everlastingly.
Our task is to find convergence from scientific discoveries and philosophical speculation to make sense of divine revelation with reference to how the universe came to be.
One important question is whether scientific and philosophical truths are synchronic or diachronic? In truth, neither deals with the question of truth since science offers plausible explanations and philosophy speculates on coherent possibilities. Therefore, both science and philosophy, while extremely useful in helping theology interpret achronic truth, cannot themselves be the basis of such truths. However, they are used to explain both synchronic and diachronic truths even while they are not themselves the sources of truth. So when we say that androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is a scientific fact from which philosophical speculation derives the argument that gender identification exists as a continuum, such a fact based on an argument nevertheless does not rise to the status of a truth.
[1] Synchronic truths are limited to instants of time, i.e., they are true at the instant that they are uttered but may be untrue after certain instances. So, for e.g., the truth that someone born in 1960 is 49 years old in 2009 but it will no longer be true after her birthday in 2010.
[2] Diachronic truths are bound by the duration of time, i.e., they remain true within the interval of created time, or chronos. It is often used to mean a timeless truth, but this is misleading. Rather, it is merely a tenseless truth. Such tenseless (not bound by its past, present, or future) but not timeless may include any truth that remains true within the context of the created space-time continuum, hence, basically every other truth we can think of, except God’s timeless revealed truth, is a diachronic truth, for e.g., the truth that I was born in the city of Kuala Lumpur so named in 1960. Even if the name changes in the future or plate techtonics shift the coordinates of the city in space-time, I can identify the tenseless and creationally unchanging truth that I was geographically born there.
[3] I coined the term achronic to describe truths that are neither tensed nor timed, i.e., they are not polluted by either the passage or presence of time. This I reserve exclusively for the kind of truths revealed by God that is neither synchronic or diachronic. There can be no secular example of an achronic truth because it is by definition a truth that only God can utter. Thus, while divine revelation may be synchronic (‘the mustard seed is the smallest seed in all the world’), diachronic (‘before Abraham was, I am’) or achronic (all the timeless and eternal promises of God such as ‘God is love’), only the first two kinds of truth are open to scientific and philosophical scrutiny. We bank our salvation on achronic truths.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Christian Mandate of Paideia & the Envy Index
This is an except from my seminar - Paideia - Spiritual Formation fo the Christian Mind
The Spiritual Formation of the Christian Mind - Romans 12:2
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, in my first year at seminary, I took a course with Professor Diogenes Allen. He was and remains widely considered the finest mind on campus and a sharp critic of sloppy thinking. He taught me the importance of using philosophy to achieve precision and clarity in theological reflection as a mark of respect for the Bible and integrity for our witness. On the final day of class, he told us to take down a list of books to read ‘when we ever find the time’ and to ‘make the time to read.’ Among his list was the three volumes simply named Paideia. My admiration for Dick Allen led me to immediately search for the books (difficult to find) and finally buy them at the venerable New York institution Strand, “the largest bookstore in the world, with eight miles of shelves.” Most major cities I know claim to host the largest bookstore in the world, including Foyle’s of London and World’s Biggest Bookstore in Toronto.
The idea behind the word paideia, a Greek term with various meanings, for Christian theology is its description of spiritual formation, specifically of the mind. This seminar is my first attempt at articulating what is for me, a work-in-progress. Paideia recalls the ancient belief that unless a child is properly educated by a balanced diet of spiritual, mental, and physical resources, the outcome will be a missed opportunity to inculcate an informed citizenry.
At ACT, we are committed to demystifying the unnecessarily mystifying parts of the Bible and make its riches accessible to the laity. We believe that a better-educated congregation enriches the church and is a blessing to the leadership. They will invite more learned sermons, more responsible apologetics and more profound reflection, paving the way for a deeper relationship with the Lord.
There is a residual resistance to the study of the Bible, for fear that it may dampen spiritual enthusiasm. But such enthusiasm is not unique to Christianity. All manner of religions and philosophies can cause spiritual excitement. The difference is whether we know what it is that we ought to be excited about. It is easy to avoid the excesses of dry academic work only to idolize an intellectually lazy approach that can become the fuel for unwitting heresy. We ought not vacillate in guilt between the extremes of ignorance-as-a-badge-of-honor and academic-elitism. While the Bible can bless anyone who reads it at whatever cognitive level of engagement, to ignore its role as a resource of knowledge is a disservice.
We seek to lift the standards expected on understanding the Bible and raise the bar of expectation. This means rather than lower our standards to the lowest common denominator, we will push for the hard work of thinking things through.
Join us as we begin to think about what it means to believe that Jesus is Lord and is God’s fullest expression to the human mind. We start with examining the meaning of paideia for Christianity. We follow this with a consideration of how we cognitively believe in God. Next we ask what forming a Christian mind entails. Then we look at the Christian mandate in the light of using the Christian mind. Finally we explain how the ministry of ACT seeks to respond to this mandate in its programs, teaching and training.
1. PAIDEIA – FORMING THE CHRISTIAN MIND
The ancient Greeks used the word paideia to mean the proper formation of the educated citizen. They were interested in the development of the model citizen of a democracy and believed that philosophy – the love of wisdom – is the key to a strong and durable mind.
Early Christian thought adopted the concept behind paideia. When the gospel writers remembered Jesus’ teachings, they used paideia (those who were properly trained) instead of tekna (offsprings of people) to describe the children whom Jesus invited to himself. He then said that unless we were like paideia, we would not inherit the kingdom of God. It is this notion of what Jesus taught (paideia) that forms the foundation for the spiritual formation of the Christian mind.
At the Academy for Christian Thought (ACT), we seek to create a Theological Safe Space (TSS), a welcome space where believers and their unbelieving friends can find intellectual refuge, a space to ask questions they do not even know how to articulate, and a space where no one ought to be prematurely judged for making inquiries with tentative proposals. In such a safe space, we are all mindful of our spiritual, our emotional and our intellectual frailty. In response, we wish to encourage the Christian in his faith and offer a climate of welcome to the non-Christian who sincerely seeks to know. The call of the Christian message is to be transformed by a renewal of our minds as we consider the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Explore with us the meaning and implications of what it means to have a transforming relationship with Jesus. This transformation is the result of our quest in the formation of a Christian mind.
The formation of the Christian mind goes beyond intellectual assent: It includes the Confession, Conviction of the confession, and a Commitment to the convictional confession that Jesus is indeed Lord of our lives. To this end, ACT takes as its ministry verse, Romans 12:2 “[B]e transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…” that you may know the will of God.
1.1 BE TRANSFORMED – BY THINKING THINGS THROUGH
The Christian mind engages with the world of ideas through at least 5 cultural spheres of influence – there are plenty of others. We refer to them as CAMPS - commerce, academia, media, politics and sports. In another seminar (CSI), we shall examine them in more detail. Here, we shall explore what it means to develop a Christian mind, to build a foundation of thought so that in matters great and small, we form the habit of thinking things through, theologically. Why theologically? Well, the moment you deem yourself a Christian, your understanding of everything takes on a theological dimension because you believe that God exists and that you have a relationship with God. This means that the things of God are ultimately of great concern to you. Your view of politics, economics, social issues, cultural matters, commercial interests, etc. are all influenced by how you view your relationship with God. Indeed, that relationship both shapes and is shaped by your understanding of the world you live in.
For example, if you say that modern American capitalism is the preferred way to operate in the financial system that we inherit, you are already making important decisions on how you would respond to the theological notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. This teaching demands that we treat another - not as we would have others treat us, but as we would treat ourselves. Ouch! Can it be possible to do just that in a near zero-sum world of economics where scarcity leads to outcomes with distinct classes of winners and losers? I gather that none of us wish to be among the losers. Yet American capitalism celebrates winners precisely because they are not losers. For the record, I believe that American capitalism is the best in the world, but it fails to meet the demands set by Jesus. We are charged to labor our minds to close this gap. We must transform the ways we value treasures and treasure what is truly valuable. Instead of merely asking whether something is beneficial to us, we might also ask if it is the right thing to do. This calls up the notion of a moral circle. How do we do this? By first renewing our minds.
WHAT IS A MORAL CIRCLE: A moral circle is the scope of persons beyond ourselves to whom we extend the courtesy of morality. You may be alarmed to learn that for most of us, our moral circles are rather small. Thus we feel obliged to behave morally to our loved ones and family but not necessarily to others outside our moral circle. Indeed, we often rationalize and construct reasons to justify why we act immorally to those who exist outside our moral circle - our professional competitors at work and school perhaps, the children of our neighbors who may end up competing with our kids for the more desirable schools or jobs, our bosses or subordinates, etc. The power of Jesus’ exposition of the second divine command – Love your neighbor as yourself – is stunning in its enlargement of the moral circle to include all of humanity.
1.2 BY RENEWING YOUR MIND
We shall explore the Pauline injunction to renew our minds. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul called upon the Christians to renew their minds. What was he talking about? Renewal presupposes some existing or extant thing that needs to change. The human mind is unable to respond adequately to God. But the grace of God enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (wills) to receive the gift of faith (belief in things unseen), which justifies us (makes us holy before God). However, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives - by the renewing of our minds.
Why the focus on the mind? This is a metaphor to describe the function of the brain. Our minds are in fact, the foundations of our beings. When we are unable to think rationally, we say that we may have ‘lost’ our minds.
The word ‘mind’ here (noos) refers to our intellect, will and emotions. ‘Renewal’ presupposes an existing or extant entity that needs change. The human mind in the sinful condition is unable to respond adequately to God unaided. It is the grace of God that enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (rationality) to receive the gift of faith, which justifies us. Yet, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives, by the renewing of our minds. Our minds are the foundations of our beings. The Danish Christian philosopher Danish Kierkegaard asks us to think thought itself. It is this exercise of taking responsibility for how and what we think that marks the essence of paideia.
The renewal of our minds liberates us to think beyond ourselves as individuals and more as persons in a special relationship with God almighty – a courtesy that God has extended to us by dint of making us in His image. This remarkable proclamation of the biblical writers suggest that we have access to, as it were, the thoughts of God in some minimal sense. It would be the height of arrogance to think that we can know God’s mind per se. Rather, we mean that God has given to Homo sapiens sapiens the capacity for emotional intelligence, rational discourse and experiential history aided by memory – which results in our common religiosity and unsettledness until we find rest in God. Our unique capacities to believe in God and to pray in hope means that we may gain insight to the ways of God.
1.3 TO GAIN INSIGHT TO THE WAYS OF GOD
Interestingly, knowing and discerning God’s will is not about mimicking another person. It is about gaining proximate thought to God’s ways by inculcating a habit of thinking about God and understanding the scriptures. No book can give us the magic formula to know God’s will and personal stories from others are at best anecdotal and may be not very helpful beyond lifting our spirits when we are down. It has become common for well-meaning Christians to share how God has apparently worked in their lives – suggesting certain formulae by which God conforms to when the almighty works in the lives of other Christians. Unfortunately, this notion that we can ‘find the will of God’ by praying harder, meditating more (quantitatively) or briefly living a ‘better’ life has infected the Christian consciousness. The noted evangelical biblical scholar, Bruce Waltke, has courageously written of many practices that Christians pass off as divine guidance – following hunches, casting lots, looking for signs, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts actually bear an unsettling resemblance to the ways pagans seek guidance. Waltke argues that the truest course to the will of God is found in faithfully answering the call to walk close to the Lord and be conformed to His likeness. All this sounds nice but here Waltke falls into the Christian habit of using language that become full of unhelpful abstractions.
What he means may be encapsulated by several spiritual habits we may inculcate:
1.3.1 Practice The Bible In Your Life
There is no substitute for reading and understanding the Bible. For most people, this is a hard and boring task. It is the great fortune for anyone to receive instruction from a gifted preacher and teacher. The preacher’s task is to inspire the listener with punch-line applicable expositions that can make specific portions of the Bible come alive. But without a way to understand how the Bible’s teachings become transformed in the mind of the preacher to become a sermon, the listener will always be at the mercy of the preacher and be vulnerable to the vagaries of his effort. The wise Christian seeks to know the mechanics of how a great sermon comes about – not in the sense of the delivery and rhetorical gifts of the preacher, but in terms of how one is to interpret the raw texts of the Bible. This is where a responsible teacher of the Bible makes her contribution. If I may use a common analogy, the preacher feeds the student with fish, but the teacher teaches the student how to fish. Indeed, good Bible teaching makes the student a better listener of a sermon. But learning the Bible is not enough. We have to learn to make its teachings a part of our everyday life. Thus obedience is the final marker of our understanding of what the Bible means.
1.3.2 Make God Your Adoptive Authority
This is a difficult concept to articulate. It refers to finding convergence between what we naturally feel drawn to what we believe God offers. We may do this by seeking out the friendship and guidance of others whom we believe have followed the teachings of God in the Bible in their lives. Of course, we may be fooled or we may fool ourselves in this venture. But nevertheless, our thoughts are more often than not shaped by the thoughts and habits of people we hang out with. We adopt the authorities of others in matters that we do not trust ourselves with. To make God your adoptive authority by being influenced by people who also make God their adoptive authorities is a crucial aspect of forming the community of faith we call the church.
1.3.3 Judge The Circumstances Of Our Lives
If God is interested in us, it is also likely that he is interested in the circumstances of our lives. Whether or not you believe that God continues to perform miracles (by the suspension of the natural laws) today, it is the teaching of the Bible that God created the universe we live in. This means that whatever contours our life takes, it is unlikely to surprise God. In fact, it is more likely the case that God anticipates our decisions, even if sometimes, we are puzzled by the outcomes. So we have to learn to judge rather than predict the circumstances of our lives.
Say, opportunities arise that permit you to take advantage of the weakness of another person in order to advance your own cause – be it at work, at school or at home. The Christian is not to blindly respond to such windows of opportunity without first judging the outcomes of his decision within the framework of God’s universal love for humanity. Will your decision violate the common dignity of humanity? Will you treat this as an opportunity to do good or to do evil. Will you take the high road or consider this merely good luck?
1.3.4 Make Sense Of Things
God made us with a powerful mind fueled by a remarkable brain. Our highly developed senses allow us to make judgments based on our power to process our experiences, recall memorable events, think through hypothetical outcomes and imagine what is not apparent. Thus we can make sense of things. We are expected to use this resource to realize what God means for us to do in many situations. Our capacity to learn and harness the knowledge from the arts and sciences provides us with crucial clues to make educated guesses. While this does not sound particularly impressive, it is in fact, great testimony to the creative power of God to make us as we are.
1.3.5 Divine Intervention?
God does not intervene in response to seeking his will. There is not a single instance of God stepping miraculously into the lives of anyone in the Bible in response to their effort of seeking God’s will – so do not bank on this as a biblically-ordained expectation. Instead, reason within the framework of your circumstances.
Although God is indeed able to perform miracles, we must not rely on miracles to guide us. The Bible itself tells us that in many instances, God did not intervene to save those whom he loved from suffering intolerable situations. Thus, while we pray for healing and the cessation of suffering for our loved ones, we must not make promises that God will respond as we expect – God’s sovereignty means that we cannot command God to act as our servant. However, God may intervene to change our perspective of a situation so that we see it differently.
But before we can even get to methods of Bible study, we ought to acknowledge that we are creatures of habit who operate under certain basic or foundational beliefs that we do not feel obliged to justify. These beliefs that we acquire over our lifetimes control all other beliefs. We call them control beliefs.
1.4 CONTROLLING YOUR CONTROL BELIEFS
What we ultimately believe in is shaped by several ‘control beliefs’ that we hold. These foundational truth-claims that we all have help us judge all other possible beliefs. An example of a control belief is that ‘God exists.’ If this is a control belief of yours, any argument to do away with the existence of God will very likely be dismissed by you because it challenges this control belief. However, if one of your control beliefs is that ‘God does not exist’, then the opposite is the case for you. Some control beliefs arise precisely because we fail to think things through – i.e., when we fail to consider the likelihood of a truth-claim with respect to our knowledge of the world and our experiences in life. The result is that a poorly thought out control belief emerges.
Why do we even have control beliefs at all? For the sake of efficiency. We cannot help but build up control beliefs. They make it easier and quicker for us to make spot decisions without having to assess everything from scratch. Experiences influence our emotional reaction to every truth-claim. Together, they help us make judgments. This means that we make up our minds with the help of at least three elements of our selves: our experiences, our rationality, and our emotions. All three play important roles in how we judge and therefore, how we believe.
For example, if we are told that God made us all and sent Jesus to redeem us of our sinful nature, we assess this claim by judging its merits to establish its veracity. Shall we believe in this claim? Our experiences as sentient beings may cause us to be open to the possibility of the existence of God, or it may not. Next, our rationality weighs the likelihood that a supreme being that created us exists. This may be aided by study, knowledge gained from others, or our ability to postulate. Finally, our emotional makeup at each moment prepares us to be either more or less receptive to the emotional outcome of belief or disbelief. All these are purely human responses. We are unable to comment on the metaphysical responses not because there are none but because we have no access to their workings. Perhaps God supernaturally cause each of us at particular instances in time to posses the specific combination of experiential, rational and emotional characteristics that lead to a specific judgment that renders our belief or disbelief what they are. If so, we are robots of God’s will. I think God really provided us with a level of free will. This means we possess the awful power to reject God. We alone enjoy the power to control our control beliefs. No one can tell us to believe or disbelieve in God as a control belief. Only we can do so.
1.5 KEEP EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE FOR CHRIST
In our desire to learn, our thoughts and judgments are exposed to a variety of thoughts. If we are to make a commitment to our conviction that causes us to confess that Jesus is Lord, then every thought that we think is subject to this commitment. How do we do this? By asking ourselves if what we intentionally spend time thinking about is good, holy, pure and worthy of our call to live a Christian life. This means to have our security and significance linked to our status as children of God rather than humans competitively seeking to win at all costs.
Consider the workplace. We work to make money to pay the bills and enhance the economic quality of our lives. Unfortunately, the secular standards of the world operate under a system of incentivization that rewards us for visible tokens of success, not concerned with how we achieve these marks of achievement. So if, as a sales person, you outsell your fellow sales persons, you get more commissions. But if you do so by cheating or taking unfair advantages, the company rarely cares because its goal is to enhance the bottom line. But the Christian mind cares. For the Christian, her security is based on the fact that she is bound to enter the presence of God when she dies and her significance is based on being loved by her creator. Under these circumstances, the lure of incentives at the workplace takes a different meaning. There is a moral standard and a moral lawgiver that guides her responses to rewards. Now her thoughts about whether to advance in her career by a particular manner is guided by her thoughts, thoughts which are now free to follow the standards set by Christ. Did you say free? Yes, our default position is to be enslaved by the standards of the secular world, which tells us that our security is entirely based on our access to material wealth, and our significance is based on the respect that we gain from others (envy index)
Wait...what's an envy index?
I coined the term envy index to describe what I call the postcard syndrome – we tend to enjoy our vacations more if we can persuade others that we have having a good time (whether or not this is true), hence, then postcard. This leads to a larger theory about the incentives we respond to in our social dealings. There seems to be nothing more satisfying that being informed that others are envious of us because they wish they enjoyed what we enjoy. This is true whether it involves cars, apartments or children.
Our thoughts are what often get us in trouble and they are not neutral. To the extent that we proactively shape what we think, to that extent we are in firm control of our minds. To receive the Lordship of Christ in our lives begin with placing our very minds at the altar of Christ. This simply means that we choose to focus our attention on things that pertain to the calling of the Christian mind. I am well aware that this is an ideal rather than an achievable reality. Like the Ten Commandments, this command to make every thought captive for Christ is a rhetorical device to show that by ourselves, we are weak. It affirms that we are inadequate to meet the demands of God. Each of us needs to turn to the Lord in humility – precisely because on a day-to-day basis, none of us can meet the demands of God. Our minds do turn to quite unholy thoughts and we luxuriate in what we already know to be impure thinking. It is this acknowledgment that marks the starting point of desiring to change the way we think.
2. FORMATION OF BELIEF IN GOD
Do you believe because it is true or is it true for you because you believe?
How did we come to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior? Ask yourself, Why do you believe? For most people, we believe what is most convenient and most accessible – that is, the beliefs of our parents, loved ones, or people we respect.
We begin with our exposure to testimonial witnesses – people tell us about God. Next, we accept some of what we are told as true – we adopt the authority of others.
In time, we realize that what we have adopted have become foundational beliefs that we hold without consciously holding on to them – they have become tacit beliefs. Finally, our beliefs mature as our initial faith in them as true becomes strengthened by deeper understanding.
2.1 TESTIMONIAL WITNESS
As we first learn about the existence of God (or the non-existence of God, as the case may be) from our parents, family members, and teachers, we are exposed to what I call testimonial witnesses. These are propositions from people who claim to know what they speak of because they are part of a long line of knowledge transfer going back to actual knowledge. While your grandfather might not know that Jesus existed, his testimony is that there were witnesses some 2000 years ago who passed on their direct knowledge through testimony. You are now a part of this lineage of testimonial witnesses.
However, you soon come across conflicting claims of testimonial witnesses. Different sources make claims about the truth of reality that cause you to pause and think. In the matter of religion and worship, perhaps your atheist friend strongly believes that God does not exist. Perhaps he can point to important and clever people noted for their knowledge who also disbelieve in God. Now you are in the position of having to make choices. Whose testimony will you believe? Whose testimony ought you to accept?
This brings us next to the notion of adoptive authority (AA).
2.2 ADOPTIVE AUTHORITY
We tend to adopt the beliefs of those whom we trust. But as the cost of such belief rises, i.e., as our belief in God becomes more expensive in terms of time and effort, we begin to weigh the benefits against the advantages. This assessment leads us to reconsider whether we wish to continue to believe, and at what level of integrity we wish to hold on to such belief. The authority you adopt for each belief you hold will eventually become internalized into your own belief system. In time, your adoptive authorities seem like your own tacit beliefs.
2.3 TACIT BELIEF
A tacit belief, a concept that I adapted from Michael Polanyi’s notion of tacit knowledge is a belief that has become a subconscious part of your worldview.
If someone asks whether you believe in God, you no longer consciously imagine that you have adopted the authority of some testimonial witness sometime in your life. You now think that you believe because you have independently assessed the options. In fact, for most of us, this is not the case. Most of us do not really know if another belief about God that is contrary to ours is in fact false. We spend our energy negating what we do not really know. This is a dogmatic posture of belief, and it is no better than a dogmatic posture of atheism.
Tacit belief has the advantage of buying us time. Time for what? Time to understand what we first believe by faith – wait a minute. Where did faith slip in? The Christian mind believes that no human is unaffected by the influence of the Holy Spirit. The decision to adopt the authority of a testimonial witness that leads to the correct assessment that the God of the Christian Bible is indeed the one true God – is guided by the Holy Spirit. With this belief as tacit, you are now able to examine it to understand from scriptures, what it entails and its implications for all other beliefs that you hold. Thus we say that Christian faith is faith seeking understanding, not understanding to gain faith.
2.4 FAITH SEEKING UNDERSTANDING
Unless God spoke to you or appeared to you in a mystical way, like the vast majority of us, you came to believe because of testimonial witness. You learned about Jesus from someone or someone you trusted first told you about Jesus. You thought about it, and figured that it must true. You adopt this teaching as your adoptive authority - and you believe.
But if someone asks you why you believe, you might have difficulty explaining it. You believe more than you can explain. This is normal.
The Christian life is thus one of faith seeking understanding. It is from such understanding of reality that draws from both biblical and extra-biblical sources that we can now better establish and control our control beliefs.
2.5 MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL
But how can we be sure that our belief based on our understanding is correct? What if we believe in error? As in everyday life, we begin to look for evidence, for corroboration, for possible, then, plausible and finally, probable reasons why you ought to maintain your belief.
This is important because there is nothing more dangerous than belief that does not grow. Left by itself, any belief gets weaker over time because it has to compete with doubts that arise as we learn more and more about the world from other sources.
For example, if you believed as a young Christian that Jesus is the only way to heaven, but later you learn more and more about the existence of other religions, soon you might begin to wonder how we can be sure that Jesus is the only way. Would we have believed that the Buddha or the Prophet Muhammad is the only way if we grew up in Thailand or Bangladesh? This was in fact, the main objection to the claims of Christianity (that Jesus alone is the true pathway to God) by no other than perhaps the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, Lord Bertrand Russell. For Russell, our childhood influences based on geography, history and culture, shape our religious leanings. It would be unfair to evangelize people who grew up in non-Christian societies and seek their conversion to Christianity. This critique of Christianity, while not sustainable, nevertheless demands a Christian apologetic to explain why Russell is wrong.
If God made us curious, thinking beings, then we ought to suppose that he wants us to use our minds to make sense of things by acquiring knowledge from various sources. Even the art of interpreting the Bible demands skills from various sciences – archaeology, philology, linguistics, literary analysis, chemistry, physics, anthropology, sociology, history, etc. Each of these fields of inquiry tests our assumptions and provisional conclusions.
No belief can be sustained for long without testing and meeting challenges of the skeptic. For the Christian, our sense of certainty depends on trust in our judgments. This is typically based on three prongs:
Our collective sense of reason, experience and communal accountability keeps us from making disastrous mistakes. The fellowship mentioned above is akin to the emotional responses we give and receive in Christian fellowship. Thus probabilism in our reasoning strategies, spiritual testimonies in our experiences and the emotional engagement within the community of faith, guide our collective understanding.
With this understanding, we are now ready to participate in the Great Commission – to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples of all nations. But we begin by equipping ourselves for the task. We begin with a consideration of what it means to form the Christian mind.
3. THE CHRISTIAN MIND
The Christian mind is NOT driven by intellectual assent to the best available explanation of reality but by a confessional commitment to the conviction that the Scriptures bear witness to the truth. From such faith, which seeks understanding, comes a desire to know, because we believe.
In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Anselm of Canterbury, Christians possess faith that seeks understanding. The Christian Mind seeks to worship God in spirit and in truth, and with its entire mind. We shall survey the principal doctrines of the Christian faith and consider how they should inform the construction of our worldviews. In this seminar, we shall ask what it means to be human and made in the image of God? The opposite of a Christian mind is a mindless Christianity. It was president John Mackay of Princeton Seminary who said
“Commitment without reflection is fanaticism in action,
but reflection without commitment is the paralysis of all action.”
To seek paideia is to be transformed by the renewing of your minds. What does it mean to be a Christian and what does the forming of a Christian mind entail?
In his epistle to the Roman Church, Paul urged them to be transformed by the renewal of their minds so that they may discern the will of God – Romans 12:2. This teaching is relevant today and calls for three assumptions:
Now it is quite possible to live a fruitful life on earth without desiring to be transformed by a renewal of the mind in order to discern the will of God. So we cannot say that unbelievers are doomed to a life of misery. What then is the Christian motivation to live out the Christian life? It is nothing less than the sneaking suspicion that what Jesus taught is true.
In seeking paideia, or the spiritual formation of the Christian mind, we are in fact, seeking to think things through as a Christian.
This transformation involves understanding and acting out the Christian mandate. We are not asked to conquer geographical lands or build great civilizations but to transform the way we think. This cognitive transformation is the legacy of the imago Dei, that gift of God that sets Homo sapiens sapiens apart from all other life forms. Our mandate is a spiritual one, a charge to draw human thoughts away from transitory concerns and onto matters that concern our everlasting lives to come, when we enter into the presence of God. Let us consider the Christian mandate in the light of the natural sciences and the preponderance of the plurality of religions.
Chapter 4: The Christian Mandate
What is the Christian called to do above all else? According to the Great Commission, it is to announce the message that God has been revealed and made known in Jesus Christ. This proclamation may lead to conversion. But it begins with apologetics, which paves the way for evangelism. Those who make the conversion are then discipled to live out the Christian life by shaping the Christian mind.
4.1 PROCLAMATION
We have been commanded to proclaim the gospel - and then disciple believers. In order to proclaim the gospel responsibly, each generation of Christians are obliged to understand the great questions of its age. In our time, two major challenges confront our testimonial witness – what is the role of the natural sciences in biblical revelation and how do we relate to the preaching of the other religious faiths?
4.2 APOLOGETICS
Removing Unnecessary Obstacles To Evangelism (Pre-Evangelism)
Why are Christian apologetics and the formation of the Christian worldview important? What is the reason why we need to know the reason for our belief? –The answer is because we are taught to do so - 1 Peter 3:15-16. This involves building and developing biblical, Christ-centered worldview with an apologetic that must be able to demonstrate its 3Cs, 3Ds and 3 Rs
All three, testimony of those who experienced the events, philosophical speculation, and scientific investigation, all form the foundations of a belief system from which to forge a Christian worldview. It seeks to answer 4 questions of life by examining 5 fields of inquiry. In the West, these ancient questions have all evolved into specific fields of study called theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and anthropology.
Each of the 5 topics above leads us to consider our adoptive authority of truth. Given that none of these questions can be answered with certainty, whose opinion ought we to adopt? The long testimonial witness of the Christian faith provides an option too wonderful to dismiss. This witness is expressed in the act of evangelism.
4.3 MISSIONARY EVANGELISM
Today, there are few places on earth that the Bible has not reached. In many formerly closed countries such as China and Russia, printing presses are actually printing Bibles for export and producing computer software for market in the West.
In the 21st century, the problem is conversion. There is a lot of conversion, but the question is, conversion to what? What exactly is someone converting to when he or she becomes a Christian? In increasingly alarming cases, the conversion is superficial at best and deceptive at worst. Theologians from India have complained that Christianity in their country is a mile wide and an inch thick. They speak of the need for deeper insight into the meaning of the scriptures rather than selective repetitions of favorite verses. In Africa, we receive plaintive calls for help. Some Christian leaders have taken their lack of formal education to be badges of honor. They claim not only that God worked through them despite their dismissal of education but because of it. In China, poor interpretation of the Bible contributed to the greatest destruction of human life in recorded history when up to 30 million Chinese died at the hands of their countrymen after one person claimed that he was God’s Chinese Son and Jesus’ younger brother. Other Christians were either too afraid or too paralyzed to stop this teaching, which culminated in the Taiping Rebellion. Ironically, Taiping means ‘peace’ in Chinese. The challenge in evangelism and missions today involves hermeneutical teaching alongside the distribution of the scriptures.
By far the most significant barrier to today’s evangelistic enterprise is the apparent lack of relevance. As we learn to reason well by submitting to God’s word, we have to also learn to relate honestly to the strangers in our midst. RRR (Reason to make relevant the revelation of the Gospel). When a Christian explains why she believes, she is saying, “This is MY testimonial witness – and you must judge the totality of my life by this.” The Christian Scriptures, understood by the community of confessional believers engaged with the 5 topics above, offer answers to the 4 questions of life. I call them the CASE for Christianity.
The Essence of the Christian Message (CASE) - non-negotiables of the Christian faith?
4.3.1 Creation
It is teleological, not an accident, with a linear timeline, and starts with a beginning. God created us. This doctrine is compatible with biological evolution but rejects Darwinian Evolutionism.
4.3.2 Alienation
Humanity has turned against God by seeking to be God. We are predisposed to seek moral autonomy. This is sin and alienates us from God – This doctrine rejects the sufficiency of humanity.
4.3.3 Salvation
God, in his inexplicable mercy, invaded human history and reversed his own judgment by taking upon himself the due consequences of our sin. This is the Cross of the Suffering Christ. The illogical absurdity of the salvation plan affirms the moral depravity of humanity.
4.3.4 Election
Only God is able and willing to forgive our sins. This is the Grace that Justifies. God has elected to redeem us. This affirms the free and unmerited salvation of any person through Jesus. It denies any possible claim that we are saved because we have achieved merit or because we have met the moral demands of God.
4.4 CONVERSION
We often think in terms of conversion, yet we have not been commanded to convert anyone – simply because we are incapable of doing so. Conversion is the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. Conversion involves the transformation by the renewing of the mind.
4.5 DISCIPLESHIP
Discipleship is at the heart of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). It entails the laborious effort of sharing the burdens of seeking to live holy lives in accordance with God’s will. This is Christian jargon for keeping each other accountable by participating in the lives of others. Who are these others? Jesus taught that we are expected to love our neighbors (and if this is not bad enough, it is to do so …) as we love ourselves. We shall come back to this theme and consider its implications for a competitive world of choice making.
Discipleship must once again be at the core of Church life and the true measure of success. It is by its very nature more difficult to measure but more satisfying to participate in. True discipleship involves coming alongside someone else NOT as a teacher per se but as a fellow student of the Holy Spirit.
Setting discipleship as the primary goal will necessarily include evangelistic and missionary activities – but it is not so the other way round. It is far too easy to be intoxicated by the seduction of numbers that one forgets or minimizes the importance of discipleship altogether.
In today’s economy, time is precious and translates to economic resources. How can we set aside time for discipleship? It all boils down to priorities. We live out what we really believe not what we claim to believe. We also pay for what we value.
To the question, how can I find time to disciple? The answer is, you simply make time. To the concern about not being able to afford the time, we must ask, can we afford not to make the time for discipleship? The willingness to make time for anything we desire in the 24 hours a day we all have tells us what we deem to be important.
What then is Christian discipleship? It is a discipleship of the mind, to open one to be transformed by the Holy Spirit by thinking things through – and rethinking your thoughts. It begins by re-assessing all our assumptions. Learn to worship God with your minds as well as your bodies.
The task of discipleship is to teach others how to understand the Bible to the best of our knowledge. We learn from St. Augustine, who urged his readers to draw from any resource that enhances our understanding of our relationship to God and our apprehension of the world we live in. To this end, the Christian mind learns from the fine arts, the literary arts, the musical arts and sciences, the natural sciences, the social sciences, the historical sciences, the spatial arts and sciences of architecture, design and sports, the economic sciences, the commercial arts, the political sciences, the philosophical and rhetorical arts of argumentation, etc.
5. THE MANDATE OF ACT
At ACT, we seek the ideals of paideia. Our mandate is to Teach, Disciple, & Proclaim the Gospel faithfully according to the Christian Bible handed down through the Church.
5.1 ROMANS 12:2
Be transformed - thinking things through in the cultural spheres of influence: commerce, academia, media, politics and sports (CAMPS). We desire security and significance (SS). Leadership and success must be redefined. Science is a method of knowing while revelation is the content of knowledge. Together, science and revelation lead to better understanding.
By renewing your minds - control your control beliefs, worship God with your mind and cultivate the person as God’s image (imago Dei).
Discern the will of God – seek wisdom from insight & understanding of knowledge.
Romans 12 tell us that we ought to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we may discern the will of God … which is our spiritual worship! This means that all the Christian talk about worshipping God in spirit begins with a new way of thinking.
5.2 DEVELOPING A CHRIST-CENTERED WORLDVIEW
5.2.1 What Is The Christian Philosophy Of Knowledge And Understanding?
How can we use this to engage our minds to worship God as we allow God to educate us? Presuppositions: God is the ultimate teacher and all of reality is used by God to reveal himself to us. God created the world and cares deeply about it. We show our love for God by also caring for what happens to the world. In this, we concern ourselves with every field of human inquiry and every sphere of cultural influence.
5.2.2 Sources of Adoptive Authorities to Develop A Christ-Centered Worldview
• Testimony: CCC (Commitment to Convictional Confession) Experiential relevance
• Science: DDD (Discovery of Divine Disclosure) Empirical adequacy
• Philosophy: RRR (Reason to make Revelation Relevant) Logical coherence.
By far the most significant barrier to today’s evangelistic enterprise is the apparent lack of relevance. As we learn to reason well by submitting to God’s word, we have to also learn to relate honestly to the strangers in our midst. RRR (Reason and Relate to make Relevant the message of the Gospel).
5.3 THE NEW APOLOGETICS - SCIENTISM & RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
5.3.1 Science & Scientism
Discover convergence between science and revelation
1. Science is the most manicured form of rationality known to us - it is God’s gift to us so that we may discover divine disclosure.
2. Scientism is the philosophical presumption that science alone holds the key to understanding all there is to understand. It is often disguised as science.
3. Contemporary issues of true science include Extra-Terrestrial life, animal consciousness & morality, and neuroscientific explanations for free will and sinful behavior.
5.3.2 Religious Pluralism
What About the Other Faiths? Are All Faiths Equally Valid?
Religious pluralism has existed from time immemorial. The philosophy of religious pluralism, which claims that all religions are equally valid and that they all make similar claims - is false. Explore the wisdom of other faiths to enrich your own
1. How do we know that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other religions are wrong? The single common difference (scd) between the Christian faith and all other religions is the identity of Jesus.
2. What about those who die in infancy?
3. What about those who die in adulthood and have never heard the gospel?
4. What about those who are born or become, mentally retarded?
6. CONCLUSION
The call to live the life of a Christian mind is an achievable goal and begins with acknowledging the remarkable gift of the human mind – which is the cognitive expression of the brain. Is this for really intelligent people? No, you do not have to know a lot to think but you do have to think a lot to know. And yet, knowledge is not our goal, but understanding is.
Jesus himself taught us that understanding what we know is more important than plain knowledge since knowledge alone does not transform our minds.
1. Build a firm foundation with the Word and the Spirit of God. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit - Eph 6:1. Build a worldview by renewing your minds to acquire -
• Confession of Knowledge
• Conviction of Belief
• Commitment to Convictional Confession
2. Be ready in and out of season to explain why you believe God’s word. 2 Tim 4:2-5 - Know what you believe (CASE), Trust God’s word, Obey God’s command and Witness sensitively - effective witnessing is preferable to numerical witnessing.
3. Redeem your mind for Christ: Seek the Biblical world view, adopt it as your own and learn to defend it by submitting your intellect to Christ, 2 Cor. 10:4-5.
4. Fulfill the great commission as an ambassador of Christ. Eph. 6:19-20 & Matt. 28:19-20.
5. Love the stranger in your midst, and know God to make him known. Matt. 25:35 & 40.
People the world over desire Christian values but they do not know it. It is the task of Christians to draw their attention to what has already been established by the teachings of Jesus. This is the Christian mandate of paideia. It is possible for the Christian voice to influence the secular world. We must be fully involved with the every cultural sphere of influence. Indeed, they say that diplomacy is the art of having other people have your way.
APPENDIX
The Aim of Christian Education (Paideia): Wisdom
1. Paideia: The ancient Greeks used a term to denote instruction in a course of study for the cultivation of intellect and character to produce an educated citizen. It seeks the ‘formation’ of a person, physical, intellectual, social, moral, and spiritual. By the time of the New Testament, the term was widely used to refer to children in need of good instruction. Both Jesus and Paul referred to the imperative of paideia to describe the maturation of the Christian mind. For what you think, that you are.
2. Christian paideia stresses the renewal and cultivation of the person as God’s image (imago Dei). This life-transforming education was carried out under the divine Teacher, the Logos. The Church adopted paideia for education in the Christian faith. Its objective was the wisdom of God. The pathway to wisdom is insight.
3. Insight is the real knowledge that comes to us (the mechanics of which we are agnostic about) and allows us to ‘see’ more quickly than we are able to articulate. It is a passive form of knowledge, a ‘transient grasp of an intransitory realm’.
4. Wisdom is the full understanding of knowledge and revolves around insight, which confers the gift (is not a fruit of human exertion) of wisdom. Insight does not function in isolation. The equilibria between wisdom (sapientia) and knowledge (scientia) operate in a relational matrix; meditation (passive) and cognitive learning (active) need each other. It is wisdom that no science or arts offers for God alone is wise (see Job). This means the search for wisdom anticipates the search for God in worship.
5. Worship is a response to God’s revelation to humanity. Worship relies on what we know about the reality of nature. Our knowledge relies on the quality of our education. But knowledge is insufficient for understanding, so we seek wisdom. Christian education seeks a curriculum of faith incorporating an understanding of scientific discovery.
6. Christian education as worship aims to discover the hidden orders of reality because it has reasons to consider the claim of Jesus - to overcome annihilation (death). Education becomes the acquisition of wisdom as the tacit and transcendental guide for knowledge.
Worship is inquiry & inquiry is worship
An educational philosophy in a theological framework.
1. Be passionately engaged with the quest for knowledge in a fiduciary context, believing that the universe is intelligible because God created it.
2. Indwell the object of knowledge and tap into the tacit dimension to know the answer before we even know the question. Learn ‘contemplative wondering’, a sort of indwelling with a full awareness of ourselves and our place in God’s kingdom and the object we are studying.
3. Distinguish wisdom from knowledge and exercise imagination that assumes the tacit dimensional integration of things ‘underground’ to create insight.
4. Insight yields the ‘Eureka’ effect. Discover and celebrate the disclosure of the hidden order.
5. A new construction of meaning for a transformation of reason. Learn interpretation and responsible action. Knowledge is power and the bearer of knowledge bears great responsibility.
Development of Human Intelligence
Intelligence arises from interaction between person and the environment.
1. Piaget states that faced with conflict, a person either ‘assimilates’ (plays with) or ‘accommodates’ (imitate) the environment. He predominates over the environment or vice-versa. Interaction is equilibrium between the two, resulting in intelligence through ‘adaptation’.
2. There is a complementarity between consciousness and neurological interaction, the Mind-Body Problem. The structures of intelligence developed by humans will disclose the hidden intelligibility of the universe through all branches of science (learning?)
3. But a third reaction is possible – transformation.
The priority of transformation (creative capacity) over adaptation (intelligence) in Christian education.
1. The Christian mind is called to transform and not to adapt to the world. But first, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our own minds, by the Spirit. Romans 12:2 speaks of a passive transformation, not accomplished by the person, but to submit to another who will do the transforming. This constitutes the process of “being transformed” rather than “transforming yourself”.
2. Our ultimate fear as mortals is death. We can adapt to just about anything but we cannot adapt to escape death. To be spiritually renewed is to seek to overcome ultimate death as well as the fear of death by the transforming power of Jesus on the Cross.
Method
The true teacher asks questions worth living for. Education should advance the discovery of ideas to instigate a desire to learn for the love of knowing, so that the totality of one’s place in the universe may become less and less of a mystery. Education is a vital part of the response to divine revelation we call worship. How we perform the task of education reveals what we really believe about God.
Application for Teachers:
1. Face and embrace conflict expectantly (including exams and papers).
2. Step aside to scan the situation, to indwell, to contemplate.
3. Focus on the image with an idea of the teacher’s own viewpoint.
4. Share the excitement of the course of study.
5. Celebrate the Eureka effect with wonderment and gratitude.
6. Interpret and act responsibly in the community of imagination. Education is worshipping with the mind.
Conclusion
A Christian philosophy of education acknowledges the priority of tacit over explicit knowing. The focus on the relationship between sapientia and scientia informs the axiology grounded in the Christian faith. This determines one’s methodology and the teacher’s expectation of the student. Can we teach art, economics, geography, history, mathematics, languages, literature, politics, and science to know God?
The Spiritual Formation of the Christian Mind - Romans 12:2
INTRODUCTION
In 1996, in my first year at seminary, I took a course with Professor Diogenes Allen. He was and remains widely considered the finest mind on campus and a sharp critic of sloppy thinking. He taught me the importance of using philosophy to achieve precision and clarity in theological reflection as a mark of respect for the Bible and integrity for our witness. On the final day of class, he told us to take down a list of books to read ‘when we ever find the time’ and to ‘make the time to read.’ Among his list was the three volumes simply named Paideia. My admiration for Dick Allen led me to immediately search for the books (difficult to find) and finally buy them at the venerable New York institution Strand, “the largest bookstore in the world, with eight miles of shelves.” Most major cities I know claim to host the largest bookstore in the world, including Foyle’s of London and World’s Biggest Bookstore in Toronto.
The idea behind the word paideia, a Greek term with various meanings, for Christian theology is its description of spiritual formation, specifically of the mind. This seminar is my first attempt at articulating what is for me, a work-in-progress. Paideia recalls the ancient belief that unless a child is properly educated by a balanced diet of spiritual, mental, and physical resources, the outcome will be a missed opportunity to inculcate an informed citizenry.
At ACT, we are committed to demystifying the unnecessarily mystifying parts of the Bible and make its riches accessible to the laity. We believe that a better-educated congregation enriches the church and is a blessing to the leadership. They will invite more learned sermons, more responsible apologetics and more profound reflection, paving the way for a deeper relationship with the Lord.
There is a residual resistance to the study of the Bible, for fear that it may dampen spiritual enthusiasm. But such enthusiasm is not unique to Christianity. All manner of religions and philosophies can cause spiritual excitement. The difference is whether we know what it is that we ought to be excited about. It is easy to avoid the excesses of dry academic work only to idolize an intellectually lazy approach that can become the fuel for unwitting heresy. We ought not vacillate in guilt between the extremes of ignorance-as-a-badge-of-honor and academic-elitism. While the Bible can bless anyone who reads it at whatever cognitive level of engagement, to ignore its role as a resource of knowledge is a disservice.
We seek to lift the standards expected on understanding the Bible and raise the bar of expectation. This means rather than lower our standards to the lowest common denominator, we will push for the hard work of thinking things through.
Join us as we begin to think about what it means to believe that Jesus is Lord and is God’s fullest expression to the human mind. We start with examining the meaning of paideia for Christianity. We follow this with a consideration of how we cognitively believe in God. Next we ask what forming a Christian mind entails. Then we look at the Christian mandate in the light of using the Christian mind. Finally we explain how the ministry of ACT seeks to respond to this mandate in its programs, teaching and training.
1. PAIDEIA – FORMING THE CHRISTIAN MIND
The ancient Greeks used the word paideia to mean the proper formation of the educated citizen. They were interested in the development of the model citizen of a democracy and believed that philosophy – the love of wisdom – is the key to a strong and durable mind.
Early Christian thought adopted the concept behind paideia. When the gospel writers remembered Jesus’ teachings, they used paideia (those who were properly trained) instead of tekna (offsprings of people) to describe the children whom Jesus invited to himself. He then said that unless we were like paideia, we would not inherit the kingdom of God. It is this notion of what Jesus taught (paideia) that forms the foundation for the spiritual formation of the Christian mind.
At the Academy for Christian Thought (ACT), we seek to create a Theological Safe Space (TSS), a welcome space where believers and their unbelieving friends can find intellectual refuge, a space to ask questions they do not even know how to articulate, and a space where no one ought to be prematurely judged for making inquiries with tentative proposals. In such a safe space, we are all mindful of our spiritual, our emotional and our intellectual frailty. In response, we wish to encourage the Christian in his faith and offer a climate of welcome to the non-Christian who sincerely seeks to know. The call of the Christian message is to be transformed by a renewal of our minds as we consider the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Explore with us the meaning and implications of what it means to have a transforming relationship with Jesus. This transformation is the result of our quest in the formation of a Christian mind.
The formation of the Christian mind goes beyond intellectual assent: It includes the Confession, Conviction of the confession, and a Commitment to the convictional confession that Jesus is indeed Lord of our lives. To this end, ACT takes as its ministry verse, Romans 12:2 “[B]e transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…” that you may know the will of God.
1.1 BE TRANSFORMED – BY THINKING THINGS THROUGH
The Christian mind engages with the world of ideas through at least 5 cultural spheres of influence – there are plenty of others. We refer to them as CAMPS - commerce, academia, media, politics and sports. In another seminar (CSI), we shall examine them in more detail. Here, we shall explore what it means to develop a Christian mind, to build a foundation of thought so that in matters great and small, we form the habit of thinking things through, theologically. Why theologically? Well, the moment you deem yourself a Christian, your understanding of everything takes on a theological dimension because you believe that God exists and that you have a relationship with God. This means that the things of God are ultimately of great concern to you. Your view of politics, economics, social issues, cultural matters, commercial interests, etc. are all influenced by how you view your relationship with God. Indeed, that relationship both shapes and is shaped by your understanding of the world you live in.
For example, if you say that modern American capitalism is the preferred way to operate in the financial system that we inherit, you are already making important decisions on how you would respond to the theological notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. This teaching demands that we treat another - not as we would have others treat us, but as we would treat ourselves. Ouch! Can it be possible to do just that in a near zero-sum world of economics where scarcity leads to outcomes with distinct classes of winners and losers? I gather that none of us wish to be among the losers. Yet American capitalism celebrates winners precisely because they are not losers. For the record, I believe that American capitalism is the best in the world, but it fails to meet the demands set by Jesus. We are charged to labor our minds to close this gap. We must transform the ways we value treasures and treasure what is truly valuable. Instead of merely asking whether something is beneficial to us, we might also ask if it is the right thing to do. This calls up the notion of a moral circle. How do we do this? By first renewing our minds.
WHAT IS A MORAL CIRCLE: A moral circle is the scope of persons beyond ourselves to whom we extend the courtesy of morality. You may be alarmed to learn that for most of us, our moral circles are rather small. Thus we feel obliged to behave morally to our loved ones and family but not necessarily to others outside our moral circle. Indeed, we often rationalize and construct reasons to justify why we act immorally to those who exist outside our moral circle - our professional competitors at work and school perhaps, the children of our neighbors who may end up competing with our kids for the more desirable schools or jobs, our bosses or subordinates, etc. The power of Jesus’ exposition of the second divine command – Love your neighbor as yourself – is stunning in its enlargement of the moral circle to include all of humanity.
1.2 BY RENEWING YOUR MIND
We shall explore the Pauline injunction to renew our minds. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul called upon the Christians to renew their minds. What was he talking about? Renewal presupposes some existing or extant thing that needs to change. The human mind is unable to respond adequately to God. But the grace of God enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (wills) to receive the gift of faith (belief in things unseen), which justifies us (makes us holy before God). However, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives - by the renewing of our minds.
Why the focus on the mind? This is a metaphor to describe the function of the brain. Our minds are in fact, the foundations of our beings. When we are unable to think rationally, we say that we may have ‘lost’ our minds.
The word ‘mind’ here (noos) refers to our intellect, will and emotions. ‘Renewal’ presupposes an existing or extant entity that needs change. The human mind in the sinful condition is unable to respond adequately to God unaided. It is the grace of God that enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (rationality) to receive the gift of faith, which justifies us. Yet, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives, by the renewing of our minds. Our minds are the foundations of our beings. The Danish Christian philosopher Danish Kierkegaard asks us to think thought itself. It is this exercise of taking responsibility for how and what we think that marks the essence of paideia.
The renewal of our minds liberates us to think beyond ourselves as individuals and more as persons in a special relationship with God almighty – a courtesy that God has extended to us by dint of making us in His image. This remarkable proclamation of the biblical writers suggest that we have access to, as it were, the thoughts of God in some minimal sense. It would be the height of arrogance to think that we can know God’s mind per se. Rather, we mean that God has given to Homo sapiens sapiens the capacity for emotional intelligence, rational discourse and experiential history aided by memory – which results in our common religiosity and unsettledness until we find rest in God. Our unique capacities to believe in God and to pray in hope means that we may gain insight to the ways of God.
1.3 TO GAIN INSIGHT TO THE WAYS OF GOD
Interestingly, knowing and discerning God’s will is not about mimicking another person. It is about gaining proximate thought to God’s ways by inculcating a habit of thinking about God and understanding the scriptures. No book can give us the magic formula to know God’s will and personal stories from others are at best anecdotal and may be not very helpful beyond lifting our spirits when we are down. It has become common for well-meaning Christians to share how God has apparently worked in their lives – suggesting certain formulae by which God conforms to when the almighty works in the lives of other Christians. Unfortunately, this notion that we can ‘find the will of God’ by praying harder, meditating more (quantitatively) or briefly living a ‘better’ life has infected the Christian consciousness. The noted evangelical biblical scholar, Bruce Waltke, has courageously written of many practices that Christians pass off as divine guidance – following hunches, casting lots, looking for signs, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts actually bear an unsettling resemblance to the ways pagans seek guidance. Waltke argues that the truest course to the will of God is found in faithfully answering the call to walk close to the Lord and be conformed to His likeness. All this sounds nice but here Waltke falls into the Christian habit of using language that become full of unhelpful abstractions.
What he means may be encapsulated by several spiritual habits we may inculcate:
1.3.1 Practice The Bible In Your Life
There is no substitute for reading and understanding the Bible. For most people, this is a hard and boring task. It is the great fortune for anyone to receive instruction from a gifted preacher and teacher. The preacher’s task is to inspire the listener with punch-line applicable expositions that can make specific portions of the Bible come alive. But without a way to understand how the Bible’s teachings become transformed in the mind of the preacher to become a sermon, the listener will always be at the mercy of the preacher and be vulnerable to the vagaries of his effort. The wise Christian seeks to know the mechanics of how a great sermon comes about – not in the sense of the delivery and rhetorical gifts of the preacher, but in terms of how one is to interpret the raw texts of the Bible. This is where a responsible teacher of the Bible makes her contribution. If I may use a common analogy, the preacher feeds the student with fish, but the teacher teaches the student how to fish. Indeed, good Bible teaching makes the student a better listener of a sermon. But learning the Bible is not enough. We have to learn to make its teachings a part of our everyday life. Thus obedience is the final marker of our understanding of what the Bible means.
1.3.2 Make God Your Adoptive Authority
This is a difficult concept to articulate. It refers to finding convergence between what we naturally feel drawn to what we believe God offers. We may do this by seeking out the friendship and guidance of others whom we believe have followed the teachings of God in the Bible in their lives. Of course, we may be fooled or we may fool ourselves in this venture. But nevertheless, our thoughts are more often than not shaped by the thoughts and habits of people we hang out with. We adopt the authorities of others in matters that we do not trust ourselves with. To make God your adoptive authority by being influenced by people who also make God their adoptive authorities is a crucial aspect of forming the community of faith we call the church.
1.3.3 Judge The Circumstances Of Our Lives
If God is interested in us, it is also likely that he is interested in the circumstances of our lives. Whether or not you believe that God continues to perform miracles (by the suspension of the natural laws) today, it is the teaching of the Bible that God created the universe we live in. This means that whatever contours our life takes, it is unlikely to surprise God. In fact, it is more likely the case that God anticipates our decisions, even if sometimes, we are puzzled by the outcomes. So we have to learn to judge rather than predict the circumstances of our lives.
Say, opportunities arise that permit you to take advantage of the weakness of another person in order to advance your own cause – be it at work, at school or at home. The Christian is not to blindly respond to such windows of opportunity without first judging the outcomes of his decision within the framework of God’s universal love for humanity. Will your decision violate the common dignity of humanity? Will you treat this as an opportunity to do good or to do evil. Will you take the high road or consider this merely good luck?
1.3.4 Make Sense Of Things
God made us with a powerful mind fueled by a remarkable brain. Our highly developed senses allow us to make judgments based on our power to process our experiences, recall memorable events, think through hypothetical outcomes and imagine what is not apparent. Thus we can make sense of things. We are expected to use this resource to realize what God means for us to do in many situations. Our capacity to learn and harness the knowledge from the arts and sciences provides us with crucial clues to make educated guesses. While this does not sound particularly impressive, it is in fact, great testimony to the creative power of God to make us as we are.
1.3.5 Divine Intervention?
God does not intervene in response to seeking his will. There is not a single instance of God stepping miraculously into the lives of anyone in the Bible in response to their effort of seeking God’s will – so do not bank on this as a biblically-ordained expectation. Instead, reason within the framework of your circumstances.
Although God is indeed able to perform miracles, we must not rely on miracles to guide us. The Bible itself tells us that in many instances, God did not intervene to save those whom he loved from suffering intolerable situations. Thus, while we pray for healing and the cessation of suffering for our loved ones, we must not make promises that God will respond as we expect – God’s sovereignty means that we cannot command God to act as our servant. However, God may intervene to change our perspective of a situation so that we see it differently.
But before we can even get to methods of Bible study, we ought to acknowledge that we are creatures of habit who operate under certain basic or foundational beliefs that we do not feel obliged to justify. These beliefs that we acquire over our lifetimes control all other beliefs. We call them control beliefs.
1.4 CONTROLLING YOUR CONTROL BELIEFS
What we ultimately believe in is shaped by several ‘control beliefs’ that we hold. These foundational truth-claims that we all have help us judge all other possible beliefs. An example of a control belief is that ‘God exists.’ If this is a control belief of yours, any argument to do away with the existence of God will very likely be dismissed by you because it challenges this control belief. However, if one of your control beliefs is that ‘God does not exist’, then the opposite is the case for you. Some control beliefs arise precisely because we fail to think things through – i.e., when we fail to consider the likelihood of a truth-claim with respect to our knowledge of the world and our experiences in life. The result is that a poorly thought out control belief emerges.
Why do we even have control beliefs at all? For the sake of efficiency. We cannot help but build up control beliefs. They make it easier and quicker for us to make spot decisions without having to assess everything from scratch. Experiences influence our emotional reaction to every truth-claim. Together, they help us make judgments. This means that we make up our minds with the help of at least three elements of our selves: our experiences, our rationality, and our emotions. All three play important roles in how we judge and therefore, how we believe.
For example, if we are told that God made us all and sent Jesus to redeem us of our sinful nature, we assess this claim by judging its merits to establish its veracity. Shall we believe in this claim? Our experiences as sentient beings may cause us to be open to the possibility of the existence of God, or it may not. Next, our rationality weighs the likelihood that a supreme being that created us exists. This may be aided by study, knowledge gained from others, or our ability to postulate. Finally, our emotional makeup at each moment prepares us to be either more or less receptive to the emotional outcome of belief or disbelief. All these are purely human responses. We are unable to comment on the metaphysical responses not because there are none but because we have no access to their workings. Perhaps God supernaturally cause each of us at particular instances in time to posses the specific combination of experiential, rational and emotional characteristics that lead to a specific judgment that renders our belief or disbelief what they are. If so, we are robots of God’s will. I think God really provided us with a level of free will. This means we possess the awful power to reject God. We alone enjoy the power to control our control beliefs. No one can tell us to believe or disbelieve in God as a control belief. Only we can do so.
1.5 KEEP EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE FOR CHRIST
In our desire to learn, our thoughts and judgments are exposed to a variety of thoughts. If we are to make a commitment to our conviction that causes us to confess that Jesus is Lord, then every thought that we think is subject to this commitment. How do we do this? By asking ourselves if what we intentionally spend time thinking about is good, holy, pure and worthy of our call to live a Christian life. This means to have our security and significance linked to our status as children of God rather than humans competitively seeking to win at all costs.
Consider the workplace. We work to make money to pay the bills and enhance the economic quality of our lives. Unfortunately, the secular standards of the world operate under a system of incentivization that rewards us for visible tokens of success, not concerned with how we achieve these marks of achievement. So if, as a sales person, you outsell your fellow sales persons, you get more commissions. But if you do so by cheating or taking unfair advantages, the company rarely cares because its goal is to enhance the bottom line. But the Christian mind cares. For the Christian, her security is based on the fact that she is bound to enter the presence of God when she dies and her significance is based on being loved by her creator. Under these circumstances, the lure of incentives at the workplace takes a different meaning. There is a moral standard and a moral lawgiver that guides her responses to rewards. Now her thoughts about whether to advance in her career by a particular manner is guided by her thoughts, thoughts which are now free to follow the standards set by Christ. Did you say free? Yes, our default position is to be enslaved by the standards of the secular world, which tells us that our security is entirely based on our access to material wealth, and our significance is based on the respect that we gain from others (envy index)
Wait...what's an envy index?
I coined the term envy index to describe what I call the postcard syndrome – we tend to enjoy our vacations more if we can persuade others that we have having a good time (whether or not this is true), hence, then postcard. This leads to a larger theory about the incentives we respond to in our social dealings. There seems to be nothing more satisfying that being informed that others are envious of us because they wish they enjoyed what we enjoy. This is true whether it involves cars, apartments or children.
Our thoughts are what often get us in trouble and they are not neutral. To the extent that we proactively shape what we think, to that extent we are in firm control of our minds. To receive the Lordship of Christ in our lives begin with placing our very minds at the altar of Christ. This simply means that we choose to focus our attention on things that pertain to the calling of the Christian mind. I am well aware that this is an ideal rather than an achievable reality. Like the Ten Commandments, this command to make every thought captive for Christ is a rhetorical device to show that by ourselves, we are weak. It affirms that we are inadequate to meet the demands of God. Each of us needs to turn to the Lord in humility – precisely because on a day-to-day basis, none of us can meet the demands of God. Our minds do turn to quite unholy thoughts and we luxuriate in what we already know to be impure thinking. It is this acknowledgment that marks the starting point of desiring to change the way we think.
2. FORMATION OF BELIEF IN GOD
Do you believe because it is true or is it true for you because you believe?
How did we come to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior? Ask yourself, Why do you believe? For most people, we believe what is most convenient and most accessible – that is, the beliefs of our parents, loved ones, or people we respect.
We begin with our exposure to testimonial witnesses – people tell us about God. Next, we accept some of what we are told as true – we adopt the authority of others.
In time, we realize that what we have adopted have become foundational beliefs that we hold without consciously holding on to them – they have become tacit beliefs. Finally, our beliefs mature as our initial faith in them as true becomes strengthened by deeper understanding.
2.1 TESTIMONIAL WITNESS
As we first learn about the existence of God (or the non-existence of God, as the case may be) from our parents, family members, and teachers, we are exposed to what I call testimonial witnesses. These are propositions from people who claim to know what they speak of because they are part of a long line of knowledge transfer going back to actual knowledge. While your grandfather might not know that Jesus existed, his testimony is that there were witnesses some 2000 years ago who passed on their direct knowledge through testimony. You are now a part of this lineage of testimonial witnesses.
However, you soon come across conflicting claims of testimonial witnesses. Different sources make claims about the truth of reality that cause you to pause and think. In the matter of religion and worship, perhaps your atheist friend strongly believes that God does not exist. Perhaps he can point to important and clever people noted for their knowledge who also disbelieve in God. Now you are in the position of having to make choices. Whose testimony will you believe? Whose testimony ought you to accept?
This brings us next to the notion of adoptive authority (AA).
2.2 ADOPTIVE AUTHORITY
We tend to adopt the beliefs of those whom we trust. But as the cost of such belief rises, i.e., as our belief in God becomes more expensive in terms of time and effort, we begin to weigh the benefits against the advantages. This assessment leads us to reconsider whether we wish to continue to believe, and at what level of integrity we wish to hold on to such belief. The authority you adopt for each belief you hold will eventually become internalized into your own belief system. In time, your adoptive authorities seem like your own tacit beliefs.
2.3 TACIT BELIEF
A tacit belief, a concept that I adapted from Michael Polanyi’s notion of tacit knowledge is a belief that has become a subconscious part of your worldview.
If someone asks whether you believe in God, you no longer consciously imagine that you have adopted the authority of some testimonial witness sometime in your life. You now think that you believe because you have independently assessed the options. In fact, for most of us, this is not the case. Most of us do not really know if another belief about God that is contrary to ours is in fact false. We spend our energy negating what we do not really know. This is a dogmatic posture of belief, and it is no better than a dogmatic posture of atheism.
Tacit belief has the advantage of buying us time. Time for what? Time to understand what we first believe by faith – wait a minute. Where did faith slip in? The Christian mind believes that no human is unaffected by the influence of the Holy Spirit. The decision to adopt the authority of a testimonial witness that leads to the correct assessment that the God of the Christian Bible is indeed the one true God – is guided by the Holy Spirit. With this belief as tacit, you are now able to examine it to understand from scriptures, what it entails and its implications for all other beliefs that you hold. Thus we say that Christian faith is faith seeking understanding, not understanding to gain faith.
2.4 FAITH SEEKING UNDERSTANDING
Unless God spoke to you or appeared to you in a mystical way, like the vast majority of us, you came to believe because of testimonial witness. You learned about Jesus from someone or someone you trusted first told you about Jesus. You thought about it, and figured that it must true. You adopt this teaching as your adoptive authority - and you believe.
But if someone asks you why you believe, you might have difficulty explaining it. You believe more than you can explain. This is normal.
The Christian life is thus one of faith seeking understanding. It is from such understanding of reality that draws from both biblical and extra-biblical sources that we can now better establish and control our control beliefs.
2.5 MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL
But how can we be sure that our belief based on our understanding is correct? What if we believe in error? As in everyday life, we begin to look for evidence, for corroboration, for possible, then, plausible and finally, probable reasons why you ought to maintain your belief.
This is important because there is nothing more dangerous than belief that does not grow. Left by itself, any belief gets weaker over time because it has to compete with doubts that arise as we learn more and more about the world from other sources.
For example, if you believed as a young Christian that Jesus is the only way to heaven, but later you learn more and more about the existence of other religions, soon you might begin to wonder how we can be sure that Jesus is the only way. Would we have believed that the Buddha or the Prophet Muhammad is the only way if we grew up in Thailand or Bangladesh? This was in fact, the main objection to the claims of Christianity (that Jesus alone is the true pathway to God) by no other than perhaps the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, Lord Bertrand Russell. For Russell, our childhood influences based on geography, history and culture, shape our religious leanings. It would be unfair to evangelize people who grew up in non-Christian societies and seek their conversion to Christianity. This critique of Christianity, while not sustainable, nevertheless demands a Christian apologetic to explain why Russell is wrong.
If God made us curious, thinking beings, then we ought to suppose that he wants us to use our minds to make sense of things by acquiring knowledge from various sources. Even the art of interpreting the Bible demands skills from various sciences – archaeology, philology, linguistics, literary analysis, chemistry, physics, anthropology, sociology, history, etc. Each of these fields of inquiry tests our assumptions and provisional conclusions.
No belief can be sustained for long without testing and meeting challenges of the skeptic. For the Christian, our sense of certainty depends on trust in our judgments. This is typically based on three prongs:
Our collective sense of reason, experience and communal accountability keeps us from making disastrous mistakes. The fellowship mentioned above is akin to the emotional responses we give and receive in Christian fellowship. Thus probabilism in our reasoning strategies, spiritual testimonies in our experiences and the emotional engagement within the community of faith, guide our collective understanding.
With this understanding, we are now ready to participate in the Great Commission – to proclaim the Gospel and make disciples of all nations. But we begin by equipping ourselves for the task. We begin with a consideration of what it means to form the Christian mind.
3. THE CHRISTIAN MIND
The Christian mind is NOT driven by intellectual assent to the best available explanation of reality but by a confessional commitment to the conviction that the Scriptures bear witness to the truth. From such faith, which seeks understanding, comes a desire to know, because we believe.
In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Anselm of Canterbury, Christians possess faith that seeks understanding. The Christian Mind seeks to worship God in spirit and in truth, and with its entire mind. We shall survey the principal doctrines of the Christian faith and consider how they should inform the construction of our worldviews. In this seminar, we shall ask what it means to be human and made in the image of God? The opposite of a Christian mind is a mindless Christianity. It was president John Mackay of Princeton Seminary who said
“Commitment without reflection is fanaticism in action,
but reflection without commitment is the paralysis of all action.”
To seek paideia is to be transformed by the renewing of your minds. What does it mean to be a Christian and what does the forming of a Christian mind entail?
In his epistle to the Roman Church, Paul urged them to be transformed by the renewal of their minds so that they may discern the will of God – Romans 12:2. This teaching is relevant today and calls for three assumptions:
Now it is quite possible to live a fruitful life on earth without desiring to be transformed by a renewal of the mind in order to discern the will of God. So we cannot say that unbelievers are doomed to a life of misery. What then is the Christian motivation to live out the Christian life? It is nothing less than the sneaking suspicion that what Jesus taught is true.
In seeking paideia, or the spiritual formation of the Christian mind, we are in fact, seeking to think things through as a Christian.
This transformation involves understanding and acting out the Christian mandate. We are not asked to conquer geographical lands or build great civilizations but to transform the way we think. This cognitive transformation is the legacy of the imago Dei, that gift of God that sets Homo sapiens sapiens apart from all other life forms. Our mandate is a spiritual one, a charge to draw human thoughts away from transitory concerns and onto matters that concern our everlasting lives to come, when we enter into the presence of God. Let us consider the Christian mandate in the light of the natural sciences and the preponderance of the plurality of religions.
Chapter 4: The Christian Mandate
What is the Christian called to do above all else? According to the Great Commission, it is to announce the message that God has been revealed and made known in Jesus Christ. This proclamation may lead to conversion. But it begins with apologetics, which paves the way for evangelism. Those who make the conversion are then discipled to live out the Christian life by shaping the Christian mind.
4.1 PROCLAMATION
We have been commanded to proclaim the gospel - and then disciple believers. In order to proclaim the gospel responsibly, each generation of Christians are obliged to understand the great questions of its age. In our time, two major challenges confront our testimonial witness – what is the role of the natural sciences in biblical revelation and how do we relate to the preaching of the other religious faiths?
4.2 APOLOGETICS
Removing Unnecessary Obstacles To Evangelism (Pre-Evangelism)
Why are Christian apologetics and the formation of the Christian worldview important? What is the reason why we need to know the reason for our belief? –The answer is because we are taught to do so - 1 Peter 3:15-16. This involves building and developing biblical, Christ-centered worldview with an apologetic that must be able to demonstrate its 3Cs, 3Ds and 3 Rs
All three, testimony of those who experienced the events, philosophical speculation, and scientific investigation, all form the foundations of a belief system from which to forge a Christian worldview. It seeks to answer 4 questions of life by examining 5 fields of inquiry. In the West, these ancient questions have all evolved into specific fields of study called theology, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and anthropology.
Each of the 5 topics above leads us to consider our adoptive authority of truth. Given that none of these questions can be answered with certainty, whose opinion ought we to adopt? The long testimonial witness of the Christian faith provides an option too wonderful to dismiss. This witness is expressed in the act of evangelism.
4.3 MISSIONARY EVANGELISM
Today, there are few places on earth that the Bible has not reached. In many formerly closed countries such as China and Russia, printing presses are actually printing Bibles for export and producing computer software for market in the West.
In the 21st century, the problem is conversion. There is a lot of conversion, but the question is, conversion to what? What exactly is someone converting to when he or she becomes a Christian? In increasingly alarming cases, the conversion is superficial at best and deceptive at worst. Theologians from India have complained that Christianity in their country is a mile wide and an inch thick. They speak of the need for deeper insight into the meaning of the scriptures rather than selective repetitions of favorite verses. In Africa, we receive plaintive calls for help. Some Christian leaders have taken their lack of formal education to be badges of honor. They claim not only that God worked through them despite their dismissal of education but because of it. In China, poor interpretation of the Bible contributed to the greatest destruction of human life in recorded history when up to 30 million Chinese died at the hands of their countrymen after one person claimed that he was God’s Chinese Son and Jesus’ younger brother. Other Christians were either too afraid or too paralyzed to stop this teaching, which culminated in the Taiping Rebellion. Ironically, Taiping means ‘peace’ in Chinese. The challenge in evangelism and missions today involves hermeneutical teaching alongside the distribution of the scriptures.
By far the most significant barrier to today’s evangelistic enterprise is the apparent lack of relevance. As we learn to reason well by submitting to God’s word, we have to also learn to relate honestly to the strangers in our midst. RRR (Reason to make relevant the revelation of the Gospel). When a Christian explains why she believes, she is saying, “This is MY testimonial witness – and you must judge the totality of my life by this.” The Christian Scriptures, understood by the community of confessional believers engaged with the 5 topics above, offer answers to the 4 questions of life. I call them the CASE for Christianity.
The Essence of the Christian Message (CASE) - non-negotiables of the Christian faith?
4.3.1 Creation
It is teleological, not an accident, with a linear timeline, and starts with a beginning. God created us. This doctrine is compatible with biological evolution but rejects Darwinian Evolutionism.
4.3.2 Alienation
Humanity has turned against God by seeking to be God. We are predisposed to seek moral autonomy. This is sin and alienates us from God – This doctrine rejects the sufficiency of humanity.
4.3.3 Salvation
God, in his inexplicable mercy, invaded human history and reversed his own judgment by taking upon himself the due consequences of our sin. This is the Cross of the Suffering Christ. The illogical absurdity of the salvation plan affirms the moral depravity of humanity.
4.3.4 Election
Only God is able and willing to forgive our sins. This is the Grace that Justifies. God has elected to redeem us. This affirms the free and unmerited salvation of any person through Jesus. It denies any possible claim that we are saved because we have achieved merit or because we have met the moral demands of God.
4.4 CONVERSION
We often think in terms of conversion, yet we have not been commanded to convert anyone – simply because we are incapable of doing so. Conversion is the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. Conversion involves the transformation by the renewing of the mind.
4.5 DISCIPLESHIP
Discipleship is at the heart of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20). It entails the laborious effort of sharing the burdens of seeking to live holy lives in accordance with God’s will. This is Christian jargon for keeping each other accountable by participating in the lives of others. Who are these others? Jesus taught that we are expected to love our neighbors (and if this is not bad enough, it is to do so …) as we love ourselves. We shall come back to this theme and consider its implications for a competitive world of choice making.
Discipleship must once again be at the core of Church life and the true measure of success. It is by its very nature more difficult to measure but more satisfying to participate in. True discipleship involves coming alongside someone else NOT as a teacher per se but as a fellow student of the Holy Spirit.
Setting discipleship as the primary goal will necessarily include evangelistic and missionary activities – but it is not so the other way round. It is far too easy to be intoxicated by the seduction of numbers that one forgets or minimizes the importance of discipleship altogether.
In today’s economy, time is precious and translates to economic resources. How can we set aside time for discipleship? It all boils down to priorities. We live out what we really believe not what we claim to believe. We also pay for what we value.
To the question, how can I find time to disciple? The answer is, you simply make time. To the concern about not being able to afford the time, we must ask, can we afford not to make the time for discipleship? The willingness to make time for anything we desire in the 24 hours a day we all have tells us what we deem to be important.
What then is Christian discipleship? It is a discipleship of the mind, to open one to be transformed by the Holy Spirit by thinking things through – and rethinking your thoughts. It begins by re-assessing all our assumptions. Learn to worship God with your minds as well as your bodies.
The task of discipleship is to teach others how to understand the Bible to the best of our knowledge. We learn from St. Augustine, who urged his readers to draw from any resource that enhances our understanding of our relationship to God and our apprehension of the world we live in. To this end, the Christian mind learns from the fine arts, the literary arts, the musical arts and sciences, the natural sciences, the social sciences, the historical sciences, the spatial arts and sciences of architecture, design and sports, the economic sciences, the commercial arts, the political sciences, the philosophical and rhetorical arts of argumentation, etc.
5. THE MANDATE OF ACT
At ACT, we seek the ideals of paideia. Our mandate is to Teach, Disciple, & Proclaim the Gospel faithfully according to the Christian Bible handed down through the Church.
5.1 ROMANS 12:2
Be transformed - thinking things through in the cultural spheres of influence: commerce, academia, media, politics and sports (CAMPS). We desire security and significance (SS). Leadership and success must be redefined. Science is a method of knowing while revelation is the content of knowledge. Together, science and revelation lead to better understanding.
By renewing your minds - control your control beliefs, worship God with your mind and cultivate the person as God’s image (imago Dei).
Discern the will of God – seek wisdom from insight & understanding of knowledge.
Romans 12 tell us that we ought to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we may discern the will of God … which is our spiritual worship! This means that all the Christian talk about worshipping God in spirit begins with a new way of thinking.
5.2 DEVELOPING A CHRIST-CENTERED WORLDVIEW
5.2.1 What Is The Christian Philosophy Of Knowledge And Understanding?
How can we use this to engage our minds to worship God as we allow God to educate us? Presuppositions: God is the ultimate teacher and all of reality is used by God to reveal himself to us. God created the world and cares deeply about it. We show our love for God by also caring for what happens to the world. In this, we concern ourselves with every field of human inquiry and every sphere of cultural influence.
5.2.2 Sources of Adoptive Authorities to Develop A Christ-Centered Worldview
• Testimony: CCC (Commitment to Convictional Confession) Experiential relevance
• Science: DDD (Discovery of Divine Disclosure) Empirical adequacy
• Philosophy: RRR (Reason to make Revelation Relevant) Logical coherence.
By far the most significant barrier to today’s evangelistic enterprise is the apparent lack of relevance. As we learn to reason well by submitting to God’s word, we have to also learn to relate honestly to the strangers in our midst. RRR (Reason and Relate to make Relevant the message of the Gospel).
5.3 THE NEW APOLOGETICS - SCIENTISM & RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
5.3.1 Science & Scientism
Discover convergence between science and revelation
1. Science is the most manicured form of rationality known to us - it is God’s gift to us so that we may discover divine disclosure.
2. Scientism is the philosophical presumption that science alone holds the key to understanding all there is to understand. It is often disguised as science.
3. Contemporary issues of true science include Extra-Terrestrial life, animal consciousness & morality, and neuroscientific explanations for free will and sinful behavior.
5.3.2 Religious Pluralism
What About the Other Faiths? Are All Faiths Equally Valid?
Religious pluralism has existed from time immemorial. The philosophy of religious pluralism, which claims that all religions are equally valid and that they all make similar claims - is false. Explore the wisdom of other faiths to enrich your own
1. How do we know that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other religions are wrong? The single common difference (scd) between the Christian faith and all other religions is the identity of Jesus.
2. What about those who die in infancy?
3. What about those who die in adulthood and have never heard the gospel?
4. What about those who are born or become, mentally retarded?
6. CONCLUSION
The call to live the life of a Christian mind is an achievable goal and begins with acknowledging the remarkable gift of the human mind – which is the cognitive expression of the brain. Is this for really intelligent people? No, you do not have to know a lot to think but you do have to think a lot to know. And yet, knowledge is not our goal, but understanding is.
Jesus himself taught us that understanding what we know is more important than plain knowledge since knowledge alone does not transform our minds.
1. Build a firm foundation with the Word and the Spirit of God. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit - Eph 6:1. Build a worldview by renewing your minds to acquire -
• Confession of Knowledge
• Conviction of Belief
• Commitment to Convictional Confession
2. Be ready in and out of season to explain why you believe God’s word. 2 Tim 4:2-5 - Know what you believe (CASE), Trust God’s word, Obey God’s command and Witness sensitively - effective witnessing is preferable to numerical witnessing.
3. Redeem your mind for Christ: Seek the Biblical world view, adopt it as your own and learn to defend it by submitting your intellect to Christ, 2 Cor. 10:4-5.
4. Fulfill the great commission as an ambassador of Christ. Eph. 6:19-20 & Matt. 28:19-20.
5. Love the stranger in your midst, and know God to make him known. Matt. 25:35 & 40.
People the world over desire Christian values but they do not know it. It is the task of Christians to draw their attention to what has already been established by the teachings of Jesus. This is the Christian mandate of paideia. It is possible for the Christian voice to influence the secular world. We must be fully involved with the every cultural sphere of influence. Indeed, they say that diplomacy is the art of having other people have your way.
APPENDIX
The Aim of Christian Education (Paideia): Wisdom
1. Paideia: The ancient Greeks used a term to denote instruction in a course of study for the cultivation of intellect and character to produce an educated citizen. It seeks the ‘formation’ of a person, physical, intellectual, social, moral, and spiritual. By the time of the New Testament, the term was widely used to refer to children in need of good instruction. Both Jesus and Paul referred to the imperative of paideia to describe the maturation of the Christian mind. For what you think, that you are.
2. Christian paideia stresses the renewal and cultivation of the person as God’s image (imago Dei). This life-transforming education was carried out under the divine Teacher, the Logos. The Church adopted paideia for education in the Christian faith. Its objective was the wisdom of God. The pathway to wisdom is insight.
3. Insight is the real knowledge that comes to us (the mechanics of which we are agnostic about) and allows us to ‘see’ more quickly than we are able to articulate. It is a passive form of knowledge, a ‘transient grasp of an intransitory realm’.
4. Wisdom is the full understanding of knowledge and revolves around insight, which confers the gift (is not a fruit of human exertion) of wisdom. Insight does not function in isolation. The equilibria between wisdom (sapientia) and knowledge (scientia) operate in a relational matrix; meditation (passive) and cognitive learning (active) need each other. It is wisdom that no science or arts offers for God alone is wise (see Job). This means the search for wisdom anticipates the search for God in worship.
5. Worship is a response to God’s revelation to humanity. Worship relies on what we know about the reality of nature. Our knowledge relies on the quality of our education. But knowledge is insufficient for understanding, so we seek wisdom. Christian education seeks a curriculum of faith incorporating an understanding of scientific discovery.
6. Christian education as worship aims to discover the hidden orders of reality because it has reasons to consider the claim of Jesus - to overcome annihilation (death). Education becomes the acquisition of wisdom as the tacit and transcendental guide for knowledge.
Worship is inquiry & inquiry is worship
An educational philosophy in a theological framework.
1. Be passionately engaged with the quest for knowledge in a fiduciary context, believing that the universe is intelligible because God created it.
2. Indwell the object of knowledge and tap into the tacit dimension to know the answer before we even know the question. Learn ‘contemplative wondering’, a sort of indwelling with a full awareness of ourselves and our place in God’s kingdom and the object we are studying.
3. Distinguish wisdom from knowledge and exercise imagination that assumes the tacit dimensional integration of things ‘underground’ to create insight.
4. Insight yields the ‘Eureka’ effect. Discover and celebrate the disclosure of the hidden order.
5. A new construction of meaning for a transformation of reason. Learn interpretation and responsible action. Knowledge is power and the bearer of knowledge bears great responsibility.
Development of Human Intelligence
Intelligence arises from interaction between person and the environment.
1. Piaget states that faced with conflict, a person either ‘assimilates’ (plays with) or ‘accommodates’ (imitate) the environment. He predominates over the environment or vice-versa. Interaction is equilibrium between the two, resulting in intelligence through ‘adaptation’.
2. There is a complementarity between consciousness and neurological interaction, the Mind-Body Problem. The structures of intelligence developed by humans will disclose the hidden intelligibility of the universe through all branches of science (learning?)
3. But a third reaction is possible – transformation.
The priority of transformation (creative capacity) over adaptation (intelligence) in Christian education.
1. The Christian mind is called to transform and not to adapt to the world. But first, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our own minds, by the Spirit. Romans 12:2 speaks of a passive transformation, not accomplished by the person, but to submit to another who will do the transforming. This constitutes the process of “being transformed” rather than “transforming yourself”.
2. Our ultimate fear as mortals is death. We can adapt to just about anything but we cannot adapt to escape death. To be spiritually renewed is to seek to overcome ultimate death as well as the fear of death by the transforming power of Jesus on the Cross.
Method
The true teacher asks questions worth living for. Education should advance the discovery of ideas to instigate a desire to learn for the love of knowing, so that the totality of one’s place in the universe may become less and less of a mystery. Education is a vital part of the response to divine revelation we call worship. How we perform the task of education reveals what we really believe about God.
Application for Teachers:
1. Face and embrace conflict expectantly (including exams and papers).
2. Step aside to scan the situation, to indwell, to contemplate.
3. Focus on the image with an idea of the teacher’s own viewpoint.
4. Share the excitement of the course of study.
5. Celebrate the Eureka effect with wonderment and gratitude.
6. Interpret and act responsibly in the community of imagination. Education is worshipping with the mind.
Conclusion
A Christian philosophy of education acknowledges the priority of tacit over explicit knowing. The focus on the relationship between sapientia and scientia informs the axiology grounded in the Christian faith. This determines one’s methodology and the teacher’s expectation of the student. Can we teach art, economics, geography, history, mathematics, languages, literature, politics, and science to know God?
Do we sin because we are sinners or are we sinners because we sin?
Sorry but I have so busy with running the ministry of www.actministry.org and completing my dissertation (I successfully defended my doctoral dissertation at Princeton on the topic, Do we sin because we are sinners or are we sinners because we sin?) is an interdisciplinary proposal for a kenotic theological doctrine of moral cognition, one that accounts for the salvific status of amorals who suffer post-natal brain trauma resulting in declarative memory loss and false memory, infancy deaths as well as preconscious retrocausal urges such as found in victims of Tourette's syndrome. The subtitle is - Cognitive Nolition, Neuroscience and Kenotic Soteriology) that I did not check to approve some of your comments till now.
I shall remember to break up the paragraphs so that it will be easier to read.
Ben, I have visited and spoken to the Christian Graduate Fellowship at Oriel College in Oxford and plan to visit Oxford again in October.
In about a week, I will be visiting Malaysia to speak on these topics (check out the ACT website above):
Location: Canaanland Book store
Dates: Sat Aug 01, 2009
Times:10.30 am - 12.30 pm
Description:How China Nearly Became A Christian Nation?
Do you know that the Gospel arrived in China during the Tang Dynasty in AD635, the same year it arrived in England?
In AD 635, missionaries from the Syriac Church arrived in China with the Gospel. It was embraced by the emperor of the Tang dynasty. In AD 781, a large stone was erected to commemorate the arrival of the Illustrious Religion. By the 13th century, the Mongolians came to power in China. Genghis Khan married a Christian wife, Sorkakthani, mother of emperor Kublai Khan. Kublai hosted Marco Polo and asked the pope to send 100 teaching monks to evangelize China - they never came and Marco returned to China just after the Great Khan died. What happened after that?
ocation: Canaanland Book store
Dates: Sat Aug 08, 2009
Times: 10.30 am - 12.30 pm
Description: Christian Belief In A Post-Modern World
Is it still unreasonable to believe The Bible in an Age of Science?
Christian theology through the Church ought to welcome responsible articulations of scientific knowledge as natural scientists within and without the Church discover (investigate) divine disclosure (revelation). If science is discovery and theology is confessional, knowledge can only assume the status of wisdom when it becomes understanding. Knowledge shaped by wisdom provides true understanding.
Location: Canaanland Book store
Dates: Sat Aug 08, 2009
Times:2.00 pm - 4.00 pm
Description:The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Discovery of the oldest Bible in the world in 1947 : What does it mean for Christians in 2009?
The Dead Sea Scrolls, more accurately known as the Qumran Scrolls, are the remains of 813 scrolls and manuscripts written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. 220 of them represented the Old Testament. These are the oldest known Hebrew text of the Bible with some text dating back to about 250 BC. Prior to 1947, the earliest text of the Bible was dated to AD 895. In 1947, a shepherd boy discovered some of them in a cave at Qumran, along the west coast of the Dead Sea in Israel. Subsequently, 11 caves yielded over 100,000 fragments. This discovery has significance for Judaism and Christianity. The scrolls (i) tell us about early Judaism (forerunner to Rabbinic Judaism and 1st century Christianity); (ii) explain the circumstances which led to the Christianity’s rapid Hellenization and Rabbinic Judaism’s resistance to Hellenization; (iii) show that modern translations of the Old Testament are reliable to an uncanny level of accuracy, and affirm that the LXX was a faithful translation; (iv) attest to the accuracy, historicity and antiquity of the New Testament texts, and its nexus to the Hebrew culture; (v) show that Christianity is a stream which flows from a common river, as a corrective to the stream of Judaism, and lays full claim to the faith of Abraham and Jacob, Moses, Noah; and (vi) serve as textual bridges between the two Testaments of the Christian Bible.
Dates: Mon Aug 03, 2009
Times:8.00 pm - 10.00 pm
Description: This is a special invitational only lecture on the Old Testament for Project Timothy which will be hosted by Community Baptist Church.
Topics include:
Biblical chronology
Prehistory – Gen.1-11
Oral History – Gen.12-50
Documentary History -
Theology themes: Hebrew Bible & Judaism
Doctrinal application (Christaintiy):
Chronology of events:
Theocracy-Nation of Israel
Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David, Solomon)
2 kingdoms of the North and the South
Assyrian/Babylonian Province of Israel
Intertestamental Roman Province of Judea
Political and Religious Hegemonic Empires in and over Palestina:
Egyptian-
Assyrian-
Babylonian-
Persian-
Greek-
Roman (50 BC-AD 500)
Byzantine (AD500-1500)
Ottoman (AD 1500-1900)
British (1900-1950)
American
Chronology of Doctrinal Christianity
God is one
0. Abrahamic Covenant – Pre-Judaic
00. Jacobean (Israelite) Promise
Exodus – miracles of plagues
Sinai covenant (From Hebrew et al, to Israel)
1. Mosaic Judaism
YHWH – abba (Father)
Canaanite-Israelite
2. Davidic Judaism
Exile and Return
The Samaritan Problem
3. Rabbinical Judaism
4. Intertestamental Judaism
Please elt your friends know if they happen to be in Malaysia in August
I shall remember to break up the paragraphs so that it will be easier to read.
Ben, I have visited and spoken to the Christian Graduate Fellowship at Oriel College in Oxford and plan to visit Oxford again in October.
In about a week, I will be visiting Malaysia to speak on these topics (check out the ACT website above):
Location: Canaanland Book store
Dates: Sat Aug 01, 2009
Times:10.30 am - 12.30 pm
Description:How China Nearly Became A Christian Nation?
Do you know that the Gospel arrived in China during the Tang Dynasty in AD635, the same year it arrived in England?
In AD 635, missionaries from the Syriac Church arrived in China with the Gospel. It was embraced by the emperor of the Tang dynasty. In AD 781, a large stone was erected to commemorate the arrival of the Illustrious Religion. By the 13th century, the Mongolians came to power in China. Genghis Khan married a Christian wife, Sorkakthani, mother of emperor Kublai Khan. Kublai hosted Marco Polo and asked the pope to send 100 teaching monks to evangelize China - they never came and Marco returned to China just after the Great Khan died. What happened after that?
ocation: Canaanland Book store
Dates: Sat Aug 08, 2009
Times: 10.30 am - 12.30 pm
Description: Christian Belief In A Post-Modern World
Is it still unreasonable to believe The Bible in an Age of Science?
Christian theology through the Church ought to welcome responsible articulations of scientific knowledge as natural scientists within and without the Church discover (investigate) divine disclosure (revelation). If science is discovery and theology is confessional, knowledge can only assume the status of wisdom when it becomes understanding. Knowledge shaped by wisdom provides true understanding.
Location: Canaanland Book store
Dates: Sat Aug 08, 2009
Times:2.00 pm - 4.00 pm
Description:The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Discovery of the oldest Bible in the world in 1947 : What does it mean for Christians in 2009?
The Dead Sea Scrolls, more accurately known as the Qumran Scrolls, are the remains of 813 scrolls and manuscripts written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. 220 of them represented the Old Testament. These are the oldest known Hebrew text of the Bible with some text dating back to about 250 BC. Prior to 1947, the earliest text of the Bible was dated to AD 895. In 1947, a shepherd boy discovered some of them in a cave at Qumran, along the west coast of the Dead Sea in Israel. Subsequently, 11 caves yielded over 100,000 fragments. This discovery has significance for Judaism and Christianity. The scrolls (i) tell us about early Judaism (forerunner to Rabbinic Judaism and 1st century Christianity); (ii) explain the circumstances which led to the Christianity’s rapid Hellenization and Rabbinic Judaism’s resistance to Hellenization; (iii) show that modern translations of the Old Testament are reliable to an uncanny level of accuracy, and affirm that the LXX was a faithful translation; (iv) attest to the accuracy, historicity and antiquity of the New Testament texts, and its nexus to the Hebrew culture; (v) show that Christianity is a stream which flows from a common river, as a corrective to the stream of Judaism, and lays full claim to the faith of Abraham and Jacob, Moses, Noah; and (vi) serve as textual bridges between the two Testaments of the Christian Bible.
Dates: Mon Aug 03, 2009
Times:8.00 pm - 10.00 pm
Description: This is a special invitational only lecture on the Old Testament for Project Timothy which will be hosted by Community Baptist Church.
Topics include:
Biblical chronology
Prehistory – Gen.1-11
Oral History – Gen.12-50
Documentary History -
Theology themes: Hebrew Bible & Judaism
Doctrinal application (Christaintiy):
Chronology of events:
Theocracy-Nation of Israel
Kingdom of Israel (Saul, David, Solomon)
2 kingdoms of the North and the South
Assyrian/Babylonian Province of Israel
Intertestamental Roman Province of Judea
Political and Religious Hegemonic Empires in and over Palestina:
Egyptian-
Assyrian-
Babylonian-
Persian-
Greek-
Roman (50 BC-AD 500)
Byzantine (AD500-1500)
Ottoman (AD 1500-1900)
British (1900-1950)
American
Chronology of Doctrinal Christianity
God is one
0. Abrahamic Covenant – Pre-Judaic
00. Jacobean (Israelite) Promise
Exodus – miracles of plagues
Sinai covenant (From Hebrew et al, to Israel)
1. Mosaic Judaism
YHWH – abba (Father)
Canaanite-Israelite
2. Davidic Judaism
Exile and Return
The Samaritan Problem
3. Rabbinical Judaism
4. Intertestamental Judaism
Please elt your friends know if they happen to be in Malaysia in August
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The New Apologetic Challenges
I have been asked why I not posted for a while. The reason is that I have been tied up with a ton of research and I prefer to post when I am more sure than less.
What I do want to share is that Christian belief ought to acknowledge that none of us belief is splendid isolation - we adopt the authorities of others only when it makes sense to us (however well we disguise this process). Even those of us who 'feel' led by the lord is simply expressing the fruit of our reasoning in Christianese.
When asked why I chose to believe in the Christian faith having studied so many others, I answered that 3 criteria seems to me to be reasonable. If God exists and has been revealed to humanity, I expect the message to be:
1. universally accessible. No one ought to be underprivileged by geography and history (lived in wrong part of the world or born at the wrong time).
2. philosophically coherent. This is not bowing down to classical philosophy but merely stating how we think. We are made to discover knowledge by observing, pondering and then making judgments on what seems to us most believable. If our beliefs are not coherent, they will soon unravel when questioned.
3. scientifically convergent. This is not bowing down to the scientific method. Rather, it is drawing from the fruits of good scientific inferences based on measurable evidence from which models, hypotheses and theories are constructed for testing.
These 3 criteria serve as my own Baloney Detection Kit (adapted from C. S.'s) to assess any claims to divine truth.
Now to the new apologetic challenges. They come in several forms but their sources appear to be drawn from the following fields of inquiry.
Archaeological findings and their interpretations.
Natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology and the neurosciences).
Social sciences (psychology, psychiatry and sociology).
Religious pluralism that leads to epistemic relativism.
Historical and geological analyses of events and locations.
Literary analyses including the issue of canonization.
I shall expand on these in later posts.
What I do want to share is that Christian belief ought to acknowledge that none of us belief is splendid isolation - we adopt the authorities of others only when it makes sense to us (however well we disguise this process). Even those of us who 'feel' led by the lord is simply expressing the fruit of our reasoning in Christianese.
When asked why I chose to believe in the Christian faith having studied so many others, I answered that 3 criteria seems to me to be reasonable. If God exists and has been revealed to humanity, I expect the message to be:
1. universally accessible. No one ought to be underprivileged by geography and history (lived in wrong part of the world or born at the wrong time).
2. philosophically coherent. This is not bowing down to classical philosophy but merely stating how we think. We are made to discover knowledge by observing, pondering and then making judgments on what seems to us most believable. If our beliefs are not coherent, they will soon unravel when questioned.
3. scientifically convergent. This is not bowing down to the scientific method. Rather, it is drawing from the fruits of good scientific inferences based on measurable evidence from which models, hypotheses and theories are constructed for testing.
These 3 criteria serve as my own Baloney Detection Kit (adapted from C. S.'s) to assess any claims to divine truth.
Now to the new apologetic challenges. They come in several forms but their sources appear to be drawn from the following fields of inquiry.
Archaeological findings and their interpretations.
Natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology and the neurosciences).
Social sciences (psychology, psychiatry and sociology).
Religious pluralism that leads to epistemic relativism.
Historical and geological analyses of events and locations.
Literary analyses including the issue of canonization.
I shall expand on these in later posts.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Why Are There So Many Other Religions?
If God is one and the Christian faith is the true understanding of God’s revelation, why are there so many other religions? They do not refer to the same idea of God. And they cannot all be correct because they are mutually exclusive. So why does God allow them to exist? Furthermore, if God is not without a witness in the entire world, then are non-Christian traditions not also God’s witnesses? If they are, then Jesus cannot be the only way. If they are not, then God cannot have witnesses among them. This is perhaps one of the most demanding issue facing theologians and no one has offered a fully satisfactory answer. So why am I trying to? Because the matter is so urgent. Hence, even my tentative attempt reflects a passion for the lost and a small step towards a theology of religions. Let us begin by defining what we mean by religion.
The Christian notion of religion refers to the binding belief of communities in their response to divine revelation. Non-Christian religions need not include a god, a community or revelation. Their diversity makes it impossible for us to make simplistic statements about what they are, so we shall limit ourselves to consider how Christians ought to relate to them. In brief, we should engage with other religions with respect, humility and awe – why awe? Because their universal persistence in every known human culture testifies to humanity’s restlessness that prompts them to seek security and significance beyond their biological needs. It reminds us that among creation, we alone, are the praying animal. We anticipate future joy with our imagination and suffer anguish of the past with our recollective memories. We invest huge amounts of resources in celebrating births and mourning deaths. We ritualize the passage of time with symbolic markers of our existence and use art, music and poetry to express the inexpressible as we monumentalize our presence. It is no surprise then that the study of religion as the oldest persistent preoccupation of human existence bears on every discipline of inquiry.
I grew up in Malaysia, a multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious nation once colonized by the Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms of the Indonesian archipelago and of India, the Chinese mariners of southern China, the Arabs, followed by the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British and then the Japanese. Each of them left their religious influence and today, we have no less than 20 different religious faiths actively practiced. How did I end up a Christian? Why do I remain one when so many options are present? Bertrand Russell had a point when he argued that where you grew up and how you were exposed strongly influences your religious inclinations. Living in New York today, I am reminded of the increasing options for religious beliefs around me and the appearance of new religious identities brought in by immigration from faraway countries. This led me to ask, what is the Christian view of other religions?
We typically assert that non-Christian religions are demonic, by which we assign them as works of the Devil, or we consider them man-made, false attributions of divinity. But why would demonic religions also teach many of the moral values that is shared by Christianity, and why would man-made religious continue to thrive alongside Christianity? Perhaps the answer is more nuanced than that. Could it be that many of these religions that share kernels of truth claims with the biblical teachings survive as corruptions of the original, syncretized with animism, legendary myths, and shamanism? Or perhaps other religious are local variants of the western idealized faith we call Christianity. When we ignorantly assume that non-Christians have no knowledge of God and that non-Christian religions, usually coupled to nationalistic cultures are demonic, we project a climate of hostility and condemnation, killing any opportunity for building trust and dialogue. Yet dialogues are not fusions of thought. It demands clarity and precision of thought regarding one’s convictional beliefs while respectfully learning about the others’. This discipline is a labor of love, one that requires a suspension of disbelief while engaging the opinions of another. In this essay, we shall consider what is called a Christian theology of religions.
The challenge before the Christian claim in a world of religious pluralism is Jesus himself, specifically, the finality and particularity of Christ. Why should the non-Christian accept the view that Jesus alone is the source of salvation? The quick answer is in fact, a retort – no other religion really avoids this question of particularity. Even the most amorphous notions of Hinduism and animism claim particularity and finality. Yet, asserting the finality of Christ does not relieve us from explaining the status of other religions. Do they also save? Do they offer truths? The evangelical world is largely silent on this matter because we have invested little to consider this question. However, with the emergence of ‘other’ religions in the United States, we no longer enjoy this luxury of ignorance.
The finality and particularity of Christ rest on two biblical claims: Jesus is the full and authoritative revelation of who God is and what God desires. He is the particular and unique individual whom God designates as our savior. No other revelation will surpass him (John 1:9) and God has not left himself without a witness among non-Christian traditions (Acts 14:17). The ‘scandal of particularity’ is the conviction that God has revealed himself in particular places and times, especially through the Jews and Jesus, and not to every human being in equal measure.
The Christian church in line with the witness of the scriptures holds that God has revealed himself in an authoritative manner. This first truth claim is the starting point for a theology of religion. The second truth is that God has made all humans in His image, whether or not they acknowledge this. God’s definitive but not exhaustive revelation is written in the Bible. God has, at various times, revealed himself directly to specific people outside the covenant community of Israel (and hence for us today, outside the Church). These include Abimelech of Gerar (Gen. 20:3-7), the Egyptian pharaoh (Gen. 41), Balaam (Num. 22), Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2, 4), Jethro, Job, the Queen of Sheba, and Cornelius (Acts 10:3-5). God’s creation has been corrupted by sin. But the atoning work of Jesus on the cross allows us to be reconciled to God.
Jesus is the unique incarnation of God and is the only Savior for all peoples. But it is not necessary for everybody to possess a conscious knowledge of Christ in order to benefit from redemption through him, since this would physically, geographically and historically limit the work of Christ and put the bottleneck of evangelism at the competence of missionaries and evangelists. Indeed, neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Abram, nor any of the Old Testament prophets know Christ as the Logos incarnate. The work of salvation was accomplished by the second person of the eternal Triunity who penetrated spacetime as Jesus. Scholars such as J. I. Packer, Millard Erickson, John Stott and Christopher Wright argue that in principle, God might indeed save some who have never explicitly heard the gospel but respond to what they know of God through general revelation and turn to him for forgiveness. We simply do not know. So our wisest approach is never to rule out this possibility. Should this mean that all other religions are the equal of Christianity? Not at all. Does this mean that we need not evangelize those of other religious belief? No. What it does mean is that while we urgently share the message of the gospel, we must remain agnostic about the exhaustive methods by which God draws his creation to himself. We must continue to confidently affirm the truth of the scriptures while not assuming to comprehend all the mysteries of God.
But what then did Muhammad receive as revelation and what knowledge awakened the Buddha? If we take seriously the claim that all humans are made in the image of God, i.e., made to be morally aware of right and wrong by God’s standards, then we ought not be surprised by elements of truth in the teachings of other religions. People are first and foremost, made in the image of God before they are Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus, observant Jews or pagans. We are all related to God whether or not we acknowledge this relationship. Our differences are secondary to what primarily unites us, our humanity as made in the image of God. From this starting point, we should expect to find nuggets of truth and echoes of Christian belief in any other religion. We may think of other religions as displaying varying degrees of understanding God. Their teachings may be partial and often distorted. One example of a universal teaching is the Golden Rule – we are not to do to others what we do not wish to be done to us. Even its positive variant, we are to do to others what we wish others to do to us, pales in comparison to the striking teaching of Christ – you shall love your neighbor as yourself!
Conclusion
So why did God allow so many other religions? I suspect that God’s way included the progressive revelation to different human groups through general revelation. This seems an unsatisfactory answer as it raises up the question of favoritism. The Bible is unashamedly open about how God chooses one over the other, Jacob over Esau, for example. However we try to parse at the text to soften this blow, the fact remains that each day, millions die without direct knowledge of Jesus. I for one, welcome at least their understanding of nuggets of truth through other religions than no knowledge of God at all. And we may pray that God will have mercy on them and judge them according to their level of understanding coupled with their response in worship.
A word of caution: A study of non-Christian religions, while a maturing process for our faith, holds certain temptations. One may be tempted to water down or compromise the truth claims of Christianity to make it more palatable to other religious claims. One may flirt with commitment to another faith out of admiration or disappointment with some aspects of Christian worship or in the mistaken impression that a suspension of one’s own commitments is necessary in order to study other religions. This was the route taken by the formerly conservative scholar John Hick, who turned from a Christian apologist to become the preeminent religious pluralist of our time. There is no such thing as a person with no commitments. However, commitment to Jesus does not rule out acceptance of the truths that other faiths may incidentally contain. Finally, danger lurks for those of us whose knowledge of Christianity is shallow. The answer is not to avoid learning about other religions but to hasten one’s understanding of the Christian faith.
Selected Bibliography
1. Anderson, J. N. D. Christianity and World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1984.
2. Ayoub, Mahmoud. A Muslim View of Christianity. Edited by Irfan A. Omar. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. 2007.
3. Braaten, Carl E. No Other Gospel: Christianity Among the World’s Religions. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992.
4. Cox, Harvey. Many Mansions: A Christian’s Encounter with Other Faiths. Boston: Beacon Press. 2001.
5. D’Costa, Gavin. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: Myth of Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Faith Meets Faith Series in Interreligious Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1990.
6. Edwards, James R. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2005.
7. Hick, John. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press. 1995.
8. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic. 2007.
9. Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1994.
10. Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 2001.
11. Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness of God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1992.
12. Sanders, John. Ed. Fackre, Gabriel, John Nash and John Sanders. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1995.
13. Sanneh, Lamin. Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1989.
14. Smith, Huston. The Soul of Christianity: Restoring the Great Tradition. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. 2006.
15. Walls, Andrew. The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission and Appropriation of Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 2002.
The Christian notion of religion refers to the binding belief of communities in their response to divine revelation. Non-Christian religions need not include a god, a community or revelation. Their diversity makes it impossible for us to make simplistic statements about what they are, so we shall limit ourselves to consider how Christians ought to relate to them. In brief, we should engage with other religions with respect, humility and awe – why awe? Because their universal persistence in every known human culture testifies to humanity’s restlessness that prompts them to seek security and significance beyond their biological needs. It reminds us that among creation, we alone, are the praying animal. We anticipate future joy with our imagination and suffer anguish of the past with our recollective memories. We invest huge amounts of resources in celebrating births and mourning deaths. We ritualize the passage of time with symbolic markers of our existence and use art, music and poetry to express the inexpressible as we monumentalize our presence. It is no surprise then that the study of religion as the oldest persistent preoccupation of human existence bears on every discipline of inquiry.
I grew up in Malaysia, a multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious nation once colonized by the Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms of the Indonesian archipelago and of India, the Chinese mariners of southern China, the Arabs, followed by the Portuguese, the Dutch, the British and then the Japanese. Each of them left their religious influence and today, we have no less than 20 different religious faiths actively practiced. How did I end up a Christian? Why do I remain one when so many options are present? Bertrand Russell had a point when he argued that where you grew up and how you were exposed strongly influences your religious inclinations. Living in New York today, I am reminded of the increasing options for religious beliefs around me and the appearance of new religious identities brought in by immigration from faraway countries. This led me to ask, what is the Christian view of other religions?
We typically assert that non-Christian religions are demonic, by which we assign them as works of the Devil, or we consider them man-made, false attributions of divinity. But why would demonic religions also teach many of the moral values that is shared by Christianity, and why would man-made religious continue to thrive alongside Christianity? Perhaps the answer is more nuanced than that. Could it be that many of these religions that share kernels of truth claims with the biblical teachings survive as corruptions of the original, syncretized with animism, legendary myths, and shamanism? Or perhaps other religious are local variants of the western idealized faith we call Christianity. When we ignorantly assume that non-Christians have no knowledge of God and that non-Christian religions, usually coupled to nationalistic cultures are demonic, we project a climate of hostility and condemnation, killing any opportunity for building trust and dialogue. Yet dialogues are not fusions of thought. It demands clarity and precision of thought regarding one’s convictional beliefs while respectfully learning about the others’. This discipline is a labor of love, one that requires a suspension of disbelief while engaging the opinions of another. In this essay, we shall consider what is called a Christian theology of religions.
The challenge before the Christian claim in a world of religious pluralism is Jesus himself, specifically, the finality and particularity of Christ. Why should the non-Christian accept the view that Jesus alone is the source of salvation? The quick answer is in fact, a retort – no other religion really avoids this question of particularity. Even the most amorphous notions of Hinduism and animism claim particularity and finality. Yet, asserting the finality of Christ does not relieve us from explaining the status of other religions. Do they also save? Do they offer truths? The evangelical world is largely silent on this matter because we have invested little to consider this question. However, with the emergence of ‘other’ religions in the United States, we no longer enjoy this luxury of ignorance.
The finality and particularity of Christ rest on two biblical claims: Jesus is the full and authoritative revelation of who God is and what God desires. He is the particular and unique individual whom God designates as our savior. No other revelation will surpass him (John 1:9) and God has not left himself without a witness among non-Christian traditions (Acts 14:17). The ‘scandal of particularity’ is the conviction that God has revealed himself in particular places and times, especially through the Jews and Jesus, and not to every human being in equal measure.
The Christian church in line with the witness of the scriptures holds that God has revealed himself in an authoritative manner. This first truth claim is the starting point for a theology of religion. The second truth is that God has made all humans in His image, whether or not they acknowledge this. God’s definitive but not exhaustive revelation is written in the Bible. God has, at various times, revealed himself directly to specific people outside the covenant community of Israel (and hence for us today, outside the Church). These include Abimelech of Gerar (Gen. 20:3-7), the Egyptian pharaoh (Gen. 41), Balaam (Num. 22), Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2, 4), Jethro, Job, the Queen of Sheba, and Cornelius (Acts 10:3-5). God’s creation has been corrupted by sin. But the atoning work of Jesus on the cross allows us to be reconciled to God.
Jesus is the unique incarnation of God and is the only Savior for all peoples. But it is not necessary for everybody to possess a conscious knowledge of Christ in order to benefit from redemption through him, since this would physically, geographically and historically limit the work of Christ and put the bottleneck of evangelism at the competence of missionaries and evangelists. Indeed, neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Abram, nor any of the Old Testament prophets know Christ as the Logos incarnate. The work of salvation was accomplished by the second person of the eternal Triunity who penetrated spacetime as Jesus. Scholars such as J. I. Packer, Millard Erickson, John Stott and Christopher Wright argue that in principle, God might indeed save some who have never explicitly heard the gospel but respond to what they know of God through general revelation and turn to him for forgiveness. We simply do not know. So our wisest approach is never to rule out this possibility. Should this mean that all other religions are the equal of Christianity? Not at all. Does this mean that we need not evangelize those of other religious belief? No. What it does mean is that while we urgently share the message of the gospel, we must remain agnostic about the exhaustive methods by which God draws his creation to himself. We must continue to confidently affirm the truth of the scriptures while not assuming to comprehend all the mysteries of God.
But what then did Muhammad receive as revelation and what knowledge awakened the Buddha? If we take seriously the claim that all humans are made in the image of God, i.e., made to be morally aware of right and wrong by God’s standards, then we ought not be surprised by elements of truth in the teachings of other religions. People are first and foremost, made in the image of God before they are Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus, observant Jews or pagans. We are all related to God whether or not we acknowledge this relationship. Our differences are secondary to what primarily unites us, our humanity as made in the image of God. From this starting point, we should expect to find nuggets of truth and echoes of Christian belief in any other religion. We may think of other religions as displaying varying degrees of understanding God. Their teachings may be partial and often distorted. One example of a universal teaching is the Golden Rule – we are not to do to others what we do not wish to be done to us. Even its positive variant, we are to do to others what we wish others to do to us, pales in comparison to the striking teaching of Christ – you shall love your neighbor as yourself!
Conclusion
So why did God allow so many other religions? I suspect that God’s way included the progressive revelation to different human groups through general revelation. This seems an unsatisfactory answer as it raises up the question of favoritism. The Bible is unashamedly open about how God chooses one over the other, Jacob over Esau, for example. However we try to parse at the text to soften this blow, the fact remains that each day, millions die without direct knowledge of Jesus. I for one, welcome at least their understanding of nuggets of truth through other religions than no knowledge of God at all. And we may pray that God will have mercy on them and judge them according to their level of understanding coupled with their response in worship.
A word of caution: A study of non-Christian religions, while a maturing process for our faith, holds certain temptations. One may be tempted to water down or compromise the truth claims of Christianity to make it more palatable to other religious claims. One may flirt with commitment to another faith out of admiration or disappointment with some aspects of Christian worship or in the mistaken impression that a suspension of one’s own commitments is necessary in order to study other religions. This was the route taken by the formerly conservative scholar John Hick, who turned from a Christian apologist to become the preeminent religious pluralist of our time. There is no such thing as a person with no commitments. However, commitment to Jesus does not rule out acceptance of the truths that other faiths may incidentally contain. Finally, danger lurks for those of us whose knowledge of Christianity is shallow. The answer is not to avoid learning about other religions but to hasten one’s understanding of the Christian faith.
Selected Bibliography
1. Anderson, J. N. D. Christianity and World Religions. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1984.
2. Ayoub, Mahmoud. A Muslim View of Christianity. Edited by Irfan A. Omar. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis. 2007.
3. Braaten, Carl E. No Other Gospel: Christianity Among the World’s Religions. Minneapolis: Fortress. 1992.
4. Cox, Harvey. Many Mansions: A Christian’s Encounter with Other Faiths. Boston: Beacon Press. 2001.
5. D’Costa, Gavin. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: Myth of Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Faith Meets Faith Series in Interreligious Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1990.
6. Edwards, James R. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2005.
7. Hick, John. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press. 1995.
8. McDermott. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Academic. 2007.
9. Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1994.
10. Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity. 2001.
11. Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness of God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1992.
12. Sanders, John. Ed. Fackre, Gabriel, John Nash and John Sanders. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 1995.
13. Sanneh, Lamin. Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 1989.
14. Smith, Huston. The Soul of Christianity: Restoring the Great Tradition. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. 2006.
15. Walls, Andrew. The Cross-Cultural Process in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission and Appropriation of Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 2002.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Neurotheology or Theoneuroscience?
To make scientific sense of religious convictions, Eugene d’Aquili and Andrew Newberg attempt a neuroscientific explanation of religious experiences by developing what they call neurotheology. This is a misnomer. If anything, their version of neurotheology is a theological or religious application of neuroscience and not a neuroscientific application of theological reflection, since they seek to explain theology in terms of neuroscience. Neurotheology should properly be a theology that includes neuroscience as a resource for understanding God. The term coined by James Ashbrook, is now used to mean any attempt to explain away theology with neuroscientific vocabulary. However, a postfoundational approach seeks not a merger, but preserves the integrity of both fields of inquiry. The search for neuronal correlates to mystical or religious experiences ought not to a priori imply that one or the other is illusory. D’Aquili and Newberg’s study of the neurological basis of religious experience based on non-invasive imaging of a living brain during meditation and ritual behavior tells us this – during worship, activity in those parts of the brain that distinguish between the self and the outside world is diminished, in a process they call deafferentation. This is a partial or total physiological process by which incoming information (afferents) into the brain structures are “cut off.” D’Aquili and Newberg defined theology as “a rational deduction from a foundational myth” and state that theological cognition can only occur when certain cognitive operators are brought to bear on the foundational myths. The structures of the brain that underlie a given operator have to be deafferentated from the rest of the brain. According to them, this is how theology arises.
One may observe that a correlation appears to exist. Deafferentation can be caused by either functional interruption (such as when inhibitory fibers block the transmission of information) or physical interruption (such as a tumor). The most commonly investigated form of physical deafferentation involves patients with epilepsy, where one part of the brain becomes overexcited. When such excitation spreads across the brain hemispheres, a general seizure results – this is a mark of epilepsy. The surgical solution is commisurotomy, the removal of the connector tracts between the two hemispheres of the brain, so that neither side is aware of what the other side is doing. If both mental illnesses and religious experiences share a common description called altered states of consciousness, it would be tempting to infer that one is in fact, the other. This fuels the current assumption that epilepsy and schizophrenia are the most likely causes of religious ecstasy. The problem is that measuring the activity of the brain undergoing a specific experience does not tell us anything about the directional arrow of time. Did the neurological effects observed cause the religious experience or did the religious experience, armed by a metaphysical cause, manifest in observable effects detected by the neuroimaging? Indeed, at a conference recently, Mithen himself acknowledged that his own presumptions take the naturalistic account as the sole starting point because this is how science works. Hence, any attempt to unify the fields of inquiry is flawed from the start, and the current definition of neurotheology is illusory.
D’Aquili and Newberg postulated that there exists in humans a biological necessity to seek out causality. Hence, our “causal operator” develops myths and religious beliefs to feed this curiosity. In doing so, it automatically generates belief in God, spirits and other metaphysical beings for ultimate explanations, even if we cognitively reject the existence of God. Of the seven named cognitive operators, the holistic operator allows us to apprehend the unity of God or the oneness of the universe. This explains the universal persistence of religious cognition – even among the most modern and scientific of societies. Van Huyssteen cites this as cross-disciplinary evidence supporting our biological predisposition for shamanistic inclinations. But he rejects their claims (Metatheology and Megatheology ) that biology can adequately explain religious experience in toto as both bad science and bad theology. They are either naively reductionist and scientistic or naively modernist and foundationalist.
Van Huyssteen concludes that language is the most distinctive human adaptation and contributed to human moral and spiritual cognitions. It made religious or mystical inclinations a universal trait of human culture. Theology is enriched with the insight that our capacity to respond religiously to ultimate questions through prayer and worship is embedded in our capacity for symbolic behavior made possible by our embodied minds, our brains. Science is also enriched with the insight that the discontinuities between humans and other hominids must include religious and moral cognition. The need to create meaning in order to make sense of reality is part of the Homo sapiens tool kit known as the higher-order consciousness, i.e., being conscious that one is a conscious being. This is characterized by our heightened self-awareness and symbolic memory. These allow us to shape our own identities of selfhood. Our neurological capacity for the altered states of consciousness we call religious experience describe first-person accounts that can neither be explained by nor explained away by scientific methodology. Both skepticism and dogmatic defenses of such reports merely serve to expose the prejudices behind scientism and religiosity, while doing little to advance our understanding of these global phenomena. Mithen’s model relies on fortuity or a rather active agency attributed to natural selection. Can this view survive increasing evidence for the direction of progress in the evolutionary process?
One may observe that a correlation appears to exist. Deafferentation can be caused by either functional interruption (such as when inhibitory fibers block the transmission of information) or physical interruption (such as a tumor). The most commonly investigated form of physical deafferentation involves patients with epilepsy, where one part of the brain becomes overexcited. When such excitation spreads across the brain hemispheres, a general seizure results – this is a mark of epilepsy. The surgical solution is commisurotomy, the removal of the connector tracts between the two hemispheres of the brain, so that neither side is aware of what the other side is doing. If both mental illnesses and religious experiences share a common description called altered states of consciousness, it would be tempting to infer that one is in fact, the other. This fuels the current assumption that epilepsy and schizophrenia are the most likely causes of religious ecstasy. The problem is that measuring the activity of the brain undergoing a specific experience does not tell us anything about the directional arrow of time. Did the neurological effects observed cause the religious experience or did the religious experience, armed by a metaphysical cause, manifest in observable effects detected by the neuroimaging? Indeed, at a conference recently, Mithen himself acknowledged that his own presumptions take the naturalistic account as the sole starting point because this is how science works. Hence, any attempt to unify the fields of inquiry is flawed from the start, and the current definition of neurotheology is illusory.
D’Aquili and Newberg postulated that there exists in humans a biological necessity to seek out causality. Hence, our “causal operator” develops myths and religious beliefs to feed this curiosity. In doing so, it automatically generates belief in God, spirits and other metaphysical beings for ultimate explanations, even if we cognitively reject the existence of God. Of the seven named cognitive operators, the holistic operator allows us to apprehend the unity of God or the oneness of the universe. This explains the universal persistence of religious cognition – even among the most modern and scientific of societies. Van Huyssteen cites this as cross-disciplinary evidence supporting our biological predisposition for shamanistic inclinations. But he rejects their claims (Metatheology and Megatheology ) that biology can adequately explain religious experience in toto as both bad science and bad theology. They are either naively reductionist and scientistic or naively modernist and foundationalist.
Van Huyssteen concludes that language is the most distinctive human adaptation and contributed to human moral and spiritual cognitions. It made religious or mystical inclinations a universal trait of human culture. Theology is enriched with the insight that our capacity to respond religiously to ultimate questions through prayer and worship is embedded in our capacity for symbolic behavior made possible by our embodied minds, our brains. Science is also enriched with the insight that the discontinuities between humans and other hominids must include religious and moral cognition. The need to create meaning in order to make sense of reality is part of the Homo sapiens tool kit known as the higher-order consciousness, i.e., being conscious that one is a conscious being. This is characterized by our heightened self-awareness and symbolic memory. These allow us to shape our own identities of selfhood. Our neurological capacity for the altered states of consciousness we call religious experience describe first-person accounts that can neither be explained by nor explained away by scientific methodology. Both skepticism and dogmatic defenses of such reports merely serve to expose the prejudices behind scientism and religiosity, while doing little to advance our understanding of these global phenomena. Mithen’s model relies on fortuity or a rather active agency attributed to natural selection. Can this view survive increasing evidence for the direction of progress in the evolutionary process?
A transformative, evolutionary doctrine of creation
A transformative, evolutionary doctrine of creation is a viable way to prepare for a doctrine of theological anthropology that accounts for findings in paleoanthropology, primatology and neuroscience. J. Moltmann and C. Gunton offer important correctives to traditional interpretations of the biblical creation story. Unlike strict process theology and panentheism, a transformative doctrine of creation fuses the protological doctrine of creation with the eschatological doctrine of redemption by reversing the flow of divine history. This looks to the open future as it unfolds into the present. It preserves the imperative of a free will agency of creation as well as the sovereignty of the creator by a kenotic framework to explain the nature of autopoietic creation by God’s co-creators. Gunton sums it up nicely when he writes, “theories of evolution are not as such so serious a problem for a theology which holds to the relative rather than absolute perfection of creation ‘in the beginning’. Such a doctrine modifies the problem of evil that is presented by evolutionary theory” with reference to the suffering in, and wastefulness of life.
In the chapter three, we shall consider how paleoanthropologist Steven Mithen and evolutionary biologist Terrence Deacon contribute to our understanding of physical and cultural anthropology. Anthropologist Ian Tattersall and Spencer Wells add to our current understanding of how the human race might have evolved and traversed great distances in migratory patterns that may be genetically traceable today. Lurking behind a theologian’s interest in anthropology is the question of the identity of biblical Adam. Robert Jenson and Philip Hefner boldly declare a non-traditional possibility and Wentzel van Huyssteen offers evidence of shamanistic apprehensions as the clue to the emergence of religious cognition and life after death.
Taking a critical realist postfoundational approach to constructing a transformative doctrine of creation, we are now ready to test our methodology against a real world question. How does a revelational natural theology (McGrath’s RNT) that acknowledges a postfoundational rationality (van Huysteen’s PFR) understand and explain what it means to be made in the imago Dei with specific reference to the role of consciousness, emotional intelligence, and synaptic memory, in the emergence of moral cognition in Homo sapiens sapiens?
By discovering the philosophical convergence between scientific findings of neurobiology and theological reflection of moral response in nolition, we can achieve a more robust redescription of the Christian doctrine for an evolutionary creatio continua as we anticipate the creatio nova to come.
If the biblical account of what we call the fall can be understood as ‘rising beasts’, ‘falling upwards’ to moral awareness, it would make better sense of biological evolution, theodicy and the human condition.
Having examined what theology claims about humanity, our next step is to consider what the natural sciences say about what makes humans human. To this, we shall turn to paleoanthropology and Steven Mithen’s notion of cognitive fluidity and the roles that emotions, and memory play in the persistence of the conscious self-awareness.
In the chapter three, we shall consider how paleoanthropologist Steven Mithen and evolutionary biologist Terrence Deacon contribute to our understanding of physical and cultural anthropology. Anthropologist Ian Tattersall and Spencer Wells add to our current understanding of how the human race might have evolved and traversed great distances in migratory patterns that may be genetically traceable today. Lurking behind a theologian’s interest in anthropology is the question of the identity of biblical Adam. Robert Jenson and Philip Hefner boldly declare a non-traditional possibility and Wentzel van Huyssteen offers evidence of shamanistic apprehensions as the clue to the emergence of religious cognition and life after death.
Taking a critical realist postfoundational approach to constructing a transformative doctrine of creation, we are now ready to test our methodology against a real world question. How does a revelational natural theology (McGrath’s RNT) that acknowledges a postfoundational rationality (van Huysteen’s PFR) understand and explain what it means to be made in the imago Dei with specific reference to the role of consciousness, emotional intelligence, and synaptic memory, in the emergence of moral cognition in Homo sapiens sapiens?
By discovering the philosophical convergence between scientific findings of neurobiology and theological reflection of moral response in nolition, we can achieve a more robust redescription of the Christian doctrine for an evolutionary creatio continua as we anticipate the creatio nova to come.
If the biblical account of what we call the fall can be understood as ‘rising beasts’, ‘falling upwards’ to moral awareness, it would make better sense of biological evolution, theodicy and the human condition.
Having examined what theology claims about humanity, our next step is to consider what the natural sciences say about what makes humans human. To this, we shall turn to paleoanthropology and Steven Mithen’s notion of cognitive fluidity and the roles that emotions, and memory play in the persistence of the conscious self-awareness.
The evolution of the creation doctrine
Gunton advised that we cannot understand the doctrine of creation without reckoning with the creation of the doctrine. Moltmann’s theological anthropology begins with our similarities with other living things rather than with humanity’s uniqueness. He recounts a brief history of the doctrine of creation by restating Teilhard de Chardin’s three challenges to the primacy of the human race from astronomy (the infinite universe questions the Ptolemaic primacy of humanity), biology (as one of various types of humanoids, some of which became extinct, we may not be special) and psychoanalysis (the unconscious drives and involuntary suppressions question our mastery of the self). They challenge the cosmological anthropic principle. Theology felt compelled to defend anthropocentrism against the cosmology of Galileo, the biology of Darwin and the psychoanalysis of Freud to rescue human dignity and morality. Moltmann says we should respond with consideration of the genesis of the cosmos, the evolution of life, and the history of consciousness.
The biblical account in Genesis 2:4 points to a history of creation in temporal sequence. We are a part of the biological world. This means that however, spiritual our understanding of ourselves, we must not ignore the biblical teaching that man is imago mundi before he is imago Dei. Man was created last because all other creation was made to prepare for his emergence. He is dependent on prior creation for his biological survival. Genesis 2:7 describes man, like animals, as a living soul, animated matter, rather than the Platonic soul that has taken on flesh. As God’s image, we are God’s proxy to creation. The position of humanity in the order of creation is reversed in the order of redemption. Although we were made last, we will be redeemed first. Any consideration of biblical creation then has to find convergence with what we know from the scientific investigation of the universe. Otherwise, either the biblical account is a strictly mythological Platonic likely story, or the scientific method is false. Since the very tools of biblical studies and theological reflection are scientific in character (archaeology, cartography, ethnography, chemistry, geography, historical and literary analyses, linguistics, philology, sociology, etc.), and the assumptions of science are based on metaphysical foundations (concerning the regularity of universal laws and the coincidence of the human cognitive intelligibility with the cosmological language of mathematics), it must be the case that science and theology are complementary resources of rationality.
An interdisciplinary dialogue is necessary if the doctrine of creation is to be made comprehensible to scientific reason. The biblical narratives show evidence of interdisciplinarity synthesis of belief and knowledge of nature. One may further point to Jesus’ use of parables in which the normative order of life in creation is used extensively as pedagogical tools.
For Moltmann, the biblical creation narratives originated in a specific historical era and represented a successful synthesis between a religious belief in creation and contemporary knowledge of nature. A Biblicist misunderstanding insists that the narratives “lay down once and for all particular findings about nature and render all further research superfluous”. Biblical testimonies to the history of God with the world direct readers to new experiences of the world. It is necessary to make the connection between the biblical testimonies about creation with new insights about nature and ways to interpret such insights. This allows us to reformulate the biblical testimonies in the light of new understanding of revelation. To neglect this task is to make the narratives increasingly irrelevant to listeners and readers who rely on and function alongside scientific reasoning. The end result will be narratives that are completely devoid of pedagogical power because they have lost their narrative function.
Christian theological resistance to even the bare concept of evolution (change) is due to the contraction of creation to creatio originalis (creatio continua and creatio nova were sidelined) and renamed creatio ex nihilo. Creation became a static concept and God’s relationship with creation became a historic one. Although the doctrine of providence points to a dynamic and evolving relationship, the inconsistency was lost on many Christians determined to protect God from Darwin. Is humanity the crown of creation or an animal at an advanced stage of development whose future existence is unknown since extinction is a possibility? This strikes at the root of what Moltmann calls our “ideological self-justification” in our conquest of the world, our exploitation of nature and our “self-deification”. Fearful that any erosion of humanity’s primacy in nature may signal a challenge to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the scriptures, the goalposts for the litmus test were moved to include a strictly literal rather than a literary interpretation of the biblical narratives.
It did not help that Social Darwinism arose when J. S. Huxley ideologized Darwin’s notion of ‘struggle for existence’. It was reshaped it into a Hobbesian ‘struggle of all against each other’, thereby removing symbiosis and cooperation as mechanisms to privilege survival from the hypothesis. Although Darwin himself observed social organization as a means for successful adaptation, social Darwinism misused his hypothesis and triumphed as the explanation to justify extreme capitalism and racial imperialism. This hijacking of a scientific theory that morphed into a sociological instrument took on a life of its own and has migrated to almost every field of human inquiry, from physics to pottery making. For Moltmann, biological evolution is an account of creatio continua, the ordering of creation, and not of creatio ex nihilo, creation per se.
If we interpret the Christian belief in creation in the context of the knowledge of nature disclosed through evolutionary theory, three points emerge (a) Evolution has nothing to do with creation itself. It is the ordering of nature. (b) Evolution describes the continued building up of matter and systems of life - creatio continua. We cannot presume that human beings will not evolve as other life forms did. (c) The biblical - messianic - doctrine of creation does not support an anthropocentric view of the cosmos. Cosmic history is not yet complete. In creating a synthetic theory of the evolution in the sciences and the humanities that Moltmann calls a hermeneutical theory of evolution, he seeks to explain the evolutions of the cosmos, of life, and of consciousness.
From the circular course of the stars, the universe was thought to be static. Modern science shows a different picture, in the life cycle of stars, with novae and black holes. Edwin Hubble’s observation of the red shift suggests that the entire universe is expanding. This led to the speculation of a big bang at the beginning. The history of nature is one of unique happenings in an irreversible direction of time. Natural events are therefore, also unique, irreversible and non-repeatable processes in a particular direction. No natural course of events is ever repeated. There can be no natural laws without the repeatability of events. What we call natural laws in our open universe in disequilibrium “relate to the unique and irreversible history of nature”. The term ‘natural laws’ is a misnomer since an irreversible history does not permit repetition but only of unique events. These laws are approximations. The future of any phenomena cannot be said to be predictable by laws and are open to contingencies unknown to us. The future is not fixed. The universe is an open system in disequilibrium and natural laws are approximations that apply to unique, unrepeatable events in irreversible history.
As for life, classical physics generate deterministic laws and operate under the assumption of a closed system in equilibrium. Causal connections are apparently analogous to historical connections of past and future. This presumes that the future is inherent in the present. It was further presumed that lack of information cripples our knowledge of the future and our reliance of statistical laws reflects the limitations of opportunity. However, quantum theory suggests that the limits of knowledge are due to the reality of nature itself, and not lack of opportunity. The laws of probability are not imperfect, but accord precisely with the partial indeterminacy of nature itself. The universe in its present is fixed by its past but with respect to its future is partially undetermined, existing between necessity and uncertainty. While declarations of the law of causality are not tensed, declarations of the laws of probability quantify possibilities and take into account the statistical difference between past and future. It is the future that becomes the past as indeterminacy becomes certainty. Evolutionary processes are not linear, with deterministic pathways, but are rather like a growing web of possibilities offered by the future. This indeterminacy of behavior entails capacities for adaptation to environmental changes. Such increasing complexity increases the range of possibilities as well as of vulnerabilities. The result is that highly complex systems experience a rapid rate of decay. Systems of matter and life are open systems, determined by the time structure of the qualitative difference between future and past so that present conditions cannot be neatly extrapolated to predict future conditions. The evolutionary cosmos is itself also an irreversible, communicating system open to the future, one that produces a “surplus of possibilities”. As an open system, the universe is: (a) a participatory system-aligned towards communication and symbiosis, (b) an anticipatory system-towards a self-transcendence in the realms of possibility, and (c) a self-transcending system-which exist into a transcendence and subsist out of that transcendence. If we call this transcendence of the cosmos God, we can tentatively say that the cosmos is a system open to God. The universe is participatory, anticipatory and self-transcendent. This transcendence subsists out of the transcendence we call God! With this, Moltmann claims God as the transcendent maker of all possible realities. As a ‘working sketch’, he offers this theological understanding of the evolution of life: the world is an open, participatory and anticipatory system and the history of creation is an interplay between God’s transcendence in relation to the world and his immanence in that world.
Moltmann’s evolution of consciousness is found in his tripartite concept of creation: (a) Creatio originalis/ex nihilo/mutabilis - creation of contingent existence of matter and of time. The goal of the history of creation is the revelation of the glory of God. (b) Creatio continua or the concursus Dei generalis and the providentia Dei. Through his Spirit, God is present in creation, in the very structures of matter. Creation contains informed matter - not spiritless matter and not immaterial spirit - with the different kinds of information called ‘spirit’. In humanity, the different kinds of information or spirit arrive at consciousness in a biological way. The evolution of the cosmos in its self-creative mode lends itself to what seems like dynamic pantheism but is in fact pneumatological activity. Here, it is not the spirit of God but rather God the Spirit that is present. (c) Creatio nova or creatio anticipativa, is the consummation of the process of creation. In the kingdom of glory, we shall experience eternal time and eternal history in which negative components of contingencies and our experience of transitoriness shall be banished. There shall be finitude without mortality, change without transience, time without the past, and life without death.
In summary Moltmann argues that the separation of science and theology is unnecessary and attempts to develop his hermeneutical theory of evolution to find convergence with his evolutionary doctrine of creation.
The biblical account in Genesis 2:4 points to a history of creation in temporal sequence. We are a part of the biological world. This means that however, spiritual our understanding of ourselves, we must not ignore the biblical teaching that man is imago mundi before he is imago Dei. Man was created last because all other creation was made to prepare for his emergence. He is dependent on prior creation for his biological survival. Genesis 2:7 describes man, like animals, as a living soul, animated matter, rather than the Platonic soul that has taken on flesh. As God’s image, we are God’s proxy to creation. The position of humanity in the order of creation is reversed in the order of redemption. Although we were made last, we will be redeemed first. Any consideration of biblical creation then has to find convergence with what we know from the scientific investigation of the universe. Otherwise, either the biblical account is a strictly mythological Platonic likely story, or the scientific method is false. Since the very tools of biblical studies and theological reflection are scientific in character (archaeology, cartography, ethnography, chemistry, geography, historical and literary analyses, linguistics, philology, sociology, etc.), and the assumptions of science are based on metaphysical foundations (concerning the regularity of universal laws and the coincidence of the human cognitive intelligibility with the cosmological language of mathematics), it must be the case that science and theology are complementary resources of rationality.
An interdisciplinary dialogue is necessary if the doctrine of creation is to be made comprehensible to scientific reason. The biblical narratives show evidence of interdisciplinarity synthesis of belief and knowledge of nature. One may further point to Jesus’ use of parables in which the normative order of life in creation is used extensively as pedagogical tools.
For Moltmann, the biblical creation narratives originated in a specific historical era and represented a successful synthesis between a religious belief in creation and contemporary knowledge of nature. A Biblicist misunderstanding insists that the narratives “lay down once and for all particular findings about nature and render all further research superfluous”. Biblical testimonies to the history of God with the world direct readers to new experiences of the world. It is necessary to make the connection between the biblical testimonies about creation with new insights about nature and ways to interpret such insights. This allows us to reformulate the biblical testimonies in the light of new understanding of revelation. To neglect this task is to make the narratives increasingly irrelevant to listeners and readers who rely on and function alongside scientific reasoning. The end result will be narratives that are completely devoid of pedagogical power because they have lost their narrative function.
Christian theological resistance to even the bare concept of evolution (change) is due to the contraction of creation to creatio originalis (creatio continua and creatio nova were sidelined) and renamed creatio ex nihilo. Creation became a static concept and God’s relationship with creation became a historic one. Although the doctrine of providence points to a dynamic and evolving relationship, the inconsistency was lost on many Christians determined to protect God from Darwin. Is humanity the crown of creation or an animal at an advanced stage of development whose future existence is unknown since extinction is a possibility? This strikes at the root of what Moltmann calls our “ideological self-justification” in our conquest of the world, our exploitation of nature and our “self-deification”. Fearful that any erosion of humanity’s primacy in nature may signal a challenge to the authenticity and trustworthiness of the scriptures, the goalposts for the litmus test were moved to include a strictly literal rather than a literary interpretation of the biblical narratives.
It did not help that Social Darwinism arose when J. S. Huxley ideologized Darwin’s notion of ‘struggle for existence’. It was reshaped it into a Hobbesian ‘struggle of all against each other’, thereby removing symbiosis and cooperation as mechanisms to privilege survival from the hypothesis. Although Darwin himself observed social organization as a means for successful adaptation, social Darwinism misused his hypothesis and triumphed as the explanation to justify extreme capitalism and racial imperialism. This hijacking of a scientific theory that morphed into a sociological instrument took on a life of its own and has migrated to almost every field of human inquiry, from physics to pottery making. For Moltmann, biological evolution is an account of creatio continua, the ordering of creation, and not of creatio ex nihilo, creation per se.
If we interpret the Christian belief in creation in the context of the knowledge of nature disclosed through evolutionary theory, three points emerge (a) Evolution has nothing to do with creation itself. It is the ordering of nature. (b) Evolution describes the continued building up of matter and systems of life - creatio continua. We cannot presume that human beings will not evolve as other life forms did. (c) The biblical - messianic - doctrine of creation does not support an anthropocentric view of the cosmos. Cosmic history is not yet complete. In creating a synthetic theory of the evolution in the sciences and the humanities that Moltmann calls a hermeneutical theory of evolution, he seeks to explain the evolutions of the cosmos, of life, and of consciousness.
From the circular course of the stars, the universe was thought to be static. Modern science shows a different picture, in the life cycle of stars, with novae and black holes. Edwin Hubble’s observation of the red shift suggests that the entire universe is expanding. This led to the speculation of a big bang at the beginning. The history of nature is one of unique happenings in an irreversible direction of time. Natural events are therefore, also unique, irreversible and non-repeatable processes in a particular direction. No natural course of events is ever repeated. There can be no natural laws without the repeatability of events. What we call natural laws in our open universe in disequilibrium “relate to the unique and irreversible history of nature”. The term ‘natural laws’ is a misnomer since an irreversible history does not permit repetition but only of unique events. These laws are approximations. The future of any phenomena cannot be said to be predictable by laws and are open to contingencies unknown to us. The future is not fixed. The universe is an open system in disequilibrium and natural laws are approximations that apply to unique, unrepeatable events in irreversible history.
As for life, classical physics generate deterministic laws and operate under the assumption of a closed system in equilibrium. Causal connections are apparently analogous to historical connections of past and future. This presumes that the future is inherent in the present. It was further presumed that lack of information cripples our knowledge of the future and our reliance of statistical laws reflects the limitations of opportunity. However, quantum theory suggests that the limits of knowledge are due to the reality of nature itself, and not lack of opportunity. The laws of probability are not imperfect, but accord precisely with the partial indeterminacy of nature itself. The universe in its present is fixed by its past but with respect to its future is partially undetermined, existing between necessity and uncertainty. While declarations of the law of causality are not tensed, declarations of the laws of probability quantify possibilities and take into account the statistical difference between past and future. It is the future that becomes the past as indeterminacy becomes certainty. Evolutionary processes are not linear, with deterministic pathways, but are rather like a growing web of possibilities offered by the future. This indeterminacy of behavior entails capacities for adaptation to environmental changes. Such increasing complexity increases the range of possibilities as well as of vulnerabilities. The result is that highly complex systems experience a rapid rate of decay. Systems of matter and life are open systems, determined by the time structure of the qualitative difference between future and past so that present conditions cannot be neatly extrapolated to predict future conditions. The evolutionary cosmos is itself also an irreversible, communicating system open to the future, one that produces a “surplus of possibilities”. As an open system, the universe is: (a) a participatory system-aligned towards communication and symbiosis, (b) an anticipatory system-towards a self-transcendence in the realms of possibility, and (c) a self-transcending system-which exist into a transcendence and subsist out of that transcendence. If we call this transcendence of the cosmos God, we can tentatively say that the cosmos is a system open to God. The universe is participatory, anticipatory and self-transcendent. This transcendence subsists out of the transcendence we call God! With this, Moltmann claims God as the transcendent maker of all possible realities. As a ‘working sketch’, he offers this theological understanding of the evolution of life: the world is an open, participatory and anticipatory system and the history of creation is an interplay between God’s transcendence in relation to the world and his immanence in that world.
Moltmann’s evolution of consciousness is found in his tripartite concept of creation: (a) Creatio originalis/ex nihilo/mutabilis - creation of contingent existence of matter and of time. The goal of the history of creation is the revelation of the glory of God. (b) Creatio continua or the concursus Dei generalis and the providentia Dei. Through his Spirit, God is present in creation, in the very structures of matter. Creation contains informed matter - not spiritless matter and not immaterial spirit - with the different kinds of information called ‘spirit’. In humanity, the different kinds of information or spirit arrive at consciousness in a biological way. The evolution of the cosmos in its self-creative mode lends itself to what seems like dynamic pantheism but is in fact pneumatological activity. Here, it is not the spirit of God but rather God the Spirit that is present. (c) Creatio nova or creatio anticipativa, is the consummation of the process of creation. In the kingdom of glory, we shall experience eternal time and eternal history in which negative components of contingencies and our experience of transitoriness shall be banished. There shall be finitude without mortality, change without transience, time without the past, and life without death.
In summary Moltmann argues that the separation of science and theology is unnecessary and attempts to develop his hermeneutical theory of evolution to find convergence with his evolutionary doctrine of creation.
A Trinitarian Doctrine of Creation
Jurgen Moltmann and Colin Gunton have called the church to reclaim its distinct and historic Trinitarian theology. In his The Triune Creator, Gunton identified three models to explain the relationship between creation, the fall and redemption. He calls the first the restoration model because it views redemption as restoring nature back to its initial perfect conditions with a corresponding eschatology that promises a recovery of what was once lost. In this view, the prospects of the after life matches the heights reached at initial creation. Adam and Eve are presumed to be biologically identical to us – except perhaps for not having navels. Life after death must be similar to the biochemical life form we live today. This model must explain how the resurrected body can be free from pain and suffering unless the pre-fall bodies are substantially different from our bodies today. Proponents of this model include Origen and Augustine.
The second is the evolutionary model. It views the fall as either a brief impediment or “a step on the way, to the perfecting of that which was in the beginning.” Creation was not perfect in the beginning but has to become perfect. However, the fall at Eden was the means by which development can be achieved. Sin is therefore a necessary and expected consequence of nature expressing its contingence. This model minimizes the problem of evil and generate an eschatology of emergence, where we may expect a superior form of existence. It is influenced by Hegelian and Darwinian ideas.
Gunton prefers a third model he calls the transformative model. According to him, creation is a teleological project, “but by virtue of the fall, can reach that end only by a redemption that involves a radical redirection from the movement it takes backwards whenever sin and evil shape its direction.” Creation is thus the process that God enables to exist in and through chronological time. Gunton claims Irenaeus as a proponent because of his strong doctrine of both sin and redemption as well as his equally strong eschatological and transformative view of the process. The eschatological expectation here is one of completion, in which the final state of redeemed creation is superior to the conditions at initial creation. Redemption involves the defeat of evil and its removal, restoring the original direction of created order. In this view sin is real but perhaps not a necessity. The first model is not much in vogue among theologians of science or scientific theologians for being difficult to support in the face of critique from contemporary biblical scholars. The second and third models appear to differ, in Gunton’s view, by their position on the gravity and the consequential imperative of sin and the banishment of evil.
The issue at stake appears to be whether the moral fall was a necessary condition of biological evolution. Is the fall or evolution the causal agent of the other? Is the Old Testament account of the fall descriptive or is it prescriptive? Is the biblical story of fall a report of what happened or an account of what had to happen? Traditional interpretations tend to suggest that the fall need not have occurred – that Adam and Eve could have avoided but chose to exercise their freedom in a manner that led to their banishment. This interpretation was driven by the need to shield God from blame for their banishment and make the first couple responsible for their actions. Is this an Aristotelian category mistake? How can we offer a biological account of a cognitive event that we judge to be a moral failure to a metaphysical authority? Yet, this is indeed exactly what we shall offer in a later chapter, a biological explanation for the emergence of moral cognition that serves to respond to the divine authority of a universal moral order.
The postfoundational method invites a core theological understanding of the biblical texts as it converges with a broader understanding of these very issues in contemporary culture. Put simply, can the account of the first humans be reconciled with, among others, the discovery of fossils by paleoanthropology, our neurological understanding of the brain working as the mind, and our best geological guesses about the ancient earth?
Moltmann’s evolutionary model resists Gunton’s tripartite demarcation and any attempt to systematize theology. It falls somewhere between Gunton’s second and third models. Both theologians acknowledge the evolutionary process in cosmological chronology while preserving the finality of the eschaton. Both posit a transformative teleological future in which God triumphs over evil. Drawing from Gunton and Moltmann, I shall advocate a doctrine of creation that is at once, evolutionary and eschatological, borrowing Gunton’s use of the word transformative, but acknowledging the inescapable conclusion that nature as a part of creation, was made to evolve.
In summary, is the operative factor for the fall of humanity, volition to sin or neurological propensity for survival? If nature was created to evolve, can a doctrine of creation make sense of our human experiences?
The second is the evolutionary model. It views the fall as either a brief impediment or “a step on the way, to the perfecting of that which was in the beginning.” Creation was not perfect in the beginning but has to become perfect. However, the fall at Eden was the means by which development can be achieved. Sin is therefore a necessary and expected consequence of nature expressing its contingence. This model minimizes the problem of evil and generate an eschatology of emergence, where we may expect a superior form of existence. It is influenced by Hegelian and Darwinian ideas.
Gunton prefers a third model he calls the transformative model. According to him, creation is a teleological project, “but by virtue of the fall, can reach that end only by a redemption that involves a radical redirection from the movement it takes backwards whenever sin and evil shape its direction.” Creation is thus the process that God enables to exist in and through chronological time. Gunton claims Irenaeus as a proponent because of his strong doctrine of both sin and redemption as well as his equally strong eschatological and transformative view of the process. The eschatological expectation here is one of completion, in which the final state of redeemed creation is superior to the conditions at initial creation. Redemption involves the defeat of evil and its removal, restoring the original direction of created order. In this view sin is real but perhaps not a necessity. The first model is not much in vogue among theologians of science or scientific theologians for being difficult to support in the face of critique from contemporary biblical scholars. The second and third models appear to differ, in Gunton’s view, by their position on the gravity and the consequential imperative of sin and the banishment of evil.
The issue at stake appears to be whether the moral fall was a necessary condition of biological evolution. Is the fall or evolution the causal agent of the other? Is the Old Testament account of the fall descriptive or is it prescriptive? Is the biblical story of fall a report of what happened or an account of what had to happen? Traditional interpretations tend to suggest that the fall need not have occurred – that Adam and Eve could have avoided but chose to exercise their freedom in a manner that led to their banishment. This interpretation was driven by the need to shield God from blame for their banishment and make the first couple responsible for their actions. Is this an Aristotelian category mistake? How can we offer a biological account of a cognitive event that we judge to be a moral failure to a metaphysical authority? Yet, this is indeed exactly what we shall offer in a later chapter, a biological explanation for the emergence of moral cognition that serves to respond to the divine authority of a universal moral order.
The postfoundational method invites a core theological understanding of the biblical texts as it converges with a broader understanding of these very issues in contemporary culture. Put simply, can the account of the first humans be reconciled with, among others, the discovery of fossils by paleoanthropology, our neurological understanding of the brain working as the mind, and our best geological guesses about the ancient earth?
Moltmann’s evolutionary model resists Gunton’s tripartite demarcation and any attempt to systematize theology. It falls somewhere between Gunton’s second and third models. Both theologians acknowledge the evolutionary process in cosmological chronology while preserving the finality of the eschaton. Both posit a transformative teleological future in which God triumphs over evil. Drawing from Gunton and Moltmann, I shall advocate a doctrine of creation that is at once, evolutionary and eschatological, borrowing Gunton’s use of the word transformative, but acknowledging the inescapable conclusion that nature as a part of creation, was made to evolve.
In summary, is the operative factor for the fall of humanity, volition to sin or neurological propensity for survival? If nature was created to evolve, can a doctrine of creation make sense of our human experiences?
What Makes Us Human?
Is man “an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun,” as the late Clifford Geertz wrote, or is our significance based on extramental sources? In this chapter, we have shown that scientific accounts of human origin and theological reflections on the imago Dei may find convergence. A critical realist methodology of postfoundationalism provides a description of humanity that evolved from genetic and cultural evolution. This may then be interpreted in the light of theological understandings of the teleological causes that underlay the biological processes. One of the major challenges to this view is the interpretation of what happened at the Garden of Eden. Was the creation myth of disobedience designed to explain the origin of moral cognition?
Prior to modern investigations of the brain, psychology, and philosophy of mind, many interpretations of the Genesis account drew from the sciences of their time and some opted for a literal interpretation. This led to assumptions regarding the nature of time, space and the relationship between divine agency and the natural laws that invited the invocation of miracles to fill gaps of human knowledge, even when there were no biblical or theological warrants. This is not a wholesale rejection of miracles defined as phenomenological suspension of physical laws of the universe. Rather, it is a criticism of unbridled enthusiasm that assigns the suspension of natural laws to any phenomena that could not be adequately explained by prevailing knowledge (sciences) of its times. The birth of dogma in place of reason stunted the interdisciplinary descriptions of reality and hitherto has dominated theological reflection.
How does theology participate in the quest for understanding human origins and uniqueness? Perhaps paleoanthropology might help theology avoid scientific pitfalls and theology might extend the power of scientific proposals by introducing teleological accounts to guide the direction of inference. Van Huyssteen argues that Christian theology has traditionally ignored the question of the evolution of human cognition, leading to overly abstract notions of human uniqueness. This created an artificial and unnecessary barrier to our drawing from the web of human knowledge. It also obstructs any attempt to find convergence of understanding between interpretations of divine disclosure and inferences of observed discovery. He concludes that the imago Dei emerged from nature itself. “God used natural history for religion and religious belief to emerge as a natural phenomenon.” We need not vex ourselves by insisting that God can only work outside the laws of nature that must at first instance, be of divine origin anyway. For him, this claim is validated by “transversally converging arguments about embodied human uniqueness from evolutionary epistemology, paleoanthropology, and the neurosciences.
We conclude that cultural evolution is far more influential than biological evolution in the history of human intelligence. If our intelligence is the trademark of our uniqueness, then it is the cultural evolution of moral cognition that marks us as theologically special, not any biological evolution of physiological propensities alone. Our physiological distinctives, bipedalism, enlarged brain size, cognitive fluidity, speech and self-awareness, all pave the way for the emergence of a universal moral grammar (UMG). We conclude that it is our moral minds that make humans human.
Prior to modern investigations of the brain, psychology, and philosophy of mind, many interpretations of the Genesis account drew from the sciences of their time and some opted for a literal interpretation. This led to assumptions regarding the nature of time, space and the relationship between divine agency and the natural laws that invited the invocation of miracles to fill gaps of human knowledge, even when there were no biblical or theological warrants. This is not a wholesale rejection of miracles defined as phenomenological suspension of physical laws of the universe. Rather, it is a criticism of unbridled enthusiasm that assigns the suspension of natural laws to any phenomena that could not be adequately explained by prevailing knowledge (sciences) of its times. The birth of dogma in place of reason stunted the interdisciplinary descriptions of reality and hitherto has dominated theological reflection.
How does theology participate in the quest for understanding human origins and uniqueness? Perhaps paleoanthropology might help theology avoid scientific pitfalls and theology might extend the power of scientific proposals by introducing teleological accounts to guide the direction of inference. Van Huyssteen argues that Christian theology has traditionally ignored the question of the evolution of human cognition, leading to overly abstract notions of human uniqueness. This created an artificial and unnecessary barrier to our drawing from the web of human knowledge. It also obstructs any attempt to find convergence of understanding between interpretations of divine disclosure and inferences of observed discovery. He concludes that the imago Dei emerged from nature itself. “God used natural history for religion and religious belief to emerge as a natural phenomenon.” We need not vex ourselves by insisting that God can only work outside the laws of nature that must at first instance, be of divine origin anyway. For him, this claim is validated by “transversally converging arguments about embodied human uniqueness from evolutionary epistemology, paleoanthropology, and the neurosciences.
We conclude that cultural evolution is far more influential than biological evolution in the history of human intelligence. If our intelligence is the trademark of our uniqueness, then it is the cultural evolution of moral cognition that marks us as theologically special, not any biological evolution of physiological propensities alone. Our physiological distinctives, bipedalism, enlarged brain size, cognitive fluidity, speech and self-awareness, all pave the way for the emergence of a universal moral grammar (UMG). We conclude that it is our moral minds that make humans human.
Was Adam the First Human?
Theologically, Adam was called Man (not necessarily human being) because he was made in the image of God. There is no biblical warrant for Man to be synonymous with human being, only of being human. The human being is a generic term to refer to anatomically modern humans (AMH) while being human refers to the kind of human being that enjoys the capacity for moral awareness and is therefore expected to behave humanly.
Scientifically, the first human is a fluid term that can mean anything from the first AMH to the cognitively modern human. The former is physiologically like us while the latter has brain circuitry that is sufficiently plastic to evolve cognitive that we recognize as moral. Many other scientific observations have been offered for what it means to be human. These include tool-making, fire-making, the consumption of cooked food, the wearing of clothes, linguistic communication, etc. Some of these assumptions have been undermined by the discovery of similar actions or powers by non-humans. We are not the only animals with opposing thumbs for tool grasping. Whales, dolphins and many other animals communicate with the power of language, etc. Today, attention is placed on the capacity for symbolic and grammatical speech (human language), giving rise to the legacy of art, science, and religion (that usually includes moral cognition). In short – culture beyond mere sociality. We are architecturally developed to possess a lowered larynx with a large sound box for speech, we celebrate the passage of time marking the birth, the coming of age and even death as we bury our dead, and we create art, science, and religious practices, giving ourselves the power to pass on knowledge through time. Yet there is no scientific consensus for the definition of being human. We have no certain idea how such a creature as ourselves came about from preexisting ones. All we can say at this point is that some 6 mya, a common ancestor to all primates evolved. Our best guess is that full-time bipedal hominids began to walk around 1.8 mya and compositional language evolved around 170 tya. The earliest trace of symbolic linguistic use and self-consciousness came with the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens about 100 tya. The modern mind, with cognitive fluidity arose some 80-60 tya.
Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.
Scientifically, the first human is a fluid term that can mean anything from the first AMH to the cognitively modern human. The former is physiologically like us while the latter has brain circuitry that is sufficiently plastic to evolve cognitive that we recognize as moral. Many other scientific observations have been offered for what it means to be human. These include tool-making, fire-making, the consumption of cooked food, the wearing of clothes, linguistic communication, etc. Some of these assumptions have been undermined by the discovery of similar actions or powers by non-humans. We are not the only animals with opposing thumbs for tool grasping. Whales, dolphins and many other animals communicate with the power of language, etc. Today, attention is placed on the capacity for symbolic and grammatical speech (human language), giving rise to the legacy of art, science, and religion (that usually includes moral cognition). In short – culture beyond mere sociality. We are architecturally developed to possess a lowered larynx with a large sound box for speech, we celebrate the passage of time marking the birth, the coming of age and even death as we bury our dead, and we create art, science, and religious practices, giving ourselves the power to pass on knowledge through time. Yet there is no scientific consensus for the definition of being human. We have no certain idea how such a creature as ourselves came about from preexisting ones. All we can say at this point is that some 6 mya, a common ancestor to all primates evolved. Our best guess is that full-time bipedal hominids began to walk around 1.8 mya and compositional language evolved around 170 tya. The earliest trace of symbolic linguistic use and self-consciousness came with the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens about 100 tya. The modern mind, with cognitive fluidity arose some 80-60 tya.
Conclusion: Adam was probably not the first human being but he was most certainly the first one being human.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
ACT Newsletter - Nov 2007 - Project Timothy—Asia: ACT’s Newest Chapter
Dear friends, our outreach to the global secular culture began in New York City with ministry to international scholars and students. It continued with outreach to workplaces, to train Christian laypeople in responsible apologetics. This year, we received so many requests from outside the United States that we decided to launch Project Timothy—Asia. The new group is thriving, with 22 leaders training to be tutors. They will begin to teach others by February 2008.
What’s on the New York horizon? This month, I shall lecture on the scientific view of human origins in comparison to the biblical account of Adam and Eve. Why should we care? Because the contemporary atheism of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens all rely on the assumption that the Bible is an unreliable guide to our world, allowing these writers to prey on our neglect to learn to responsibly exegete the Bible. In fact, we Christians often make inconsistent claims about what the Bible really says, further muddying the waters for atheists and other non-Christians. Also, as Christians it is our responsibility to become aware of faith-related subjects taught at the university level, to help the church to understand the academic phalanx that academia has employed in the battle for the hearts and minds of students.
ACT Associate Director Vivek Mathew, will deliver this month’s lecture on Gnosticism, an important challenge to modern Christian belief. Consider the influence of the Da Vinci Code, The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas. Each has received a great deal of popular attention, yet most Christians are not equipped to differentiate between history and fantasy. We at ACT have devoted our lives to building an organization that is the resource of choice for Christian organizations and individuals who are trying to engage effectively the challenges of scientism and religious pluralism.
Nov 10: Origin of Man@ King’s College, Empire State Building, LL.
Nov 11: Gnosticism@Redeemer Presbyterian Church at Hunter College, Rm 506.
Nov 11: Project Timothy: Discipleship of the Mind–Hebrew, James, 1, 2 Peter
ACT’s Vision
ACT is on the threshold of making a significant impact and—after many years of research, writing and testing our materials—we are ready to take the next step to globalize our effort. Many people have written to us from around the world, asking about the seminars, lectures and training programs. Why? Because they have discovered that there are few places for lay Christians to learn about:
Archaeology and the Bible;
The origins of life and the universe;
Humanity in conversation with the Bible;
The historical truth about the Crusades;
The history of Christian witness in Mongolia under George of the Unguts;
The work of Prester John in medieval China, which led to the conversion of Kublai Khan’s mother;
Hinduism and Buddhism;
The destiny of the unevangelized dead;
Evolution versus Evolutionism and Science versus Scientism; and,
The historical, editorial and canonical origins of today’s Bible.
To tackle these topics, we are developing a Web-based educational strategy that employs a two-pronged approach:
To publish and distribute CDs, PDFs, DVDs, streaming video, manuals, etc. for global use.
To offer “Training Weekends” for Christian and student leaders.
An educational facility is only as good as its faculty and library. To this end, we seek to build human capital by discipling the minds of Christian leaders and offering them—via our growing apologetics resource library—a theological safe space in New York City’s Wall Street area.
End of the Year Giving Helps ACT to Expand Its Reach
Your support is greatly appreciated as 2007 comes to a close. Because we have made all lectures and seminars free of charge, we rely increasingly on the support of individuals who share our policy of COPYLEFT; that is, making research freely available to Christian workers in the Two-Thirds World. Please consider a special year-end gift to help us close a $75,000 budget gap. By donating, you participate directly in our global mission through the ministries of ACT World.
The value of the U.S. dollar makes it very favorable for overseas friends to maximize their giving. In the U.K., please contact Ms. Susan Gould at cariadcymru2003@yahoo.co.uk. To send checks in U.S. dollars, please make checks payable to “ACT” and mail to ACT, P. O. Box 3230, Church Street Station, New York, NY 10008, USA.
Sincerely,
Ron Choong
What’s on the New York horizon? This month, I shall lecture on the scientific view of human origins in comparison to the biblical account of Adam and Eve. Why should we care? Because the contemporary atheism of Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens all rely on the assumption that the Bible is an unreliable guide to our world, allowing these writers to prey on our neglect to learn to responsibly exegete the Bible. In fact, we Christians often make inconsistent claims about what the Bible really says, further muddying the waters for atheists and other non-Christians. Also, as Christians it is our responsibility to become aware of faith-related subjects taught at the university level, to help the church to understand the academic phalanx that academia has employed in the battle for the hearts and minds of students.
ACT Associate Director Vivek Mathew, will deliver this month’s lecture on Gnosticism, an important challenge to modern Christian belief. Consider the influence of the Da Vinci Code, The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Judas. Each has received a great deal of popular attention, yet most Christians are not equipped to differentiate between history and fantasy. We at ACT have devoted our lives to building an organization that is the resource of choice for Christian organizations and individuals who are trying to engage effectively the challenges of scientism and religious pluralism.
Nov 10: Origin of Man@ King’s College, Empire State Building, LL.
Nov 11: Gnosticism@Redeemer Presbyterian Church at Hunter College, Rm 506.
Nov 11: Project Timothy: Discipleship of the Mind–Hebrew, James, 1, 2 Peter
ACT’s Vision
ACT is on the threshold of making a significant impact and—after many years of research, writing and testing our materials—we are ready to take the next step to globalize our effort. Many people have written to us from around the world, asking about the seminars, lectures and training programs. Why? Because they have discovered that there are few places for lay Christians to learn about:
Archaeology and the Bible;
The origins of life and the universe;
Humanity in conversation with the Bible;
The historical truth about the Crusades;
The history of Christian witness in Mongolia under George of the Unguts;
The work of Prester John in medieval China, which led to the conversion of Kublai Khan’s mother;
Hinduism and Buddhism;
The destiny of the unevangelized dead;
Evolution versus Evolutionism and Science versus Scientism; and,
The historical, editorial and canonical origins of today’s Bible.
To tackle these topics, we are developing a Web-based educational strategy that employs a two-pronged approach:
To publish and distribute CDs, PDFs, DVDs, streaming video, manuals, etc. for global use.
To offer “Training Weekends” for Christian and student leaders.
An educational facility is only as good as its faculty and library. To this end, we seek to build human capital by discipling the minds of Christian leaders and offering them—via our growing apologetics resource library—a theological safe space in New York City’s Wall Street area.
End of the Year Giving Helps ACT to Expand Its Reach
Your support is greatly appreciated as 2007 comes to a close. Because we have made all lectures and seminars free of charge, we rely increasingly on the support of individuals who share our policy of COPYLEFT; that is, making research freely available to Christian workers in the Two-Thirds World. Please consider a special year-end gift to help us close a $75,000 budget gap. By donating, you participate directly in our global mission through the ministries of ACT World.
The value of the U.S. dollar makes it very favorable for overseas friends to maximize their giving. In the U.K., please contact Ms. Susan Gould at cariadcymru2003@yahoo.co.uk. To send checks in U.S. dollars, please make checks payable to “ACT” and mail to ACT, P. O. Box 3230, Church Street Station, New York, NY 10008, USA.
Sincerely,
Ron Choong
Friday, November 02, 2007
Academia & Religious Conviction- Response to Anthony Kronman of Yale
On September 21, the Work Research Foundation of Canada, which publishes COMMENT, invited me to respond to an article by Professor Anthony Kronman of Yale University in the Boston Globe. The following are the original article, my response, followed by Kronman's rebuttal.
Why are we here?
Colleges ignore life's biggest questions, and we all pay the price
By Anthony Kronman | September 16, 2007
In the past few weeks, tens of thousands of young men and women have begun their college careers. They have worked hard to get there. A letter of admission to one of the country's selective colleges or universities has become the most sought-after prize in America.
The students who have won this prize are about to enter an academic environment richer than any they have known. They will find courses devoted to every question under the sun. But there is one question for which most of them will search their catalogs in vain: The question of the meaning of life, of what one should care about and why, of what living is for.
In a shift of historic importance, America's colleges and universities have largely abandoned the idea that life's most important question is an appropriate subject for the classroom. In doing so, they have betrayed their students by depriving them of the chance to explore it in an organized way, before they are caught up in their careers and preoccupied with the urgent business of living itself. This abandonment has also helped create a society in which deeper questions of values are left in the hands of those motivated by religious conviction - a disturbing and dangerous development.
Over the past century and a half, our top universities have embraced a research-driven ideal that has squeezed the question of life's meaning from the college curriculum, limiting the range of questions teachers feel they have the right and authority to teach. And in the process it has badly weakened the humanities, the disciplines with the oldest and deepest connection to this question, leaving them directionless and vulnerable to being hijacked for political ends.
But the encouraging news is that there is, today, a growing hunger among students to explore these topics. As questions of spiritual urgency - abortion, creationism, the destruction of the environment - move to the center of debate in our society, America's colleges and universities have a real opportunity to give students the tools to discuss them at a meaningful level.
What our society now desperately needs is what it once had: An alternative approach to a college education that takes these matters seriously without pretending to answer them in a doctrinaire way.
For this to happen, teachers of the humanities must reconsider the nature and value of their work, and confront the ways in which the modern research ideal has deformed it. That will require real boldness on their part. But the stakes are high.
The question of life's meaning is a worry of the spirit. Our colleges and universities need to reclaim their authority to speak to the subject, in a conversation broader than any church alone can conduct. The beneficiaries, in the end, will be both their students and the culture they will inherit.
Before the Civil War, America's colleges were small institutions with religious roots, training students for the higher professions of medicine, teaching, ministry, and law. Only a fraction of Americans attended college, and the education they received was based on beliefs whose truth was taken for granted. The Puritan divines who founded Harvard College in 1636 understood their task to be the education of Christian gentlemen, schooled in the classics and devoted to God. They knew the answer to the question of what living is for, and saw that their students learned it.
In the years after the Civil War, however, American higher education underwent a fundamental transformation. Thousands of American educators had gone to Germany earlier in the century to pursue advanced study in their fields, and they returned with a new conception of what institutions of higher learning were for. The German university of the 19th century was based on a novel assumption with no precedent in the history of education. This was that universities exist primarily to sponsor research - that their first responsibility is to provide the space, books, and other resources that scholars need to produce new knowledge.
In the 1860s and '70s, a handful of older American colleges, including Harvard, began transforming themselves into research universities, and a number of new schools, such as Cornell and Johns Hopkins, were established to promote research. The research ideal began to gain influence in every area of study and teaching. Faculty divided into departments, and then into more specialized units of work. Departments of philosophy appeared for the first time, followed by departments of English. In 1893, the department of biology at the University of Chicago was reorganized into five departments of zoology, botany, anatomy, neurology, and physiology. At the same time, the religious premises of antebellum education were called into question, in part as a result of the new scientific spirit encouraged by the research ideal. Increasingly, our colleges and universities, especially the most elite, became secular and specialized institutions.
In the process, the world of higher education assumed the shape it has today. Graduate schools were created; scholarly journals were established to publish research. Centralized control of funds for research became increasingly important. College teachers were expected to have some specialized knowledge of a particular discipline. And students were expected to specialize too, by "majoring" in a particular subject.
In the sciences, the adoption of the research ideal has produced astounding results. Our knowledge of the natural and social worlds, and ability to control them, is a direct result of the modern system of academic research.
In the humanities, however, the legacy of the research ideal has been mixed. We know vastly more today than we did even 50 years ago about the order of Plato's dialogues, the accuracy of Gibbon's citations, and how Benjamin Franklin spent his time in Paris. But the research ideal has excluded the question of life's meaning from serious academic concern as a question too large, too unformed, too personal, to be a subject of specialized research. A tenure-minded junior professor studying Shakespeare or Freud or Spinoza might re-inspect every scrap of his subject's work with the hope of making some small but novel discovery - but would be either very brave or very foolish to write a book about Spinoza's suggestion that a free man thinks only of life, never of death; or about Freud's appealing, if enigmatic, statement that the meaning of life is to be found in work and love.
As this new vision of higher education took hold in America, faculty members ceased to think of themselves as shapers of souls. Today's students are thus denied the opportunity to explore the question of life's meaning in an organized way, under the guidance of teachers who seek to acquaint their students with the answers contained in the rich tradition whose transmission was once the special duty of the humanities.
It has also put the humanities in the shadow of the natural and social sciences. Judged by the standards of these latter disciplines, research in the humanities is bound to seem less conclusive, less accretive, less quantifiable. In philosophy, one can reasonably claim that there has been no meaningful progress since Plato. For a physicist to say the same thing about Newton would be absurd. Teachers of the humanities who judge their work strictly from the standpoint of the research ideal condemn themselves to an inferior position in the hierarchy of academic authority and prestige.
Conservatives who bemoan our schools' disengagement from spiritual questions often point a finger at political correctness, a stifling culture of moral and political uniformity based on progressive ideals. But to blame political correctness reverses the order of causation. The culture of political correctness is only a symptom, a discouraging response to a larger sense of directionlessness in the humanities.
Multiculturalism, anti-colonialism, and insistence on race and gender as organizing principles of study are an expression of the anxious search for a new and morally honorable role for the humanities once their older role as guides to the meaning of life lost its credibility. It is that older role we now need to recover.
Can the meaning of life be studied independent of religion? There are many who doubt that it can. They say that any program of this sort must rest on religious beliefs, which have lost their status as a source of authority in higher education. But that is a mistake. For even after the rise of the research university, with its secular and scientific culture, there were humanists who believed that the question of life's meaning can be studied in a disciplined but nonreligious way. Their approach gives us a model to follow today.
One of the most forceful proponents of this view was Alexander Meiklejohn, a distinguished professor of government and constitutional law, and the president of Amherst College from 1912 to 1924. Meiklejohn insisted that undergraduate education be more than a preparation for a career. He thought it vital that students also explore what he called "the art of living," the spiritual question of how they ought to live their lives. He defended the idea of spiritual seriousness in a nonreligious age, and thought it could be studied without dogmatic commitments.
In the first half of the 20th century, many colleges and universities had programs that sought to implement Meiklejohn's ideal. Most have disappeared, though some survive today. At Reed College in Oregon, freshmen are required to take a yearlong humanities course, for which they prepare by reading Homer's "Iliad" the summer before. Columbia University has a core curriculum consisting of four courses devoted to the masterpieces of Western literature, philosophy, music, and art. At Yale, where I teach, incoming freshmen can apply to the Directed Studies program, which begins in the fall with Herodotus, Homer, and Plato, and concludes in the spring with Wittgenstein, T. S. Eliot, and Hannah Arendt. These programs differ in many ways, and inevitably reflect the culture of their schools; some are mandatory and others, like Yale's Directed Studies, are elective. But despite their differences, all rest on a set of common assumptions, which together define a shared conception of humane education.
The first is that there is more than one good answer to the question of what living is for. A second is that the number of such answers is limited, making it possible to study them in an organized way. A third is that the answers are irreconcilably different, necessitating a choice among them. A fourth is that the best way to explore these answers is to study the great works of philosophy, literature, and art in which they are presented with lasting beauty and strength. And a fifth is that their study should introduce students to the great conversation in which these works are engaged - Augustine warily admiring Plato, Hobbes reworking Aristotle, Paine condemning Burke, Eliot recalling Dante, recalling Virgil, recalling Homer - and help students find their own authentic voice as participants in the conversation.
These are challenging works. But they are accessible too, and an 18-year-old with some curiosity about life will find much that is inspiring in them: the great battle scenes of "War and Peace," and Tolstoy's meditations on the insignificance of the individual in history; Descartes' invitation to his readers to doubt everything they think they know, at least once in their lives; Arendt's account of Eichmann on trial, and her chilling description of the "banality of evil"; Virgil's Aeneas and Jane Austin's Emma, both in love, but with more on their minds.
Though critics have attacked "great books" programs as a kind of indoctrination into a European-dominated intellectual canon, the students in my Directed Studies class respond in the opposite way. They become rambunctiously independent. For they learn that the greatest minds in the world are on their side - or aren't, and feel entitled to quarrel with them. A college freshman who has read Descartes, and who crafts her own reasons to reject his invitation to doubt, is on her way to an independence of spirit that is surely one of the conditions to living a meaningful life.
For our humanities departments to make room for this kind of study again, they need not repudiate the research ideal. Much would be lost if they did. But they can insist that teachers in these fields equip themselves to guide their students in an exploration of life's meaning, which can be done with confidence and honor only if the research ideal is acknowledged to have limits.
There are hopeful signs this will happen. The tide of political correctness is receding on our campuses. There is an increasing demand among undergraduates for courses that address the big questions of life, in all their sprawling grandeur, without reticence or embarrassment. At Harvard, Michael Sandel's famous course on justice, which explores the meaning of the concept from Aristotle to Mill and beyond, draws hundreds of students each year. Ten percent of the freshmen at Yale now apply to Directed Studies - more than can be admitted.
Most importantly, perhaps, the great upsurge of religious fundamentalism outside our colleges and universities is a sign of the growing appetite for spiritual direction. These movements can be a source of danger and division, and intellectuals may mock and despise them, but teachers also ought to see in them the energy that will drive the restoration of the question of life's meaning - and, with that, of the humanities themselves - to a central place in our colleges and universities. The fundamentalists have the wrong answers, but they've got the right questions. We need to learn to ask them again in school.
Our culture may be spiritually impoverished, but what it needs is not more religion. What it needs is an alternative to religion, for colleges and universities to become again the places they once were - spiritually serious but nondogmatic, concerned with the soul but agnostic about God.
Much depends on this. America's entire leadership class now goes to college - something that was not true a century ago. Infusing higher education with a new and vibrant humanism will produce benefits not only for the future leaders of government and business, but for society at large: A richer and more open debate about ultimate values; an electorate less likely to be cowed into thinking that only the faithful have the right to invoke them; a humbler regard for the mystery of life in a world increasingly dominated by technocratic reason.
The most immediate beneficiaries of any such revival, however, would be the young men and women in school today. Instead of offering a disorganized reprieve between the hard work of high school and the challenges of a career, their college education will endow them with priceless materials for a lifetime of struggle with the most important question anyone ever asks.
When this happens, a place in fall's freshman class will be the prize it ought to be.
Anthony Kronman is Sterling Professor of Law at Yale and author of "Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life."
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
Rev. Ron Choong
Founder & Director, Academy for Christian Thought
www.actministry.org
I am puzzled by Professor Kronman's stated concern. The deeper questions he wishes to preserve have always been religious. Religious conviction remains the universal preoccupation of every human community and is intrinsic to the nature of belief. To describe the increasing influence of people 'motivated by religious conviction' as 'a disturbing and dangerous development' is itself perhaps a disturbing and dangerous development of our academic leaders. Why is there no mention of the positive cultural and social fruits of religious convictions? What was it that prompted our founding fathers to protect the church from government? When did we forget that that the single most important distinguishing mark of a democracy against any form of communism is the presence of religious conviction? Have we forgotten that the legal system itself developed its sense of justice from the presumption of spiritual sanction against perjury? What Kronman calls for is not a return to earlier times of academic bliss but a wholesale attack on the very foundations of education and free human inquiry, that is, free to account for the existence of God without undue pressure.
The special duties of the humanities to offer answers to life's deeper questions began with religious convictions and an appreciation for the metaphysical realities inaccessible by any exhaustive human inquiry. Kronman is right to challenge the criterion of research as the standard academic measure of progress, but wrong to conclude that the enemy within is religious conviction. The very idea that God does not exist is itself a religious conviction of a high order. It demands conviction that exhaustive studies have denied this ancient sneaking suspicion that there is more to living than life.
Kronman argues for a spiritual seriousness in a nonreligious way. He presumably refers to studying the geist of life without the role of institutionalized religions. Yet it is this very spirit of humanity that expressed itself in religious rituals. All worship impulses are responses to an inner need, and not initiatives for external gratification. That is why religious convictions can survive censure, denial and torture. That is why they thrive despite the urgent renunciations of Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Freud, Marx and Dewey.
Professor Kronman confuses conviction with commitment. While I resonate with his fear of dogma, within the church, dogmatism has always been met with reformation. No religious tradition today survives untouched by free inquiry, including Kronman's own religious conviction that we can enjoy spiritualism without being religious.
© Work Research Foundation 2007
Professor Kronman responded:
Religion and religious conviction has been responsible for much good. Rev. Choong mentions several of its "positive cultural and social fruits." But it should also be remembered that religious conviction has been a source of bitter struggle and war, and that the attempt to find a way of living together without sectarian strife has produced the modern liberal state, with its principled separation of state and church. I regard this as a great achievement, and one of the most distinctive (if still fragile) features of Western civilization.
Rev. Choong draws a distinction between conviction and commitment, which he says I confuse. I'm not sure how he understands these terms, but the distinction is a useful one. One of my aims as a teacher in Yale's Directed Studies program is to help students explore their convictions, including religious convictions. Many come to college with strong and well-formed beliefs. I try to take these with utmost seriousness. After all, they often lie near the center of students' lives. But at the same time, I invite the students whose beliefs they are to reflect on them in a self-critical spirit, considering what can be said for and against them. To do that, it is essential that I refrain from making any commitment myself, either for or against the convictions that are under examination. Not to take these convictions seriously is an act of disrespect. Not to make the effort to explore them in a spirit of non-commitment is to lose a precious educational opportunity, which for some students may not come again.
© Work Research Foundation 2007
Why are we here?
Colleges ignore life's biggest questions, and we all pay the price
By Anthony Kronman | September 16, 2007
In the past few weeks, tens of thousands of young men and women have begun their college careers. They have worked hard to get there. A letter of admission to one of the country's selective colleges or universities has become the most sought-after prize in America.
The students who have won this prize are about to enter an academic environment richer than any they have known. They will find courses devoted to every question under the sun. But there is one question for which most of them will search their catalogs in vain: The question of the meaning of life, of what one should care about and why, of what living is for.
In a shift of historic importance, America's colleges and universities have largely abandoned the idea that life's most important question is an appropriate subject for the classroom. In doing so, they have betrayed their students by depriving them of the chance to explore it in an organized way, before they are caught up in their careers and preoccupied with the urgent business of living itself. This abandonment has also helped create a society in which deeper questions of values are left in the hands of those motivated by religious conviction - a disturbing and dangerous development.
Over the past century and a half, our top universities have embraced a research-driven ideal that has squeezed the question of life's meaning from the college curriculum, limiting the range of questions teachers feel they have the right and authority to teach. And in the process it has badly weakened the humanities, the disciplines with the oldest and deepest connection to this question, leaving them directionless and vulnerable to being hijacked for political ends.
But the encouraging news is that there is, today, a growing hunger among students to explore these topics. As questions of spiritual urgency - abortion, creationism, the destruction of the environment - move to the center of debate in our society, America's colleges and universities have a real opportunity to give students the tools to discuss them at a meaningful level.
What our society now desperately needs is what it once had: An alternative approach to a college education that takes these matters seriously without pretending to answer them in a doctrinaire way.
For this to happen, teachers of the humanities must reconsider the nature and value of their work, and confront the ways in which the modern research ideal has deformed it. That will require real boldness on their part. But the stakes are high.
The question of life's meaning is a worry of the spirit. Our colleges and universities need to reclaim their authority to speak to the subject, in a conversation broader than any church alone can conduct. The beneficiaries, in the end, will be both their students and the culture they will inherit.
Before the Civil War, America's colleges were small institutions with religious roots, training students for the higher professions of medicine, teaching, ministry, and law. Only a fraction of Americans attended college, and the education they received was based on beliefs whose truth was taken for granted. The Puritan divines who founded Harvard College in 1636 understood their task to be the education of Christian gentlemen, schooled in the classics and devoted to God. They knew the answer to the question of what living is for, and saw that their students learned it.
In the years after the Civil War, however, American higher education underwent a fundamental transformation. Thousands of American educators had gone to Germany earlier in the century to pursue advanced study in their fields, and they returned with a new conception of what institutions of higher learning were for. The German university of the 19th century was based on a novel assumption with no precedent in the history of education. This was that universities exist primarily to sponsor research - that their first responsibility is to provide the space, books, and other resources that scholars need to produce new knowledge.
In the 1860s and '70s, a handful of older American colleges, including Harvard, began transforming themselves into research universities, and a number of new schools, such as Cornell and Johns Hopkins, were established to promote research. The research ideal began to gain influence in every area of study and teaching. Faculty divided into departments, and then into more specialized units of work. Departments of philosophy appeared for the first time, followed by departments of English. In 1893, the department of biology at the University of Chicago was reorganized into five departments of zoology, botany, anatomy, neurology, and physiology. At the same time, the religious premises of antebellum education were called into question, in part as a result of the new scientific spirit encouraged by the research ideal. Increasingly, our colleges and universities, especially the most elite, became secular and specialized institutions.
In the process, the world of higher education assumed the shape it has today. Graduate schools were created; scholarly journals were established to publish research. Centralized control of funds for research became increasingly important. College teachers were expected to have some specialized knowledge of a particular discipline. And students were expected to specialize too, by "majoring" in a particular subject.
In the sciences, the adoption of the research ideal has produced astounding results. Our knowledge of the natural and social worlds, and ability to control them, is a direct result of the modern system of academic research.
In the humanities, however, the legacy of the research ideal has been mixed. We know vastly more today than we did even 50 years ago about the order of Plato's dialogues, the accuracy of Gibbon's citations, and how Benjamin Franklin spent his time in Paris. But the research ideal has excluded the question of life's meaning from serious academic concern as a question too large, too unformed, too personal, to be a subject of specialized research. A tenure-minded junior professor studying Shakespeare or Freud or Spinoza might re-inspect every scrap of his subject's work with the hope of making some small but novel discovery - but would be either very brave or very foolish to write a book about Spinoza's suggestion that a free man thinks only of life, never of death; or about Freud's appealing, if enigmatic, statement that the meaning of life is to be found in work and love.
As this new vision of higher education took hold in America, faculty members ceased to think of themselves as shapers of souls. Today's students are thus denied the opportunity to explore the question of life's meaning in an organized way, under the guidance of teachers who seek to acquaint their students with the answers contained in the rich tradition whose transmission was once the special duty of the humanities.
It has also put the humanities in the shadow of the natural and social sciences. Judged by the standards of these latter disciplines, research in the humanities is bound to seem less conclusive, less accretive, less quantifiable. In philosophy, one can reasonably claim that there has been no meaningful progress since Plato. For a physicist to say the same thing about Newton would be absurd. Teachers of the humanities who judge their work strictly from the standpoint of the research ideal condemn themselves to an inferior position in the hierarchy of academic authority and prestige.
Conservatives who bemoan our schools' disengagement from spiritual questions often point a finger at political correctness, a stifling culture of moral and political uniformity based on progressive ideals. But to blame political correctness reverses the order of causation. The culture of political correctness is only a symptom, a discouraging response to a larger sense of directionlessness in the humanities.
Multiculturalism, anti-colonialism, and insistence on race and gender as organizing principles of study are an expression of the anxious search for a new and morally honorable role for the humanities once their older role as guides to the meaning of life lost its credibility. It is that older role we now need to recover.
Can the meaning of life be studied independent of religion? There are many who doubt that it can. They say that any program of this sort must rest on religious beliefs, which have lost their status as a source of authority in higher education. But that is a mistake. For even after the rise of the research university, with its secular and scientific culture, there were humanists who believed that the question of life's meaning can be studied in a disciplined but nonreligious way. Their approach gives us a model to follow today.
One of the most forceful proponents of this view was Alexander Meiklejohn, a distinguished professor of government and constitutional law, and the president of Amherst College from 1912 to 1924. Meiklejohn insisted that undergraduate education be more than a preparation for a career. He thought it vital that students also explore what he called "the art of living," the spiritual question of how they ought to live their lives. He defended the idea of spiritual seriousness in a nonreligious age, and thought it could be studied without dogmatic commitments.
In the first half of the 20th century, many colleges and universities had programs that sought to implement Meiklejohn's ideal. Most have disappeared, though some survive today. At Reed College in Oregon, freshmen are required to take a yearlong humanities course, for which they prepare by reading Homer's "Iliad" the summer before. Columbia University has a core curriculum consisting of four courses devoted to the masterpieces of Western literature, philosophy, music, and art. At Yale, where I teach, incoming freshmen can apply to the Directed Studies program, which begins in the fall with Herodotus, Homer, and Plato, and concludes in the spring with Wittgenstein, T. S. Eliot, and Hannah Arendt. These programs differ in many ways, and inevitably reflect the culture of their schools; some are mandatory and others, like Yale's Directed Studies, are elective. But despite their differences, all rest on a set of common assumptions, which together define a shared conception of humane education.
The first is that there is more than one good answer to the question of what living is for. A second is that the number of such answers is limited, making it possible to study them in an organized way. A third is that the answers are irreconcilably different, necessitating a choice among them. A fourth is that the best way to explore these answers is to study the great works of philosophy, literature, and art in which they are presented with lasting beauty and strength. And a fifth is that their study should introduce students to the great conversation in which these works are engaged - Augustine warily admiring Plato, Hobbes reworking Aristotle, Paine condemning Burke, Eliot recalling Dante, recalling Virgil, recalling Homer - and help students find their own authentic voice as participants in the conversation.
These are challenging works. But they are accessible too, and an 18-year-old with some curiosity about life will find much that is inspiring in them: the great battle scenes of "War and Peace," and Tolstoy's meditations on the insignificance of the individual in history; Descartes' invitation to his readers to doubt everything they think they know, at least once in their lives; Arendt's account of Eichmann on trial, and her chilling description of the "banality of evil"; Virgil's Aeneas and Jane Austin's Emma, both in love, but with more on their minds.
Though critics have attacked "great books" programs as a kind of indoctrination into a European-dominated intellectual canon, the students in my Directed Studies class respond in the opposite way. They become rambunctiously independent. For they learn that the greatest minds in the world are on their side - or aren't, and feel entitled to quarrel with them. A college freshman who has read Descartes, and who crafts her own reasons to reject his invitation to doubt, is on her way to an independence of spirit that is surely one of the conditions to living a meaningful life.
For our humanities departments to make room for this kind of study again, they need not repudiate the research ideal. Much would be lost if they did. But they can insist that teachers in these fields equip themselves to guide their students in an exploration of life's meaning, which can be done with confidence and honor only if the research ideal is acknowledged to have limits.
There are hopeful signs this will happen. The tide of political correctness is receding on our campuses. There is an increasing demand among undergraduates for courses that address the big questions of life, in all their sprawling grandeur, without reticence or embarrassment. At Harvard, Michael Sandel's famous course on justice, which explores the meaning of the concept from Aristotle to Mill and beyond, draws hundreds of students each year. Ten percent of the freshmen at Yale now apply to Directed Studies - more than can be admitted.
Most importantly, perhaps, the great upsurge of religious fundamentalism outside our colleges and universities is a sign of the growing appetite for spiritual direction. These movements can be a source of danger and division, and intellectuals may mock and despise them, but teachers also ought to see in them the energy that will drive the restoration of the question of life's meaning - and, with that, of the humanities themselves - to a central place in our colleges and universities. The fundamentalists have the wrong answers, but they've got the right questions. We need to learn to ask them again in school.
Our culture may be spiritually impoverished, but what it needs is not more religion. What it needs is an alternative to religion, for colleges and universities to become again the places they once were - spiritually serious but nondogmatic, concerned with the soul but agnostic about God.
Much depends on this. America's entire leadership class now goes to college - something that was not true a century ago. Infusing higher education with a new and vibrant humanism will produce benefits not only for the future leaders of government and business, but for society at large: A richer and more open debate about ultimate values; an electorate less likely to be cowed into thinking that only the faithful have the right to invoke them; a humbler regard for the mystery of life in a world increasingly dominated by technocratic reason.
The most immediate beneficiaries of any such revival, however, would be the young men and women in school today. Instead of offering a disorganized reprieve between the hard work of high school and the challenges of a career, their college education will endow them with priceless materials for a lifetime of struggle with the most important question anyone ever asks.
When this happens, a place in fall's freshman class will be the prize it ought to be.
Anthony Kronman is Sterling Professor of Law at Yale and author of "Education's End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life."
© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company
Rev. Ron Choong
Founder & Director, Academy for Christian Thought
www.actministry.org
I am puzzled by Professor Kronman's stated concern. The deeper questions he wishes to preserve have always been religious. Religious conviction remains the universal preoccupation of every human community and is intrinsic to the nature of belief. To describe the increasing influence of people 'motivated by religious conviction' as 'a disturbing and dangerous development' is itself perhaps a disturbing and dangerous development of our academic leaders. Why is there no mention of the positive cultural and social fruits of religious convictions? What was it that prompted our founding fathers to protect the church from government? When did we forget that that the single most important distinguishing mark of a democracy against any form of communism is the presence of religious conviction? Have we forgotten that the legal system itself developed its sense of justice from the presumption of spiritual sanction against perjury? What Kronman calls for is not a return to earlier times of academic bliss but a wholesale attack on the very foundations of education and free human inquiry, that is, free to account for the existence of God without undue pressure.
The special duties of the humanities to offer answers to life's deeper questions began with religious convictions and an appreciation for the metaphysical realities inaccessible by any exhaustive human inquiry. Kronman is right to challenge the criterion of research as the standard academic measure of progress, but wrong to conclude that the enemy within is religious conviction. The very idea that God does not exist is itself a religious conviction of a high order. It demands conviction that exhaustive studies have denied this ancient sneaking suspicion that there is more to living than life.
Kronman argues for a spiritual seriousness in a nonreligious way. He presumably refers to studying the geist of life without the role of institutionalized religions. Yet it is this very spirit of humanity that expressed itself in religious rituals. All worship impulses are responses to an inner need, and not initiatives for external gratification. That is why religious convictions can survive censure, denial and torture. That is why they thrive despite the urgent renunciations of Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Freud, Marx and Dewey.
Professor Kronman confuses conviction with commitment. While I resonate with his fear of dogma, within the church, dogmatism has always been met with reformation. No religious tradition today survives untouched by free inquiry, including Kronman's own religious conviction that we can enjoy spiritualism without being religious.
© Work Research Foundation 2007
Professor Kronman responded:
Religion and religious conviction has been responsible for much good. Rev. Choong mentions several of its "positive cultural and social fruits." But it should also be remembered that religious conviction has been a source of bitter struggle and war, and that the attempt to find a way of living together without sectarian strife has produced the modern liberal state, with its principled separation of state and church. I regard this as a great achievement, and one of the most distinctive (if still fragile) features of Western civilization.
Rev. Choong draws a distinction between conviction and commitment, which he says I confuse. I'm not sure how he understands these terms, but the distinction is a useful one. One of my aims as a teacher in Yale's Directed Studies program is to help students explore their convictions, including religious convictions. Many come to college with strong and well-formed beliefs. I try to take these with utmost seriousness. After all, they often lie near the center of students' lives. But at the same time, I invite the students whose beliefs they are to reflect on them in a self-critical spirit, considering what can be said for and against them. To do that, it is essential that I refrain from making any commitment myself, either for or against the convictions that are under examination. Not to take these convictions seriously is an act of disrespect. Not to make the effort to explore them in a spirit of non-commitment is to lose a precious educational opportunity, which for some students may not come again.
© Work Research Foundation 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The 3 Questions of Origins
Have you wondered about why matter exists at all? In fact, why do we exist? Scientists, philosophers and theologians before them have had to deal with such questions. How did they originate? (scientific question) Why did they originate? (philosophical question) Who intended for it to be so? (theological question) These three questions of origins continue to tease our curiosity. In my series of lectures here in New York, we consider the state of understanding for cosmogony, biogenesis and anthropogenesis. The effort of philosophers, scientists and theologians working is splendid isolation from each other yields more questions than answers. Perhaps the time is ripe for these different fields of inquiry employing different reasoning strategies but drawing from a common resource of rationality, to seek a convergence of understanding while maintaining their disciplinary integrities.
What is the relationship between scientific inference and theological reflection with regard to the question of origins? Science infers what we believe to be true by observation and testing. Theology reflects what we believe to be true by divine revelation. A comprehensive view of reality must draw from both fields of inquiry, in which God’s revelation includes disclosure awaiting divine discovery. The scientific task echoes that of Adam, who named created nature, while the theological task echoes the scientist in reflecting on the meaning of divine disclosure. From a theological perspective, science is the discovery of divine disclosure (DDD).
Some of the most important and enduring questions are “Why is there stuff (universe), life (reproducers), and us (humans) rather than not?” Their existence point to the possibility of meaning and with the natural sciences, we may be able to describe the teleological explanations of theology.
The questions of origins concern the first existence of events – how, when and why did they happen. There are three types of events: (a) reproducible, (b) unpredictable, and (c) singular. A reproducible event can be repeated. An unpredictable event can be statistically tabulated for scientific study. A singular event however, such as the origins of the universe, life, humans or mind, can only be subject to legal inquiry - which can only be answered by personal knowledge of what actually happened. Science has no competence to answer any question of origins because it is the very object of inquiry (e.g., universe, life, humans) that gives rise to the scientific methods in the first place - the human mind is needed to perceive and interpret data obtained by artifacts called tools.
1. COSMOGONY: ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
Scientific investigation is premised on methodological naturalism and serves as a powerful tool to infer what happened in the past. Investigating any singular historical event demands a logical rather than a statistical inquiry and unverifiable assumptions are unavoidable. With classical and quantum physics, scientists probe the origin of the universe. Available scientific models are shaped by philosophical commitments and inevitably tread on theology. The Christian doctrine of creation includes the natural world (universe) and the non-natural realm (supernatural refers only to God). Can inferences from the sciences be reconciled with a theological explanation of a creatio originalis ex nihilo, which undergoes creatio continua, and anticipates a final creatio nova? This is the subject of our inquiry in Q1.
2. BIOGENESIS: ORIGIN OF LIFE
When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in The Origin of Species in 1859, he deliberately left out how life came about. Today, this remains a mystery in science, forcing the collaboration of many disciplines. While life may be described in terms of its constituents, this cannot explain the cause that makes a pile of organic stuff sense, react, reproduce, and die. The Christian doctrine of creation teaches that reproductive matter emerged from an intentional (teleological) exercise of divine will. Life is not accidental and its purpose has been declared. The origin of life lies in a creatio continua that anticipates a final creatio nova. This is the subject of our inquiry in Q2.
3. ANTHROPOGENESIS: ORIGIN OF HUMANS
Are Homo sapiens sapiens unique in the living world? The similitude of our DNA with other life forms fails to explain our unique ability, e.g., grammatical speech. The ‘symbolic species’ is able to pass on information through time (by writing), possess insight (to guess how things work), and contemplate the future (with imagination). The Christian doctrine of creation describes us as made in the image of God (imago Dei). This does not rest merely in our capacities or physiology, but in our relationality with God. Although we share a biological continuity with the rest of nature, the origin of our humanity calls us into fellowship with our creator as ‘the praying animal’. We are self-reflective, morally conscious beings who worship and live in expectation of the creatio nova. This is the subject of our inquiry in Q3.
What is the relationship between scientific inference and theological reflection with regard to the question of origins? Science infers what we believe to be true by observation and testing. Theology reflects what we believe to be true by divine revelation. A comprehensive view of reality must draw from both fields of inquiry, in which God’s revelation includes disclosure awaiting divine discovery. The scientific task echoes that of Adam, who named created nature, while the theological task echoes the scientist in reflecting on the meaning of divine disclosure. From a theological perspective, science is the discovery of divine disclosure (DDD).
Some of the most important and enduring questions are “Why is there stuff (universe), life (reproducers), and us (humans) rather than not?” Their existence point to the possibility of meaning and with the natural sciences, we may be able to describe the teleological explanations of theology.
The questions of origins concern the first existence of events – how, when and why did they happen. There are three types of events: (a) reproducible, (b) unpredictable, and (c) singular. A reproducible event can be repeated. An unpredictable event can be statistically tabulated for scientific study. A singular event however, such as the origins of the universe, life, humans or mind, can only be subject to legal inquiry - which can only be answered by personal knowledge of what actually happened. Science has no competence to answer any question of origins because it is the very object of inquiry (e.g., universe, life, humans) that gives rise to the scientific methods in the first place - the human mind is needed to perceive and interpret data obtained by artifacts called tools.
1. COSMOGONY: ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
Scientific investigation is premised on methodological naturalism and serves as a powerful tool to infer what happened in the past. Investigating any singular historical event demands a logical rather than a statistical inquiry and unverifiable assumptions are unavoidable. With classical and quantum physics, scientists probe the origin of the universe. Available scientific models are shaped by philosophical commitments and inevitably tread on theology. The Christian doctrine of creation includes the natural world (universe) and the non-natural realm (supernatural refers only to God). Can inferences from the sciences be reconciled with a theological explanation of a creatio originalis ex nihilo, which undergoes creatio continua, and anticipates a final creatio nova? This is the subject of our inquiry in Q1.
2. BIOGENESIS: ORIGIN OF LIFE
When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in The Origin of Species in 1859, he deliberately left out how life came about. Today, this remains a mystery in science, forcing the collaboration of many disciplines. While life may be described in terms of its constituents, this cannot explain the cause that makes a pile of organic stuff sense, react, reproduce, and die. The Christian doctrine of creation teaches that reproductive matter emerged from an intentional (teleological) exercise of divine will. Life is not accidental and its purpose has been declared. The origin of life lies in a creatio continua that anticipates a final creatio nova. This is the subject of our inquiry in Q2.
3. ANTHROPOGENESIS: ORIGIN OF HUMANS
Are Homo sapiens sapiens unique in the living world? The similitude of our DNA with other life forms fails to explain our unique ability, e.g., grammatical speech. The ‘symbolic species’ is able to pass on information through time (by writing), possess insight (to guess how things work), and contemplate the future (with imagination). The Christian doctrine of creation describes us as made in the image of God (imago Dei). This does not rest merely in our capacities or physiology, but in our relationality with God. Although we share a biological continuity with the rest of nature, the origin of our humanity calls us into fellowship with our creator as ‘the praying animal’. We are self-reflective, morally conscious beings who worship and live in expectation of the creatio nova. This is the subject of our inquiry in Q3.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Neuroscience and Christian Belief - An Introduction
This 21st century has been hailed as the century of the mind. Brain/Mind syudies is now the hottest subject inboth science and philosophy. I hope to persuade you that it ought to also be the hottest subject in Christian theology.
In the last 50 years, the various fields of inquiry dealing with the physical brain and its expression as the mind, has begun to converge. Disparate fields such as cognitive psychology, molecular biology, neurobiology, moral philosophy, consciousness studies and philosophy of mind, to note a few, have found themselves trampling on each other’s sacred ground. Advances in PET and fMRI technology have emboldened experimentalists to make inferences and predictions that impact our understanding of human behavior. For the first time, we are able to ‘look’ inside a living brain while it is thinking and make some crude but valuable measurements about its workings, principally its consumption rates of sugar and oxygen. Using false color imaging, we can locate areas of neuronal activity in real time. These exciting advances in technology demand equally exacting theories of science to interpret what we observe to convert knowledge into understanding. Here lies our Achilles’ heel. We are always far better at acquiring information than we are at interpreting them. This has been historically true of the revealed religions of the world. In the Christian faith, the early founders pass on what they claim to be divine revelation encoded in texts of human language. While its preservation has mostly been successful, great debates continue to rage over its precise interpretation. Thus we find in both the science of mind (neuroscience) and theological reflection of the Bible, the imperative of epistemic hermeneutics. We are concerned with making sense of what we know so that we can achieve understanding.
In this series of Neuroscience & Theology (NST) seminars, we shall explore various topics in which our increasing knowledge about how our brain works (or rather, how it may seem to work) may offer correctives to our best interpretations of what it means to be human (made in the image of God). This is not a quest for a scientific account of the Bible nor is it a theological account of neuroscience. Rather, it is an attempt to seek a convergence of understanding who we are in the light of the Christian Bible aided by responsible study of the scriptures, critical theological and philosophical reflection, and assessment of scientific inferences drawn from experimental and theoretical work in the sciences of the brain. The primary field of inquiry is theological in nature and is purpose is to achieve a better understanding of our relationship to our creator.
Central to the Christian doctrine of humanity is the claim that we were made in the image of God. Theologians have long included among the many meanings of this, the possession of moral consciousness. It is the existence and function of morality that is at the heart of the conversation between the neurosciences and theology. The method of analysis we shall follow assumes that both the modern sciences and reflective theology are different but not incompatible sources of knowledge about reality. This means that a quest to understand the human nature and our sense of morality ought to consider both what the Bible teaches about why we think as we do and what the modern sciences infer about how we think as we do.
Although theology is concerned with truth claims received by faith as true, its implications engage the world of the sciences and medical therapy. (1) Similarly, although both the basic and the social sciences are limited to explaining the biological and psychological mechanics of how moral behavior plays out, such explanations often veer towards making theological statements. (2) It is therefore important for both science and theology to be open to mutual correction when necessary, for theological reflection itself relies on the art and science of interpretation based on our reasoning strategies, which themselves are shaped by our prior understanding, control beliefs, and adoptive authorities.
Thus we note that philosophy, religion and the sciences are inextricably intertwined. Indeed, what we now call philosophy used to be called metaphysics; religion used to be under the rubric of moral philosophy; and modern science used to be called natural philosophy. In fact, no academic discipline is truly free from theological implications and no theological doctrine is free from engagement with every human sphere of cultural influence. This series of lectures seeks to examine some of the theological implications of philosophy and science as commonly misunderstood by some proponents who commit the Aristotelian ‘category mistake’ of mixing methodologies. The lesson to learn is that a responsible apologetic theology must account for the provisional but influential findings of contemporary religious philosophies and the natural sciences. This is the central concern of the Academy for Christian Thought as we minister both to those outside and inside the Church by offering a theological safe space (TSS).
Among the many issues raised by the ‘new science of mind’, as the Nobelist Eric Kandel calls it, are the characteristics of the human mind that mark us off as human:
the existence of a universal morality (3).
the reality and nature of free-will (4 ,
the location and nature of consciousness (5),
the structure and function of memory (6),
the role of experience in perception and reasoning (7),
the implications of emotions such as fear and love (8),
the process by which we make judgments (9), and
In the first of this series, we shall consider the existence of a universal morality, or a universal moral grammar, as Marc Hauser (10) calls it.
[I shall post abstacts of future chapters soon, stay tuned]
Footnotes:
(1) What Christians think of the body and its destiny after physical death influences how they relate to scientific and medical assistance. If a Christian believes that physiological healing can only come about through prayer and non-human intervention, she will reject medical help. If a theological doctrine claims that the human body cannot be resurrected properly if any organ is missing, he will not wish to donate his organs after he dies. Some misinformed Christians reject blood transfusion or pharmacological treatment because they are deemed evidence of lacking in faith. A strong rejection of biological evolution may lead a Christian to consider denying standard scientific education to their children in favor of Creationist Christian education. Expectation of miracles defined as the suspension of physical laws of nature might lead a Christian to expect divine intervention as God’s answer to her prayers, often leading to deep disappointment or a distorted view of one’s rightful relationship with God.
(2) One example is the eminent cognitive neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga’s The Ethical Brain. This is ostensibly a survey of the intersection between science and ethics. Not surprisingly, it culminates with describing morality as a social glue that served as an adaptive advantage for survival in social animals. In buttressing his claims, Gazzaniga felt obliged to explain away the preponderance of religious belief. Describing the left-hemisphere interpreter function of the temporal lobe in our brain, he suggested that a disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). He concludes that religiosity may have an organic basis, and names Moses, Socrates, the Buddha, St. Paul, the prophet Muhammad PBUM, Joan of Arc and Isaac Newton may have had TLE. What is his source of this knowledge? He claims that “evidence found by some historians that certain religious leaders might have TLE” inform his postulate (158) but he strangely omits to footnote any documentary source. He invokes Norman Geschwind’s observation of personality changes in TLE patients and Andrew Newberg’s bold neurotheology hypothesis to support his own view that we can identify neural correlates of religious experience (159-160). Gazzaniga’s conclusions effectively makes the theological claim that religious belief is the outcome of brain disorder coupled with the psychological demands for good survival strategies. He writes that “It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because god or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.” (165). While this charming statement is surely correct, it suffers from providing no biological advantage short of a universal moral command. Today, we sense that it must surely be right not to kill only because we as a species have been universally inculcated by religious beliefs. His belief that killing is wrong cannot be demonstrated to have arisen from any non-religious influence. This means that even Michael Gazzaniga cannot escape his own baptism into religiosity and moral consciousness as an American, so that his own disavowal of religious moral consciousness and claim to objective distance must be suspect.
(3) Is human morality independent of human biochemistry? Why are we moral? Is it sinful to be immoral? Is sinfulness a sign of guilt or a mark of evolutionary capacities taking the path of least resistance.
(4) Do we actually have free will or are we slaves of our biological bodies? Does evolutionary psychology explain our preferences and therefore, explain away the religiosity of humans? Is there a God gene?
(5) What is it and where is it location in the brain? We still do not know.
(6) Can memory loss or false memory alter our personality to the detriment of our beliefs in and about God? Can memory be regained after dementia? How reliable is human memory and hence, recollection of eyewitness testimony?
(7) How do the composite sensational registrations of stimuli direct our perception of reality and shape what we deem as rational and reasonable?
(8) Do our beliefs shape our emotions or do our emotions condition what we believe? The emotions of fear and love are the most powerful for shaping our beliefs. What happens when our emotions betray us and do not reflect reality?
(9) By what criteria do we judge a proposition to be reasonable or true? How do we judge our judgments?
(10) Marc D. Hauser, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, (New York: HarperCollins. 2006).
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Blocher, Henri. Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1997.
2. Brainerd, C. J. and V. F. Reyna. The Science of False Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005.
3. Brown, Warren S. Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, Whatever Happened to the Soul? Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998.
4. Clayton, Philip and Jeffrey Schloss. Ed. Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004.
5. Choong, Ron. PS4: Post-Darwinian Evolution. ACT Publications, 2004.
6. Choong, Ron. “Why Are We Moral?” Paper delivered at The Metanexus Institute for Science and Religion International Conference. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. 2006.
7. Choong, Ron. “Free Nill: Reflections on the Neurobiology of Sin.” Paper delivered at The Metanexus Institute for Science and Religion International Conference. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia 2007.
8. Clayton, Philip and Jeffrey Schloss. Eds. Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004.
9. Fine, Cordelia. A Mind of Its Own: How the Brain Distorts and Deceives. New York: W. W. Norton. 2006.
10. Frijda, Nico H., Anthony S. R. Manstead and Sacha Bem, Eds. Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
11. Gazzaniga, Michael S. The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana Press. 2005.
12. Hare, John. “Is There an Evolutionary Foundation for Human Morality?” in Evolution and Ethics. Edited by Philip Clayton and Jeffrey Schloss. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004.
13. Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: HarperCollins. 2006.
14. Joyce, Richard. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2006.
15. Kandel, Eric R. In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York: W. W. Norton. 2006.
16. Koch, Christof The Quest for Consciousness. Englewood, CO: Roberts and Co. 2004.
17. LeDoux, Joseph. Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Viking. 2002.
18. Libet, Benjamin. Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2004.
19. Michael Pauen, “Does Free Will Arise Freely?” in Scientific American Mind, Volume 14, Number 1: 2004.
20. Peterson, Gregory R. Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
21. Richardson, Mark & Wesley Wildman. Eds. Methods and History in Science & Religion. New York: Routledge. 1996.
22. Richerson, Peter J. and Robert Boyd. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 2005.
23. Rose, Hilary and Steven. Editors, Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. Vintage Books. 2001.
24. Searle, John R. Freedom and Neurobiology. New York: Columbia University Press. 2007.
25. Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003.
26. Smith, Christian. Moral Believing Animals. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 2003.
27. Solomon, Robert C. True to Our Feelings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007.
28. Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel. Alone in the World: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006.
29. Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are-The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Vintage Books. 1994.
In the last 50 years, the various fields of inquiry dealing with the physical brain and its expression as the mind, has begun to converge. Disparate fields such as cognitive psychology, molecular biology, neurobiology, moral philosophy, consciousness studies and philosophy of mind, to note a few, have found themselves trampling on each other’s sacred ground. Advances in PET and fMRI technology have emboldened experimentalists to make inferences and predictions that impact our understanding of human behavior. For the first time, we are able to ‘look’ inside a living brain while it is thinking and make some crude but valuable measurements about its workings, principally its consumption rates of sugar and oxygen. Using false color imaging, we can locate areas of neuronal activity in real time. These exciting advances in technology demand equally exacting theories of science to interpret what we observe to convert knowledge into understanding. Here lies our Achilles’ heel. We are always far better at acquiring information than we are at interpreting them. This has been historically true of the revealed religions of the world. In the Christian faith, the early founders pass on what they claim to be divine revelation encoded in texts of human language. While its preservation has mostly been successful, great debates continue to rage over its precise interpretation. Thus we find in both the science of mind (neuroscience) and theological reflection of the Bible, the imperative of epistemic hermeneutics. We are concerned with making sense of what we know so that we can achieve understanding.
In this series of Neuroscience & Theology (NST) seminars, we shall explore various topics in which our increasing knowledge about how our brain works (or rather, how it may seem to work) may offer correctives to our best interpretations of what it means to be human (made in the image of God). This is not a quest for a scientific account of the Bible nor is it a theological account of neuroscience. Rather, it is an attempt to seek a convergence of understanding who we are in the light of the Christian Bible aided by responsible study of the scriptures, critical theological and philosophical reflection, and assessment of scientific inferences drawn from experimental and theoretical work in the sciences of the brain. The primary field of inquiry is theological in nature and is purpose is to achieve a better understanding of our relationship to our creator.
Central to the Christian doctrine of humanity is the claim that we were made in the image of God. Theologians have long included among the many meanings of this, the possession of moral consciousness. It is the existence and function of morality that is at the heart of the conversation between the neurosciences and theology. The method of analysis we shall follow assumes that both the modern sciences and reflective theology are different but not incompatible sources of knowledge about reality. This means that a quest to understand the human nature and our sense of morality ought to consider both what the Bible teaches about why we think as we do and what the modern sciences infer about how we think as we do.
Although theology is concerned with truth claims received by faith as true, its implications engage the world of the sciences and medical therapy. (1) Similarly, although both the basic and the social sciences are limited to explaining the biological and psychological mechanics of how moral behavior plays out, such explanations often veer towards making theological statements. (2) It is therefore important for both science and theology to be open to mutual correction when necessary, for theological reflection itself relies on the art and science of interpretation based on our reasoning strategies, which themselves are shaped by our prior understanding, control beliefs, and adoptive authorities.
Thus we note that philosophy, religion and the sciences are inextricably intertwined. Indeed, what we now call philosophy used to be called metaphysics; religion used to be under the rubric of moral philosophy; and modern science used to be called natural philosophy. In fact, no academic discipline is truly free from theological implications and no theological doctrine is free from engagement with every human sphere of cultural influence. This series of lectures seeks to examine some of the theological implications of philosophy and science as commonly misunderstood by some proponents who commit the Aristotelian ‘category mistake’ of mixing methodologies. The lesson to learn is that a responsible apologetic theology must account for the provisional but influential findings of contemporary religious philosophies and the natural sciences. This is the central concern of the Academy for Christian Thought as we minister both to those outside and inside the Church by offering a theological safe space (TSS).
Among the many issues raised by the ‘new science of mind’, as the Nobelist Eric Kandel calls it, are the characteristics of the human mind that mark us off as human:
the existence of a universal morality (3).
the reality and nature of free-will (4 ,
the location and nature of consciousness (5),
the structure and function of memory (6),
the role of experience in perception and reasoning (7),
the implications of emotions such as fear and love (8),
the process by which we make judgments (9), and
In the first of this series, we shall consider the existence of a universal morality, or a universal moral grammar, as Marc Hauser (10) calls it.
[I shall post abstacts of future chapters soon, stay tuned]
Footnotes:
(1) What Christians think of the body and its destiny after physical death influences how they relate to scientific and medical assistance. If a Christian believes that physiological healing can only come about through prayer and non-human intervention, she will reject medical help. If a theological doctrine claims that the human body cannot be resurrected properly if any organ is missing, he will not wish to donate his organs after he dies. Some misinformed Christians reject blood transfusion or pharmacological treatment because they are deemed evidence of lacking in faith. A strong rejection of biological evolution may lead a Christian to consider denying standard scientific education to their children in favor of Creationist Christian education. Expectation of miracles defined as the suspension of physical laws of nature might lead a Christian to expect divine intervention as God’s answer to her prayers, often leading to deep disappointment or a distorted view of one’s rightful relationship with God.
(2) One example is the eminent cognitive neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga’s The Ethical Brain. This is ostensibly a survey of the intersection between science and ethics. Not surprisingly, it culminates with describing morality as a social glue that served as an adaptive advantage for survival in social animals. In buttressing his claims, Gazzaniga felt obliged to explain away the preponderance of religious belief. Describing the left-hemisphere interpreter function of the temporal lobe in our brain, he suggested that a disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). He concludes that religiosity may have an organic basis, and names Moses, Socrates, the Buddha, St. Paul, the prophet Muhammad PBUM, Joan of Arc and Isaac Newton may have had TLE. What is his source of this knowledge? He claims that “evidence found by some historians that certain religious leaders might have TLE” inform his postulate (158) but he strangely omits to footnote any documentary source. He invokes Norman Geschwind’s observation of personality changes in TLE patients and Andrew Newberg’s bold neurotheology hypothesis to support his own view that we can identify neural correlates of religious experience (159-160). Gazzaniga’s conclusions effectively makes the theological claim that religious belief is the outcome of brain disorder coupled with the psychological demands for good survival strategies. He writes that “It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because god or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.” (165). While this charming statement is surely correct, it suffers from providing no biological advantage short of a universal moral command. Today, we sense that it must surely be right not to kill only because we as a species have been universally inculcated by religious beliefs. His belief that killing is wrong cannot be demonstrated to have arisen from any non-religious influence. This means that even Michael Gazzaniga cannot escape his own baptism into religiosity and moral consciousness as an American, so that his own disavowal of religious moral consciousness and claim to objective distance must be suspect.
(3) Is human morality independent of human biochemistry? Why are we moral? Is it sinful to be immoral? Is sinfulness a sign of guilt or a mark of evolutionary capacities taking the path of least resistance.
(4) Do we actually have free will or are we slaves of our biological bodies? Does evolutionary psychology explain our preferences and therefore, explain away the religiosity of humans? Is there a God gene?
(5) What is it and where is it location in the brain? We still do not know.
(6) Can memory loss or false memory alter our personality to the detriment of our beliefs in and about God? Can memory be regained after dementia? How reliable is human memory and hence, recollection of eyewitness testimony?
(7) How do the composite sensational registrations of stimuli direct our perception of reality and shape what we deem as rational and reasonable?
(8) Do our beliefs shape our emotions or do our emotions condition what we believe? The emotions of fear and love are the most powerful for shaping our beliefs. What happens when our emotions betray us and do not reflect reality?
(9) By what criteria do we judge a proposition to be reasonable or true? How do we judge our judgments?
(10) Marc D. Hauser, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong, (New York: HarperCollins. 2006).
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Blocher, Henri. Original Sin: Illuminating the Riddle. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1997.
2. Brainerd, C. J. and V. F. Reyna. The Science of False Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005.
3. Brown, Warren S. Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, Whatever Happened to the Soul? Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 1998.
4. Clayton, Philip and Jeffrey Schloss. Ed. Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004.
5. Choong, Ron. PS4: Post-Darwinian Evolution. ACT Publications, 2004.
6. Choong, Ron. “Why Are We Moral?” Paper delivered at The Metanexus Institute for Science and Religion International Conference. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. 2006.
7. Choong, Ron. “Free Nill: Reflections on the Neurobiology of Sin.” Paper delivered at The Metanexus Institute for Science and Religion International Conference. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia 2007.
8. Clayton, Philip and Jeffrey Schloss. Eds. Evolution and Ethics: Human Morality in Biological and Religious Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004.
9. Fine, Cordelia. A Mind of Its Own: How the Brain Distorts and Deceives. New York: W. W. Norton. 2006.
10. Frijda, Nico H., Anthony S. R. Manstead and Sacha Bem, Eds. Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
11. Gazzaniga, Michael S. The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana Press. 2005.
12. Hare, John. “Is There an Evolutionary Foundation for Human Morality?” in Evolution and Ethics. Edited by Philip Clayton and Jeffrey Schloss. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2004.
13. Hauser, Marc D. Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong. New York: HarperCollins. 2006.
14. Joyce, Richard. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2006.
15. Kandel, Eric R. In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind. New York: W. W. Norton. 2006.
16. Koch, Christof The Quest for Consciousness. Englewood, CO: Roberts and Co. 2004.
17. LeDoux, Joseph. Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are. New York: Viking. 2002.
18. Libet, Benjamin. Mind Time: The Temporal Factor in Consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2004.
19. Michael Pauen, “Does Free Will Arise Freely?” in Scientific American Mind, Volume 14, Number 1: 2004.
20. Peterson, Gregory R. Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
21. Richardson, Mark & Wesley Wildman. Eds. Methods and History in Science & Religion. New York: Routledge. 1996.
22. Richerson, Peter J. and Robert Boyd. Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 2005.
23. Rose, Hilary and Steven. Editors, Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. Vintage Books. 2001.
24. Searle, John R. Freedom and Neurobiology. New York: Columbia University Press. 2007.
25. Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2003.
26. Smith, Christian. Moral Believing Animals. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 2003.
27. Solomon, Robert C. True to Our Feelings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007.
28. Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel. Alone in the World: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2006.
29. Wright, Robert. The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are-The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Vintage Books. 1994.
Monday, July 09, 2007
FALLING UPWARDS AT EDEN? Are we sinful becaused we sin or do we sin because we are sinful?
"Reinhold Niebuhr is reputed to have observed that original sin is the only empirically verifiable Christian theological doctrine." (John Hare, “Whence Original Sin?” in Gregory R. Peterson, Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 151.)
What do we really mean when we Christians teach that at the Garden of Eden, a moral 'fall' took place and forever consigned all of humanity to sinfulness? Are we sinful becaused we sin or do we sin because we are sinful? The former suggests that we behave how we were biologically and culturally created to behave, while the latter implies that we coiuld have 'not sinned' and therefore are blameworthy.
One of the great challenges of constructing a theistic evolutionary model of morality is the daunting task of explaining away the perceived ‘perfection’ of creation at Eden. In fact, while the Bible refers to creation as good, good does not mean perfect. Even a cursory reading of the Bible underscores the changing social norms of morality, much of which would not sit comfortably with us today. How do we deal with the biblical doctrine of sin if morality evolved? If sin is an intrinsic factor of being human, how can God blame anyone? How does biology provide insights for a more responsible hermeneutic (theory of interpretation) regarding sin?
W. Mark Richardson argues that “sin is a feature of emergent capacities we associate with being human.” For him, moral agency builds on the ‘free process’ perspective, the cost of which increases dramatically with the increasing powers of sentience in higher animals. In this view, the biblical ‘fall’ is not the tragic consequence of sin but rather, as the origin of sin. Richardson wants a revision of the doctrine of sin that evolutionary theory prompts. Rather than imagining humans “originating in a primordial paradise of mature will and reason”, we might consider “imagining [our] species as ‘in the making’, and building up moral consciousness and agency from roots in pre-moral natural existence.” By comparing biological theories of origins and theological theories of soteriology, Richardson advances a corrective to the orthodox explanation of the ‘fall’ (It fuses origin and soteriology into a single doctrine. Today, we find it inconsistent both with paleoanthropology and with a plain reading of the Bible). The orthodox doctrine assumes a static moral order from the beginning of creation. However, one can observe the moral progress made in the Bible. The history of human cultures have shown that sense of right and wrong changes over time. We would like to believe that we live in the most moral age, frowning upon slavery, sexism, exploitation (however cleverly some of us disguise it). Our increasing biological knowledge regarding the origins of humanity is reflected in the shift from an Augustinian ‘fall’ theology to a ‘soul-making’ (moral cognition) theology. In a personal communication, Richardson states that he “finds origins on a continuum with soteriology.” Critics may argue that this diminishes the gravity of the disobedience and removes personal responsibility from the human race. However, this is not be the case. That the story at the Garden of Eden describes the origin of sin does not necessarily deny the notion of guilt.
For Richardson “any view of Christian theology must take sin seriously, but sin does not trigger Christology, i.e., Christology is not Plan B to fix something God did not anticipate.”
Gregory R. Peterson traces the evolving view of ‘original sin’ and in the light of biological evolution, rejects the Augustinian view of one human couple’s choice whose consequences we inherit. Rather than thinking of a static notion of the ‘fall’, he prefers the dynamic notion of ‘falling’ following Irenaeus’ insight that suffering is the result of the immaturity of all conscious life. Peterson coins the phrase ‘falling up’ (in contradistinction to falling down) to describe the increased complexity of life, which leads to greater capacities and hence, freedom to choose between good and evil. Animals have the advantage of locomotion over plants and this allows them to have geographic freedom, spatially escaping danger. However, it is also capable of causing damage over a larger area of its habitat. This does not deny the immense complexity of botanical life and its splendid mechanisms to avoid being consumed. But in the end, locomotion is a decided advantage. By the same token, the ability of bipeds like humans to throw artifacts accurately from a distance gives hominids the advantage when hunting stronger prey. In this view, falling is not what happens to us, it is what we do! Yet, this pessimism is brightened by our eschatological hope.
Like Richardson, Peterson wants to revise our Augustinian view of the fall and the notion of original sin to better account for what we can directly observe and infer from archeological evidence – biological evolution comports with the biblical witness that moral cognition evolved over a great span of time and moral progress continues to this day. In this interpretation of the Genesis text, we have been made in the image of God and have been falling upwards ever since.
What do we really mean when we Christians teach that at the Garden of Eden, a moral 'fall' took place and forever consigned all of humanity to sinfulness? Are we sinful becaused we sin or do we sin because we are sinful? The former suggests that we behave how we were biologically and culturally created to behave, while the latter implies that we coiuld have 'not sinned' and therefore are blameworthy.
One of the great challenges of constructing a theistic evolutionary model of morality is the daunting task of explaining away the perceived ‘perfection’ of creation at Eden. In fact, while the Bible refers to creation as good, good does not mean perfect. Even a cursory reading of the Bible underscores the changing social norms of morality, much of which would not sit comfortably with us today. How do we deal with the biblical doctrine of sin if morality evolved? If sin is an intrinsic factor of being human, how can God blame anyone? How does biology provide insights for a more responsible hermeneutic (theory of interpretation) regarding sin?
W. Mark Richardson argues that “sin is a feature of emergent capacities we associate with being human.” For him, moral agency builds on the ‘free process’ perspective, the cost of which increases dramatically with the increasing powers of sentience in higher animals. In this view, the biblical ‘fall’ is not the tragic consequence of sin but rather, as the origin of sin. Richardson wants a revision of the doctrine of sin that evolutionary theory prompts. Rather than imagining humans “originating in a primordial paradise of mature will and reason”, we might consider “imagining [our] species as ‘in the making’, and building up moral consciousness and agency from roots in pre-moral natural existence.” By comparing biological theories of origins and theological theories of soteriology, Richardson advances a corrective to the orthodox explanation of the ‘fall’ (It fuses origin and soteriology into a single doctrine. Today, we find it inconsistent both with paleoanthropology and with a plain reading of the Bible). The orthodox doctrine assumes a static moral order from the beginning of creation. However, one can observe the moral progress made in the Bible. The history of human cultures have shown that sense of right and wrong changes over time. We would like to believe that we live in the most moral age, frowning upon slavery, sexism, exploitation (however cleverly some of us disguise it). Our increasing biological knowledge regarding the origins of humanity is reflected in the shift from an Augustinian ‘fall’ theology to a ‘soul-making’ (moral cognition) theology. In a personal communication, Richardson states that he “finds origins on a continuum with soteriology.” Critics may argue that this diminishes the gravity of the disobedience and removes personal responsibility from the human race. However, this is not be the case. That the story at the Garden of Eden describes the origin of sin does not necessarily deny the notion of guilt.
For Richardson “any view of Christian theology must take sin seriously, but sin does not trigger Christology, i.e., Christology is not Plan B to fix something God did not anticipate.”
Gregory R. Peterson traces the evolving view of ‘original sin’ and in the light of biological evolution, rejects the Augustinian view of one human couple’s choice whose consequences we inherit. Rather than thinking of a static notion of the ‘fall’, he prefers the dynamic notion of ‘falling’ following Irenaeus’ insight that suffering is the result of the immaturity of all conscious life. Peterson coins the phrase ‘falling up’ (in contradistinction to falling down) to describe the increased complexity of life, which leads to greater capacities and hence, freedom to choose between good and evil. Animals have the advantage of locomotion over plants and this allows them to have geographic freedom, spatially escaping danger. However, it is also capable of causing damage over a larger area of its habitat. This does not deny the immense complexity of botanical life and its splendid mechanisms to avoid being consumed. But in the end, locomotion is a decided advantage. By the same token, the ability of bipeds like humans to throw artifacts accurately from a distance gives hominids the advantage when hunting stronger prey. In this view, falling is not what happens to us, it is what we do! Yet, this pessimism is brightened by our eschatological hope.
Like Richardson, Peterson wants to revise our Augustinian view of the fall and the notion of original sin to better account for what we can directly observe and infer from archeological evidence – biological evolution comports with the biblical witness that moral cognition evolved over a great span of time and moral progress continues to this day. In this interpretation of the Genesis text, we have been made in the image of God and have been falling upwards ever since.
Is There Belief Beyond Biology?
One of the most incredible claims of the Christian faith is that God is love, and in fact, God defines the notion of love. Since love is an expression of an emotional state of being, the science of emotional cognition ought to be of interest to the scientific theologian or the theologian of science. One of the foremost explorers of emotional cognition is Joseph LeDoux. In The Emotional Brain, he outlines the relationship between the cerebral cortex (reason) and the amygdala (emotions). He argues that the evolution of the cross-wiring between these two parts of the human brain promises a time when we can be in full cognitive harmony between our reasoning and emotional cognitions. Emotions are crucial for the possibility of joy and pleasure. This means that moral and religious cognition demands some understanding of the evolution of emotional consciousness in the human brain. The 10,000,000,000 neurons in a typical human brain can accomplish a lot of incredible feats, but none as amazing as the creation of emotional cognition. The biological role of emotions in cognition is the subject of LeDoux’s study. He also notes that synaptic changes physically modify the neurons as it creates memory in the brain. He cites Gerald Edelman’s argument that synapses in the brain (the gaps between brain cells through which neurotransmitters pass on information) compete to stay alive.
This theory of neural selectionism points to the claim that the synaptic experiences of each individual brain prompts it to ‘select’ which synapses to keep and which to let die off. More synapses are made than are kept. The active synapses are kept and connections that are not used are eliminated. Such creation and regression of synapses form the core of neural circuitry formation. If this is correct, then we subliminally select which memory to keep and which emotions to relive. The capacity for belief also draws from our capacity to relive emotional memories. Thus, how we narrate our cultural stories impact our belief-formation processes. This is why ritual and memorialization are crucial aspects of religious life. The very acts of preparation and participation in religious rituals generate new synaptic storage for our emotional intelligence. It also contributes to the quality of our beliefs. Emotions motivate our cognitive processes to select which memories to preserve.
Moral cognition plays an important role alongside emotions in belief-formation. Physical survival in societies depend on the accurate judgment of which authorities to adopt and which to reject. We make judgments on authoritative claims around us every day when we make decisions on what or whom to believe. Moral cognition provides the cognitive adaptation for the adoption of authority - the capacity and the will to believe another. This is because adoption of authority presumes its veracity when there is no way to verify by our natural senses. We are moral so that we can believe! True belief beyond mere intellectual assent is only possible because we have the capacity for moral cognition. It is the cognitive capacity to adopt the authority of another that both permits and demands moral cognition. Trust is an element in belief by which adoptive authority drives our behavior. Shift of belief (trust) from God to the serpent recorded in the Garden of Eden account, suggests the imperative of moral cognition to sustain a status of belief (adoptive authority). In summary, religious belief formation requires the capacity to harness the power of emotional intelligence to select memories alongside the moral cognition to select which authorities to adopt. Let us trace the biological evolution of the mind by tracing the evolution of the brain as it evolves moral cognition.
In the biological evolution of multicellular organisms, increased sentience gave advantage for creatures of high mobility. This came at a cost, the increased exposure and capacity to register pain and suffering. While pain receptors are adaptive features to increase survival prospects, it also paralyzes mobility when relief is not reached in time. This created motivation to avoid pain and suffering by escaping the source of it. The capacity to do so marks the facility of judgment, an exercise that utilizes emotional intelligence and the free will. This free will may be seen to seek personal advantage. However, we observe in nature that altruistic behavior exists. How can we account for this? A theory of moral cognition is called for. Judgment takes place in a context of comparative assessments. At this point, biological assessment meets ethical judgment. The capacity for ethics emerges. An agent with free will, judges to seek advantage or justice. This notion of justice has to be a universal concept- everyone has to agree that they can recognize it when they encounter it.
In Homo sapiens, the significant increase in brain size yields sufficient complexity that is necessary for a strong emergence. The result is sufficient synaptic connections for the development of symbolic language, cognitive fluidity, and emotional intelligence. We find in the biological emergence of emotional intelligence, an adaptive feature that evolved to apprehend the moral notion of justice.
While the above flowchart does not demonstrate the existence of God or even the philosophical coherence of religion, my goal is more modest.
Cognitive neuroscience has established that with the existence of emotional intelligence, we have reached the boundaries of what biology and indeed, the natural sciences can explain about the uniqueness of human consciousness. That we alone among life on earth possess the persistent trait of religious and moral cognition that displays itself most dramatically in the ritual of true altruism, not disguised kin-selection or other sophisticated adaptation for survival.
I propose that while biological inference can explain the limited circumstances when judgment leads to advantage for survival, altruism marks the response to divine justice that only a theological approach can adequately explain. The task before the interdisciplinarian of science and theology is to find the point of convergence and a method to forge an interdisciplinary framework. Since science is a self-limiting reasoning strategy, it is up to a re-imagining of the theological boundaries that holds the promise for a full scientific engagement.
If the moral mind consists of the freedom to veto volitions generated by biological possibilities of action, does this diminish the theological demands of what it means to have free will? I think not. Most animal actions are instinctive - they are generated subconsciously and are response mechanisms. If most animal actions were reflective, they would take too long to generate and would be unhelpful under emergency conditions.
We were made to evolve moral cognition so that we too can receive and give love, but most of all, so that we can possess the capacity for religious belief.
It appears that science cannot explain why we believe in morality or in God. We may conclude that there is indeed belief beyond biology!
This theory of neural selectionism points to the claim that the synaptic experiences of each individual brain prompts it to ‘select’ which synapses to keep and which to let die off. More synapses are made than are kept. The active synapses are kept and connections that are not used are eliminated. Such creation and regression of synapses form the core of neural circuitry formation. If this is correct, then we subliminally select which memory to keep and which emotions to relive. The capacity for belief also draws from our capacity to relive emotional memories. Thus, how we narrate our cultural stories impact our belief-formation processes. This is why ritual and memorialization are crucial aspects of religious life. The very acts of preparation and participation in religious rituals generate new synaptic storage for our emotional intelligence. It also contributes to the quality of our beliefs. Emotions motivate our cognitive processes to select which memories to preserve.
Moral cognition plays an important role alongside emotions in belief-formation. Physical survival in societies depend on the accurate judgment of which authorities to adopt and which to reject. We make judgments on authoritative claims around us every day when we make decisions on what or whom to believe. Moral cognition provides the cognitive adaptation for the adoption of authority - the capacity and the will to believe another. This is because adoption of authority presumes its veracity when there is no way to verify by our natural senses. We are moral so that we can believe! True belief beyond mere intellectual assent is only possible because we have the capacity for moral cognition. It is the cognitive capacity to adopt the authority of another that both permits and demands moral cognition. Trust is an element in belief by which adoptive authority drives our behavior. Shift of belief (trust) from God to the serpent recorded in the Garden of Eden account, suggests the imperative of moral cognition to sustain a status of belief (adoptive authority). In summary, religious belief formation requires the capacity to harness the power of emotional intelligence to select memories alongside the moral cognition to select which authorities to adopt. Let us trace the biological evolution of the mind by tracing the evolution of the brain as it evolves moral cognition.
In the biological evolution of multicellular organisms, increased sentience gave advantage for creatures of high mobility. This came at a cost, the increased exposure and capacity to register pain and suffering. While pain receptors are adaptive features to increase survival prospects, it also paralyzes mobility when relief is not reached in time. This created motivation to avoid pain and suffering by escaping the source of it. The capacity to do so marks the facility of judgment, an exercise that utilizes emotional intelligence and the free will. This free will may be seen to seek personal advantage. However, we observe in nature that altruistic behavior exists. How can we account for this? A theory of moral cognition is called for. Judgment takes place in a context of comparative assessments. At this point, biological assessment meets ethical judgment. The capacity for ethics emerges. An agent with free will, judges to seek advantage or justice. This notion of justice has to be a universal concept- everyone has to agree that they can recognize it when they encounter it.
In Homo sapiens, the significant increase in brain size yields sufficient complexity that is necessary for a strong emergence. The result is sufficient synaptic connections for the development of symbolic language, cognitive fluidity, and emotional intelligence. We find in the biological emergence of emotional intelligence, an adaptive feature that evolved to apprehend the moral notion of justice.
While the above flowchart does not demonstrate the existence of God or even the philosophical coherence of religion, my goal is more modest.
Cognitive neuroscience has established that with the existence of emotional intelligence, we have reached the boundaries of what biology and indeed, the natural sciences can explain about the uniqueness of human consciousness. That we alone among life on earth possess the persistent trait of religious and moral cognition that displays itself most dramatically in the ritual of true altruism, not disguised kin-selection or other sophisticated adaptation for survival.
I propose that while biological inference can explain the limited circumstances when judgment leads to advantage for survival, altruism marks the response to divine justice that only a theological approach can adequately explain. The task before the interdisciplinarian of science and theology is to find the point of convergence and a method to forge an interdisciplinary framework. Since science is a self-limiting reasoning strategy, it is up to a re-imagining of the theological boundaries that holds the promise for a full scientific engagement.
If the moral mind consists of the freedom to veto volitions generated by biological possibilities of action, does this diminish the theological demands of what it means to have free will? I think not. Most animal actions are instinctive - they are generated subconsciously and are response mechanisms. If most animal actions were reflective, they would take too long to generate and would be unhelpful under emergency conditions.
We were made to evolve moral cognition so that we too can receive and give love, but most of all, so that we can possess the capacity for religious belief.
It appears that science cannot explain why we believe in morality or in God. We may conclude that there is indeed belief beyond biology!
The Aim of Christian Education (Paideia): Wisdom
1. Paideia: The ancient Greeks used a term to denote instruction in a course of study for the cultivation of intellect and character to produce an educated citizen. It seeks the ‘formation’ of a person, physical, intellectual, social, moral, and spiritual. By the time of the New Testament, the term was widely used to refer to children in need of good instruction. Both Jesus and Paul referred to the imperative of paideia to describe the maturation of the Christian mind. For what you think, that you are.
2. Christian paideia stresses the renewal and cultivation of the person as God’s image (imago Dei). This life-transforming education was carried out under the divine Teacher, the Logos. The Church adopted paideia for education in the Christian faith. Its objective was the wisdom of God. The pathway to wisdom is insight.
3. Insight is the real knowledge that comes to us (the mechanics of which we are agnostic about) and allows us to ‘see’ more quickly than we are able to articulate. It is a passive form of knowledge, a ‘transient grasp of an intransitory realm’.
4. Wisdom is the full understanding of knowledge and revolves around insight, which confers the gift (is not a fruit of human exertion) of wisdom. Insight does not function in isolation. The equilibria between wisdom (sapientia) and knowledge (scientia) operate in a relational matrix; meditation (passive) and cognitive learning (active) need each other. It is wisdom that no science or arts offers for God alone is wise (see Job). This means the search for wisdom anticipates the search for God in worship.
5. Worship is a response to God’s revelation to humanity. Worship relies on what we know about the reality of nature. Our knowledge relies on the quality of our education. But knowledge is insufficient for understanding, so we seek wisdom. Christian education seeks a curriculum of faith incorporating an understanding of scientific discovery.
6. Christian education as worship aims to discover the hidden orders of reality because it has reasons to consider the claim of Jesus - to overcome annihilation (death). Education becomes the acquisition of wisdom as the tacit and transcendental guide for knowledge.
Worship is inquiry & inquiry is worship
An educational philosophy in a theological framework.
1. Be passionately engaged with the quest for knowledge in a fiduciary context, believing that the universe is intelligible because God created it.
2. Indwell the object of knowledge and tap into the tacit dimension to know the answer before we even know the question. Learn ‘contemplative wondering’, a sort of indwelling with a full awareness of ourselves and our place in God’s kingdom and the object we are studying.
3. Distinguish wisdom from knowledge and exercise imagination that assumes the tacit dimensional integration of things ‘underground’ to create insight.
4. Insight yields the ‘Eureka’ effect. Discover and celebrate the disclosure of the hidden order.
5. A new construction of meaning for a transformation of reason. Learn interpretation and responsible action. Knowledge is power and the bearer of knowledge bears great responsibility.
Development of Human Intelligence
Intelligence arises from interaction between person and the environment.
1. Piaget states that faced with conflict, a person either ‘assimilates’ (plays with) or ‘accommodates’ (imitate) the environment. He predominates over the environment or vice-versa. Interaction is equilibrium between the two, resulting in intelligence through ‘adaptation’.
2. There is a complementarity between consciousness and neurological interaction, the Mind-Body Problem. The structures of intelligence developed by humans will disclose the hidden intelligibility of the universe through all branches of science (learning?)
3. But a third reaction is possible – transformation.
The priority of transformation (creative capacity) over adaptation (intelligence) in Christian education.
1. The Christian mind is called to transform and not to adapt to the world. But first, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our own minds, by the Spirit. Romans 12:2 speaks of a passive transformation, not accomplished by the person, but to submit to another who will do the transforming. This constitutes the process of “being transformed” rather than “transforming yourself”.
2. Our ultimate fear as mortals is death. We can adapt to just about anything but we cannot adapt to escape death. To be spiritually renewed is to seek to overcome ultimate death as well as the fear of death by the transforming power of Jesus on the Cross.
Method
The true teacher asks questions worth living for. Education should advance the discovery of ideas to instigate a desire to learn for the love of knowing, so that the totality of one’s place in the universe may become less and less of a mystery. Education is a vital part of the response to divine revelation we call worship. How we perform the task of education reveals what we really believe about God.
Application for Teachers:
1. Face and embrace conflict expectantly (including exams and papers).
2. Step aside to scan the situation, to indwell, to contemplate.
3. Focus on the image with an idea of the teacher’s own viewpoint.
4. Share the excitement of the course of study.
5. Celebrate the Eureka effect with wonderment and gratitude.
6. Interpret and act responsibly in the community of imagination. Education is worshipping with the mind.
Conclusion
A Christian philosophy of education acknowledges the priority of tacit over explicit knowing. The focus on the relationship between sapientia and scientia informs the axiology grounded in the Christian faith. This determines one’s methodology and the teacher’s expectation of the student. Can we teach art, economics, geography, history, mathematics, languages, literature, politics, and science to know God?
2. Christian paideia stresses the renewal and cultivation of the person as God’s image (imago Dei). This life-transforming education was carried out under the divine Teacher, the Logos. The Church adopted paideia for education in the Christian faith. Its objective was the wisdom of God. The pathway to wisdom is insight.
3. Insight is the real knowledge that comes to us (the mechanics of which we are agnostic about) and allows us to ‘see’ more quickly than we are able to articulate. It is a passive form of knowledge, a ‘transient grasp of an intransitory realm’.
4. Wisdom is the full understanding of knowledge and revolves around insight, which confers the gift (is not a fruit of human exertion) of wisdom. Insight does not function in isolation. The equilibria between wisdom (sapientia) and knowledge (scientia) operate in a relational matrix; meditation (passive) and cognitive learning (active) need each other. It is wisdom that no science or arts offers for God alone is wise (see Job). This means the search for wisdom anticipates the search for God in worship.
5. Worship is a response to God’s revelation to humanity. Worship relies on what we know about the reality of nature. Our knowledge relies on the quality of our education. But knowledge is insufficient for understanding, so we seek wisdom. Christian education seeks a curriculum of faith incorporating an understanding of scientific discovery.
6. Christian education as worship aims to discover the hidden orders of reality because it has reasons to consider the claim of Jesus - to overcome annihilation (death). Education becomes the acquisition of wisdom as the tacit and transcendental guide for knowledge.
Worship is inquiry & inquiry is worship
An educational philosophy in a theological framework.
1. Be passionately engaged with the quest for knowledge in a fiduciary context, believing that the universe is intelligible because God created it.
2. Indwell the object of knowledge and tap into the tacit dimension to know the answer before we even know the question. Learn ‘contemplative wondering’, a sort of indwelling with a full awareness of ourselves and our place in God’s kingdom and the object we are studying.
3. Distinguish wisdom from knowledge and exercise imagination that assumes the tacit dimensional integration of things ‘underground’ to create insight.
4. Insight yields the ‘Eureka’ effect. Discover and celebrate the disclosure of the hidden order.
5. A new construction of meaning for a transformation of reason. Learn interpretation and responsible action. Knowledge is power and the bearer of knowledge bears great responsibility.
Development of Human Intelligence
Intelligence arises from interaction between person and the environment.
1. Piaget states that faced with conflict, a person either ‘assimilates’ (plays with) or ‘accommodates’ (imitate) the environment. He predominates over the environment or vice-versa. Interaction is equilibrium between the two, resulting in intelligence through ‘adaptation’.
2. There is a complementarity between consciousness and neurological interaction, the Mind-Body Problem. The structures of intelligence developed by humans will disclose the hidden intelligibility of the universe through all branches of science (learning?)
3. But a third reaction is possible – transformation.
The priority of transformation (creative capacity) over adaptation (intelligence) in Christian education.
1. The Christian mind is called to transform and not to adapt to the world. But first, we are to be transformed by the renewing of our own minds, by the Spirit. Romans 12:2 speaks of a passive transformation, not accomplished by the person, but to submit to another who will do the transforming. This constitutes the process of “being transformed” rather than “transforming yourself”.
2. Our ultimate fear as mortals is death. We can adapt to just about anything but we cannot adapt to escape death. To be spiritually renewed is to seek to overcome ultimate death as well as the fear of death by the transforming power of Jesus on the Cross.
Method
The true teacher asks questions worth living for. Education should advance the discovery of ideas to instigate a desire to learn for the love of knowing, so that the totality of one’s place in the universe may become less and less of a mystery. Education is a vital part of the response to divine revelation we call worship. How we perform the task of education reveals what we really believe about God.
Application for Teachers:
1. Face and embrace conflict expectantly (including exams and papers).
2. Step aside to scan the situation, to indwell, to contemplate.
3. Focus on the image with an idea of the teacher’s own viewpoint.
4. Share the excitement of the course of study.
5. Celebrate the Eureka effect with wonderment and gratitude.
6. Interpret and act responsibly in the community of imagination. Education is worshipping with the mind.
Conclusion
A Christian philosophy of education acknowledges the priority of tacit over explicit knowing. The focus on the relationship between sapientia and scientia informs the axiology grounded in the Christian faith. This determines one’s methodology and the teacher’s expectation of the student. Can we teach art, economics, geography, history, mathematics, languages, literature, politics, and science to know God?
The Mandate of the Academy for Christian Thought
At ACT, we seek the ideals of paideia. Our mandate is to Teach, Disciple, & Proclaim the Gospel faithfully according to the Christian Bible handed down through the Church.
1. ROMANS 12:2
Be transformed - thinking things through in the cultural spheres of influence: commerce, academia, media, politics and sports (CAMPS). We desire security and significance (SS). Leadership and success must be redefined. Science is a method of knowing while revelation is the content of knowledge. Together, science and revelation lead to better understanding.
By renewing your minds - control your control beliefs, worship God with your mind and cultivate the person as God’s image (imago Dei).
Discern the will of God – seek wisdom from insight & understanding of knowledge.
Romans 12 tell us that we ought to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we may discern the will of God … which is our spiritual worship! This means that all the Christian talk about worshipping God in spirit begins with a new way of thinking.
2. DEVELOPING A CHRIST-CENTERED WORLDVIEW
2.1 What Is The Christian Philosophy Of Knowledge And Understanding?
God is God and we are not!
God is sovereign in the absolute-hermeneutics of trust
God is love - teleology
Christian worldview must replace our secular humanist worldview
How can we use this to engage our minds to worship God as we allow God to educate us? Presuppositions: God is the ultimate teacher and all of reality is used by God to reveal himself to us. God created the world and cares deeply about it. We show our love for God by also caring for what happens to the world. In this, we concern ourselves with every field of human inquiry and every sphere of cultural influence.
2.2 Sources of Adoptive Authorities to Develop A Christ-Centered Worldview
• Testimony: CCC (Commitment to Convictional Confession) Experiential relevance
• Science: DDD (Discovery of Divine Disclosure) Empirical adequacy
• Philosophy: RRR (Reason to make Revelation Relevant) Logical coherence. By far the most significant barrier to today’s evangelistic enterprise is the apparent lack of relevance. As we learn to reason well by submitting to God’s word, we have to also learn to relate honestly to the strangers in our midst. RRR (Reason and Relate to make Relevant the message of the Gospel).
3 THE NEW APOLOGETICS - SCIENTISM & RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
3.1 Science & Scientism
Discover convergence between science and revelation
1. Science is the most manicured form of rationality known to us - it is God’s gift to us so that we may discover divine disclosure.
2. Scientism is the philosophical presumption that science alone holds the key to understanding all there is to understand. It is often disguised as science.
3. Contemporary issues of true science include Extra-Terrestrial life, animal consciousness & morality, and neuroscientific explanations for free will and sinful behavior.
3.2 Religious Pluralism
What About the Other Faiths? Are All Faiths Equally Valid?
Religious pluralism has existed from time immemorial. The philosophy of religious pluralism, which claims that all religions are equally valid and that they all make similar claims - is false. Explore the wisdom of other faiths to enrich your own
1. How do we know that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other religions are wrong? The single common difference (scd) between the Christian faith and all other religions is the identity of Jesus.
2. What about those who die in infancy?
3. What about those who die in adulthood and have never heard the gospel?
4. What about those who are born or become, mentally retarded?
1. ROMANS 12:2
Be transformed - thinking things through in the cultural spheres of influence: commerce, academia, media, politics and sports (CAMPS). We desire security and significance (SS). Leadership and success must be redefined. Science is a method of knowing while revelation is the content of knowledge. Together, science and revelation lead to better understanding.
By renewing your minds - control your control beliefs, worship God with your mind and cultivate the person as God’s image (imago Dei).
Discern the will of God – seek wisdom from insight & understanding of knowledge.
Romans 12 tell us that we ought to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we may discern the will of God … which is our spiritual worship! This means that all the Christian talk about worshipping God in spirit begins with a new way of thinking.
2. DEVELOPING A CHRIST-CENTERED WORLDVIEW
2.1 What Is The Christian Philosophy Of Knowledge And Understanding?
God is God and we are not!
God is sovereign in the absolute-hermeneutics of trust
God is love - teleology
Christian worldview must replace our secular humanist worldview
How can we use this to engage our minds to worship God as we allow God to educate us? Presuppositions: God is the ultimate teacher and all of reality is used by God to reveal himself to us. God created the world and cares deeply about it. We show our love for God by also caring for what happens to the world. In this, we concern ourselves with every field of human inquiry and every sphere of cultural influence.
2.2 Sources of Adoptive Authorities to Develop A Christ-Centered Worldview
• Testimony: CCC (Commitment to Convictional Confession) Experiential relevance
• Science: DDD (Discovery of Divine Disclosure) Empirical adequacy
• Philosophy: RRR (Reason to make Revelation Relevant) Logical coherence. By far the most significant barrier to today’s evangelistic enterprise is the apparent lack of relevance. As we learn to reason well by submitting to God’s word, we have to also learn to relate honestly to the strangers in our midst. RRR (Reason and Relate to make Relevant the message of the Gospel).
3 THE NEW APOLOGETICS - SCIENTISM & RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
3.1 Science & Scientism
Discover convergence between science and revelation
1. Science is the most manicured form of rationality known to us - it is God’s gift to us so that we may discover divine disclosure.
2. Scientism is the philosophical presumption that science alone holds the key to understanding all there is to understand. It is often disguised as science.
3. Contemporary issues of true science include Extra-Terrestrial life, animal consciousness & morality, and neuroscientific explanations for free will and sinful behavior.
3.2 Religious Pluralism
What About the Other Faiths? Are All Faiths Equally Valid?
Religious pluralism has existed from time immemorial. The philosophy of religious pluralism, which claims that all religions are equally valid and that they all make similar claims - is false. Explore the wisdom of other faiths to enrich your own
1. How do we know that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and other religions are wrong? The single common difference (scd) between the Christian faith and all other religions is the identity of Jesus.
2. What about those who die in infancy?
3. What about those who die in adulthood and have never heard the gospel?
4. What about those who are born or become, mentally retarded?
Paideia - Formation of the Christian Mind
PAIDEIA – FORMING THE CHRISTIAN MIND
The ancient Greeks used the word paideia to mean the proper formation of the educated citizen. They were interested in the development of the model citizen of a democracy and believed that philosophy – the love of wisdom – is the key to a strong and durable mind.
Early Christian thought adopted the concept behind paideia. When the gospel writers remembered Jesus’ teachings, they used paideia (those who were properly trained) instead of tekna (offsprings of people) to describe the children whom Jesus invited to himself. He then said that unless we were like paideia, we would not inherit the kingdom of God. It is this notion of what Jesus taught (paideia) that forms the foundation for the spiritual formation of the Christian mind.
At the Academy for Christian Thought (ACT), we seek to create a Theological Safe Space (TSS), a welcome space where believers and their unbelieving friends can find intellectual refuge, a space to ask questions they do not even know how to articulate, and a space where no one ought to be prematurely judged for making inquiries with tentative proposals. In such a safe space, we are all mindful of our spiritual, our emotional and our intellectual frailty. In response, we wish to encourage the Christian in his faith and offer a climate of welcome to the non-Christian who sincerely seeks to know. The call of the Christian message is to be transformed by a renewal of our minds as we consider the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Explore with us the meaning and implications of what it means to have a transforming relationship with Jesus. This transformation is the result of our quest in the formation of a Christian mind.
The formation of the Christian mind goes beyond intellectual assent: It includes the Confession, Conviction of the confession, and a Commitment to the convictional confession that Jesus is indeed Lord of our lives. To this end, ACT takes as its ministry verse, Romans 12:2 “[B]e transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…” that you may know the will of God.
1.1 BE TRANSFORMED – BY THINKING THINGS THROUGH
The Christian mind engages with the world of ideas through at least 5 cultural spheres of influence – there are plenty of others. We refer to them as CAMPS - commerce, academia, media, politics and sports. In another seminar (CSI), we shall examine them in more detail. Here, we shall explore what it means to develop a Christian mind, to build a foundation of thought so that in matters great and small, we form the habit of thinking things through, theologically. Why theologically? Well, the moment you deem yourself a Christian, your understanding of everything takes on a theological dimension because you believe that God exists and that you have a relationship with God. This means that the things of God are ultimately of great concern to you. Your view of politics, economics, social issues, cultural matters, commercial interests, etc. are all influenced by how you view your relationship with God. Indeed, that relationship both shapes and is shaped by your understanding of the world you live in.
For example, if you say that modern American capitalism is the preferred way to operate in the financial system that we inherit, you are already making important decisions on how you would respond to the theological notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. This teaching demands that we treat another - not as we would have others treat us, but as we would treat ourselves. Ouch! Can it be possible to do just that in a near zero-sum world of economics where scarcity leads to outcomes with distinct classes of winners and losers? I gather that none of us wish to be among the losers. Yet American capitalism celebrates winners precisely because they are not losers. For the record, I believe that American capitalism is the best in the world, but it fails to meet the demands set by Jesus. We are charged to labor our minds to close this gap. We must transform the ways we value treasures and treasure what is truly valuable. Instead of merely asking whether something is beneficial to us, we might also ask if it is the right thing to do. This calls up the notion of a moral circle.
What is a moral circle?
A moral circle is the scope of persons beyond ourselves to whom we extend the courtesy of morality. You may be alarmed to learn that for most of us, our moral circles are rather small. Thus we feel obliged to behave morally to our loved ones and family but not necessarily to others outside our moral circle. Indeed, we often rationalize and construct reasons to justify why we act immorally to those who exist outside our moral circle - our professional competitors at work and school perhaps, the children of our neighbors who may end up competing with our kids for the more desirable schools or jobs, our bosses or subordinates, etc. The power of Jesus’ exposition of the second divine command – Love your neighbor as yourself – is stunning in its enlargement of the moral circle to include all of humanity.
1.2 BY RENEWING YOUR MIND
We shall explore the Pauline injunction to renew our minds. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul called upon the Christians to renew their minds. What was he talking about? Renewal presupposes some existing or extant thing that needs to change. The human mind is unable to respond adequately to God. But the grace of God enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (wills) to receive the gift of faith (belief in things unseen), which justifies us (makes us holy before God). However, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives - by the renewing of our minds.
Why the focus on the mind? This is a metaphor to describe the function of the brain. Our minds are in fact, the foundations of our beings. When we are unable to think rationally, we say that we may have ‘lost’ our minds.
The word ‘mind’ here (noos) refers to our intellect, will and emotions. ‘Renewal’ presupposes an existing or extant entity that needs change. The human mind in the sinful condition is unable to respond adequately to God unaided. It is the grace of God that enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (rationality) to receive the gift of faith, which justifies us. Yet, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives, by the renewing of our minds. Our minds are the foundations of our beings. The Danish Christian philosopher Danish Kierkegaard asks us to think thought itself. It is this exercise of taking responsibility for how and what we think that marks the essence of paideia.
The renewal of our minds liberates us to think beyond ourselves as individuals and more as persons in a special relationship with God almighty – a courtesy that God has extended to us by dint of making us in His image. This remarkable proclamation of the biblical writers suggest that we have access to, as it were, the thoughts of God in some minimal sense. It would be the height of arrogance to think that we can know God’s mind per se. Rather, we mean that God has given to Homo sapiens sapiens the capacity for emotional intelligence, rational discourse and experiential history aided by memory – which results in our common religiosity and unsettledness until we find rest in God. Our unique capacities to believe in God and to pray in hope means that we may gain insight to the ways of God.
1.3 TO GAIN INSIGHT TO THE WAYS OF GOD
Interestingly, knowing and discerning God’s will is not about mimicking another person. It is about gaining proximate thought to God’s ways by inculcating a habit of thinking about God and understanding the scriptures. No book can give us the magic formula to know God’s will and personal stories from others are at best anecdotal and may be not very helpful beyond lifting our spirits when we are down. It has become common for well-meaning Christians to share how God has apparently worked in their lives – suggesting certain formulae by which God conforms to when the almighty works in the lives of other Christians. Unfortunately, this notion that we can ‘find the will of God’ by praying harder, meditating more (quantitatively) or briefly living a ‘better’ life has infected the Christian consciousness. The noted evangelical biblical scholar, Bruce Waltke, has courageously written of many practices that Christians pass off as divine guidance – following hunches, casting lots, looking for signs, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts actually bear an unsettling resemblance to the ways pagans seek guidance. Waltke argues that the truest course to the will of God is found in faithfully answering the call to walk close to the Lord and be conformed to His likeness. All this sounds nice but here Waltke falls into the Christian habit of using language that become full of unhelpful abstractions.
What he means may be encapsulated by several spiritual habits we may inculcate:
1.3.1 Practice The Bible In Your Life
There is no substitute for reading and understanding the Bible. For most people, this is a hard and boring task. It is the great fortune for anyone to receive instruction from a gifted preacher and teacher. The preacher’s task is to inspire the listener with punch-line applicable expositions that can make specific portions of the Bible come alive. But without a way to understand how the Bible’s teachings become transformed in the mind of the preacher to become a sermon, the listener will always be at the mercy of the preacher and be vulnerable to the vagaries of his effort. The wise Christian seeks to know the mechanics of how a great sermon comes about – not in the sense of the delivery and rhetorical gifts of the preacher, but in terms of how one is to interpret the raw texts of the Bible. This is where a responsible teacher of the Bible makes her contribution. If I may use a common analogy, the preacher feeds the student with fish, but the teacher teaches the student how to fish. Indeed, good Bible teaching makes the student a better listener of a sermon. But learning the Bible is not enough. We have to learn to make its teachings a part of our everyday life. Thus obedience is the final marker of our understanding of what the Bible means.
1.3.2 Make God Your Adoptive Authority
This is a difficult concept to articulate. It refers to finding convergence between what we naturally feel drawn to what we believe God offers. We may do this by seeking out the friendship and guidance of others whom we believe have followed the teachings of God in the Bible in their lives. Of course, we may be fooled or we may fool ourselves in this venture. But nevertheless, our thoughts are more often than not shaped by the thoughts and habits of people we hang out with. We adopt the authorities of others in matters that we do not trust ourselves with. To make God your adoptive authority by being influenced by people who also make God their adoptive authorities is a crucial aspect of forming the community of faith we call the church.
1.3.3 Judge The Circumstances Of Our Lives
If God is interested in us, it is also likely that he is interested in the circumstances of our lives. Whether or not you believe that God continues to perform miracles (by the suspension of the natural laws) today, it is the teaching of the Bible that God created the universe we live in. This means that whatever contours our life takes, it is unlikely to surprise God. In fact, it is more likely the case that God anticipates our decisions, even if sometimes, we are puzzled by the outcomes. So we have to learn to judge rather than predict the circumstances of our lives.
Say, opportunities arise that permit you to take advantage of the weakness of another person in order to advance your own cause – be it at work, at school or at home. The Christian is not to blindly respond to such windows of opportunity without first judging the outcomes of his decision within the framework of God’s universal love for humanity. Will your decision violate the common dignity of humanity? Will you treat this as an opportunity to do good or to do evil. Will you take the high road or consider this merely good luck?
1.3.4 Make Sense Of Things
God made us with a powerful mind fueled by a remarkable brain. Our highly developed senses allow us to make judgments based on our power to process our experiences, recall memorable events, think through hypothetical outcomes and imagine what is not apparent. Thus we can make sense of things. We are expected to use this resource to realize what God means for us to do in many situations. Our capacity to learn and harness the knowledge from the arts and sciences provides us with crucial clues to make educated guesses. While this does not sound particularly impressive, it is in fact, great testimony to the creative power of God to make us as we are.
1.3.5 Divine Intervention?
God does not intervene in response to seeking his will. There is not a single instance of God stepping miraculously into the lives of anyone in the Bible in response to their effort of seeking God’s will – so do not bank on this as a biblically-ordained expectation. Instead, reason within the framework of your circumstances.
Although God is indeed able to perform miracles, we must not rely on miracles to guide us. The Bible itself tells us that in many instances, God did not intervene to save those whom he loved from suffering intolerable situations. Thus, while we pray for healing and the cessation of suffering for our loved ones, we must not make promises that God will respond as we expect – God’s sovereignty means that we cannot command God to act as our servant. However, God may intervene to change our perspective of a situation so that we see it differently.
But before we can even get to methods of Bible study, we ought to acknowledge that we are creatures of habit who operate under certain basic or foundational beliefs that we do not feel obliged to justify. These beliefs that we acquire over our lifetimes control all other beliefs. We call them control beliefs.
1.4 CONTROLLING YOUR CONTROL BELIEFS
What we ultimately believe in is shaped by several ‘control beliefs’ that we hold. These foundational truth-claims that we all have help us judge all other possible beliefs. An example of a control belief is that ‘God exists.’ If this is a control belief of yours, any argument to do away with the existence of God will very likely be dismissed by you because it challenges this control belief. However, if one of your control beliefs is that ‘God does not exist’, then the opposite is the case for you. Some control beliefs arise precisely because we fail to think things through – i.e., when we fail to consider the likelihood of a truth-claim with respect to our knowledge of the world and our experiences in life. The result is that a poorly thought out control belief emerges.
Why do we even have control beliefs at all? For the sake of efficiency. We cannot help but build up control beliefs. They make it easier and quicker for us to make spot decisions without having to assess everything from scratch. Experiences influence our emotional reaction to every truth-claim. Together, they help us make judgments. This means that we make up our minds with the help of at least three elements of our selves: our experiences, our rationality, and our emotions. All three play important roles in how we judge and therefore, how we believe.
For example, if we are told that God made us all and sent Jesus to redeem us of our sinful nature, we assess this claim by judging its merits to establish its veracity. Shall we believe in this claim? Our experiences as sentient beings may cause us to be open to the possibility of the existence of God, or it may not. Next, our rationality weighs the likelihood that a supreme being that created us exists. This may be aided by study, knowledge gained from others, or our ability to postulate. Finally, our emotional makeup at each moment prepares us to be either more or less receptive to the emotional outcome of belief or disbelief. All these are purely human responses. We are unable to comment on the metaphysical responses not because there are none but because we have no access to their workings. Perhaps God supernaturally cause each of us at particular instances in time to posses the specific combination of experiential, rational and emotional characteristics that lead to a specific judgment that renders our belief or disbelief what they are. If so, we are robots of God’s will. I think God really provided us with a level of free will. This means we possess the awful power to reject God. We alone enjoy the power to control our control beliefs. No one can tell us to believe or disbelieve in God as a control belief. Only we can do so.
1.5 KEEP EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE FOR CHRIST
In our desire to learn, our thoughts and judgments are exposed to a variety of thoughts. If we are to make a commitment to our conviction that causes us to confess that Jesus is Lord, then every thought that we think is subject to this commitment. How do we do this? By asking ourselves if what we intentionally spend time thinking about is good, holy, pure and worthy of our call to live a Christian life. This means to have our security and significance linked to our status as children of God rather than humans competitively seeking to win at all costs.
Consider the workplace. We work to make money to pay the bills and enhance the economic quality of our lives. Unfortunately, the secular standards of the world operate under a system of incentivization that rewards us for visible tokens of success, not concerned with how we achieve these marks of achievement. So if, as a sales person, you outsell your fellow sales persons, you get more commissions. But if you do so by cheating or taking unfair advantages, the company rarely cares because its goal is to enhance the bottom line. But the Christian mind cares. For the Christian, her security is based on the fact that she is bound to enter the presence of God when she dies and her significance is based on being loved by her creator. Under these circumstances, the lure of incentives at the workplace takes a different meaning. There is a moral standard and a moral lawgiver that guides her responses to rewards. Now her thoughts about whether to advance in her career by a particular manner is guided by her thoughts, thoughts which are now free to follow the standards set by Christ. Did you say free? Yes, our default position is to be enslaved by the standards of the secular world, which tells us that our security is entirely based on our access to material wealth, and our significance is based on the respect that we gain from others (envy index (I coined the term envy index to describe what I call the postcard syndrome – we tend to enjoy our vacations more if we can persuade others that we have having a good time (whether or not this is true), hence, then postcard. This leads to a larger theory about the incentives we respond to In our social dealings. There seems to be nothing more satisfying that being informed that others are envious of us because they wish they enjoyed what we enjoy. This is true whether it involves cars, apartments or children.)
Our thoughts are what often get us in trouble and they are not neutral. To the extent that we proactively shape what we think, to that extent we are in firm control of our minds. To receive the Lordship of Christ in our lives begin with placing our very minds at the altar of Christ. This simply means that we choose to focus our attention on things that pertain to the calling of the Christian mind. I am well aware that this is an ideal rather than an achievable reality. Like the Ten Commandments, this command to make every thought captive for Christ is a rhetorical device to show that by ourselves, we are weak. It affirms that we are inadequate to meet the demands of God. Each of us needs to turn to the Lord in humility – precisely because on a day-to-day basis, none of us can meet the demands of God. Our minds do turn to quite unholy thoughts and we luxuriate in what we already know to be impure thinking. It is this acknowledgment that marks the starting point of desiring to change the way we think.
[This has been adapted from chater 1 of the manual from the ACT seminar - Paideia. Visit www.actministry.org for details]
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. PAIDEIA - FORMING THE CHRISTIAN MIND
1.1 Be Transformed – By Thinking Things Through
1.2 By Renewing Your Mind
1.3 To Gain Insight To The Ways Of God
1.4 Controlling Your Control Beliefs
1.5 Keep Every Thought Captive For Christ
2. FORMATION OF BELIEF IN GOD
2.1 Testimonial Witness
2.2 Adoptive Authority
2.3 Tacit Belief
2.4 Faith Seeking Understanding
2.5 Making Sense Of It All
3. THE CHRISTIAN MIND
4. THE CHRISTIAN MANDATE
4.1 Proclamation
4.2 Apologetics
4.3 Missionary Evangelism
4.4 Conversion
4.5 Discipleship
5. THE MANDATE OF ACT
5.1. Romans 12:2
5.2. Developing A Christ-Centered Worldview
5.3 The New Christian Apologetics - Scientism & Religious Pluralism
CONCLUSION
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
The ancient Greeks used the word paideia to mean the proper formation of the educated citizen. They were interested in the development of the model citizen of a democracy and believed that philosophy – the love of wisdom – is the key to a strong and durable mind.
Early Christian thought adopted the concept behind paideia. When the gospel writers remembered Jesus’ teachings, they used paideia (those who were properly trained) instead of tekna (offsprings of people) to describe the children whom Jesus invited to himself. He then said that unless we were like paideia, we would not inherit the kingdom of God. It is this notion of what Jesus taught (paideia) that forms the foundation for the spiritual formation of the Christian mind.
At the Academy for Christian Thought (ACT), we seek to create a Theological Safe Space (TSS), a welcome space where believers and their unbelieving friends can find intellectual refuge, a space to ask questions they do not even know how to articulate, and a space where no one ought to be prematurely judged for making inquiries with tentative proposals. In such a safe space, we are all mindful of our spiritual, our emotional and our intellectual frailty. In response, we wish to encourage the Christian in his faith and offer a climate of welcome to the non-Christian who sincerely seeks to know. The call of the Christian message is to be transformed by a renewal of our minds as we consider the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Explore with us the meaning and implications of what it means to have a transforming relationship with Jesus. This transformation is the result of our quest in the formation of a Christian mind.
The formation of the Christian mind goes beyond intellectual assent: It includes the Confession, Conviction of the confession, and a Commitment to the convictional confession that Jesus is indeed Lord of our lives. To this end, ACT takes as its ministry verse, Romans 12:2 “[B]e transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is…” that you may know the will of God.
1.1 BE TRANSFORMED – BY THINKING THINGS THROUGH
The Christian mind engages with the world of ideas through at least 5 cultural spheres of influence – there are plenty of others. We refer to them as CAMPS - commerce, academia, media, politics and sports. In another seminar (CSI), we shall examine them in more detail. Here, we shall explore what it means to develop a Christian mind, to build a foundation of thought so that in matters great and small, we form the habit of thinking things through, theologically. Why theologically? Well, the moment you deem yourself a Christian, your understanding of everything takes on a theological dimension because you believe that God exists and that you have a relationship with God. This means that the things of God are ultimately of great concern to you. Your view of politics, economics, social issues, cultural matters, commercial interests, etc. are all influenced by how you view your relationship with God. Indeed, that relationship both shapes and is shaped by your understanding of the world you live in.
For example, if you say that modern American capitalism is the preferred way to operate in the financial system that we inherit, you are already making important decisions on how you would respond to the theological notion of loving your neighbor as yourself. This teaching demands that we treat another - not as we would have others treat us, but as we would treat ourselves. Ouch! Can it be possible to do just that in a near zero-sum world of economics where scarcity leads to outcomes with distinct classes of winners and losers? I gather that none of us wish to be among the losers. Yet American capitalism celebrates winners precisely because they are not losers. For the record, I believe that American capitalism is the best in the world, but it fails to meet the demands set by Jesus. We are charged to labor our minds to close this gap. We must transform the ways we value treasures and treasure what is truly valuable. Instead of merely asking whether something is beneficial to us, we might also ask if it is the right thing to do. This calls up the notion of a moral circle.
What is a moral circle?
A moral circle is the scope of persons beyond ourselves to whom we extend the courtesy of morality. You may be alarmed to learn that for most of us, our moral circles are rather small. Thus we feel obliged to behave morally to our loved ones and family but not necessarily to others outside our moral circle. Indeed, we often rationalize and construct reasons to justify why we act immorally to those who exist outside our moral circle - our professional competitors at work and school perhaps, the children of our neighbors who may end up competing with our kids for the more desirable schools or jobs, our bosses or subordinates, etc. The power of Jesus’ exposition of the second divine command – Love your neighbor as yourself – is stunning in its enlargement of the moral circle to include all of humanity.
1.2 BY RENEWING YOUR MIND
We shall explore the Pauline injunction to renew our minds. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul called upon the Christians to renew their minds. What was he talking about? Renewal presupposes some existing or extant thing that needs to change. The human mind is unable to respond adequately to God. But the grace of God enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (wills) to receive the gift of faith (belief in things unseen), which justifies us (makes us holy before God). However, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives - by the renewing of our minds.
Why the focus on the mind? This is a metaphor to describe the function of the brain. Our minds are in fact, the foundations of our beings. When we are unable to think rationally, we say that we may have ‘lost’ our minds.
The word ‘mind’ here (noos) refers to our intellect, will and emotions. ‘Renewal’ presupposes an existing or extant entity that needs change. The human mind in the sinful condition is unable to respond adequately to God unaided. It is the grace of God that enables our hearts (emotions) and minds (rationality) to receive the gift of faith, which justifies us. Yet, once we are justified, we are responsible for the growth of our Christian lives, by the renewing of our minds. Our minds are the foundations of our beings. The Danish Christian philosopher Danish Kierkegaard asks us to think thought itself. It is this exercise of taking responsibility for how and what we think that marks the essence of paideia.
The renewal of our minds liberates us to think beyond ourselves as individuals and more as persons in a special relationship with God almighty – a courtesy that God has extended to us by dint of making us in His image. This remarkable proclamation of the biblical writers suggest that we have access to, as it were, the thoughts of God in some minimal sense. It would be the height of arrogance to think that we can know God’s mind per se. Rather, we mean that God has given to Homo sapiens sapiens the capacity for emotional intelligence, rational discourse and experiential history aided by memory – which results in our common religiosity and unsettledness until we find rest in God. Our unique capacities to believe in God and to pray in hope means that we may gain insight to the ways of God.
1.3 TO GAIN INSIGHT TO THE WAYS OF GOD
Interestingly, knowing and discerning God’s will is not about mimicking another person. It is about gaining proximate thought to God’s ways by inculcating a habit of thinking about God and understanding the scriptures. No book can give us the magic formula to know God’s will and personal stories from others are at best anecdotal and may be not very helpful beyond lifting our spirits when we are down. It has become common for well-meaning Christians to share how God has apparently worked in their lives – suggesting certain formulae by which God conforms to when the almighty works in the lives of other Christians. Unfortunately, this notion that we can ‘find the will of God’ by praying harder, meditating more (quantitatively) or briefly living a ‘better’ life has infected the Christian consciousness. The noted evangelical biblical scholar, Bruce Waltke, has courageously written of many practices that Christians pass off as divine guidance – following hunches, casting lots, looking for signs, etc. Unfortunately, these attempts actually bear an unsettling resemblance to the ways pagans seek guidance. Waltke argues that the truest course to the will of God is found in faithfully answering the call to walk close to the Lord and be conformed to His likeness. All this sounds nice but here Waltke falls into the Christian habit of using language that become full of unhelpful abstractions.
What he means may be encapsulated by several spiritual habits we may inculcate:
1.3.1 Practice The Bible In Your Life
There is no substitute for reading and understanding the Bible. For most people, this is a hard and boring task. It is the great fortune for anyone to receive instruction from a gifted preacher and teacher. The preacher’s task is to inspire the listener with punch-line applicable expositions that can make specific portions of the Bible come alive. But without a way to understand how the Bible’s teachings become transformed in the mind of the preacher to become a sermon, the listener will always be at the mercy of the preacher and be vulnerable to the vagaries of his effort. The wise Christian seeks to know the mechanics of how a great sermon comes about – not in the sense of the delivery and rhetorical gifts of the preacher, but in terms of how one is to interpret the raw texts of the Bible. This is where a responsible teacher of the Bible makes her contribution. If I may use a common analogy, the preacher feeds the student with fish, but the teacher teaches the student how to fish. Indeed, good Bible teaching makes the student a better listener of a sermon. But learning the Bible is not enough. We have to learn to make its teachings a part of our everyday life. Thus obedience is the final marker of our understanding of what the Bible means.
1.3.2 Make God Your Adoptive Authority
This is a difficult concept to articulate. It refers to finding convergence between what we naturally feel drawn to what we believe God offers. We may do this by seeking out the friendship and guidance of others whom we believe have followed the teachings of God in the Bible in their lives. Of course, we may be fooled or we may fool ourselves in this venture. But nevertheless, our thoughts are more often than not shaped by the thoughts and habits of people we hang out with. We adopt the authorities of others in matters that we do not trust ourselves with. To make God your adoptive authority by being influenced by people who also make God their adoptive authorities is a crucial aspect of forming the community of faith we call the church.
1.3.3 Judge The Circumstances Of Our Lives
If God is interested in us, it is also likely that he is interested in the circumstances of our lives. Whether or not you believe that God continues to perform miracles (by the suspension of the natural laws) today, it is the teaching of the Bible that God created the universe we live in. This means that whatever contours our life takes, it is unlikely to surprise God. In fact, it is more likely the case that God anticipates our decisions, even if sometimes, we are puzzled by the outcomes. So we have to learn to judge rather than predict the circumstances of our lives.
Say, opportunities arise that permit you to take advantage of the weakness of another person in order to advance your own cause – be it at work, at school or at home. The Christian is not to blindly respond to such windows of opportunity without first judging the outcomes of his decision within the framework of God’s universal love for humanity. Will your decision violate the common dignity of humanity? Will you treat this as an opportunity to do good or to do evil. Will you take the high road or consider this merely good luck?
1.3.4 Make Sense Of Things
God made us with a powerful mind fueled by a remarkable brain. Our highly developed senses allow us to make judgments based on our power to process our experiences, recall memorable events, think through hypothetical outcomes and imagine what is not apparent. Thus we can make sense of things. We are expected to use this resource to realize what God means for us to do in many situations. Our capacity to learn and harness the knowledge from the arts and sciences provides us with crucial clues to make educated guesses. While this does not sound particularly impressive, it is in fact, great testimony to the creative power of God to make us as we are.
1.3.5 Divine Intervention?
God does not intervene in response to seeking his will. There is not a single instance of God stepping miraculously into the lives of anyone in the Bible in response to their effort of seeking God’s will – so do not bank on this as a biblically-ordained expectation. Instead, reason within the framework of your circumstances.
Although God is indeed able to perform miracles, we must not rely on miracles to guide us. The Bible itself tells us that in many instances, God did not intervene to save those whom he loved from suffering intolerable situations. Thus, while we pray for healing and the cessation of suffering for our loved ones, we must not make promises that God will respond as we expect – God’s sovereignty means that we cannot command God to act as our servant. However, God may intervene to change our perspective of a situation so that we see it differently.
But before we can even get to methods of Bible study, we ought to acknowledge that we are creatures of habit who operate under certain basic or foundational beliefs that we do not feel obliged to justify. These beliefs that we acquire over our lifetimes control all other beliefs. We call them control beliefs.
1.4 CONTROLLING YOUR CONTROL BELIEFS
What we ultimately believe in is shaped by several ‘control beliefs’ that we hold. These foundational truth-claims that we all have help us judge all other possible beliefs. An example of a control belief is that ‘God exists.’ If this is a control belief of yours, any argument to do away with the existence of God will very likely be dismissed by you because it challenges this control belief. However, if one of your control beliefs is that ‘God does not exist’, then the opposite is the case for you. Some control beliefs arise precisely because we fail to think things through – i.e., when we fail to consider the likelihood of a truth-claim with respect to our knowledge of the world and our experiences in life. The result is that a poorly thought out control belief emerges.
Why do we even have control beliefs at all? For the sake of efficiency. We cannot help but build up control beliefs. They make it easier and quicker for us to make spot decisions without having to assess everything from scratch. Experiences influence our emotional reaction to every truth-claim. Together, they help us make judgments. This means that we make up our minds with the help of at least three elements of our selves: our experiences, our rationality, and our emotions. All three play important roles in how we judge and therefore, how we believe.
For example, if we are told that God made us all and sent Jesus to redeem us of our sinful nature, we assess this claim by judging its merits to establish its veracity. Shall we believe in this claim? Our experiences as sentient beings may cause us to be open to the possibility of the existence of God, or it may not. Next, our rationality weighs the likelihood that a supreme being that created us exists. This may be aided by study, knowledge gained from others, or our ability to postulate. Finally, our emotional makeup at each moment prepares us to be either more or less receptive to the emotional outcome of belief or disbelief. All these are purely human responses. We are unable to comment on the metaphysical responses not because there are none but because we have no access to their workings. Perhaps God supernaturally cause each of us at particular instances in time to posses the specific combination of experiential, rational and emotional characteristics that lead to a specific judgment that renders our belief or disbelief what they are. If so, we are robots of God’s will. I think God really provided us with a level of free will. This means we possess the awful power to reject God. We alone enjoy the power to control our control beliefs. No one can tell us to believe or disbelieve in God as a control belief. Only we can do so.
1.5 KEEP EVERY THOUGHT CAPTIVE FOR CHRIST
In our desire to learn, our thoughts and judgments are exposed to a variety of thoughts. If we are to make a commitment to our conviction that causes us to confess that Jesus is Lord, then every thought that we think is subject to this commitment. How do we do this? By asking ourselves if what we intentionally spend time thinking about is good, holy, pure and worthy of our call to live a Christian life. This means to have our security and significance linked to our status as children of God rather than humans competitively seeking to win at all costs.
Consider the workplace. We work to make money to pay the bills and enhance the economic quality of our lives. Unfortunately, the secular standards of the world operate under a system of incentivization that rewards us for visible tokens of success, not concerned with how we achieve these marks of achievement. So if, as a sales person, you outsell your fellow sales persons, you get more commissions. But if you do so by cheating or taking unfair advantages, the company rarely cares because its goal is to enhance the bottom line. But the Christian mind cares. For the Christian, her security is based on the fact that she is bound to enter the presence of God when she dies and her significance is based on being loved by her creator. Under these circumstances, the lure of incentives at the workplace takes a different meaning. There is a moral standard and a moral lawgiver that guides her responses to rewards. Now her thoughts about whether to advance in her career by a particular manner is guided by her thoughts, thoughts which are now free to follow the standards set by Christ. Did you say free? Yes, our default position is to be enslaved by the standards of the secular world, which tells us that our security is entirely based on our access to material wealth, and our significance is based on the respect that we gain from others (envy index (I coined the term envy index to describe what I call the postcard syndrome – we tend to enjoy our vacations more if we can persuade others that we have having a good time (whether or not this is true), hence, then postcard. This leads to a larger theory about the incentives we respond to In our social dealings. There seems to be nothing more satisfying that being informed that others are envious of us because they wish they enjoyed what we enjoy. This is true whether it involves cars, apartments or children.)
Our thoughts are what often get us in trouble and they are not neutral. To the extent that we proactively shape what we think, to that extent we are in firm control of our minds. To receive the Lordship of Christ in our lives begin with placing our very minds at the altar of Christ. This simply means that we choose to focus our attention on things that pertain to the calling of the Christian mind. I am well aware that this is an ideal rather than an achievable reality. Like the Ten Commandments, this command to make every thought captive for Christ is a rhetorical device to show that by ourselves, we are weak. It affirms that we are inadequate to meet the demands of God. Each of us needs to turn to the Lord in humility – precisely because on a day-to-day basis, none of us can meet the demands of God. Our minds do turn to quite unholy thoughts and we luxuriate in what we already know to be impure thinking. It is this acknowledgment that marks the starting point of desiring to change the way we think.
[This has been adapted from chater 1 of the manual from the ACT seminar - Paideia. Visit www.actministry.org for details]
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1. PAIDEIA - FORMING THE CHRISTIAN MIND
1.1 Be Transformed – By Thinking Things Through
1.2 By Renewing Your Mind
1.3 To Gain Insight To The Ways Of God
1.4 Controlling Your Control Beliefs
1.5 Keep Every Thought Captive For Christ
2. FORMATION OF BELIEF IN GOD
2.1 Testimonial Witness
2.2 Adoptive Authority
2.3 Tacit Belief
2.4 Faith Seeking Understanding
2.5 Making Sense Of It All
3. THE CHRISTIAN MIND
4. THE CHRISTIAN MANDATE
4.1 Proclamation
4.2 Apologetics
4.3 Missionary Evangelism
4.4 Conversion
4.5 Discipleship
5. THE MANDATE OF ACT
5.1. Romans 12:2
5.2. Developing A Christ-Centered Worldview
5.3 The New Christian Apologetics - Scientism & Religious Pluralism
CONCLUSION
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
Sunday, July 08, 2007
ACT in Malaysia
I shall be launching Project Timothy Tutor-Training in Malaysia in August/September and offer a couple of seminars as well. The topics are TBA. Please contact Community Baptist Church in Petaling Jaya for details.
Monday, December 11, 2006
A Theological Doctrine of Evangelism & Missions
The Christian Great Commission found in Matthew 28:18-20 is the primary passage from the Bible used to explain what we mean by evangelism and missions. However, it curiously leaves out the words ‘preaching’ and ‘conversion’, which are assumed. Instead, the Church is to make disciples of all nations.
The task of the Christian Church is to
• know the gospel,
• proclaim it responsibly and
• disciple believers in a growing faith.
Evangelism comes from the Greek word euanggelion, which means the Good News. One who evangelizes is one who proclaims that good news that God is revealed in Jesus. He took on the burden of the human condition and consequence of our sin. In his death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed us into the presence (panim) of God.
Evangelism has come to mean sharing the gospel within the local community, as Jesus himself did. However, after His resurrection, Jesus sent his disciples out to preach the good news to the entire world. This became known as missions, the evangelism of communities outside the local region.
Today, the difference between the terms evangelism and missions has become almost nonexistent. For example, Billy Graham is known as an evangelist as he preaches all over the United States. However, when he visits foreign countries to do exactly the same thing, it is called a missionary activity and the BGEA calls all its major activities missions.
In this age of international travel, even the terms foreign and local lose much of its distinctive. It used to be that a Church regards foreign missions as sharing the gospel with non-Americans. There are millions of non-Americans visiting or residing in the United States and many million Americans visiting or living abroad.
• Is sharing the gospel with American soldiers in Saudi Arabian military bases evangelism or missions?
• Is sharing the gospel with foreign businessmen working in Wall Street evangelism or missions?
• What about long-term non-citizens like the staff of the United Nations Secretariat, who are not allowed to take U.S. citizenship if they serve their country and while living on U.S. soil, work on property that is not legally part of the U.S.
If evangelism and missions are pretty much the same thing nowadays, what about sharing the gospel with those who do not know it or have heard wrong teachings about the gospel (which may include some church goers)? Is such clarification and teaching also a part of evangelism or missions?
At ACT, we seek to evangelize, serve missionally, teach and disciple in a climate fostering a theological safe-space, where sincere questions about the mystery of faith are welcome.
For example:
• Why is Jesus is the only way.
• I cannot believe in miracles.
• Christianity is unscientific.
• Christianity is intolerant of other religions.
• Why does the Bible refer to discipleship of the nations?
The Great Commission
Jesus said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20
1. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Jesus claims authority over the metaphysical and the physical universe, over the sciences and the arts, music, literature, history, geography, psychology, etc. There is no exception to the command He is about to give. No government or culture and withstand this command. We claim the uniqueness, sufficiency, and finality of Jesus Christ. What this means is that it is nothing short of divine authority that paves the way for our own moral authority to preach the gospel despite our own sinfulness. We do not evangelize in shame.
2. Go therefore. It is only because of the authority that Jesus claimed that we dare to go...therefore, not go because I feel like it, not because I have compassion for the suffering, or go because I am fed up with my day job, or since my father is a missionary, I ought to do just that to make him happy, etc. Full-time Christian work is far too important to be a standby or backup career move. We are to serve the Church, not have the Church serve our egos. The Christian mission is the clue to world history, claims Lesslie Newbigin. How any Christian behaves and acts in his or her workplace shapes the movement of world history. We have the privilege and opportunity to participate in making the world what it will be when we share a common vision of what is real and true.
3. and make disciples of all nations. The proclamation of the gospel is a given, but the making of disciples is difficult to do and easy to ignore. However, several consequences result from the focus on the discipleship of nations rather then mere individuals: (1) Discipleship of nations does not strictly refer to nation-states but also speaks at first instance to the transformation of communities of peoples in cities, or buildings, or homes. To truly disciple an individual is to disciple his community. (2) The gospel must be able to transform not just individual thoughts but entire worldviews, shaping the culture of belief. Stephen L. Carter wrote The Culture of Disbelief to call America back from an institutionalized culture of skepticism. Yet, even just such a culture of disbelief reflects a culture of belief, in of skepticism in spiritual matters. We cannot escape believing. The collective web of beliefs forms the structure of worldviews. Some are coherent while others are not. Even coherent ones can be erroneous if based on incorrect suppositions. Developing a comprehensive and biblical worldview is the prime duty of a thinking Christian. (3) To make disciples of all nations also means to transcend geography, history, culture, language, politics, economics, and even genetic pedigree. Jesus makes the alarming claim that the Jews, his own people, are not to be isolated from the rest of the world. In the context of his recent execution and suffering because of the proclamation of the gospel, he now commands his eleven remaining disciples to risk their very lives to bring the good news to their enemies and all the non-Jewish peoples of the world. This was the scandal of the Great Commission. (3) The words of the command show that the true missionary is the Holy Spirit. Conversion is not the explicit task or power of the Church but only the Spirit, as the true evangelist and missionary, can turn the hearts of people to Christ. This at once relieves our guilt about how many we can convert in our lifetimes and humbles our pride in how many we think we have converted in our lifetimes. It moderates any religious fanaticism and purifies any misguided motivation for evangelism/missions. (4) Emerging from the Middle East, the gospel went in all directions. In the recent past, we have come to realize that the West is once again a mission field. You can strategise how you wish to be an evangelist/missionary right here where you live, in the West
4. baptizing them. This public declaration reflects what is already inside the mind (cognition) and heart (emotion) of the believer. It confers mystical benefits and binds one into a community of mutual accountability. Converts from other religions realize the power of just such an act of obedience to demonstrate their break from the slavery to religion and an embrace of a relationship to the creator of the universe.
5. in the name of the Father and of the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. This Trinitarian formula imposes a public commitment to the confession that Jesus is Lord, and not just the generic notion of God, and that the Spirit is out guide, not just an attribute of the divine. No longer is it sufficient to go to the temple to pray to God. God is now revealed as three persons, so that the Trinity has to be the necessary starting point of preaching to the non-Christian. Jesus cannot be understood apart from his being as the second person, the Logos, of the Trinity.
6. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. We are charged with being messengers of the message. We teach because that is the best way to remember what we have learned. Where two or more are gathered, there is the Church: The Church as Apostle to the World reflects the role of the community of believers (not individuals) as the one who brings the Good News.
7. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. We will never have to live as one who is alone again. All that we do to accomplish the task of discipling all nations is in fact, one of being witnesses to the power of the Spirit. The Church is not promised success; it is promised the peace of Christ in the midst of tribulation, and the witness of the Spirit given out of the Church’s weakness for we are to be of good cheer, because Jesus has overcome the world.
Who are the evangelists/missionaries in the Old Testament?
Israel was elected for missional service. When this service is withheld, election loses its meaning. Abraham was to be a blessing of all nations. God is God of the entire world so that the history of Israel can only be understood as part of world history. Jonah is a prime biblical example to symbolize the people of biblical Israel, who have perverted their election into pride and privilege. In the story of Jonah stands the story of God calling his elect to repentance. If there is a missionary in the Old Testament, it is God himself!
What sort of proclamation do Christians engage in?
If the whole history of the pagan nations is in the hands of God, then Christian Missions must account for world history. God is interested in the world, not just the Church. Missions must prepare for direct engagement with every avenue of the human enterprise.
While we must not allow the success of the Church to be judged by the direction of world history, we must not be insensitive to the cry of world affairs in issues of injustice, exploitation and untruth.
The task of the Christian Church is to
• know the gospel,
• proclaim it responsibly and
• disciple believers in a growing faith.
Evangelism comes from the Greek word euanggelion, which means the Good News. One who evangelizes is one who proclaims that good news that God is revealed in Jesus. He took on the burden of the human condition and consequence of our sin. In his death and resurrection, Jesus redeemed us into the presence (panim) of God.
Evangelism has come to mean sharing the gospel within the local community, as Jesus himself did. However, after His resurrection, Jesus sent his disciples out to preach the good news to the entire world. This became known as missions, the evangelism of communities outside the local region.
Today, the difference between the terms evangelism and missions has become almost nonexistent. For example, Billy Graham is known as an evangelist as he preaches all over the United States. However, when he visits foreign countries to do exactly the same thing, it is called a missionary activity and the BGEA calls all its major activities missions.
In this age of international travel, even the terms foreign and local lose much of its distinctive. It used to be that a Church regards foreign missions as sharing the gospel with non-Americans. There are millions of non-Americans visiting or residing in the United States and many million Americans visiting or living abroad.
• Is sharing the gospel with American soldiers in Saudi Arabian military bases evangelism or missions?
• Is sharing the gospel with foreign businessmen working in Wall Street evangelism or missions?
• What about long-term non-citizens like the staff of the United Nations Secretariat, who are not allowed to take U.S. citizenship if they serve their country and while living on U.S. soil, work on property that is not legally part of the U.S.
If evangelism and missions are pretty much the same thing nowadays, what about sharing the gospel with those who do not know it or have heard wrong teachings about the gospel (which may include some church goers)? Is such clarification and teaching also a part of evangelism or missions?
At ACT, we seek to evangelize, serve missionally, teach and disciple in a climate fostering a theological safe-space, where sincere questions about the mystery of faith are welcome.
For example:
• Why is Jesus is the only way.
• I cannot believe in miracles.
• Christianity is unscientific.
• Christianity is intolerant of other religions.
• Why does the Bible refer to discipleship of the nations?
The Great Commission
Jesus said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Matthew 28:18-20
1. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Jesus claims authority over the metaphysical and the physical universe, over the sciences and the arts, music, literature, history, geography, psychology, etc. There is no exception to the command He is about to give. No government or culture and withstand this command. We claim the uniqueness, sufficiency, and finality of Jesus Christ. What this means is that it is nothing short of divine authority that paves the way for our own moral authority to preach the gospel despite our own sinfulness. We do not evangelize in shame.
2. Go therefore. It is only because of the authority that Jesus claimed that we dare to go...therefore, not go because I feel like it, not because I have compassion for the suffering, or go because I am fed up with my day job, or since my father is a missionary, I ought to do just that to make him happy, etc. Full-time Christian work is far too important to be a standby or backup career move. We are to serve the Church, not have the Church serve our egos. The Christian mission is the clue to world history, claims Lesslie Newbigin. How any Christian behaves and acts in his or her workplace shapes the movement of world history. We have the privilege and opportunity to participate in making the world what it will be when we share a common vision of what is real and true.
3. and make disciples of all nations. The proclamation of the gospel is a given, but the making of disciples is difficult to do and easy to ignore. However, several consequences result from the focus on the discipleship of nations rather then mere individuals: (1) Discipleship of nations does not strictly refer to nation-states but also speaks at first instance to the transformation of communities of peoples in cities, or buildings, or homes. To truly disciple an individual is to disciple his community. (2) The gospel must be able to transform not just individual thoughts but entire worldviews, shaping the culture of belief. Stephen L. Carter wrote The Culture of Disbelief to call America back from an institutionalized culture of skepticism. Yet, even just such a culture of disbelief reflects a culture of belief, in of skepticism in spiritual matters. We cannot escape believing. The collective web of beliefs forms the structure of worldviews. Some are coherent while others are not. Even coherent ones can be erroneous if based on incorrect suppositions. Developing a comprehensive and biblical worldview is the prime duty of a thinking Christian. (3) To make disciples of all nations also means to transcend geography, history, culture, language, politics, economics, and even genetic pedigree. Jesus makes the alarming claim that the Jews, his own people, are not to be isolated from the rest of the world. In the context of his recent execution and suffering because of the proclamation of the gospel, he now commands his eleven remaining disciples to risk their very lives to bring the good news to their enemies and all the non-Jewish peoples of the world. This was the scandal of the Great Commission. (3) The words of the command show that the true missionary is the Holy Spirit. Conversion is not the explicit task or power of the Church but only the Spirit, as the true evangelist and missionary, can turn the hearts of people to Christ. This at once relieves our guilt about how many we can convert in our lifetimes and humbles our pride in how many we think we have converted in our lifetimes. It moderates any religious fanaticism and purifies any misguided motivation for evangelism/missions. (4) Emerging from the Middle East, the gospel went in all directions. In the recent past, we have come to realize that the West is once again a mission field. You can strategise how you wish to be an evangelist/missionary right here where you live, in the West
4. baptizing them. This public declaration reflects what is already inside the mind (cognition) and heart (emotion) of the believer. It confers mystical benefits and binds one into a community of mutual accountability. Converts from other religions realize the power of just such an act of obedience to demonstrate their break from the slavery to religion and an embrace of a relationship to the creator of the universe.
5. in the name of the Father and of the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. This Trinitarian formula imposes a public commitment to the confession that Jesus is Lord, and not just the generic notion of God, and that the Spirit is out guide, not just an attribute of the divine. No longer is it sufficient to go to the temple to pray to God. God is now revealed as three persons, so that the Trinity has to be the necessary starting point of preaching to the non-Christian. Jesus cannot be understood apart from his being as the second person, the Logos, of the Trinity.
6. teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. We are charged with being messengers of the message. We teach because that is the best way to remember what we have learned. Where two or more are gathered, there is the Church: The Church as Apostle to the World reflects the role of the community of believers (not individuals) as the one who brings the Good News.
7. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. We will never have to live as one who is alone again. All that we do to accomplish the task of discipling all nations is in fact, one of being witnesses to the power of the Spirit. The Church is not promised success; it is promised the peace of Christ in the midst of tribulation, and the witness of the Spirit given out of the Church’s weakness for we are to be of good cheer, because Jesus has overcome the world.
Who are the evangelists/missionaries in the Old Testament?
Israel was elected for missional service. When this service is withheld, election loses its meaning. Abraham was to be a blessing of all nations. God is God of the entire world so that the history of Israel can only be understood as part of world history. Jonah is a prime biblical example to symbolize the people of biblical Israel, who have perverted their election into pride and privilege. In the story of Jonah stands the story of God calling his elect to repentance. If there is a missionary in the Old Testament, it is God himself!
What sort of proclamation do Christians engage in?
If the whole history of the pagan nations is in the hands of God, then Christian Missions must account for world history. God is interested in the world, not just the Church. Missions must prepare for direct engagement with every avenue of the human enterprise.
While we must not allow the success of the Church to be judged by the direction of world history, we must not be insensitive to the cry of world affairs in issues of injustice, exploitation and untruth.
The Science of Archaeology & the Old Testament
This is a brief explanation of how science helps us understand the Bible. The full ACT seminar in New York will be delivered in 2007. This lecture was delivered at the December 2006 session of Project Timothy at City University of New York’s Hunter College in Manhattan.
Archaeology is the study of antiquity by examining material remains of past human life and activities. It uses modern scientific methods to recover these material remains and infer the meaning of the past, of ancient humans, and his environment. But archaeology is not an exact science – in fact, no science is an exact science. The only exact field of inquiry is mathematics, and that is not strictly speaking, a science.
Biblical archaeology operates at the intersection of theology and history with the tools of science expressed in technology. It shows vividly the importance of science for religion. This interaction is an important element of ‘iron sharpening iron.’ The art and science of biblical archaeology exposes both the science of religion and the religion of science. No religion exists without an appeal to the scientific explanation of reality. By the same token, no science can thrive without faith in even though scientific progress demands the demise of previous achievements.
Old Testament archaeology is the selection of evidence for these regions and periods in which the peoples of the times lived. Why is archaeology important to Old Testament studies? They provide extra-biblical confirmation of many details of biblical history and acts as correctives to many erroneous interpretations. This means that the art and science of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics relies a great deal on inferences we draw from archaeology. Hence, our understanding of the sciences as well as the artistic imagination of the human mind shapes the way we interpret archaeological evidence. This in turn shapes our interpretation of the Bible itself.
Archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds.
In Palestine, of the 6000+ archaeological sites that have been surveyed only about 200 have been excavated to some extent, with around 30 sites excavated to any major extent. Of the estimated 1 million documents recovered from OT times, less than 10% have been published. The typical time between recovery and publication is 10 years since almost all archaeologists work only during the summer months, when they are not teaching. The precise locations of many OT places remain in dispute because of uncertainty and changing local names.
3 Points to remember:
1. Archaeology is essential to properly understand the historical context of the Bible. The Bible relates a literary, elitist version of the religion of Israel, whereas archaeology reveals the social context of Israelite religion, including folk religion and counterculture.
2. The Bible, while not a book of history, should be considered a book with elements of history. Despite the ideological slant of the biblical authors, the Bible contains verifiable historical data.
3. Archaeology cannot either prove or disprove the Bible.
Archaeology is the study of antiquity by examining material remains of past human life and activities. It uses modern scientific methods to recover these material remains and infer the meaning of the past, of ancient humans, and his environment. But archaeology is not an exact science – in fact, no science is an exact science. The only exact field of inquiry is mathematics, and that is not strictly speaking, a science.
Biblical archaeology operates at the intersection of theology and history with the tools of science expressed in technology. It shows vividly the importance of science for religion. This interaction is an important element of ‘iron sharpening iron.’ The art and science of biblical archaeology exposes both the science of religion and the religion of science. No religion exists without an appeal to the scientific explanation of reality. By the same token, no science can thrive without faith in even though scientific progress demands the demise of previous achievements.
Old Testament archaeology is the selection of evidence for these regions and periods in which the peoples of the times lived. Why is archaeology important to Old Testament studies? They provide extra-biblical confirmation of many details of biblical history and acts as correctives to many erroneous interpretations. This means that the art and science of biblical exegesis and hermeneutics relies a great deal on inferences we draw from archaeology. Hence, our understanding of the sciences as well as the artistic imagination of the human mind shapes the way we interpret archaeological evidence. This in turn shapes our interpretation of the Bible itself.
Archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds.
In Palestine, of the 6000+ archaeological sites that have been surveyed only about 200 have been excavated to some extent, with around 30 sites excavated to any major extent. Of the estimated 1 million documents recovered from OT times, less than 10% have been published. The typical time between recovery and publication is 10 years since almost all archaeologists work only during the summer months, when they are not teaching. The precise locations of many OT places remain in dispute because of uncertainty and changing local names.
3 Points to remember:
1. Archaeology is essential to properly understand the historical context of the Bible. The Bible relates a literary, elitist version of the religion of Israel, whereas archaeology reveals the social context of Israelite religion, including folk religion and counterculture.
2. The Bible, while not a book of history, should be considered a book with elements of history. Despite the ideological slant of the biblical authors, the Bible contains verifiable historical data.
3. Archaeology cannot either prove or disprove the Bible.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Introducing act-asia.blogspot.com
The ACT-Asia blog has been launched. Please visit us in the near future as we post on topics concerning the influence of Greek philosophy on the development of Christian doctrines.
www.act-asia.blogspot.com
www.act-asia.blogspot.com
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Inter-Testamental Period of Palestina
A brief history of 'Palestina' during the period between the Old and New Testaments.
Introduction
What happened in the biblical lands during the period book-ended by accounts mentioned in the Old Testament and the New Testament writings? In the Prostestant canon of 66 books, which excludes tha Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, not much is stated regarding events after the return of some of the exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem. The New Testament begins with annunciation to Mary, that she will bear a child who is to be named Jesus.
Please note that while the OT describes events up until the 500s B.C., their dates of composition are largely undetermined with certainty. Similarly, the NT describes events from about 4 B.C. but they were first composed around the 50s A.D. The inter-testamental period therefore covers a period in excess of 500 years. To put this in perspective, it spans a period from the time of William Shakespeare to our own time.
This is the reason why students of the Bible find the resources of this period very important to set biblical history in context. It also greatly aids our interpretation of texts we encounter in both the OT and the NT. A study of this period also links biblical history to secular socio-political history of the Near East and affirms many of the historical claims found in both the testaments.
Powers that ruled Palestina
539-331 B.C. Persian Rule
331-143 B.C. Grecian Rule
142-63 B.C. Hasmodean Rule
63-4 B.C. Roman Rule
The Rise of Cyrus (626-539 B.C.)
The death of the Assyrian King Asshur-bani-pal in 626 B.C. set in motion a series of political events in the Near East that led to the surprising emergence of Cyrus of Anshan (tributary to the Medes) less than a hundred years later. By 608 B.C., Judah, which had been under Assyrian control, was now ruled by Egypt. But this did not last very long.
In 605 B.C., Pharaoh Necho was soundly defeated at the great battle of Carchemish by the upstart Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, who was destined to lead Babylonia to replace Assyria as the superpower. Misled by Egypt, King Jehoiakim of Judah revolted against Babylon in 597 B.C. despite the protests of the prophet Jeremiah. Jehoiakim died before the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar. His son Jehoiachin reigned for only 3 months – his singular achievement being the decision to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar. He was taken captive and died in Babylonia. His uncle Zedekiah was appointed the new puppet-king of Judah. After 10 years, Zedekiah himself was enticed by the Egyptians to revolt against Babylonia. This time, the response from Babylonia was staggering. King Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in 586 B.C., sending yet another wave of captives into exile – destroying any remnant of the monarchy or of the nation of Judah.
Gedaliah was appointed governor of Judah with Jeremiah as the Babylonian-approved prophet. However, one Ishmael murdered the governor and his entourage, prompting a surviving senior official, Johanan, son of Kareah, to flee to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with him for safety (Jer. 41:11-18). The situation for the Jews was politically hopeless. They looked to the kingdom of Media for possible salvation, hoping that it could topple Babylonia. But that was not to be. Instead, Judah’s savior was an unknown warrior named Cyrus.
In 550 B.C. Cyrus of Anshan revolted against King Astyages of Media and succeeded when the Median army mutinied and handed its own king to Cyrus, who was then crowned the new king of the Medes. Three years later, Cyrus became known as king of Persia. This double achievement marked the emergence of the Medo-Persian Empire - the greatest civilization in the world to date, stretching from modern Iran in the east to Europe in the west, and to Ethiopia in the south. Alarmed by this supreme warrior, Babylonia allied with Lydia, Egypt and Sparta to put a stop to the Persian expansion.
In 547 B.C. Croesus of Lydia crossed the river Halys, which marked the eastern boundary of his jurisdiction and attacked the Persians. He then retired to Sardis to spend out the winter, agreeing with his three allies to join forces in the spring against Cyrus. To avoid having to fight on several fronts, Cyrus did not wait. He followed Croesus to Sardis and roundly defeated the Lydians. The Delphian oracle was reported to have told Croesus that if he crossed the river Halys he would destroy a mighty empire. He did. It was his own.
The next kingdom to fall to Cyrus was Armenia. This was subsequently followed by Babylonia itself. The last king of Babylonia was the scholarly Nabonidus, who set himself up in retirement while his regent, Belshazzar, ruled Babylonia. In 539 B.C. Cyrus advanced to defeat the army of the fabled empire, to become … also, king of Babylonia.
From a biblical and theological perspective, it was as if the short-lived Babylonian empire (605-539 B.C.) emerged specifically to punish the Judeans until God was ready for their return to Judah.
1. Persian Rule: 539-331 B.C.
1.1 Persian Strength: 539-423 B.C.
Cyrus of Persia defeated the Babylonians and permitted the dispersed nations to return to their homelands. The Jews (Judeans) returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judah under Zerubabbel in 538 B.C. and under Ezra in 457 B.C. Nehemiah came to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in 444 B.C. and remained in Jerusalem until 433 B.C., when he returned to Persia, before a final return back to Judah in 423 B.C.
1.2 Persian Decline: 423-331 B.C.
Darius II protected the Jews from Egypt but his son, Artaxerxes II defiled the temple at Jerusalem. He imposed heavy fines on the Jews but the Samaritans escaped persecution. In the end, he was poisoned to death. His son, Arses, was made king.
Arses himself was murdered and was succeeded by Darius III. This new king himself escaped death by poisoning. But soon after his ascension, the Macedonians threatened Persia.
Philip II, of Macedon was murdered as he prepared to battle the Persians. His son Alexander III, the Great avenged this setback when he defeated Darius III, and went on to carve out the Greek Empire which his father began in 338 B.C. (not to be confused with the Greek Democracy, 403-338 B.C., which followed the Greek Tyranny of the Thirty Tyrants, 404-403 B.C.).
2. Grecian Rule: 331-143 B.C.
2.1 Alexander III, the Great: 331-323 B.C.
At the age of 20, Alexander took to the throne and soon consolidated the Hellenic League. In Palestine, he permitted the Jews to keep their religious practices. Some say this was because he believed them when they informed him that the rise of Greece as destroyer of Persia was prophesied in the sacred book of Daniel. He went on to conquer territory all the way to India, where he sustained fatal battle wounds and died before he could return to Macedonia.
2.2 Ptolemaic Rule: 323-198 B.C.
2.2.1 Division of the empire: 323-301 B.C.
At his death, Alexander failed to appoint a successor. This set off a power grab among his generals. A compromised reached was the co-rulership of his half-sane brother Arrhidaeus (renamed Philip) and his Bactrian wife, Roxanne, with general Perdiccas as regent. The empire was divided into more than 20 satrapies.
The satrap Ptolemy of Egypt seized the body of Alexander in Syria as it was being transported to Macedonia for burial. He had the body of Alexander buried in Egypt. In response, general Perdiccas attacked Egypt but was killed in the attempt by the mutiny of his own generals, among whom was Seleucus. The regency of Perdiccas was replaced by Antipater, and later, by Antigonus I Monopthalmus (the one-eyed), who wanted to ‘unify’ the empire directly under himself.
Seleucus of Babylonia formed a coalition with the satraps Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander against the regent Antigonus. In 311 B.C., following a series of battles between Antigonus and the alliance of four, Selecus was acknowledged ruler of Babylonia. This was the beginning of the Seleucid empire.
When the dust settled and Antigonus died in battle in 301 B.C. these four commanders inherited the empire of Alexander:
1. Ptolemy I Soter ruled Egypt and Palestine from his capital in Alexandria. He died in 283 B.C. It was this dynasty that he began which the Romans finally defeated in 31 B.C. at the battle of Actium, signaling the end of the Hellenistic period.
2. Seleucus I Nicator ruled Syria and Phrygia as far as the Indus from his capital in Antioch
3. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and Bithynia, and
4. Cassander ruled Macedonia for only 4 years before his death in 297 B.C. Macedon was eventually lost to the descendents of Antigonus, founder of the Antigonid dynasty, one of the three Hellenistic dynasties along with the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid.
The division of Alexander’s empire among the four satraps
In 22 years Palestine changed hands 6 times.
Ptolemy I Soter, king of Hellenistic Egypt
2.2.2 Domination of the Ptolemies, 301-198 B.C.
Following the fourfold division of Alexander’s old empire, a short peace ensued. But in 282 B.C. Ptolemy I Soter died and was succeeded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. In 281 B.C. Seleucus was restless to gain control of his beloved Macedonia, so he crossed the Hellespont and invaded Europe, in violation of the common agreement of the four satraps. But he was soon assassinated and succeeded by his son, Antiochus I Soter. In the confusion, Antigonus Gonatus, son of Demetrius of the Antigonid household, gained control of Macedon.
The result was the survival of three superpower dynasties :
The house of Seleucus over Babylon, Upper Syria and Asia Minor
The house of Ptolemy over Egypt and Lower Syria
The house of Antigonus over Europe
Disagreements over who should rule over Lower Syria (Coele-Syria) erupted between the houses of Ptolemy (Ptolemy II) and Seleucus (Antiochus I) and the first of the four Syrian wars ensued.
2.2.2.1 The First Syrian War, c.273 B.C.
2.2.2.2 The Second Syrian War, c.250s B.C.
2.2.2.3 The Third Syrian War, 246-241 B.C.
2.2.2.4 The Fourth Syrian War, 219-217 B.C.
In 201 B.C., the fate of the Jews would change. Antiochus III invaded Palestine and captured Gaza. In defeat, Ptolemy V granted the Jews freedom of worship, released their prisoners and exempted temple officials from tax. But this was to last only 3 years. From 198 B.C. until Roman control in 63 B.C., the Jews came under the Seleucid dynasty, and soon experienced fierce persecution.
2.3 Seleucid Rule: 198-143 B.C.
Selecus I Nicator
2.3.1 Seleucid Control: 198-168 B.C.
In 197 B.C., the successors of the two dynasties made peace. Antiochus III, the Great made a treaty with Ptolemy V Epiphanes in which Ptolemy would marry Antiochus’ daughter, Cleopatra. He hoped that any future grandson of his from this marriage might rule Egypt with a positive disposition to the Seleucids, the people on his mother’s side.
In 187 B.C., Antiochus III was succeeded by his son, Seleucus IV Philopator. Seleucus IV was assassinated by Heliodorus in 175 B.C. Another son of Antiochus III, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, avenged his brother’s death and made himself king. The priests in Jerusalem formed rival factions, with the pro-Ptolemaic high priest Onias challenged by his pro-Seleucid brother Jason. In 174 B.C., Antiochus IV made Jason the high priest after he offered a larger bribe to the king than his brother Onias and promising to make a wholesale Hellenization of the Jerusalemites (1 Macc. 1:10-15; 2 Macc. 4:4-17). However, in 171 B.C. Jason lost his office to Menelaus who offered an even larger bribe to the king. Menelaus plundered the temple and was attacked by Jason and his supporters. He took refuge in Acra. When Antiochus himself also stole from the temple, this stirred up the wrath of the people and led to the Maccabean Revolt.
2.3.2 Maccabean Revolt: 168-143 B.C.
2.3.2.1 Antiochus’ Vengeance: 168-166 B.C.
To appease the might of Rome, Antiochus put pressure on the Jews to abandon their national religion in favor of Hellenization. He ordered the destruction of copies of the Torah and commanded the Jews to eat swine meat. The observance of the Sabbath was forbidden.
2.3.2.2 Mattathias: 166 B.C.
While every Palestinian village was ordered to set up a heathen altar for ritual sacrifice, in the village of Modein, a priest named Mattathias refused to comply. When another Jew offered to do so in his place before the king’s agent, Mattathias killed both the other Jew and the agent. He also tore down the altar and declared his resistance to Antiochus, calling for supporters to join him and his 5 sons (John, Simon, Judas , Eleazar, and Jonathan) as they fled to the mountains. The Hasidim sect joined them to begin the Maccabean revolt , the struggle to resist Hellenization of the Jews. They did not hesitate to kill fellow Jews who complied with Antiochus. When Mattathias died in 166 B.C., his third son Judas took over the leadership.
2.3.2.3 Judas Maccabeus: 166-160 B.C.
Within 2 years, Judas had regained almost the entire region of Palestine except for Acra. In 164 B.C., he marched into Jerusalem and restored the temple. He replaced the pagan altar with a Jewish one and appointed priests who resisted the Seleucids. Finally, he reinstituted the practice of daily sacrifices at the temple. This marked the beginning of the Jewish Feast of Dedication (Light) – what today, we refer to as Hanukkah.
Although Judas was defeated by Antiochus V Eupator, who succeeded his father Antiochus IV, rumors of a pending attack on Syria by the Persians led to a relaxing of the terms of surrender. The Jews were given back their religious freedom even though they were still under Syrian rule. However, when Judas pressed for political freedom, he was met with another wave of enforced Hellenization upon the Jews. Relief came from another quarter.
In 162 B.C. Antiochus V was murdered by his cousin, Demetrius I Soter, who became king. He confirmed the appointment of Alcimus as high priest for the Jews. Alcimus was originally welcomed by the Hasidim who were prepared to break off from Judas as long as the high priest favored their concerns. But Alcimus reneged on his word and killed 60 Hasidim. Warfare broke out between Judas and the Syrian authorities, resulting in the death of Judas in 160 B.C. at the battle of Elasa.
2.3.2.4 Jonathan: 160-143 B.C.
Jonathan, the youngest brother of Judas, took over a badly demoralized army and his resistance movement made Michmash its new headquarters. His rule was helped by internal quarrels in Syria. When Alexander Balas challenged Demetrius I for the throne of Syria, Jonathan supported Alexander.
In 150 B.C., Alexander killed Demetrius I in battle and became king of Syria. He rewarded Jonathan with the triple title of governor, general and high priest of Judah.
In 145B.C., Demetrius II Nicator, son of Demetrius I, killed Alexander for the throne.
In 143 B.C. the army of Demetrius rebelled, led by general Diodotus Tryphon, who claimed the Syrian throne for Alexander Balas’ son, Antiochus VI. Jonathan supported Tryphon and was rewarded with authority over both the civil and religious aspects of Jewish life. His brother Simon was made commander of the military. But, fearful of Jonathan’s increasing power, Tryphon had Jonathan murdered that same year.
3. Hasmonean Rule: 142-63 B.C.
The Hasmonean rule marks the success of the Maccabean revolt in establishing Israel’s independence, sort of. The Hasmonean dynasty refers to the period of Simon’s rule until 63 B.C.
3.1 Simon: 143-135 B.C.
In Syria, Tryphon killed Antiochus VI and reigned in his place as a rival to Demetrius. II. Since Tryphon killed his brother Jonathan, Simon aligned himself with Demetrius II. In return, he was given authority over southern Syria, of which he had little control anyway. Simon seized the fortress of Gazzara, expelled the Gentiles living there, and replaced them with Jewish settlements. He appointed his son John Hyrcanus as governor. Commemorating Simon’s achievements, the Jews in 140 B.C. made him high priest forever, until a faithful prophet should arise. This was a major change in the lineage of the Jewish high priesthood. It was formerly of the house of Onias, until 174 B.C., when Jason bribed his way to acquire it, and the Syrian king became the benefactor of the office. Now it belongs to the line of the Hasmoneans, i.e., the line of Simon.
In 139 B.C., Antiochus VII Sidetes took over from Demetrius II, who was captured by the Parthians. When Simon lost interest in helping the new king, he was marked for assassination. He survived the attempt, only to be killed along with his two sons by his own son-in-law, Ptolemy, in 135 B.C. Simon’s second son, John Hyrcanus I, avoided capture and took over from his father.
3.2 Hyrcanus I: 135-104 B.C.
John Hyrcanus I succeeded his father Simon as high priest. But he was soon to lose Judah’s independence when Antiochus VII besieged Jerusalem for over a year and forced the city into submission. Relief came to the Jews from an unexpected quarter. In 129 B.C., Antiochus died while launching a successful attack against the Parthians. This won the release of Demetrius II, who reclaimed his Syrian throne.
But distracted by internal troubles and Judah’s alliance with Rome, Syria left Judah alone. This encouraged Hyrcanus I to go on a campaign of extending his borders. He conquered lands in Transjordan and surrounding areas. In a fit of mean-spiritedness, he also destroyed the Samaritan temple. Finally, he captured Idumean cities and forced the Jewish law upon them, making the men undergo circumcision on pain of death. He died in 104 B.C., leaving 5 sons.
3.3 Aristobulus I: 104-103 B.C.
Hyrcanus I’s oldest son, Aristobulus I ruled for only a year. But during this reign of terror, he imprisoned his own mother, who died of starvation; imprisoned all his brothers except Antigonus whom he appointed co-ruler, until he later had him killed; and conquered Galilee, compelling its inhabitants to be circumcised. Why did he turn on his own family? He had feared that his mother would take the throne that he felt was his to inherit because his father had intimated that she would have the first right of refusal.
3.4 Alexander Janneus: 103-76 B.C.
After his death, the widow of Aristobulus I released his brothers from prison and appointed one of them, Alexander Janneus, king and high priest. Oh yes, and she married him. He also went on a conquering spree and took much of Gaza and the coastal cities, forcing the Jewish law on its inhabitants. He was a drunkard and during a Feast of the Tabernacle, poured the water of libation over his feet instead of on the altar, as prescribed by Pharisaic ritual. On the matter of the religious rivalry, the Hasmoneans were closer to the Sadducees than to the Pharisees, so this act was seen as a deliberate slight on the Pharisees. When the angry pro-Pharisaic worshippers pelted him with lemons, he responded with military action that killed over 6000 Jews.
Desperate, the Pharisees called upon the Seleucid Demetrius III Eukairos for help. In an ensuing battle, Janneus fled to the hills. But he later managed to fight back and Demetrius III retreated. Janneus regained his throne. To punish the Pharisees for calling upon Demetrius, he ordered 8000 of them to be crucified. But first they were forced to witness the execution of their wives and children.
3.5 Salome Alexandra and Hyrcanus II: 76-67 B.C.
Janneus died in 76 B.C. but at his deathbed, appointed his wife Salome Alexandra as his successor. She appointed their eldest son Hyrcanus II the new high priest and made peace with the Pharisees, signaling the emergence of Pharisaic dominance in Jerusalem. However, her younger son, Aristobulus II sided with the Sadducees. Only one religious sect could be accommodated and with Alexandra’s permission, the Sadducees left the city and made their homes in other districts. Upon Alexandra’s death, Hyrcanus II ascended the throne – but it was short lived, only 3 months. His brother Aristobulus II declared war on him and forced him to surrender the crown.
3.6 Aristobulus II: 67-63 B.C.
Hyrcanus II was tempted to take back his crown and sided with the Idumeans to defeat Aristobulus. When a stalemate ensued, both sides bribed Roman general Pompey, who was marching through Asia Minor, to decide whom should prevail. The price of Roman power was 400 talents and Aristobulus’ bribe was preferred. But Pompey wanted to delay his decision until after his campaign against the Nabateans. The Jews were expected to participate in the Roman cause. Aristobulus was fed up of waiting and withdrew support for Pompey against the Nabateans. In anger, Pompey dropped the Nabatean campaign and instead, turned on Aristobulus. In 63 B.C., Pompey laid siege on Jerusalem for 3 months and demanded its surrender. While Aristobulus’ men held the gate, Hyrcanus II took advantage of the situation against his brother and sent his men to open the gates to let Pompey in. The Roman general killed 12,000 Jews that day. This ended the Hasmonean rule. Aristobulus II and his sons, Antigonus and Alexander, were taken to Rome as prisoners of war. Hyrcanus II was appointed high priest but not king and became a mere vassal of Rome.
4. Roman Rule: 63-4 B.C.
4.1 Hyrcanus II: 63-40 B.C.
Although Hyrcanus II was the high priest, it was Antipater II, governor of Idumea, who was the real kingmaker. He and his Arabian wife Cypros had 4 sons: Phasael, Herod , Joseph, Pheroras and a daughter, Salome.
When Julius Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt in 48 B.C., Antipater II and Hyrcanus II promptly joined the new Roman master. Julius appointed Antipater II procurator of Judah and Hyrcanus II, Ethnarch of the Jews. In 47 B.C., Antipater II appointed his son Phasael governor of Jerusalem and his son Herod governor of Galilee.
In 44 B.C. Julius Caesar was murdered. Cassius and others of the Roma elite came to Syria. Antipater instructed his sons to raise further taxes to impress the Romans. Herod became betrothed to Mariamne, the granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, further strengthening his position among the Jews.
In 42 B.C., Anthony defeated Cassius and asked Hyrcanus II to select whom to rule Judea. Upon Hyrcanus II’s recommendation, Anthony appointed Herod and Phasael tetrarchs of Judea.
4.2 Antigonus: 40-37 B.C.
In 40 B.C., when the Parthians appeared in Syria, they joined Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, in trying to remove Hyrcanus II from power. When they could not proceed with victory, they sued for peace and invited Hyrcanus and Phasael to meet them at Galilee, whereupon the Parthian king put them in chains. Fearing for his life, Herod fled to Masada and then on to Petra. Antigonus was crowned ‘king’. The Hasmonean rule was briefly revived. To prevent Hyrcanus II from reclaiming the high priesthood, Antigonus had him mutilated. Herod went to Rome where he was designated king of Judea. In early 39 B.C., he returned to Palestine with Anthony’s legate, Sossius, and captured Galilee. In 37 B.C., Jerusalem fell to him. At Herod’s request, the Romans beheaded Antigonus, ending once for all, the Hasmonean dynasty.
4.3 Herod the Great: 37-4 B.C.
Herod had at least four enemy groups to contend with: (a) the Pharisees (because he is a half-Jew), (b) the aristocracy, many of whose friends he executed, (c) the remnants of the Hasmonean family, especially Alexandra, mother of Mariamne, whose son Herod arranged to be drowned, and (d) Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
In 32 B.C., civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius. At the battle of Actium a year later, Octavius defeated Antony, who subsequently committed suicide with Cleopatra in 30 B.C. Herod then had Hyrcanus II executed to demonstrate his loyalty to Octavius and later, killed his own wife Mariamne in 29 B.C. as well as her mother Alexandra a year later. Finally, to ensure that no male relatives of Hyrcanus II survived to ever challenge him for the throne, he executed his brother-in-law, Costobarus.
Herod carefully appeased both the Jewish and Roman expectations and built a royal palace and Gentile temples as well as a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, begun in c.20 B.C. He married 10 wives: Doris, Mariamne I (Hyrcanus II’s granddaughter), Mariamne II, the Samaritan Malthace, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Pallas, Phaedra, Elpsis and two unnamed women. His warring sons caused him to change his will which named his successor, several times.
Shortly before his death, he faced the troubling news from the magi, which led Herod to massacre all the male children of Bethlehem two years, and under. He was now 70 years old. His final will named Archelaus as king but after his death, the Romans converted the title to Ethnarch instead.
5. Literary Activity
During this period, literary activity within the various sects of Judaism centered on the Septuagint, the Greek text of the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures.
6. Spiritual Conditions
The increasing importance of the synagogue eclipsed the former dominance of the temple. With the synagogue came the power of the rabbis over the priesthood. The religion became more personal than corporate. Ritualism was overtaken by observance of Torah. The long suffering from persecution ignited a rise in Messianic expectation as seen in the increase of apocalyptic literature. It appears that God would send a messiah to destroy the enemies of the Jews and set up a promised messianic kingdom.
7. Parties
It was during this period that the Pharisees (‘the separated ones’), the Sadducees and the Essenes were becoming distinct groups and the figure of the Messiah took shape.
The Sadducees may have taken their name in honor of Zadok, the original high priest of Jerusalem appointed by King Solomon to the exclusion of Abiathar. Their priesthood was Zadokite, rather than Aaronic. They favored intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles. Apparently, they were on good terms with the Persian official Sanballat, who mocked the Jews (Judeans who returned from exile) in the presence of the Samarian army (Israelites who stayed behind) when they were trying to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 4:2).
The Pharisees were eager to convert (Matt. 23:15), perhaps Gentiles, to their beliefs. The Mishnah, for which they were largely responsible, records dealings between Jews and Gentiles. The origin of their name is probably found in Chasidim, the men who placed loyalty to the Law (Torah/Pentateuch) above all else. Although the word chasid is related to the Hebrew word chesed (mercy, loving-kindness), over time, it came to mean those who were devoted to the Law, and translated as holy ones, pious ones, or saints. However, unlike the Hasidic Jews in our time, the Pharisees were very missionary in their attitude to the Gentiles.
How were they different? On the whole, the Sadducees were supported by the elite while the Pharisees were the common peoples’ party. While the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body, the Sadducees believed in the Sheol doctrine . The Sadducees held only to the Law of Moses and rejected the Oral Tradition as well as the Prophets, to the exasperation of the Pharisees. For the Sadducees, angels and spirits did not exist and unlike the Pharisees, they rejected any notion of a Messiah.
The Essenes arose during the second century B.C. and shared with the Pharisees a horror of giving formal allegiance to any king except God. In c. 21 B.C., King Herod excused these two groups from the requirement to make any formal oath of allegiance to him. The Essenes comprise of several sects.
While they took vows of celibacy and extreme asceticism, some sects permitted the adoption of children whom they brought up in their beliefs. Others permitted trial marriages that would last 3 years during which if a child was born, the marriage would be ratified. They typically lived in Orders of brotherhoods and held all property in common. They had hostels in various towns to provide hospitality for traveling Essenes. Would-be initiates had to undergo a 4-year probation. Their goal was to preserve ritual purity in the presence of what they saw to be an unholy relaxation of spiritual standards in the cities of Israel, hence their retreat into the desert. They sought to observe justice for all men and taught themselves to hate the wicked but to help the just. One curious and inexplicable practice was their custom of praying to the sun.
Comments
Note the great amount of intra-Jewish conflict after the return from Babylonian exile. Unlike the Assyrian exile of the 10 tribes of Israel (northern kingdom), in which no identifiable return to Palestine took place, the Babylonian exilic return came with high expectations of religious significance clouded by cultural and nationalistic aspirations. So intense was the nationalism that fellow Jews in the north and even southern Jews, who were left behind because they were not deemed the cream of the Judean crop, were despised as unworthy of association.
The Christian community claims to be the spiritual successors of YHWH’s promise to the chosen people. As such, we can learn much from this period during which many of the problems that beset NT Jews and later, Christians, took root.
Among the many issues, consider (a) the role of the Pharisees in religious life and their strong rivalry with the Sadducees, (b) the intense hatred of Samaritans who were considered polluted, (c) the change from the religion of Moses and priests to the new religion of the rabbis, (d) the complicated communal hatred for their former Syrian masters (see how topical and current all this is?) and their ambiguity to their Roman masters who ‘liberated’ Judah from Syria, (e) the new interpretation of what it means to be a chosen people following all the calamities that befell them, and (f) the roles that physical land and race play in the interpretation of Judaism.
This was not to be the first time that Judaism underwent massive reinterpretation. It was to happen again after the holocaust of world war two.
In its long history, much soul searching within Jewry gave rise to the many sects of Judaism, one of which transformed itself into a truly global religion – Christianity.
Selected Bibliography
1. Anderson, Bernhard W., Steven Bishop and Judith H. Newman. Understanding the Old Testament. Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2007.
2. Burn, A. R. The Lyric Age: The Greek World, c.750-510 BC London: The Folio Society. 2002.
3. Burn, A. R. The Persian Wars: The Greeks and the Defense of the West, c.546-478 BC. London: The Folio Society. 2002.
4. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Second Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2000.
5. Cook, J. M. The Persians. London: The Folio Society. 1983.
6. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1998.
7. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1969.
8. Hoehner. Harold W. “Between the Testaments” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1979.
9. Hornblower, Simon. The Classical Age: The Greek World, 479-323 BC. London: The Folio Society. 2002.
10. Roberts, J. J. M. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Lake Winona, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. 2002.
11. Snaith, Norman H. The Jews From Cyrus to Herod. New York: Abingdon Press. n.d.
12. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1999.
13. Walbank, F. W. The Hellenistic Age: The Greek World, 336-146 BC. London: The Folio Society. 2002.
Written by Rev. R. Choong for Project Timothy, Academy for Christian Thought. www.actministry.org
Introduction
What happened in the biblical lands during the period book-ended by accounts mentioned in the Old Testament and the New Testament writings? In the Prostestant canon of 66 books, which excludes tha Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha, not much is stated regarding events after the return of some of the exiles from Babylonia to Jerusalem. The New Testament begins with annunciation to Mary, that she will bear a child who is to be named Jesus.
Please note that while the OT describes events up until the 500s B.C., their dates of composition are largely undetermined with certainty. Similarly, the NT describes events from about 4 B.C. but they were first composed around the 50s A.D. The inter-testamental period therefore covers a period in excess of 500 years. To put this in perspective, it spans a period from the time of William Shakespeare to our own time.
This is the reason why students of the Bible find the resources of this period very important to set biblical history in context. It also greatly aids our interpretation of texts we encounter in both the OT and the NT. A study of this period also links biblical history to secular socio-political history of the Near East and affirms many of the historical claims found in both the testaments.
Powers that ruled Palestina
539-331 B.C. Persian Rule
331-143 B.C. Grecian Rule
142-63 B.C. Hasmodean Rule
63-4 B.C. Roman Rule
The Rise of Cyrus (626-539 B.C.)
The death of the Assyrian King Asshur-bani-pal in 626 B.C. set in motion a series of political events in the Near East that led to the surprising emergence of Cyrus of Anshan (tributary to the Medes) less than a hundred years later. By 608 B.C., Judah, which had been under Assyrian control, was now ruled by Egypt. But this did not last very long.
In 605 B.C., Pharaoh Necho was soundly defeated at the great battle of Carchemish by the upstart Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, who was destined to lead Babylonia to replace Assyria as the superpower. Misled by Egypt, King Jehoiakim of Judah revolted against Babylon in 597 B.C. despite the protests of the prophet Jeremiah. Jehoiakim died before the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar. His son Jehoiachin reigned for only 3 months – his singular achievement being the decision to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar. He was taken captive and died in Babylonia. His uncle Zedekiah was appointed the new puppet-king of Judah. After 10 years, Zedekiah himself was enticed by the Egyptians to revolt against Babylonia. This time, the response from Babylonia was staggering. King Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in 586 B.C., sending yet another wave of captives into exile – destroying any remnant of the monarchy or of the nation of Judah.
Gedaliah was appointed governor of Judah with Jeremiah as the Babylonian-approved prophet. However, one Ishmael murdered the governor and his entourage, prompting a surviving senior official, Johanan, son of Kareah, to flee to Egypt, taking Jeremiah with him for safety (Jer. 41:11-18). The situation for the Jews was politically hopeless. They looked to the kingdom of Media for possible salvation, hoping that it could topple Babylonia. But that was not to be. Instead, Judah’s savior was an unknown warrior named Cyrus.
In 550 B.C. Cyrus of Anshan revolted against King Astyages of Media and succeeded when the Median army mutinied and handed its own king to Cyrus, who was then crowned the new king of the Medes. Three years later, Cyrus became known as king of Persia. This double achievement marked the emergence of the Medo-Persian Empire - the greatest civilization in the world to date, stretching from modern Iran in the east to Europe in the west, and to Ethiopia in the south. Alarmed by this supreme warrior, Babylonia allied with Lydia, Egypt and Sparta to put a stop to the Persian expansion.
In 547 B.C. Croesus of Lydia crossed the river Halys, which marked the eastern boundary of his jurisdiction and attacked the Persians. He then retired to Sardis to spend out the winter, agreeing with his three allies to join forces in the spring against Cyrus. To avoid having to fight on several fronts, Cyrus did not wait. He followed Croesus to Sardis and roundly defeated the Lydians. The Delphian oracle was reported to have told Croesus that if he crossed the river Halys he would destroy a mighty empire. He did. It was his own.
The next kingdom to fall to Cyrus was Armenia. This was subsequently followed by Babylonia itself. The last king of Babylonia was the scholarly Nabonidus, who set himself up in retirement while his regent, Belshazzar, ruled Babylonia. In 539 B.C. Cyrus advanced to defeat the army of the fabled empire, to become … also, king of Babylonia.
From a biblical and theological perspective, it was as if the short-lived Babylonian empire (605-539 B.C.) emerged specifically to punish the Judeans until God was ready for their return to Judah.
1. Persian Rule: 539-331 B.C.
1.1 Persian Strength: 539-423 B.C.
Cyrus of Persia defeated the Babylonians and permitted the dispersed nations to return to their homelands. The Jews (Judeans) returned to Jerusalem and the rest of Judah under Zerubabbel in 538 B.C. and under Ezra in 457 B.C. Nehemiah came to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in 444 B.C. and remained in Jerusalem until 433 B.C., when he returned to Persia, before a final return back to Judah in 423 B.C.
1.2 Persian Decline: 423-331 B.C.
Darius II protected the Jews from Egypt but his son, Artaxerxes II defiled the temple at Jerusalem. He imposed heavy fines on the Jews but the Samaritans escaped persecution. In the end, he was poisoned to death. His son, Arses, was made king.
Arses himself was murdered and was succeeded by Darius III. This new king himself escaped death by poisoning. But soon after his ascension, the Macedonians threatened Persia.
Philip II, of Macedon was murdered as he prepared to battle the Persians. His son Alexander III, the Great avenged this setback when he defeated Darius III, and went on to carve out the Greek Empire which his father began in 338 B.C. (not to be confused with the Greek Democracy, 403-338 B.C., which followed the Greek Tyranny of the Thirty Tyrants, 404-403 B.C.).
2. Grecian Rule: 331-143 B.C.
2.1 Alexander III, the Great: 331-323 B.C.
At the age of 20, Alexander took to the throne and soon consolidated the Hellenic League. In Palestine, he permitted the Jews to keep their religious practices. Some say this was because he believed them when they informed him that the rise of Greece as destroyer of Persia was prophesied in the sacred book of Daniel. He went on to conquer territory all the way to India, where he sustained fatal battle wounds and died before he could return to Macedonia.
2.2 Ptolemaic Rule: 323-198 B.C.
2.2.1 Division of the empire: 323-301 B.C.
At his death, Alexander failed to appoint a successor. This set off a power grab among his generals. A compromised reached was the co-rulership of his half-sane brother Arrhidaeus (renamed Philip) and his Bactrian wife, Roxanne, with general Perdiccas as regent. The empire was divided into more than 20 satrapies.
The satrap Ptolemy of Egypt seized the body of Alexander in Syria as it was being transported to Macedonia for burial. He had the body of Alexander buried in Egypt. In response, general Perdiccas attacked Egypt but was killed in the attempt by the mutiny of his own generals, among whom was Seleucus. The regency of Perdiccas was replaced by Antipater, and later, by Antigonus I Monopthalmus (the one-eyed), who wanted to ‘unify’ the empire directly under himself.
Seleucus of Babylonia formed a coalition with the satraps Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander against the regent Antigonus. In 311 B.C., following a series of battles between Antigonus and the alliance of four, Selecus was acknowledged ruler of Babylonia. This was the beginning of the Seleucid empire.
When the dust settled and Antigonus died in battle in 301 B.C. these four commanders inherited the empire of Alexander:
1. Ptolemy I Soter ruled Egypt and Palestine from his capital in Alexandria. He died in 283 B.C. It was this dynasty that he began which the Romans finally defeated in 31 B.C. at the battle of Actium, signaling the end of the Hellenistic period.
2. Seleucus I Nicator ruled Syria and Phrygia as far as the Indus from his capital in Antioch
3. Lysimachus ruled Thrace and Bithynia, and
4. Cassander ruled Macedonia for only 4 years before his death in 297 B.C. Macedon was eventually lost to the descendents of Antigonus, founder of the Antigonid dynasty, one of the three Hellenistic dynasties along with the Ptolemaic and the Seleucid.
The division of Alexander’s empire among the four satraps
In 22 years Palestine changed hands 6 times.
Ptolemy I Soter, king of Hellenistic Egypt
2.2.2 Domination of the Ptolemies, 301-198 B.C.
Following the fourfold division of Alexander’s old empire, a short peace ensued. But in 282 B.C. Ptolemy I Soter died and was succeeded by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. In 281 B.C. Seleucus was restless to gain control of his beloved Macedonia, so he crossed the Hellespont and invaded Europe, in violation of the common agreement of the four satraps. But he was soon assassinated and succeeded by his son, Antiochus I Soter. In the confusion, Antigonus Gonatus, son of Demetrius of the Antigonid household, gained control of Macedon.
The result was the survival of three superpower dynasties :
The house of Seleucus over Babylon, Upper Syria and Asia Minor
The house of Ptolemy over Egypt and Lower Syria
The house of Antigonus over Europe
Disagreements over who should rule over Lower Syria (Coele-Syria) erupted between the houses of Ptolemy (Ptolemy II) and Seleucus (Antiochus I) and the first of the four Syrian wars ensued.
2.2.2.1 The First Syrian War, c.273 B.C.
2.2.2.2 The Second Syrian War, c.250s B.C.
2.2.2.3 The Third Syrian War, 246-241 B.C.
2.2.2.4 The Fourth Syrian War, 219-217 B.C.
In 201 B.C., the fate of the Jews would change. Antiochus III invaded Palestine and captured Gaza. In defeat, Ptolemy V granted the Jews freedom of worship, released their prisoners and exempted temple officials from tax. But this was to last only 3 years. From 198 B.C. until Roman control in 63 B.C., the Jews came under the Seleucid dynasty, and soon experienced fierce persecution.
2.3 Seleucid Rule: 198-143 B.C.
Selecus I Nicator
2.3.1 Seleucid Control: 198-168 B.C.
In 197 B.C., the successors of the two dynasties made peace. Antiochus III, the Great made a treaty with Ptolemy V Epiphanes in which Ptolemy would marry Antiochus’ daughter, Cleopatra. He hoped that any future grandson of his from this marriage might rule Egypt with a positive disposition to the Seleucids, the people on his mother’s side.
In 187 B.C., Antiochus III was succeeded by his son, Seleucus IV Philopator. Seleucus IV was assassinated by Heliodorus in 175 B.C. Another son of Antiochus III, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, avenged his brother’s death and made himself king. The priests in Jerusalem formed rival factions, with the pro-Ptolemaic high priest Onias challenged by his pro-Seleucid brother Jason. In 174 B.C., Antiochus IV made Jason the high priest after he offered a larger bribe to the king than his brother Onias and promising to make a wholesale Hellenization of the Jerusalemites (1 Macc. 1:10-15; 2 Macc. 4:4-17). However, in 171 B.C. Jason lost his office to Menelaus who offered an even larger bribe to the king. Menelaus plundered the temple and was attacked by Jason and his supporters. He took refuge in Acra. When Antiochus himself also stole from the temple, this stirred up the wrath of the people and led to the Maccabean Revolt.
2.3.2 Maccabean Revolt: 168-143 B.C.
2.3.2.1 Antiochus’ Vengeance: 168-166 B.C.
To appease the might of Rome, Antiochus put pressure on the Jews to abandon their national religion in favor of Hellenization. He ordered the destruction of copies of the Torah and commanded the Jews to eat swine meat. The observance of the Sabbath was forbidden.
2.3.2.2 Mattathias: 166 B.C.
While every Palestinian village was ordered to set up a heathen altar for ritual sacrifice, in the village of Modein, a priest named Mattathias refused to comply. When another Jew offered to do so in his place before the king’s agent, Mattathias killed both the other Jew and the agent. He also tore down the altar and declared his resistance to Antiochus, calling for supporters to join him and his 5 sons (John, Simon, Judas , Eleazar, and Jonathan) as they fled to the mountains. The Hasidim sect joined them to begin the Maccabean revolt , the struggle to resist Hellenization of the Jews. They did not hesitate to kill fellow Jews who complied with Antiochus. When Mattathias died in 166 B.C., his third son Judas took over the leadership.
2.3.2.3 Judas Maccabeus: 166-160 B.C.
Within 2 years, Judas had regained almost the entire region of Palestine except for Acra. In 164 B.C., he marched into Jerusalem and restored the temple. He replaced the pagan altar with a Jewish one and appointed priests who resisted the Seleucids. Finally, he reinstituted the practice of daily sacrifices at the temple. This marked the beginning of the Jewish Feast of Dedication (Light) – what today, we refer to as Hanukkah.
Although Judas was defeated by Antiochus V Eupator, who succeeded his father Antiochus IV, rumors of a pending attack on Syria by the Persians led to a relaxing of the terms of surrender. The Jews were given back their religious freedom even though they were still under Syrian rule. However, when Judas pressed for political freedom, he was met with another wave of enforced Hellenization upon the Jews. Relief came from another quarter.
In 162 B.C. Antiochus V was murdered by his cousin, Demetrius I Soter, who became king. He confirmed the appointment of Alcimus as high priest for the Jews. Alcimus was originally welcomed by the Hasidim who were prepared to break off from Judas as long as the high priest favored their concerns. But Alcimus reneged on his word and killed 60 Hasidim. Warfare broke out between Judas and the Syrian authorities, resulting in the death of Judas in 160 B.C. at the battle of Elasa.
2.3.2.4 Jonathan: 160-143 B.C.
Jonathan, the youngest brother of Judas, took over a badly demoralized army and his resistance movement made Michmash its new headquarters. His rule was helped by internal quarrels in Syria. When Alexander Balas challenged Demetrius I for the throne of Syria, Jonathan supported Alexander.
In 150 B.C., Alexander killed Demetrius I in battle and became king of Syria. He rewarded Jonathan with the triple title of governor, general and high priest of Judah.
In 145B.C., Demetrius II Nicator, son of Demetrius I, killed Alexander for the throne.
In 143 B.C. the army of Demetrius rebelled, led by general Diodotus Tryphon, who claimed the Syrian throne for Alexander Balas’ son, Antiochus VI. Jonathan supported Tryphon and was rewarded with authority over both the civil and religious aspects of Jewish life. His brother Simon was made commander of the military. But, fearful of Jonathan’s increasing power, Tryphon had Jonathan murdered that same year.
3. Hasmonean Rule: 142-63 B.C.
The Hasmonean rule marks the success of the Maccabean revolt in establishing Israel’s independence, sort of. The Hasmonean dynasty refers to the period of Simon’s rule until 63 B.C.
3.1 Simon: 143-135 B.C.
In Syria, Tryphon killed Antiochus VI and reigned in his place as a rival to Demetrius. II. Since Tryphon killed his brother Jonathan, Simon aligned himself with Demetrius II. In return, he was given authority over southern Syria, of which he had little control anyway. Simon seized the fortress of Gazzara, expelled the Gentiles living there, and replaced them with Jewish settlements. He appointed his son John Hyrcanus as governor. Commemorating Simon’s achievements, the Jews in 140 B.C. made him high priest forever, until a faithful prophet should arise. This was a major change in the lineage of the Jewish high priesthood. It was formerly of the house of Onias, until 174 B.C., when Jason bribed his way to acquire it, and the Syrian king became the benefactor of the office. Now it belongs to the line of the Hasmoneans, i.e., the line of Simon.
In 139 B.C., Antiochus VII Sidetes took over from Demetrius II, who was captured by the Parthians. When Simon lost interest in helping the new king, he was marked for assassination. He survived the attempt, only to be killed along with his two sons by his own son-in-law, Ptolemy, in 135 B.C. Simon’s second son, John Hyrcanus I, avoided capture and took over from his father.
3.2 Hyrcanus I: 135-104 B.C.
John Hyrcanus I succeeded his father Simon as high priest. But he was soon to lose Judah’s independence when Antiochus VII besieged Jerusalem for over a year and forced the city into submission. Relief came to the Jews from an unexpected quarter. In 129 B.C., Antiochus died while launching a successful attack against the Parthians. This won the release of Demetrius II, who reclaimed his Syrian throne.
But distracted by internal troubles and Judah’s alliance with Rome, Syria left Judah alone. This encouraged Hyrcanus I to go on a campaign of extending his borders. He conquered lands in Transjordan and surrounding areas. In a fit of mean-spiritedness, he also destroyed the Samaritan temple. Finally, he captured Idumean cities and forced the Jewish law upon them, making the men undergo circumcision on pain of death. He died in 104 B.C., leaving 5 sons.
3.3 Aristobulus I: 104-103 B.C.
Hyrcanus I’s oldest son, Aristobulus I ruled for only a year. But during this reign of terror, he imprisoned his own mother, who died of starvation; imprisoned all his brothers except Antigonus whom he appointed co-ruler, until he later had him killed; and conquered Galilee, compelling its inhabitants to be circumcised. Why did he turn on his own family? He had feared that his mother would take the throne that he felt was his to inherit because his father had intimated that she would have the first right of refusal.
3.4 Alexander Janneus: 103-76 B.C.
After his death, the widow of Aristobulus I released his brothers from prison and appointed one of them, Alexander Janneus, king and high priest. Oh yes, and she married him. He also went on a conquering spree and took much of Gaza and the coastal cities, forcing the Jewish law on its inhabitants. He was a drunkard and during a Feast of the Tabernacle, poured the water of libation over his feet instead of on the altar, as prescribed by Pharisaic ritual. On the matter of the religious rivalry, the Hasmoneans were closer to the Sadducees than to the Pharisees, so this act was seen as a deliberate slight on the Pharisees. When the angry pro-Pharisaic worshippers pelted him with lemons, he responded with military action that killed over 6000 Jews.
Desperate, the Pharisees called upon the Seleucid Demetrius III Eukairos for help. In an ensuing battle, Janneus fled to the hills. But he later managed to fight back and Demetrius III retreated. Janneus regained his throne. To punish the Pharisees for calling upon Demetrius, he ordered 8000 of them to be crucified. But first they were forced to witness the execution of their wives and children.
3.5 Salome Alexandra and Hyrcanus II: 76-67 B.C.
Janneus died in 76 B.C. but at his deathbed, appointed his wife Salome Alexandra as his successor. She appointed their eldest son Hyrcanus II the new high priest and made peace with the Pharisees, signaling the emergence of Pharisaic dominance in Jerusalem. However, her younger son, Aristobulus II sided with the Sadducees. Only one religious sect could be accommodated and with Alexandra’s permission, the Sadducees left the city and made their homes in other districts. Upon Alexandra’s death, Hyrcanus II ascended the throne – but it was short lived, only 3 months. His brother Aristobulus II declared war on him and forced him to surrender the crown.
3.6 Aristobulus II: 67-63 B.C.
Hyrcanus II was tempted to take back his crown and sided with the Idumeans to defeat Aristobulus. When a stalemate ensued, both sides bribed Roman general Pompey, who was marching through Asia Minor, to decide whom should prevail. The price of Roman power was 400 talents and Aristobulus’ bribe was preferred. But Pompey wanted to delay his decision until after his campaign against the Nabateans. The Jews were expected to participate in the Roman cause. Aristobulus was fed up of waiting and withdrew support for Pompey against the Nabateans. In anger, Pompey dropped the Nabatean campaign and instead, turned on Aristobulus. In 63 B.C., Pompey laid siege on Jerusalem for 3 months and demanded its surrender. While Aristobulus’ men held the gate, Hyrcanus II took advantage of the situation against his brother and sent his men to open the gates to let Pompey in. The Roman general killed 12,000 Jews that day. This ended the Hasmonean rule. Aristobulus II and his sons, Antigonus and Alexander, were taken to Rome as prisoners of war. Hyrcanus II was appointed high priest but not king and became a mere vassal of Rome.
4. Roman Rule: 63-4 B.C.
4.1 Hyrcanus II: 63-40 B.C.
Although Hyrcanus II was the high priest, it was Antipater II, governor of Idumea, who was the real kingmaker. He and his Arabian wife Cypros had 4 sons: Phasael, Herod , Joseph, Pheroras and a daughter, Salome.
When Julius Caesar defeated Pompey in Egypt in 48 B.C., Antipater II and Hyrcanus II promptly joined the new Roman master. Julius appointed Antipater II procurator of Judah and Hyrcanus II, Ethnarch of the Jews. In 47 B.C., Antipater II appointed his son Phasael governor of Jerusalem and his son Herod governor of Galilee.
In 44 B.C. Julius Caesar was murdered. Cassius and others of the Roma elite came to Syria. Antipater instructed his sons to raise further taxes to impress the Romans. Herod became betrothed to Mariamne, the granddaughter of Hyrcanus II, further strengthening his position among the Jews.
In 42 B.C., Anthony defeated Cassius and asked Hyrcanus II to select whom to rule Judea. Upon Hyrcanus II’s recommendation, Anthony appointed Herod and Phasael tetrarchs of Judea.
4.2 Antigonus: 40-37 B.C.
In 40 B.C., when the Parthians appeared in Syria, they joined Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, in trying to remove Hyrcanus II from power. When they could not proceed with victory, they sued for peace and invited Hyrcanus and Phasael to meet them at Galilee, whereupon the Parthian king put them in chains. Fearing for his life, Herod fled to Masada and then on to Petra. Antigonus was crowned ‘king’. The Hasmonean rule was briefly revived. To prevent Hyrcanus II from reclaiming the high priesthood, Antigonus had him mutilated. Herod went to Rome where he was designated king of Judea. In early 39 B.C., he returned to Palestine with Anthony’s legate, Sossius, and captured Galilee. In 37 B.C., Jerusalem fell to him. At Herod’s request, the Romans beheaded Antigonus, ending once for all, the Hasmonean dynasty.
4.3 Herod the Great: 37-4 B.C.
Herod had at least four enemy groups to contend with: (a) the Pharisees (because he is a half-Jew), (b) the aristocracy, many of whose friends he executed, (c) the remnants of the Hasmonean family, especially Alexandra, mother of Mariamne, whose son Herod arranged to be drowned, and (d) Cleopatra VII of Egypt.
In 32 B.C., civil war broke out between Antony and Octavius. At the battle of Actium a year later, Octavius defeated Antony, who subsequently committed suicide with Cleopatra in 30 B.C. Herod then had Hyrcanus II executed to demonstrate his loyalty to Octavius and later, killed his own wife Mariamne in 29 B.C. as well as her mother Alexandra a year later. Finally, to ensure that no male relatives of Hyrcanus II survived to ever challenge him for the throne, he executed his brother-in-law, Costobarus.
Herod carefully appeased both the Jewish and Roman expectations and built a royal palace and Gentile temples as well as a Jewish temple in Jerusalem, begun in c.20 B.C. He married 10 wives: Doris, Mariamne I (Hyrcanus II’s granddaughter), Mariamne II, the Samaritan Malthace, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Pallas, Phaedra, Elpsis and two unnamed women. His warring sons caused him to change his will which named his successor, several times.
Shortly before his death, he faced the troubling news from the magi, which led Herod to massacre all the male children of Bethlehem two years, and under. He was now 70 years old. His final will named Archelaus as king but after his death, the Romans converted the title to Ethnarch instead.
5. Literary Activity
During this period, literary activity within the various sects of Judaism centered on the Septuagint, the Greek text of the Jewish/Hebrew scriptures.
6. Spiritual Conditions
The increasing importance of the synagogue eclipsed the former dominance of the temple. With the synagogue came the power of the rabbis over the priesthood. The religion became more personal than corporate. Ritualism was overtaken by observance of Torah. The long suffering from persecution ignited a rise in Messianic expectation as seen in the increase of apocalyptic literature. It appears that God would send a messiah to destroy the enemies of the Jews and set up a promised messianic kingdom.
7. Parties
It was during this period that the Pharisees (‘the separated ones’), the Sadducees and the Essenes were becoming distinct groups and the figure of the Messiah took shape.
The Sadducees may have taken their name in honor of Zadok, the original high priest of Jerusalem appointed by King Solomon to the exclusion of Abiathar. Their priesthood was Zadokite, rather than Aaronic. They favored intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles. Apparently, they were on good terms with the Persian official Sanballat, who mocked the Jews (Judeans who returned from exile) in the presence of the Samarian army (Israelites who stayed behind) when they were trying to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem (Neh. 4:2).
The Pharisees were eager to convert (Matt. 23:15), perhaps Gentiles, to their beliefs. The Mishnah, for which they were largely responsible, records dealings between Jews and Gentiles. The origin of their name is probably found in Chasidim, the men who placed loyalty to the Law (Torah/Pentateuch) above all else. Although the word chasid is related to the Hebrew word chesed (mercy, loving-kindness), over time, it came to mean those who were devoted to the Law, and translated as holy ones, pious ones, or saints. However, unlike the Hasidic Jews in our time, the Pharisees were very missionary in their attitude to the Gentiles.
How were they different? On the whole, the Sadducees were supported by the elite while the Pharisees were the common peoples’ party. While the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the body, the Sadducees believed in the Sheol doctrine . The Sadducees held only to the Law of Moses and rejected the Oral Tradition as well as the Prophets, to the exasperation of the Pharisees. For the Sadducees, angels and spirits did not exist and unlike the Pharisees, they rejected any notion of a Messiah.
The Essenes arose during the second century B.C. and shared with the Pharisees a horror of giving formal allegiance to any king except God. In c. 21 B.C., King Herod excused these two groups from the requirement to make any formal oath of allegiance to him. The Essenes comprise of several sects.
While they took vows of celibacy and extreme asceticism, some sects permitted the adoption of children whom they brought up in their beliefs. Others permitted trial marriages that would last 3 years during which if a child was born, the marriage would be ratified. They typically lived in Orders of brotherhoods and held all property in common. They had hostels in various towns to provide hospitality for traveling Essenes. Would-be initiates had to undergo a 4-year probation. Their goal was to preserve ritual purity in the presence of what they saw to be an unholy relaxation of spiritual standards in the cities of Israel, hence their retreat into the desert. They sought to observe justice for all men and taught themselves to hate the wicked but to help the just. One curious and inexplicable practice was their custom of praying to the sun.
Comments
Note the great amount of intra-Jewish conflict after the return from Babylonian exile. Unlike the Assyrian exile of the 10 tribes of Israel (northern kingdom), in which no identifiable return to Palestine took place, the Babylonian exilic return came with high expectations of religious significance clouded by cultural and nationalistic aspirations. So intense was the nationalism that fellow Jews in the north and even southern Jews, who were left behind because they were not deemed the cream of the Judean crop, were despised as unworthy of association.
The Christian community claims to be the spiritual successors of YHWH’s promise to the chosen people. As such, we can learn much from this period during which many of the problems that beset NT Jews and later, Christians, took root.
Among the many issues, consider (a) the role of the Pharisees in religious life and their strong rivalry with the Sadducees, (b) the intense hatred of Samaritans who were considered polluted, (c) the change from the religion of Moses and priests to the new religion of the rabbis, (d) the complicated communal hatred for their former Syrian masters (see how topical and current all this is?) and their ambiguity to their Roman masters who ‘liberated’ Judah from Syria, (e) the new interpretation of what it means to be a chosen people following all the calamities that befell them, and (f) the roles that physical land and race play in the interpretation of Judaism.
This was not to be the first time that Judaism underwent massive reinterpretation. It was to happen again after the holocaust of world war two.
In its long history, much soul searching within Jewry gave rise to the many sects of Judaism, one of which transformed itself into a truly global religion – Christianity.
Selected Bibliography
1. Anderson, Bernhard W., Steven Bishop and Judith H. Newman. Understanding the Old Testament. Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. 2007.
2. Burn, A. R. The Lyric Age: The Greek World, c.750-510 BC London: The Folio Society. 2002.
3. Burn, A. R. The Persian Wars: The Greeks and the Defense of the West, c.546-478 BC. London: The Folio Society. 2002.
4. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. Second Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 2000.
5. Cook, J. M. The Persians. London: The Folio Society. 1983.
6. Gruen, Erich S. Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1998.
7. Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1969.
8. Hoehner. Harold W. “Between the Testaments” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1979.
9. Hornblower, Simon. The Classical Age: The Greek World, 479-323 BC. London: The Folio Society. 2002.
10. Roberts, J. J. M. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Lake Winona, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. 2002.
11. Snaith, Norman H. The Jews From Cyrus to Herod. New York: Abingdon Press. n.d.
12. Tcherikover, Victor. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Peabody: Hendrickson. 1999.
13. Walbank, F. W. The Hellenistic Age: The Greek World, 336-146 BC. London: The Folio Society. 2002.
Written by Rev. R. Choong for Project Timothy, Academy for Christian Thought. www.actministry.org
The Significance of Science for Christian Theology
In my Q1 seminar (see http://www.actministry.org/eventDetails.php?event_id=95), I have shown the philosophically coherence and scientific unobjectionability of the Christian doctrine of creation. There is no philosophical or scientific ground to deny it. The Big Bang Model can be reconciled with a theological explanation of the universe that began with a creatio originalis ex nihilo, continues to undergo creatio continua, and anticipates a final creatio nova.
Does philosophy & science matter to the Christian gospel?
During Christmas Week 2005, some 20 cable and broadcast television shows from 8 different channels featured scientific documentaries about Christianity. Every one of them concluded that the classical meaning of the gospel cannot be trusted – because science has provided a surer path to knowledge about reality. Indeed, the National Geographic channel featured a two-part documentary called Science of the Bible, which argued that today, scientific tests confirm the untrustworthiness of the biblical witness. The archaeological evidence offered is scientific, and the interpretative tool used is philosophical. This is the challenge for Christianity in the 21st century. In this age of the new apologetic - the philosophical presumption of scientistic authority reigns supreme.
Can Christian theology learn from philosophy & science?
Absolutely! The short explanation is that we turn to them for every other aspect of our thinking and decision-making anyway. The longer explanation is that humanity has been given the power of rational reflective reason (RRR). We are called to participate in the discovery of divine disclosure (DDD) in the footsteps of the biblical Adam when he was given the privilege to ‘name nature.’ Scientific discovery and inference demonstrate the theological nature of all human inquiry. The biblical mandate to renew our minds so we may discern the perfect will of God inclines us to welcome the responsible use of the gift we call science. When we learn to use our rational and Spirit-filled minds, we will be able to commit to the convictional confessions (CCC) of our beliefs. The Christian biblical teaching that the universe has a finite history and was created out of nothing according to the will of God is both philosophically coherent and does not contradict any scientific principles.
The labors of interdisciplinary research into complexity and emergence theories by Niels Henrik Gregersen of Copenhagen and Philip Clayton of Claremont, coupled with the postfoundationalist approach to epistemology-hermeneutics by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen of Princeton promise a new era of understanding the relationship between the natural sciences and Christian theology. With selective use of insights by Stuart A. Kauffman of the Sante Fe Institute, we can expect to usher in new ways of drawing from the common resource of rationality formerly called the two books of God, the book of nature and the book of Scripture.
So what? Why does it matter what we believe about the origin of the universe?
If there is purpose and meaning to the universe, and there is someone in charge whom we can ultimately trust, then we are not alone. This is the great Christian joy, the great atheist despair, and the great unsettling puzzle for the true agnostic. The Christian view of where everything came from encourages us to seek to understand and make intelligible all that can be. Indeed, rather than seeking philosophy and science in themselves to understand who God is, Christian divine revelation may in the end prove useful to the inferential art of scientific investigation and philosophical speculation. A serious encounter with the Scriptures will enrich the disciplines of philosophy and the sciences. This matters because it shapes the way we make ethical, social, economic, and other life-changing decisions. To believe that we are all answerable to someone else, our creator, purify the motivations of our actions.
Does philosophy & science matter to the Christian gospel?
During Christmas Week 2005, some 20 cable and broadcast television shows from 8 different channels featured scientific documentaries about Christianity. Every one of them concluded that the classical meaning of the gospel cannot be trusted – because science has provided a surer path to knowledge about reality. Indeed, the National Geographic channel featured a two-part documentary called Science of the Bible, which argued that today, scientific tests confirm the untrustworthiness of the biblical witness. The archaeological evidence offered is scientific, and the interpretative tool used is philosophical. This is the challenge for Christianity in the 21st century. In this age of the new apologetic - the philosophical presumption of scientistic authority reigns supreme.
Can Christian theology learn from philosophy & science?
Absolutely! The short explanation is that we turn to them for every other aspect of our thinking and decision-making anyway. The longer explanation is that humanity has been given the power of rational reflective reason (RRR). We are called to participate in the discovery of divine disclosure (DDD) in the footsteps of the biblical Adam when he was given the privilege to ‘name nature.’ Scientific discovery and inference demonstrate the theological nature of all human inquiry. The biblical mandate to renew our minds so we may discern the perfect will of God inclines us to welcome the responsible use of the gift we call science. When we learn to use our rational and Spirit-filled minds, we will be able to commit to the convictional confessions (CCC) of our beliefs. The Christian biblical teaching that the universe has a finite history and was created out of nothing according to the will of God is both philosophically coherent and does not contradict any scientific principles.
The labors of interdisciplinary research into complexity and emergence theories by Niels Henrik Gregersen of Copenhagen and Philip Clayton of Claremont, coupled with the postfoundationalist approach to epistemology-hermeneutics by J. Wentzel van Huyssteen of Princeton promise a new era of understanding the relationship between the natural sciences and Christian theology. With selective use of insights by Stuart A. Kauffman of the Sante Fe Institute, we can expect to usher in new ways of drawing from the common resource of rationality formerly called the two books of God, the book of nature and the book of Scripture.
So what? Why does it matter what we believe about the origin of the universe?
If there is purpose and meaning to the universe, and there is someone in charge whom we can ultimately trust, then we are not alone. This is the great Christian joy, the great atheist despair, and the great unsettling puzzle for the true agnostic. The Christian view of where everything came from encourages us to seek to understand and make intelligible all that can be. Indeed, rather than seeking philosophy and science in themselves to understand who God is, Christian divine revelation may in the end prove useful to the inferential art of scientific investigation and philosophical speculation. A serious encounter with the Scriptures will enrich the disciplines of philosophy and the sciences. This matters because it shapes the way we make ethical, social, economic, and other life-changing decisions. To believe that we are all answerable to someone else, our creator, purify the motivations of our actions.
The Knowing of Knowledge?
To know is to engage in the process of acquiring knowledge. Knowledge comes from the Latin word scientia, from which we derive the modern English word, science. Such is the success of the scientific project to explain phenomena in the process of gaining knowledge that we commonly think of science as the most manicured form of reliable knowing. But science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge. We also gain understanding through the arts.
The flawed distinction between ‘art’ and ‘science’ should be corrected, for knowledge is acquired by the art of the natural sciences and by the science of the human arts. The arts include philosophical speculation, theological reflection, and religious experience. These three modes of scientia result in the formation of beliefs, not unlike beliefs formed in scientific theory-building.
Religious belief, with its origin in doctrinal observance rather than scientific observation, is not part of modern science BUT it is certainly part of modern scientia (knowledge).
From this, we may conclude that the question as to the origin of humanity must seek to know knowledge from the art of theological reflection, based on the testimonial witness of a community of knowers. This community is the Christian church, who (i) bear witness (martyr) to the teachings of prior witnesses with authoritative teachings in scriptures, (ii) and experience for themselves the communal life of faith.
Science can describe and explain mechanical processes that gave rise to the human race within the limits of discovery and analyses. So far, it is divided on almost every aspect of the human species; including what they are ontologically like, where they first appeared, whether in a single or in multiple locations, how they arose and why they did so. The last question is a metaphysical one and all scientific claims regarding ‘why’ are in fact theological claims in disguise, not scientific ones.
The flawed distinction between ‘art’ and ‘science’ should be corrected, for knowledge is acquired by the art of the natural sciences and by the science of the human arts. The arts include philosophical speculation, theological reflection, and religious experience. These three modes of scientia result in the formation of beliefs, not unlike beliefs formed in scientific theory-building.
Religious belief, with its origin in doctrinal observance rather than scientific observation, is not part of modern science BUT it is certainly part of modern scientia (knowledge).
From this, we may conclude that the question as to the origin of humanity must seek to know knowledge from the art of theological reflection, based on the testimonial witness of a community of knowers. This community is the Christian church, who (i) bear witness (martyr) to the teachings of prior witnesses with authoritative teachings in scriptures, (ii) and experience for themselves the communal life of faith.
Science can describe and explain mechanical processes that gave rise to the human race within the limits of discovery and analyses. So far, it is divided on almost every aspect of the human species; including what they are ontologically like, where they first appeared, whether in a single or in multiple locations, how they arose and why they did so. The last question is a metaphysical one and all scientific claims regarding ‘why’ are in fact theological claims in disguise, not scientific ones.
Who is the Adam of the Christian Confession?
One of the most important and influential creedal statement today is the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), a 17th century document. However, its dated view of the creation account has made it an obstacle for fruitful science and theology conversations. Here, we shall examine a few important points in which the creedal confession is not supported by the very biblical references it stakes its statements on.
(a) Was Adam created immortal?
The Westminster Confession contradicts the Scriptural description of a mortal Adam who had not yet eaten of the tree of life and who only knew of good and evil after he had eaten of the forbidden tree. In the WCF, Chapter IV.2, Adam is created with an “immortal soul”. Neither Matthew 10:28 nor Luke 23:42 referred to Adam but to the post-Fall humans who can inherit everlasting life. Adam was not created with an immortal soul (Genesis 3:22).
(b) Was Adam created righteous?
In the same chapter, the WCF describes Adam as “with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” pointing to Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 4:24. The problem is that both references describe the “new self” of the New Testament man, not Adam.
(c) Was Adam created with a conscience?
Chapter IV.2 of the WCF states that Adam and Eve were created with “the law of God written in their hearts.” The reference given is Romans 2:14 and 15. Paul was speaking not about pre-Fall Adam but about post-Fall people. Gentiles who do not possess the Mosaic laws have no excuse because they have a generic law written in their hearts by which they will be judged. This is not an appropriate reference text to infer the state of Adam’s conscience.
(d) What may be concluded and what may be merely conjectured?
The scriptures do not support the creedal claims of the WCF but we have no warrant to say that all such claims are wrong. According to the scriptures, Adam was clearly made mortal. Any subsequent immortality would not be by the fruit of the tree of life but due the resurrection of Christ that justifies Adam to everlasting life in the presence of God. We may also safely conclude that Adam was not created righteous for Romans 3:10 declares that not one of us is righteous.
As to Adam’s conscience, we may only infer (This inference is a permissive possibility, not an imperative certainty. In fact, Adam probably had a conscience but his sin was not the violation of conscience or of moral law (since he had no knowledge of it yet) but of rebellion against God’s explicit prohibition) that pre-Fall Adam was made without conscience until he ate the fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” The problem lies in the paradox of volition. If Adam did not have a conscience, he would not have been aware of his wrongdoing. But if he already had a conscience, then what did moral knowledge add to his conscience?
The problem may lie in the assumption we make - that conscience is synonymous with moral knowledge. It may well not be the case. Adam could have a conscience prior to the Fall and acquired specific moral knowledge after the Fall. It could even be that Adam sinned not by violating his conscience but rather, by disobeying God, period! It is in rebellion against God’s will that human will is sinful. This means that morality and conscience is subservient to and posterior to God, i.e., obedience to God is more important than the derivative alliance to any moral law or even human conscience, the knowledge of both arise from God’s divine fiat. Indeed, God is not moral but morality is defined by God’s will. The creedal Adam of the Westminster Confession of Faith with regard to Adam needs a revision. And the leaders of the PCA have responded in part. Two years ago the General Assembly no longer required that its ordained clergy hold to a literal six-day period of creation.
(a) Was Adam created immortal?
The Westminster Confession contradicts the Scriptural description of a mortal Adam who had not yet eaten of the tree of life and who only knew of good and evil after he had eaten of the forbidden tree. In the WCF, Chapter IV.2, Adam is created with an “immortal soul”. Neither Matthew 10:28 nor Luke 23:42 referred to Adam but to the post-Fall humans who can inherit everlasting life. Adam was not created with an immortal soul (Genesis 3:22).
(b) Was Adam created righteous?
In the same chapter, the WCF describes Adam as “with knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” pointing to Colossians 3:10 and Ephesians 4:24. The problem is that both references describe the “new self” of the New Testament man, not Adam.
(c) Was Adam created with a conscience?
Chapter IV.2 of the WCF states that Adam and Eve were created with “the law of God written in their hearts.” The reference given is Romans 2:14 and 15. Paul was speaking not about pre-Fall Adam but about post-Fall people. Gentiles who do not possess the Mosaic laws have no excuse because they have a generic law written in their hearts by which they will be judged. This is not an appropriate reference text to infer the state of Adam’s conscience.
(d) What may be concluded and what may be merely conjectured?
The scriptures do not support the creedal claims of the WCF but we have no warrant to say that all such claims are wrong. According to the scriptures, Adam was clearly made mortal. Any subsequent immortality would not be by the fruit of the tree of life but due the resurrection of Christ that justifies Adam to everlasting life in the presence of God. We may also safely conclude that Adam was not created righteous for Romans 3:10 declares that not one of us is righteous.
As to Adam’s conscience, we may only infer (This inference is a permissive possibility, not an imperative certainty. In fact, Adam probably had a conscience but his sin was not the violation of conscience or of moral law (since he had no knowledge of it yet) but of rebellion against God’s explicit prohibition) that pre-Fall Adam was made without conscience until he ate the fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” The problem lies in the paradox of volition. If Adam did not have a conscience, he would not have been aware of his wrongdoing. But if he already had a conscience, then what did moral knowledge add to his conscience?
The problem may lie in the assumption we make - that conscience is synonymous with moral knowledge. It may well not be the case. Adam could have a conscience prior to the Fall and acquired specific moral knowledge after the Fall. It could even be that Adam sinned not by violating his conscience but rather, by disobeying God, period! It is in rebellion against God’s will that human will is sinful. This means that morality and conscience is subservient to and posterior to God, i.e., obedience to God is more important than the derivative alliance to any moral law or even human conscience, the knowledge of both arise from God’s divine fiat. Indeed, God is not moral but morality is defined by God’s will. The creedal Adam of the Westminster Confession of Faith with regard to Adam needs a revision. And the leaders of the PCA have responded in part. Two years ago the General Assembly no longer required that its ordained clergy hold to a literal six-day period of creation.
FAQS Who was Biblical Adam?
1 If Adam & Eve did not sin, would they have moral knowledge (image of God)?
Since Adam and Eve acquired moral knowledge and therefore the image of God from eating the fruit, does this mean that they were never intended to have such knowledge? Not necessarily. God could have given them such knowledge by another means. The problem was that they acquired moral knowledge through direct disobedience and by an act of mistrust. God would have formed them in his image by giving them moral knowledge by a means other than the consumption of contraband food.
2 Was it ‘disobedience’ or ‘rebellion leading to a change in moral status’ that led to sin?
Adam’s act of rebellion predated the act of eating the fruit. While his volition was prior to the act of disobedience, it extends to the completion of the act. By this time he was already morally aware. Another way to consider the effect of sin is to view the sin factor as inherent in Adam when he was formed and the act of rebellion merely triggered a propensity to sin.
3 Was Adam alone among the male humans? Was Adam physiologically an AMH?
Adam was likely to be physiologically anatomically modern human (AMH) but certainly not alone among AMHs. His distinction was that he was the first AMH in the line of Jesus who was formed in the image of God.
4 Whom did Cain marry and who were the Sons of God in Genesis 6??
Possibly other hominids such as Homo sapiens sapiens that may not have been given the image of God. They were clearly AMH who could biologically mate with the Adamic race and probably shared in the physiology. The characteristics of AMH such as full-time bipedalism, cognitive fluidity for the development of art, science and religious consciousness, a lowered larynx to permit consonantal sound production necessary for human speech and symbolic language, as well as the capacity for self-consciousness appear to NOT be the marker of the imago Dei. Instead, the true marker is the capacity for fear and guilt, signals of true moral cognition.
Since Adam and Eve acquired moral knowledge and therefore the image of God from eating the fruit, does this mean that they were never intended to have such knowledge? Not necessarily. God could have given them such knowledge by another means. The problem was that they acquired moral knowledge through direct disobedience and by an act of mistrust. God would have formed them in his image by giving them moral knowledge by a means other than the consumption of contraband food.
2 Was it ‘disobedience’ or ‘rebellion leading to a change in moral status’ that led to sin?
Adam’s act of rebellion predated the act of eating the fruit. While his volition was prior to the act of disobedience, it extends to the completion of the act. By this time he was already morally aware. Another way to consider the effect of sin is to view the sin factor as inherent in Adam when he was formed and the act of rebellion merely triggered a propensity to sin.
3 Was Adam alone among the male humans? Was Adam physiologically an AMH?
Adam was likely to be physiologically anatomically modern human (AMH) but certainly not alone among AMHs. His distinction was that he was the first AMH in the line of Jesus who was formed in the image of God.
4 Whom did Cain marry and who were the Sons of God in Genesis 6??
Possibly other hominids such as Homo sapiens sapiens that may not have been given the image of God. They were clearly AMH who could biologically mate with the Adamic race and probably shared in the physiology. The characteristics of AMH such as full-time bipedalism, cognitive fluidity for the development of art, science and religious consciousness, a lowered larynx to permit consonantal sound production necessary for human speech and symbolic language, as well as the capacity for self-consciousness appear to NOT be the marker of the imago Dei. Instead, the true marker is the capacity for fear and guilt, signals of true moral cognition.
Philosophy, Science & Theology in search of Knowledge
What is the point of philosophy?
We are unable to scientifically theorize or theologically test, any proposal regarding such an origin without the rigor of philosophical speculation. If part of the scientific and theological enterprises includes rigorous philosophy, Christians should learn to get it right so that responsible philosophy can discipline both science and theology (theology is the academic discipline of the devotional practice called religion.) Christian theology has been drawn into the discussion because the new apologetic is to explain the Church’s creedal proclamations as an act of public accountability.
The natural sciences are the arts of collecting relevant evidence to support or reject the hypothesis of a theory. We observe the universe and conclude that everything is energy-matter. We construct observatories and build computers to measure, quantify and analyze the different data about the forms of energy-matter. We interpret this data to develop theories that make predictions for further data gathering that can be applied to other theories in a loop of inquiry: the theories we construct determine the kind of data we will obtain, which determines the kinds of theories we can affirm. This loop is a self-selecting mechanism for discovery. In a sense, one can discover what one is looking for. To counter this bias, the predictions must be logical and are tested against a hypothesis to allow us to reject it if it no longer can be modified to fit the incoming data. The modern sciences have approached and crossed the boundaries into philosophy and theology. Science can help theology side-step dead ends and implausible conclusions, for e.g., affirming that the notion of ‘the four corners of the earth’ is not to be understood literally after Col. Yuri Gagarin’s flight around the earth.
What is a natural phenomenon? The scientific presumption is that life is a natural outcome of the evolution of cosmic matter. This is to be expected because science is in the business of explaining natural phenomena. What then is a natural phenomenon? It is one that appears to be scientifically explicable. This is obviously a tautology. A process is natural if it can be scientifically explained and a scientific explanation of a process means it must be a natural phenomenon. This means that if a phenomenon cannot be explained by science, it may not be a natural phenomenon and conversely, if a phenomenon is supernatural, it cannot be explained scientifically. So how can we tell if a phenomenon is natural or not if it cannot be scientifically explained by science? It is convenient to then add that even phenomena that cannot presently be explained by science may in the future be, so it ought not to be considered supernatural phenomena. By this account, no phenomena can truly be considered supernatural because time has not yet run out.
Christian theology is a second-order source of knowledge that attempts to reconcile its reflections with the evidential inferences of the sciences. Both fields of inquiry are shaped by philosophical commitments. What has the Genesis account or the first article of the Apostles’ Creed on the creation of the heavens and the earth to do with the origin of the universe, of life and of the human mind? Can divine proclamation cause the emergence of energy-matter, animate matter and lead to self-awareness?
We are unable to scientifically theorize or theologically test, any proposal regarding such an origin without the rigor of philosophical speculation. If part of the scientific and theological enterprises includes rigorous philosophy, Christians should learn to get it right so that responsible philosophy can discipline both science and theology (theology is the academic discipline of the devotional practice called religion.) Christian theology has been drawn into the discussion because the new apologetic is to explain the Church’s creedal proclamations as an act of public accountability.
The natural sciences are the arts of collecting relevant evidence to support or reject the hypothesis of a theory. We observe the universe and conclude that everything is energy-matter. We construct observatories and build computers to measure, quantify and analyze the different data about the forms of energy-matter. We interpret this data to develop theories that make predictions for further data gathering that can be applied to other theories in a loop of inquiry: the theories we construct determine the kind of data we will obtain, which determines the kinds of theories we can affirm. This loop is a self-selecting mechanism for discovery. In a sense, one can discover what one is looking for. To counter this bias, the predictions must be logical and are tested against a hypothesis to allow us to reject it if it no longer can be modified to fit the incoming data. The modern sciences have approached and crossed the boundaries into philosophy and theology. Science can help theology side-step dead ends and implausible conclusions, for e.g., affirming that the notion of ‘the four corners of the earth’ is not to be understood literally after Col. Yuri Gagarin’s flight around the earth.
What is a natural phenomenon? The scientific presumption is that life is a natural outcome of the evolution of cosmic matter. This is to be expected because science is in the business of explaining natural phenomena. What then is a natural phenomenon? It is one that appears to be scientifically explicable. This is obviously a tautology. A process is natural if it can be scientifically explained and a scientific explanation of a process means it must be a natural phenomenon. This means that if a phenomenon cannot be explained by science, it may not be a natural phenomenon and conversely, if a phenomenon is supernatural, it cannot be explained scientifically. So how can we tell if a phenomenon is natural or not if it cannot be scientifically explained by science? It is convenient to then add that even phenomena that cannot presently be explained by science may in the future be, so it ought not to be considered supernatural phenomena. By this account, no phenomena can truly be considered supernatural because time has not yet run out.
Christian theology is a second-order source of knowledge that attempts to reconcile its reflections with the evidential inferences of the sciences. Both fields of inquiry are shaped by philosophical commitments. What has the Genesis account or the first article of the Apostles’ Creed on the creation of the heavens and the earth to do with the origin of the universe, of life and of the human mind? Can divine proclamation cause the emergence of energy-matter, animate matter and lead to self-awareness?
Creation - In the Beginning ...
What is the Christian teaching (doctrine) about creation?
The triune God created and made all that exists apart from God. Strangely, to understand the beginning, we have to first understand what to expect at the end. So although genealogy is about the beginning of existence, it can only be fully understood with reference to the final purpose at the end of creation, its teleological eschatology. The human race was not so much created as it was made, from created matter (earth and moisture). We were made in the image of God. But “What for?” The Church teaches that it is to exist and enjoy the glory of God in life everlasting. This presumes that existence is preferable to non-existence. It also presumes that fellowship is preferable to isolation. Finally, it presumes that to love and be loved is preferable to hate and be hated. To create is to establish and bring to being something previously without existence. The perennial question asked about reality is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “How is God active both towards the world and within its structures?”
The Christian claim with regard to the origin of reality takes two forms:
1) God’s act of establishment is uniquely free and sovereign (The universe is in the hands of someone good and powerful rather than someone indifferent. This makes the issue of evil and suffering even more perplexing).
2) The theology of mediation of divine action (process of creation) takes various forms:
2.1: BY PERSONAL WORD: By the mere word of command: “Be” (“Let there be..”), an accommodation to the nature of creation, of a different order than of the creator. (The giving of space permitted there to be a reality other than God. God’s action of creation permits something its own unique freedom to be.
2.2: BY CRAFTSMANSHIP: Forming what has been created - God’s creation also includes the formation of what was initially created, e.g. Man (Psalm 139: 13-14 “ ... you knit me together in my mother’s womb, ... for I am fearfully and wonderfully made”) and the earth (Job 3: 14 describes the formation of the earth from primeval stuff “The earth takes shape like clay under a seal...”). God willed to allow another space and time to develop its own reality, writes Karl Barth. What about the six days of creation? Are these intervals ancient renditions of modern measures of time? Rather than wondering if ‘days’ meant six 24 hour cycles or not, Colin Gunton points to Basil of Caesarea who said, the pattern of days serves to establish the world’s relation to eternity Creation brought time to being. Gunton says that the seventh day of rest suggests that time is what God gives to things for their right development. [Time is God’s way of preventing everything from happening at once]
3.3: BY MINISTERIAL OPERATION: God enables some parts of creation serve as mediators of God’s creation of other parts (Genesis 1: 11, 20 “Let the earth bring forth...” the birth of a child). Humanity is the chief ministers of creation, as in the creative act of the sciences, and the arts. All fields of human inquiry are in fact examples of ministerial acts of creation by which we serve even unwittingly to further God’s will in creation. *Creation also means that all life belongs intimately to God because God alone is the giver, lord and master of life. ‘Life’ is peculiarly the Lord’s domain. Christians pray before each meal because all meals are intrinsically religious occasions in which we intrude God’s domain by killing life, i.e., all eating involves the sacrifice of other lives. Vegetarians do not escape this realization that the paradox of life rests on the inescapable necessity of death.
The Christian worldview learns to unprivilege the unnecessary grip of this life to the exclusion of anticipating the life everlasting to come. One commentator suggested that the Christian belief in life after death in the presence of God liberates us from the incessant need to memorialize ourselves through our DNA via expectations imposed on our children, physical monuments, preserving our ideas of physical beauty and youth, etc. If we are to be divinely renewed, we need not hang on to perishable masks for dear life. This permits us to truly love beyond our immediate kin and make progress towards 'loving our neighbor'.
The doctrine of creation states that God created everything that is not God. What does it mean?
1) There is other reality than God and that it is really other than he. [The only ontological distinction is between creator and creature, there are no intermediate forms. God maintains this divide but crosses it by the energies of the Son and the Spirit. In Jesus Christ, creator and creation meet with the meeting of the two realities]
2) Everything made by God is good. The world is supposed to be worldly. While the world was created good, the world we encounter is far from good. It presents us with a combination of good and evil. It needs to be redeemed.
3) Creation was ‘formed in Christ’ who holds it together (Colossians 1: 16). Unlike the pantheism of Spinoza or the postmodern retreat, this posits a fundamental unity of being and truth in Christ. This opens up the possibilities for evolutionary development without being limited to a consistency with the various forms of Darwinist dogma.
The doctrine of providence teaches that God cares that everything so created is maintained and sustained by divine power. The account of creation in Genesis places the seventh day as the day of rest, when God’s creatio initio (creation) is complete and creatio continua (providence) begins.
This doctrine of genealogy issued by divine revelation touches on the question of origins. How did the beginning begin? God need not and could have not but in generosity did will to create. We conclude that in the beginning God in generosity took the initiative to create creation and make out of it the human race. As we image ourselves after God, the principal driving force may well be the characteristic of generosity. We ought to be loving not because we are grateful but because we have the seeds of generosity within us.
Implications and applications:
1. If we were created for a purposeful future, someone greater than ourselves must value us. Life is a precious gift. To live a human life is a special gift. We are capable of much more than we dare hope. We are called to a nobler existence than we presume.
2. If we are provided for in our everyday existence, we must not be unnecessarily anxious about the wrong issues. We ought to consider what is beyond our capacity to transform and what is within our ability to change for the better.
3. In responding to science, history and religious pluralism, the greatest challenge to the development of a Christian worldview, we may ask
(i) how does this knowledge from the Scriptures direct our attitude towards the powerful advances in science and technology,
(ii) how does it help us understand the impact of history and our ability to learn from it for the future, and
(iii) how does the knowledge that we are dependent on the triune God embolden us to think about the responsibility and privilege of testimonial witnessing with the power of the gospel to heal, to comfort and to bring joy?
On Septemebr 24th, 2006, this lecture will be delivered at the ACT Kairos Lecture at Redeemer Presbyterian Church that meets at Hunter College, City University of New York.
Please check www.actministry.org for more details.
The triune God created and made all that exists apart from God. Strangely, to understand the beginning, we have to first understand what to expect at the end. So although genealogy is about the beginning of existence, it can only be fully understood with reference to the final purpose at the end of creation, its teleological eschatology. The human race was not so much created as it was made, from created matter (earth and moisture). We were made in the image of God. But “What for?” The Church teaches that it is to exist and enjoy the glory of God in life everlasting. This presumes that existence is preferable to non-existence. It also presumes that fellowship is preferable to isolation. Finally, it presumes that to love and be loved is preferable to hate and be hated. To create is to establish and bring to being something previously without existence. The perennial question asked about reality is “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “How is God active both towards the world and within its structures?”
The Christian claim with regard to the origin of reality takes two forms:
1) God’s act of establishment is uniquely free and sovereign (The universe is in the hands of someone good and powerful rather than someone indifferent. This makes the issue of evil and suffering even more perplexing).
2) The theology of mediation of divine action (process of creation) takes various forms:
2.1: BY PERSONAL WORD: By the mere word of command: “Be” (“Let there be..”), an accommodation to the nature of creation, of a different order than of the creator. (The giving of space permitted there to be a reality other than God. God’s action of creation permits something its own unique freedom to be.
2.2: BY CRAFTSMANSHIP: Forming what has been created - God’s creation also includes the formation of what was initially created, e.g. Man (Psalm 139: 13-14 “ ... you knit me together in my mother’s womb, ... for I am fearfully and wonderfully made”) and the earth (Job 3: 14 describes the formation of the earth from primeval stuff “The earth takes shape like clay under a seal...”). God willed to allow another space and time to develop its own reality, writes Karl Barth. What about the six days of creation? Are these intervals ancient renditions of modern measures of time? Rather than wondering if ‘days’ meant six 24 hour cycles or not, Colin Gunton points to Basil of Caesarea who said, the pattern of days serves to establish the world’s relation to eternity Creation brought time to being. Gunton says that the seventh day of rest suggests that time is what God gives to things for their right development. [Time is God’s way of preventing everything from happening at once]
3.3: BY MINISTERIAL OPERATION: God enables some parts of creation serve as mediators of God’s creation of other parts (Genesis 1: 11, 20 “Let the earth bring forth...” the birth of a child). Humanity is the chief ministers of creation, as in the creative act of the sciences, and the arts. All fields of human inquiry are in fact examples of ministerial acts of creation by which we serve even unwittingly to further God’s will in creation. *Creation also means that all life belongs intimately to God because God alone is the giver, lord and master of life. ‘Life’ is peculiarly the Lord’s domain. Christians pray before each meal because all meals are intrinsically religious occasions in which we intrude God’s domain by killing life, i.e., all eating involves the sacrifice of other lives. Vegetarians do not escape this realization that the paradox of life rests on the inescapable necessity of death.
The Christian worldview learns to unprivilege the unnecessary grip of this life to the exclusion of anticipating the life everlasting to come. One commentator suggested that the Christian belief in life after death in the presence of God liberates us from the incessant need to memorialize ourselves through our DNA via expectations imposed on our children, physical monuments, preserving our ideas of physical beauty and youth, etc. If we are to be divinely renewed, we need not hang on to perishable masks for dear life. This permits us to truly love beyond our immediate kin and make progress towards 'loving our neighbor'.
The doctrine of creation states that God created everything that is not God. What does it mean?
1) There is other reality than God and that it is really other than he. [The only ontological distinction is between creator and creature, there are no intermediate forms. God maintains this divide but crosses it by the energies of the Son and the Spirit. In Jesus Christ, creator and creation meet with the meeting of the two realities]
2) Everything made by God is good. The world is supposed to be worldly. While the world was created good, the world we encounter is far from good. It presents us with a combination of good and evil. It needs to be redeemed.
3) Creation was ‘formed in Christ’ who holds it together (Colossians 1: 16). Unlike the pantheism of Spinoza or the postmodern retreat, this posits a fundamental unity of being and truth in Christ. This opens up the possibilities for evolutionary development without being limited to a consistency with the various forms of Darwinist dogma.
The doctrine of providence teaches that God cares that everything so created is maintained and sustained by divine power. The account of creation in Genesis places the seventh day as the day of rest, when God’s creatio initio (creation) is complete and creatio continua (providence) begins.
This doctrine of genealogy issued by divine revelation touches on the question of origins. How did the beginning begin? God need not and could have not but in generosity did will to create. We conclude that in the beginning God in generosity took the initiative to create creation and make out of it the human race. As we image ourselves after God, the principal driving force may well be the characteristic of generosity. We ought to be loving not because we are grateful but because we have the seeds of generosity within us.
Implications and applications:
1. If we were created for a purposeful future, someone greater than ourselves must value us. Life is a precious gift. To live a human life is a special gift. We are capable of much more than we dare hope. We are called to a nobler existence than we presume.
2. If we are provided for in our everyday existence, we must not be unnecessarily anxious about the wrong issues. We ought to consider what is beyond our capacity to transform and what is within our ability to change for the better.
3. In responding to science, history and religious pluralism, the greatest challenge to the development of a Christian worldview, we may ask
(i) how does this knowledge from the Scriptures direct our attitude towards the powerful advances in science and technology,
(ii) how does it help us understand the impact of history and our ability to learn from it for the future, and
(iii) how does the knowledge that we are dependent on the triune God embolden us to think about the responsibility and privilege of testimonial witnessing with the power of the gospel to heal, to comfort and to bring joy?
On Septemebr 24th, 2006, this lecture will be delivered at the ACT Kairos Lecture at Redeemer Presbyterian Church that meets at Hunter College, City University of New York.
Please check www.actministry.org for more details.
Friday, March 24, 2006
Darwin Symposium - Christian Reflections: New York City
The Academy for Christian Thought (ACT) is presenting a Darwin Symposium in conjunction with the Metanexus Institute (Funded by the John Templeton Foundation). It will be hosted at Calvary Baptist Church located at 123 W57th Street, NYC on April 22nd from 9am - 1pm.
Guest speakers will be Jeannie Drew (Head of Science of Riverdale Country School), Charlie Drew (Pastor), and Ron Choong (Apologist of Science & Theology). They will be examining the relationship between science and the Christian faith, and clarifying the issues at stake by addressing both the meaning and the implications of Darwin's work. Since Darwin has been the most influential thinker to shape the modern direction and understanding of science and philosophy, it is important that we understand his work. The symposium will present a Christian perspective on Darwin's writings, theories, and the current Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History.
Guest speakers will be Jeannie Drew (Head of Science of Riverdale Country School), Charlie Drew (Pastor), and Ron Choong (Apologist of Science & Theology). They will be examining the relationship between science and the Christian faith, and clarifying the issues at stake by addressing both the meaning and the implications of Darwin's work. Since Darwin has been the most influential thinker to shape the modern direction and understanding of science and philosophy, it is important that we understand his work. The symposium will present a Christian perspective on Darwin's writings, theories, and the current Darwin exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Q2.Origin of Life - Biogenesis
This is an executive summary of my seminar on the origin of life. The full text will soon be available on my minsitry website www.actministry.org
Why should we care about understanding this strange phenomenon called life? It began only once almost 4 billion years ago and we use the term life to describe a state of being when chemicals grow, reproduce and ... think about themselves, like we are doing now. One of the things they think about is, what am I?
THE 6 QUESTIONS ABOUT BIOGENESIS
This is a report about the state of human knowledge regarding the origin of life, which has become one of the great unsolved questions of science. The presumption in this report is that human knowledge is acquired by reasoning strategies we employ as we draw from a common resource of rationality that includes the natural sciences, philosophical speculation, theological reflection ad intuition. All of these resources are inevitably filtered through our hermeneutics of experience. Nothing that we learn about reality will pass muster if it is so counter-intuitive as to violate the foundations of our experiential memory. That said, let us begin with a quick overview of this essay.
A journalist’s litany of prime questions include the who, what, when, where, why and how. Three of these questions can be attempted by the natural sciences while three more fall into the purview of philosophy and theology. It is through the cooperation of various sciences that we can ask: What is the origin of life, when and how did it begin? As for where life first began, we can only speculate that if not the earth, then some planet and if not, perhaps some star system distant in time and space from us. The two questions that fall strictly outside the scope of the natural sciences are the questions: Who originated life, and why life lived?
1. What is life?
Believe it or not, there is no scientific definition for life. This is partly because the dividing line between nonlife and life is blurred. Viruses for example, exist as nonlife until it finds itself inside an appropriate host.
2. When did life first begin?
This is even more vexing. Our oldest record of life is found in rocks. Weathering and damage removes these records forever. This sets a limit to how far back in time we can definitively say how old the oldest life form is. While we can say how old the oldest fossils of life forms found in the oldest rocks are, we do not know when life first began. All we know is that it happened just once: biologists call this The Big Birth!
3. How did life begin?
Until the 1953 experimental breakthrough announced by Stanley Miller that marked the start of origins of life research, this question was the exclusive territory of theologians. However, after over 50 years, this great mystery is as yet unsolved by the natural sciences.
4. Where did life begin?
We know that life exists on earth and since 1984, possess evidence that life existed extra-terrestrially. What we do not know is where did life first appear in the universe.
5. Who caused life to exist?
History and science comes up short as a source to answer this question because the cause of the first life form had to be a nonlife form. How can nonlife ‘cause’ anything? One possibility is to think beyond the box and remove the assumption that non-material life can exist. Can the cause of life be a different order of life? The Christian tradition specifically answers the question: God, maker of heaven and earth, caused life to exist. Now comes the tricky part. Since science is the most manicured form of rationality we know, it is the function of theology to describe this revelation in language that bridges the gap between metaphysics and physics. We turn to philosophy for help and construct a systematic theology, a theology of nature.
6. Why does life live?
While this may appear to be a biochemical question, it is not. We are asking the teleological question of intention and purpose. Did life come to be because of an accidental confluence of conditions or did someone will it so? The eminent paleontologist Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge argued in his Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe that the odds are too great for a reasonable belief that life was not planned by some intelligence.
A promising research program now underway in both science and theology is the philosophical tool called the emergence of complexity. This model seeks to reconcile the Christian biblical teaching about the origin of life with contemporary findings in origin of life research. The implications are huge. It impacts everything from ethics to anthropology to medical research to politics and economics. After all, its about life!
Why should we care about understanding this strange phenomenon called life? It began only once almost 4 billion years ago and we use the term life to describe a state of being when chemicals grow, reproduce and ... think about themselves, like we are doing now. One of the things they think about is, what am I?
THE 6 QUESTIONS ABOUT BIOGENESIS
This is a report about the state of human knowledge regarding the origin of life, which has become one of the great unsolved questions of science. The presumption in this report is that human knowledge is acquired by reasoning strategies we employ as we draw from a common resource of rationality that includes the natural sciences, philosophical speculation, theological reflection ad intuition. All of these resources are inevitably filtered through our hermeneutics of experience. Nothing that we learn about reality will pass muster if it is so counter-intuitive as to violate the foundations of our experiential memory. That said, let us begin with a quick overview of this essay.
A journalist’s litany of prime questions include the who, what, when, where, why and how. Three of these questions can be attempted by the natural sciences while three more fall into the purview of philosophy and theology. It is through the cooperation of various sciences that we can ask: What is the origin of life, when and how did it begin? As for where life first began, we can only speculate that if not the earth, then some planet and if not, perhaps some star system distant in time and space from us. The two questions that fall strictly outside the scope of the natural sciences are the questions: Who originated life, and why life lived?
1. What is life?
Believe it or not, there is no scientific definition for life. This is partly because the dividing line between nonlife and life is blurred. Viruses for example, exist as nonlife until it finds itself inside an appropriate host.
2. When did life first begin?
This is even more vexing. Our oldest record of life is found in rocks. Weathering and damage removes these records forever. This sets a limit to how far back in time we can definitively say how old the oldest life form is. While we can say how old the oldest fossils of life forms found in the oldest rocks are, we do not know when life first began. All we know is that it happened just once: biologists call this The Big Birth!
3. How did life begin?
Until the 1953 experimental breakthrough announced by Stanley Miller that marked the start of origins of life research, this question was the exclusive territory of theologians. However, after over 50 years, this great mystery is as yet unsolved by the natural sciences.
4. Where did life begin?
We know that life exists on earth and since 1984, possess evidence that life existed extra-terrestrially. What we do not know is where did life first appear in the universe.
5. Who caused life to exist?
History and science comes up short as a source to answer this question because the cause of the first life form had to be a nonlife form. How can nonlife ‘cause’ anything? One possibility is to think beyond the box and remove the assumption that non-material life can exist. Can the cause of life be a different order of life? The Christian tradition specifically answers the question: God, maker of heaven and earth, caused life to exist. Now comes the tricky part. Since science is the most manicured form of rationality we know, it is the function of theology to describe this revelation in language that bridges the gap between metaphysics and physics. We turn to philosophy for help and construct a systematic theology, a theology of nature.
6. Why does life live?
While this may appear to be a biochemical question, it is not. We are asking the teleological question of intention and purpose. Did life come to be because of an accidental confluence of conditions or did someone will it so? The eminent paleontologist Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge argued in his Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe that the odds are too great for a reasonable belief that life was not planned by some intelligence.
A promising research program now underway in both science and theology is the philosophical tool called the emergence of complexity. This model seeks to reconcile the Christian biblical teaching about the origin of life with contemporary findings in origin of life research. The implications are huge. It impacts everything from ethics to anthropology to medical research to politics and economics. After all, its about life!
Monday, January 30, 2006
Question of Origins Seminars in New York City
If you are in New York on these dates, do check out the website (www.actministry.org) and join us for our series on the Doctrine of Creation and the Natural Sciences.
2006 Areopagus Semnars on the Question of Origins
Jan 14
Q1: Where Did It All Come From? - Origin of the Universe
The seminar surveys what philosophy, science and theology has to say about
the origin of matter. This is crucial for our basis of understanding reality
and shapes the way we view just about everything else. We shall discuss the
Big Bang theory and the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (CEN) that
includes creatio continua (CC). What does the Big Bang Model mean for
Christians? What exactly is the deal with Quantum Physics? If you have
always wondered about what the Big Bang and Quantum models mean, now is the
time to find out in a Theological Safe Space (TSS). Can we still continue to
trust the Bible? Is the Christian doctrine of creation (DOC) still true?
If not, why continue believing in God and the Bible?
If so, how does it shape what we think and how we live as Christians?
The goal is to consider how philosophy and science can contribute to an
enriched theological understanding of reality. This is the first of three
seminars in the Questions of Origins series of investigations. The next 2
months will explore the Origin of Life and the Origin of Man. No special
knowledge of philosophy, science or theology is necessary. The lecture will
be recorded live and available as a CD within a month of the seminar.
Feb 18
Q2: Why Does Life Live? - Origin of Life
The seminar surveys what philosophy, science and theology has to say about
the origin of life. This has been the subject of inquiry since the earliest
days of systematic thought and remains outside the grasp of human cognition.
But how we perceive both the question and the answer, conditions even if it
does not determine, how we value the treasures and treasure the values of
our existence. We shall examine the current international scientific quest
for the origin of life that began with a famous 1953 experiment on amino
acids. Until the 1950s, this question was the exclusive purview of theology.
Since then however, philosophers have joined scientists in offering
explanations to understand the 'spark' of life, the life force, or élan
vital. The current philosophical and scientific theories of biogenesis
include the emergence of RNA and the theory of informational biochemical
self-assembly. And the dominant presumption is that biogenesis must be a
natural (read, atheistic) process. This implies that Christian belief is
holding back the development of scientific progress.
The goal is to consider how philosophy and science can contribute to an
enriched theological understanding of the gift of life. This is the second
of three seminars in the Questions of Origins series of investigations. No
special knowledge of philosophy, science or theology is necessary. The
lecture will be recorded live and available as a CD within a month of the
seminar.
Mar 18
Q3: What Makes Us Human? - Origin of Human Uniqueness
The seminar surveys what philosophy, science and theology has to say about
the origin of humanity. This is a fundamental question that both philosophy
and the sciences are grappling with, producing more questions than answers.
We shall examine the current philosophical and scientific theories of moral
cognition, symbolic speciation, paleoanthropological architecture of the
mind, the cognitive sciences, and the neurosciences. Modern
paleoanthropology has described a continuum between ape-men and modern
humans. In the search for human uniqueness, scientists now argue that modern
man emerged "Out of Africa" and met up with European Cro-Magnon hominids.
The latter became extinct, either through genocide or assimilation. How does
this square with the Biblical teaching that Adam and Eve were formed from
dust and placed in the Garden of Eden near modern Iraq?
Scientists argue that the emergence of European cave art about 40K years ago
marked the making of modern man. This implies that the Biblical account is
mythical; Christian belief is an obstacle to scientific progress. We will
also discuss the nature of symbolic grammatical language and religious moral
cognition in humans. The goal is to consider how philosophy and science can
contribute to an enriched theological understanding of what it means to be
made imago Dei (in the image of God). Our commitment to what the answer
might be influences our everyday decisions. Is Christian belief inconsistent
with the science taught at our high schools and universities? What is a
Christian to do? This is the third of three seminars in the Questions of
Origins series of investigations. No special knowledge of philosophy,
science or theology is necessary. The lecture will be recorded live and
available as a CD within a month of the seminar.
2006 Areopagus Semnars on the Question of Origins
Jan 14
Q1: Where Did It All Come From? - Origin of the Universe
The seminar surveys what philosophy, science and theology has to say about
the origin of matter. This is crucial for our basis of understanding reality
and shapes the way we view just about everything else. We shall discuss the
Big Bang theory and the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (CEN) that
includes creatio continua (CC). What does the Big Bang Model mean for
Christians? What exactly is the deal with Quantum Physics? If you have
always wondered about what the Big Bang and Quantum models mean, now is the
time to find out in a Theological Safe Space (TSS). Can we still continue to
trust the Bible? Is the Christian doctrine of creation (DOC) still true?
If not, why continue believing in God and the Bible?
If so, how does it shape what we think and how we live as Christians?
The goal is to consider how philosophy and science can contribute to an
enriched theological understanding of reality. This is the first of three
seminars in the Questions of Origins series of investigations. The next 2
months will explore the Origin of Life and the Origin of Man. No special
knowledge of philosophy, science or theology is necessary. The lecture will
be recorded live and available as a CD within a month of the seminar.
Feb 18
Q2: Why Does Life Live? - Origin of Life
The seminar surveys what philosophy, science and theology has to say about
the origin of life. This has been the subject of inquiry since the earliest
days of systematic thought and remains outside the grasp of human cognition.
But how we perceive both the question and the answer, conditions even if it
does not determine, how we value the treasures and treasure the values of
our existence. We shall examine the current international scientific quest
for the origin of life that began with a famous 1953 experiment on amino
acids. Until the 1950s, this question was the exclusive purview of theology.
Since then however, philosophers have joined scientists in offering
explanations to understand the 'spark' of life, the life force, or élan
vital. The current philosophical and scientific theories of biogenesis
include the emergence of RNA and the theory of informational biochemical
self-assembly. And the dominant presumption is that biogenesis must be a
natural (read, atheistic) process. This implies that Christian belief is
holding back the development of scientific progress.
The goal is to consider how philosophy and science can contribute to an
enriched theological understanding of the gift of life. This is the second
of three seminars in the Questions of Origins series of investigations. No
special knowledge of philosophy, science or theology is necessary. The
lecture will be recorded live and available as a CD within a month of the
seminar.
Mar 18
Q3: What Makes Us Human? - Origin of Human Uniqueness
The seminar surveys what philosophy, science and theology has to say about
the origin of humanity. This is a fundamental question that both philosophy
and the sciences are grappling with, producing more questions than answers.
We shall examine the current philosophical and scientific theories of moral
cognition, symbolic speciation, paleoanthropological architecture of the
mind, the cognitive sciences, and the neurosciences. Modern
paleoanthropology has described a continuum between ape-men and modern
humans. In the search for human uniqueness, scientists now argue that modern
man emerged "Out of Africa" and met up with European Cro-Magnon hominids.
The latter became extinct, either through genocide or assimilation. How does
this square with the Biblical teaching that Adam and Eve were formed from
dust and placed in the Garden of Eden near modern Iraq?
Scientists argue that the emergence of European cave art about 40K years ago
marked the making of modern man. This implies that the Biblical account is
mythical; Christian belief is an obstacle to scientific progress. We will
also discuss the nature of symbolic grammatical language and religious moral
cognition in humans. The goal is to consider how philosophy and science can
contribute to an enriched theological understanding of what it means to be
made imago Dei (in the image of God). Our commitment to what the answer
might be influences our everyday decisions. Is Christian belief inconsistent
with the science taught at our high schools and universities? What is a
Christian to do? This is the third of three seminars in the Questions of
Origins series of investigations. No special knowledge of philosophy,
science or theology is necessary. The lecture will be recorded live and
available as a CD within a month of the seminar.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Who Controls Your Beliefs?
CONTROL BELIEFS
We do not think in a vacuum.
Even freethinkers are not as free as they think they are when they are thinking, or when they think they are thinking.
This is because thinking is an active exercise of the will. More importantly, all thinking begins with prior beliefs. We call these foundational assumptions control beliefs.
1 DATA, THEORY, AND CONVICTIONS
The quest for human knowledge is shaped by decisions about what is worth investigating and what presuppositions to hold in order to direct the available economic and intellectual resources for the maximum payoff. In the preface to his Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, Nicholas Wolterstorff identified two issues that all scholars face: (i) which matters to investigate and (ii) which views to hold. He develops a research program by which theory building is based on the three parameters of (i) data, (ii) theory and (iii) control beliefs.
Control beliefs (CB) may take the form of methodological, philosophical or ontological convictions. It is used to weigh theories and doctrines in science and theology. If a theory or doctrine does not fit the CB, it has to be either revised or discarded. The test is ultimately probabilistic, i.e., whatever seems to be more likely than not the case. Most of the conflicts between science and theology occur at the level of control beliefs.
Our structures of beliefs form the filter by which we determine what data can be trusted as knowledge. We all build up a set of control beliefs (CB) that anchor all other derivative beliefs (DB). In time, such beliefs become entrenched in our confessions, our public expression of our private beliefs. One may confess that God exists. Such a confession may arise from a conviction that this is so even if it cannot be proven. When challenged, we may make a commitment to buttress our convictions by making more public confessions.
2 CHRISTIAN BELIEF
Christian belief is no different from all other kinds of belief. It possesses control beliefs by which to evaluate other sources of data. Information that becomes adopted as authoritative acquires the status of knowledge. Although knowledge may be tested and challenged, sometimes even losing its status if contrary information undermines it, control beliefs are rarely toppled.
In Christian belief, the stakes are as high as they can possibly get. It extends beyond the most precious possession we all have, biological existence. For the Christian, belief in and about God concerns everlasting life. Such belief shapes our knowledge of reality and should be evident in our decisions and behavior. Unlike mere intellectual assent, the issues are live and the outcome must be consistent with the commitments.
3 FAITH AND BELIEF
3.1 Can people of faith change their beliefs?
What is fidelity to divine revelation? It is fashionable to believe that faithfulness, say; to the teachings of the Bible means our understanding of what it teaches does not change with time. If this was so, today’s Christians would not need to buy new books offering fresh insights, scholars and researchers need not spend time clarifying difficult passages and preachers and missionaries need not work at studying the Bible. It would also mean that all the changes throughout church history are acts of infidelity. The Reformers would be accused of faithlessness.
Such a static view of human understanding also presumes that
(i) Knowledge of God through the Scriptures and the saints are perfect for all time
(ii) Our ancestors had intelligence that cannot or need not be surpassed
(iii) Their interpretations are perfect and need no correction, and
(iv) Correction of human interpretations of our knowledge of God is undesirable
In practice, the church does not act like this. We conduct all sorts of programs to better educate ourselves and increase our powers of understanding just as the Lord encouraged us to. Understanding is a progressive and cumulative act. God is not angry at imperfect understanding but for willful misunderstanding leading to disobedience. Our faith should be steadfast with regard to God, not to our understanding about God.
The most dangerous type of religious believers are those who stop thinking, or renewing their minds. Indeed, most heresies or wrong beliefs arise from a stubborn resistance to fresh understanding of the old data. Knowledge depends not only on data but also on the interpretation of it. Many biblical characters and leaders of the church change their understanding on learning curves. Prophets had to unlearn what they thought were correct views about God. Most regarded themselves as faithful to God when in fact they were faithful to their understanding of God. Thus Abram changed his view of God many times when he was corrected from his ways; David certainly had his share of missing God’s point and Solomon continued in his father’s missteps; Peter had to be stopped from undermining God’s salvation plan; Paul thought he was doing God a favor by persecuting Christians; and the Corinthian church believed they were exercising freedom in Christ by endorsing ‘free-love’.
It is the height of arrogance to suppose that we in this generation have no inherent mistakes regarding our understanding of God. The history intellectual progress is nothing more than discoveries of errors to be corrected until the correction itself becomes corrected. This does not mean that what we think we know about God is wrong. But it does mean that, like children, our powers of achieving understanding about God increases with learning and correction. Our approximations of knowledge get better with each passing generation, as it should. While we should not be unnecessarily ashamed of past errors, we should also not be arrogant about recent gains in understanding.
3.2. The role of extra-biblical knowledge
Christian belief and faith welcomes extra-biblical resources to complete our understanding of reality (e.g. The Pilot Syndrome: On a plane, even a priest prefers a qualified pilot to one who shares his theological views. We need more than knowledge from the Bible to survive.) The Bible is not a comprehensive guidebook for everything we need for living. It is a special message from God with frameworks by which to build a worldview to assess how we are doing. While the Bible is a special inheritance from believers who came before us, it is a relatively recent resource. Most of the people who worshipped God had no access to the Bible. Less than two thousand years ago, no one in the world had the New Testament. Before the public ministry of Jesus, no one had his teachings to go by. Before Moses was called into service, there would have been no mosaic teachings and laws from God. The faithful at the time of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob and Joseph, did not have the Old Testament. St. Augustine wrote De Doctrina Christiana that Christians ought to seek legitimate uses of extra-biblical sources because all knowledge ultimately comes from God. This is not to diminish the value of the Bible, but to draw attention to the fact that unlike the Muslims, we are not really “People of the Book”. We are “People of the God who gave us the Book”.
4 CONTROLLING CONTROL BELIEFS
(Renewing our minds)
Can control beliefs change? Yes. Romans 12: 1-2 speaks of the renewal of our minds. Paul refers to the shaping of our control beliefs so that it is subservient to God’s will. In this passage, Paul does not say we are to conform to God’s will because God is more powerful. Rather, when we reflect deeply and honestly by renewing our minds back to the state when we first gave our hearts (minds) to God, we can test and discern the perfect will of God.
Christians have the privilege of having the help of the Holy Spirit as our personal trainer. The Spirit’s primary function with regard to Christians stated in John 16: 13, is to sustain the fidelity of our (control) beliefs by guiding us into all truth and declare to us “the things that are to come”. In John 16: 8, Jesus taught that the Helper (Advocate) will come to convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. It is this convicting power of the Holy Spirit which will safeguard Christian control beliefs if we let it. It is with this divine promise that we dare to confront the excesses of postmodern uncertainty. Yet the paradox of free will given to us means we can undermine our own advantage by refusing to submit to the Spirit. It is only by voluntarily and intentionally permitting the Holy Spirit to control our control beliefs can we begin our quest for a Christian mind.
We do not think in a vacuum.
Even freethinkers are not as free as they think they are when they are thinking, or when they think they are thinking.
This is because thinking is an active exercise of the will. More importantly, all thinking begins with prior beliefs. We call these foundational assumptions control beliefs.
1 DATA, THEORY, AND CONVICTIONS
The quest for human knowledge is shaped by decisions about what is worth investigating and what presuppositions to hold in order to direct the available economic and intellectual resources for the maximum payoff. In the preface to his Reason Within the Bounds of Religion, Nicholas Wolterstorff identified two issues that all scholars face: (i) which matters to investigate and (ii) which views to hold. He develops a research program by which theory building is based on the three parameters of (i) data, (ii) theory and (iii) control beliefs.
Control beliefs (CB) may take the form of methodological, philosophical or ontological convictions. It is used to weigh theories and doctrines in science and theology. If a theory or doctrine does not fit the CB, it has to be either revised or discarded. The test is ultimately probabilistic, i.e., whatever seems to be more likely than not the case. Most of the conflicts between science and theology occur at the level of control beliefs.
Our structures of beliefs form the filter by which we determine what data can be trusted as knowledge. We all build up a set of control beliefs (CB) that anchor all other derivative beliefs (DB). In time, such beliefs become entrenched in our confessions, our public expression of our private beliefs. One may confess that God exists. Such a confession may arise from a conviction that this is so even if it cannot be proven. When challenged, we may make a commitment to buttress our convictions by making more public confessions.
2 CHRISTIAN BELIEF
Christian belief is no different from all other kinds of belief. It possesses control beliefs by which to evaluate other sources of data. Information that becomes adopted as authoritative acquires the status of knowledge. Although knowledge may be tested and challenged, sometimes even losing its status if contrary information undermines it, control beliefs are rarely toppled.
In Christian belief, the stakes are as high as they can possibly get. It extends beyond the most precious possession we all have, biological existence. For the Christian, belief in and about God concerns everlasting life. Such belief shapes our knowledge of reality and should be evident in our decisions and behavior. Unlike mere intellectual assent, the issues are live and the outcome must be consistent with the commitments.
3 FAITH AND BELIEF
3.1 Can people of faith change their beliefs?
What is fidelity to divine revelation? It is fashionable to believe that faithfulness, say; to the teachings of the Bible means our understanding of what it teaches does not change with time. If this was so, today’s Christians would not need to buy new books offering fresh insights, scholars and researchers need not spend time clarifying difficult passages and preachers and missionaries need not work at studying the Bible. It would also mean that all the changes throughout church history are acts of infidelity. The Reformers would be accused of faithlessness.
Such a static view of human understanding also presumes that
(i) Knowledge of God through the Scriptures and the saints are perfect for all time
(ii) Our ancestors had intelligence that cannot or need not be surpassed
(iii) Their interpretations are perfect and need no correction, and
(iv) Correction of human interpretations of our knowledge of God is undesirable
In practice, the church does not act like this. We conduct all sorts of programs to better educate ourselves and increase our powers of understanding just as the Lord encouraged us to. Understanding is a progressive and cumulative act. God is not angry at imperfect understanding but for willful misunderstanding leading to disobedience. Our faith should be steadfast with regard to God, not to our understanding about God.
The most dangerous type of religious believers are those who stop thinking, or renewing their minds. Indeed, most heresies or wrong beliefs arise from a stubborn resistance to fresh understanding of the old data. Knowledge depends not only on data but also on the interpretation of it. Many biblical characters and leaders of the church change their understanding on learning curves. Prophets had to unlearn what they thought were correct views about God. Most regarded themselves as faithful to God when in fact they were faithful to their understanding of God. Thus Abram changed his view of God many times when he was corrected from his ways; David certainly had his share of missing God’s point and Solomon continued in his father’s missteps; Peter had to be stopped from undermining God’s salvation plan; Paul thought he was doing God a favor by persecuting Christians; and the Corinthian church believed they were exercising freedom in Christ by endorsing ‘free-love’.
It is the height of arrogance to suppose that we in this generation have no inherent mistakes regarding our understanding of God. The history intellectual progress is nothing more than discoveries of errors to be corrected until the correction itself becomes corrected. This does not mean that what we think we know about God is wrong. But it does mean that, like children, our powers of achieving understanding about God increases with learning and correction. Our approximations of knowledge get better with each passing generation, as it should. While we should not be unnecessarily ashamed of past errors, we should also not be arrogant about recent gains in understanding.
3.2. The role of extra-biblical knowledge
Christian belief and faith welcomes extra-biblical resources to complete our understanding of reality (e.g. The Pilot Syndrome: On a plane, even a priest prefers a qualified pilot to one who shares his theological views. We need more than knowledge from the Bible to survive.) The Bible is not a comprehensive guidebook for everything we need for living. It is a special message from God with frameworks by which to build a worldview to assess how we are doing. While the Bible is a special inheritance from believers who came before us, it is a relatively recent resource. Most of the people who worshipped God had no access to the Bible. Less than two thousand years ago, no one in the world had the New Testament. Before the public ministry of Jesus, no one had his teachings to go by. Before Moses was called into service, there would have been no mosaic teachings and laws from God. The faithful at the time of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob and Joseph, did not have the Old Testament. St. Augustine wrote De Doctrina Christiana that Christians ought to seek legitimate uses of extra-biblical sources because all knowledge ultimately comes from God. This is not to diminish the value of the Bible, but to draw attention to the fact that unlike the Muslims, we are not really “People of the Book”. We are “People of the God who gave us the Book”.
4 CONTROLLING CONTROL BELIEFS
(Renewing our minds)
Can control beliefs change? Yes. Romans 12: 1-2 speaks of the renewal of our minds. Paul refers to the shaping of our control beliefs so that it is subservient to God’s will. In this passage, Paul does not say we are to conform to God’s will because God is more powerful. Rather, when we reflect deeply and honestly by renewing our minds back to the state when we first gave our hearts (minds) to God, we can test and discern the perfect will of God.
Christians have the privilege of having the help of the Holy Spirit as our personal trainer. The Spirit’s primary function with regard to Christians stated in John 16: 13, is to sustain the fidelity of our (control) beliefs by guiding us into all truth and declare to us “the things that are to come”. In John 16: 8, Jesus taught that the Helper (Advocate) will come to convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. It is this convicting power of the Holy Spirit which will safeguard Christian control beliefs if we let it. It is with this divine promise that we dare to confront the excesses of postmodern uncertainty. Yet the paradox of free will given to us means we can undermine our own advantage by refusing to submit to the Spirit. It is only by voluntarily and intentionally permitting the Holy Spirit to control our control beliefs can we begin our quest for a Christian mind.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Hinduism in America? Try Hollywood
American movies are the most successful purveyors and evangelists of classical Hinduism packaged for western and wanna-be-western minds.
From the Star Wars Sextet of movies to the Matrix trilogy we find echoes of pantheism pervading the media culture. Buddhism, which is reformed version of Hinduism, has come to be the dominant philosophical culture of sports personalities and movie moguls (BTW, this is an adulteration of the Moghul empire of India, Muslim Mongols who ruled northern India). How did Hinduism come to be such an important part of American intellectual life?
In September 1893, the powerful orator Swami (master) Vivekananda (1863-1902), founder of the Ramakrishna Mission of Calcutta (1897) delivered a remarkable speech at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago, organized by the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic Churches. He effectively ignited Hinduism’s coming of age in America. Here are his speeches which charmed the west:
ADDRESSES AT THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS
RESPONSE TO WELCOME
Chicago, September 11, 1893
" Sisters and Brothers of America,
It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm and cordial welcome which you have given us. I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions, and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.
My thanks, also, to some of the speakers on this platform who, referring to the delegates from the Orient, have told you that these men from far-off nations may well claim the honor of bearing to different lands the idea of toleration. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation. I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human beings: “As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”
The present convention, which is one of the most august assemblies ever held, is in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world of the wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: "Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me." Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal."
Sixteen days later, at the closing fo the Parliament, the newly celebrated young Indian monk was again invited to address the crowd.
ADDRESS AT THE FINAL SESSION
Chicago, September 27, 1893
"The World's Parliament of Religions has become an accomplished fact, and the merciful Father has helped those who laboured to bring it into existence, and crowned with success their most unselfish labour.
My thanks to those noble souls whose large hearts and love of truth first dreamed this wonderful dream and then realized it. My thanks to the shower of liberal sentiments that has overflowed this platform. My thanks to this enlightened audience for their uniform kindness to me and for their appreciation of every thought that tends to smooth the friction of religions. A few jarring notes were heard from time to time in this harmony. My special thanks to them, for they have, by their striking contrast, made general harmony the sweeter.
Much has been said of the common ground of religious unity. I am not going just now to venture my own theory. But if any one here hopes that this unity will come by the triumph of any one of the religions and the destruction of the others, to him I say, "Brother, yours is an impossible hope." Do I wish that the Christian would become Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist would become Christian? God forbid.
The seed is put in the ground, and earth and air and water are placed around it. Does the seed become the earth, or the air, or the water? No. It becomes a plant. It develops after the law of its own growth, assimilates the air, the earth, and the water, converts them into plant substance, and grows into a plant.
Similar is the case with religion. The Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.
If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world, it is this: It has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. In the face of this evidence, if anybody dreams of the exclusive survival of his own religion and the destruction of the others, I pity him from the bottom of my heart, and point out to him that upon the banner of every religion will soon be written in spite of resistance: “Help and not fight,” “Assimilation and not Destruction,” “Harmony and Peace and not Dissension. "
The keynote of his message is: “Truth is one: Sages call it by various names.” Its four cardinal points are
non-duality of the Godhead,
divinity of the soul,
oneness of existence, and
harmony of religions.
All four points contradict Christian orthodoxy. The Christian God is not one god but triune, the soul is not divine but created, existence is not unified because God is eternal and religions are not in harmony precisely because Hinduism and Christianity, for example, are mutually exclusive. The very claim of Vivekananda to recognize the integrity of Christianity denies the integrity of the hinduism he espouses.
The following is taken from the Ramakrishna website:
Religion, in the light of Vivekananda’s Vedanta, is the manifestation of the divinity already in man. The central theme of Vedanta is harmony of religions. This spiritual harmony is to be realized by deepening our spiritual consciousness. Vedanta asks a Christian to be a true Christian, a Hindu a true Hindu, a Buddhist a true Buddhist, a Jew a true Jew, Moslem a true Moslem. The message was timely and powerful. America had received a rude shock from the Civil War and its aftermath. Science had already shaken the very roots of religious beliefs and dogmas, and the ideas of Darwin were challenging conventional American thought and religion. Americans were looking for a philosophy that could harmonize science with humanism and mystical experience, and Swami Vivekananda's words gave them hope for the fulfillment of their spiritual aspirations. The message was powerful not because of its dialectical superiority or philosophical subtlety, but because of the personality of Swami Vivekananda. The message was an ancient one, but it bore a fire of conviction that was new. One familiar with the life of Swami Vivekananda will recall that his Master, Sri Ramakrishna, saw in him the power and potentiality of a great world teacher. Before the Master passed away, he prophesied: “Narendra (Swami Vivekananda) will teach others ….. Very soon he will shake the world by his intellectual and spiritual powers.”
Note the confidence with which this form of Hinduism assesses its impact on the Christian west. Vivekananda was the most powerful Hindu evangelist to America, invited and welcomed by the Presbyterian Church to preach the Hindu message from Chicago.
In 1976, Vivekananda was celebrated in Washington, D.C. during the American Bicentennial Celebration. here is how the Hindus described it:
On the occasion of America's Bicentennial Celebration in 1976, the National Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C., mounted a large portrait of Swami Vivekananda as part of its exhibition "Abroad in America: Visitors to the New Nation," which paid tribute to the great personalities who visited America from abroad and made a deep impression on the American mind. Among those honored in the exhibition, some influenced art or literature, some science, education or social reform. But Swami Vivekananda touched the very soul of American people. The commemorative volume of the exhibition says: "The Swami charmed the audiences with his magical oratory, and left an indelible mark on America's spiritual development." This is no exaggeration. Swami Vivekananda was the first Hindu monk from India ever to visit America. Guided solely by the will of Providence, he embarked on this journey to the new world. The unknown wandering monk, lost in the streets of Chicago, suddenly became famous after his first day's brief address before the Parliament. A select audience of nearly 7,000 enlightened representatives of different branches of American thought became thrilled to hear his message and welcomed him with sustained and thunderous applause. He captured the hearts of the American people. Crowds gathered in the streets of Chicago to see the picture posters of Swami Vivekananda placed on billboards around the city, and lecture bureaus vied with one another to enlist him for lectures in different cities. Leading newspapers and journals published his words in bold letters. Some of these newspapers described him as the "cyclonic Hindu," some as "prince among men" or "Brahmin monk," while others chose to designate him by such epithets as "warrior prophet" and "militant mystic." Contemporary leaders of American thought who met him were entranced by the radiance of his spiritual personality and his powerful message. Professor John Henry Wright of Harvard University told Swami Vivekananda: "To ask you, Swami, for your credentials is like asking the sun about its right to shine." After hearing Swami Vivekananda, the correspondent of one journal wrote: "The impertinence of sending half-educated theological students to instruct the wise and erudite Orientals was never brought home to an English-speaking audience more forcibly." Professor William James referred to Swami Vivekananda as "the paragon of Vedantists."29
Swami Vivekananda’s powerful arguments (some in bold) began the slow erosion and decline of missional evangelism in India among the ‘enlightened’ leaders of many mainline churches of America.
CONCLUSION
As with all encounters with the great religions of the world, the central issue of contention is the identity of Jesus as described in the gospel. Hinduism cannot tolerate the Christian claim that Jesus is divine and the only savior of humanity. This starkly denies the efficacy and truth of Hindu teaching. Not surprisingly, Hindu teaching reciprocally denies the central beliefs of the christian faith. To pretend otherwise is unfair to both religions and dishonest in the extreme.
Hinduism through the Upanishads claims that every human being can achieve what Jesus did on the Cross. Perfect humanity and perfect divinity are essential components of the human race. In the eyes of a Hindu, the sacrifice of Christ was unnecessary and in fact scandalous.
That the collective karmic debt of the entire human race from the past to the future can be erased by the act of anyone is beyond comprehension. Each one is responsible for the consequences of past and present incarnations. The debt is personal and cannot be satisfied by another being.
The idea of an eternally absolute God which is distinct from the work of divine creation is rejected by Hindu thought. The notion of divine revelation as a top-down understanding of knowledge acquisition means that all which pertains to Hindu thought is discovered rather than disclosed. As such, new additions to older versions of religious thought is not so much welcomed as permitted and expected. In this manner, the Vedas were superseded by the Upanishads, which were themselves imposed upon by the Bhagavad Gita of the Mahabharata.
An basic understanding, however superficial, of the development of Hindu thought and religious practices, helps us empathize with the spiritual journey of billions of Indians through the ages as they try to make sense of a fearful reality, one in which the ravages of time reduce the powerful societies of humanity to dust, without exception. The finality of death and the intensity of human suffering adds to the despair which prompted philosophers to account for the meaning of life in terms of justice and love. Where no overriding divine proclamation of love is evident, justice becomes the virtue of choice.
It is through the lens of justice that Hinduism finds its foundation: the doctrines of karma (which assures us that ‘the wages of sin is death’ and the ‘God will not be mocked’), samsara (which gives us hope that our squandered opportunities in life will not end in the final curse but will result in yet another opportunity to seek liberation), and moksha (the ultimate desire of all Hindus to find release from the endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths that accompanies all life.)
What can Christians learn from Hinduism(s)
This religion of the east has as its final goal, the hope of salvation from suffering.
We are all creatures of our environment. Our contexts shape the rationality which in turn, shapes our worldview. Yet being conditioned by our circumstances does not entail being determined by them. We are creatures with the will to believe and hope beyond the limits of our direct perceptions.
The gospel is the final and most promising hope for all Hindus who truly acknowledge the predicament that we are in.
Christians ought to be RAW witnesses
This entails being ready, able and willing to proclaim the message of the Cross to a hurting people. To be ready involves girding oneself with the resolve to offer the sacrifice of time and ego, to lower personal expectations of rewards for the sake of the gospel that others too may know of Christ’s love for them. To be able involves taking the costly effort to learn something about the religions of the world, in this case, Hinduism, that we may be equipped for the daunting task of inviting others to transform their worldviews.
To be willing is to make the intellectual determination overcome internal obstacles which may privilege personal benefits over those of others, to will the right and the good, not for their own sakes but because we are redeemed children of a generous God. The RAW witness is generous beyond belief!
What should we tell a Hindu about Christ?
Hinduism claims that truth is one. If Christianity is true, Hinduism cannot sustain any credibility. The best reason to bear witness to anyone about anything is because it is true. It is impossible to be an effective witness if we do not really believe what we witness to. Discovering the world of Hinduism for the purpose of bringing the gospel to our Hindu friends and loved ones forces us to confront the challenges of Hindu thought for a more robust Christian belief.
Hindu teachings will confront our presuppositions about Christianity and the Gospel message, shaming us into developing a comprehensive worldview by which God’s revelation through the Scriptures may be offered as the worldview of choice for everyone -
because it is TRUE!
From the Star Wars Sextet of movies to the Matrix trilogy we find echoes of pantheism pervading the media culture. Buddhism, which is reformed version of Hinduism, has come to be the dominant philosophical culture of sports personalities and movie moguls (BTW, this is an adulteration of the Moghul empire of India, Muslim Mongols who ruled northern India). How did Hinduism come to be such an important part of American intellectual life?
In September 1893, the powerful orator Swami (master) Vivekananda (1863-1902), founder of the Ramakrishna Mission of Calcutta (1897) delivered a remarkable speech at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago, organized by the Presbyterian and Roman Catholic Churches. He effectively ignited Hinduism’s coming of age in America. Here are his speeches which charmed the west:
ADDRESSES AT THE PARLIAMENT OF RELIGIONS
RESPONSE TO WELCOME
Chicago, September 11, 1893
" Sisters and Brothers of America,
It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm and cordial welcome which you have given us. I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions, and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.
My thanks, also, to some of the speakers on this platform who, referring to the delegates from the Orient, have told you that these men from far-off nations may well claim the honor of bearing to different lands the idea of toleration. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shattered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation. I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human beings: “As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”
The present convention, which is one of the most august assemblies ever held, is in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world of the wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: "Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me." Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal."
Sixteen days later, at the closing fo the Parliament, the newly celebrated young Indian monk was again invited to address the crowd.
ADDRESS AT THE FINAL SESSION
Chicago, September 27, 1893
"The World's Parliament of Religions has become an accomplished fact, and the merciful Father has helped those who laboured to bring it into existence, and crowned with success their most unselfish labour.
My thanks to those noble souls whose large hearts and love of truth first dreamed this wonderful dream and then realized it. My thanks to the shower of liberal sentiments that has overflowed this platform. My thanks to this enlightened audience for their uniform kindness to me and for their appreciation of every thought that tends to smooth the friction of religions. A few jarring notes were heard from time to time in this harmony. My special thanks to them, for they have, by their striking contrast, made general harmony the sweeter.
Much has been said of the common ground of religious unity. I am not going just now to venture my own theory. But if any one here hopes that this unity will come by the triumph of any one of the religions and the destruction of the others, to him I say, "Brother, yours is an impossible hope." Do I wish that the Christian would become Hindu? God forbid. Do I wish that the Hindu or Buddhist would become Christian? God forbid.
The seed is put in the ground, and earth and air and water are placed around it. Does the seed become the earth, or the air, or the water? No. It becomes a plant. It develops after the law of its own growth, assimilates the air, the earth, and the water, converts them into plant substance, and grows into a plant.
Similar is the case with religion. The Christian is not to become a Hindu or a Buddhist, nor a Hindu or a Buddhist to become a Christian. But each must assimilate the spirit of the others and yet preserve his individuality and grow according to his own law of growth.
If the Parliament of Religions has shown anything to the world, it is this: It has proved to the world that holiness, purity and charity are not the exclusive possessions of any church in the world, and that every system has produced men and women of the most exalted character. In the face of this evidence, if anybody dreams of the exclusive survival of his own religion and the destruction of the others, I pity him from the bottom of my heart, and point out to him that upon the banner of every religion will soon be written in spite of resistance: “Help and not fight,” “Assimilation and not Destruction,” “Harmony and Peace and not Dissension. "
The keynote of his message is: “Truth is one: Sages call it by various names.” Its four cardinal points are
non-duality of the Godhead,
divinity of the soul,
oneness of existence, and
harmony of religions.
All four points contradict Christian orthodoxy. The Christian God is not one god but triune, the soul is not divine but created, existence is not unified because God is eternal and religions are not in harmony precisely because Hinduism and Christianity, for example, are mutually exclusive. The very claim of Vivekananda to recognize the integrity of Christianity denies the integrity of the hinduism he espouses.
The following is taken from the Ramakrishna website:
Religion, in the light of Vivekananda’s Vedanta, is the manifestation of the divinity already in man. The central theme of Vedanta is harmony of religions. This spiritual harmony is to be realized by deepening our spiritual consciousness. Vedanta asks a Christian to be a true Christian, a Hindu a true Hindu, a Buddhist a true Buddhist, a Jew a true Jew, Moslem a true Moslem. The message was timely and powerful. America had received a rude shock from the Civil War and its aftermath. Science had already shaken the very roots of religious beliefs and dogmas, and the ideas of Darwin were challenging conventional American thought and religion. Americans were looking for a philosophy that could harmonize science with humanism and mystical experience, and Swami Vivekananda's words gave them hope for the fulfillment of their spiritual aspirations. The message was powerful not because of its dialectical superiority or philosophical subtlety, but because of the personality of Swami Vivekananda. The message was an ancient one, but it bore a fire of conviction that was new. One familiar with the life of Swami Vivekananda will recall that his Master, Sri Ramakrishna, saw in him the power and potentiality of a great world teacher. Before the Master passed away, he prophesied: “Narendra (Swami Vivekananda) will teach others ….. Very soon he will shake the world by his intellectual and spiritual powers.”
Note the confidence with which this form of Hinduism assesses its impact on the Christian west. Vivekananda was the most powerful Hindu evangelist to America, invited and welcomed by the Presbyterian Church to preach the Hindu message from Chicago.
In 1976, Vivekananda was celebrated in Washington, D.C. during the American Bicentennial Celebration. here is how the Hindus described it:
On the occasion of America's Bicentennial Celebration in 1976, the National Portrait Gallery in Washington D.C., mounted a large portrait of Swami Vivekananda as part of its exhibition "Abroad in America: Visitors to the New Nation," which paid tribute to the great personalities who visited America from abroad and made a deep impression on the American mind. Among those honored in the exhibition, some influenced art or literature, some science, education or social reform. But Swami Vivekananda touched the very soul of American people. The commemorative volume of the exhibition says: "The Swami charmed the audiences with his magical oratory, and left an indelible mark on America's spiritual development." This is no exaggeration. Swami Vivekananda was the first Hindu monk from India ever to visit America. Guided solely by the will of Providence, he embarked on this journey to the new world. The unknown wandering monk, lost in the streets of Chicago, suddenly became famous after his first day's brief address before the Parliament. A select audience of nearly 7,000 enlightened representatives of different branches of American thought became thrilled to hear his message and welcomed him with sustained and thunderous applause. He captured the hearts of the American people. Crowds gathered in the streets of Chicago to see the picture posters of Swami Vivekananda placed on billboards around the city, and lecture bureaus vied with one another to enlist him for lectures in different cities. Leading newspapers and journals published his words in bold letters. Some of these newspapers described him as the "cyclonic Hindu," some as "prince among men" or "Brahmin monk," while others chose to designate him by such epithets as "warrior prophet" and "militant mystic." Contemporary leaders of American thought who met him were entranced by the radiance of his spiritual personality and his powerful message. Professor John Henry Wright of Harvard University told Swami Vivekananda: "To ask you, Swami, for your credentials is like asking the sun about its right to shine." After hearing Swami Vivekananda, the correspondent of one journal wrote: "The impertinence of sending half-educated theological students to instruct the wise and erudite Orientals was never brought home to an English-speaking audience more forcibly." Professor William James referred to Swami Vivekananda as "the paragon of Vedantists."29
Swami Vivekananda’s powerful arguments (some in bold) began the slow erosion and decline of missional evangelism in India among the ‘enlightened’ leaders of many mainline churches of America.
CONCLUSION
As with all encounters with the great religions of the world, the central issue of contention is the identity of Jesus as described in the gospel. Hinduism cannot tolerate the Christian claim that Jesus is divine and the only savior of humanity. This starkly denies the efficacy and truth of Hindu teaching. Not surprisingly, Hindu teaching reciprocally denies the central beliefs of the christian faith. To pretend otherwise is unfair to both religions and dishonest in the extreme.
Hinduism through the Upanishads claims that every human being can achieve what Jesus did on the Cross. Perfect humanity and perfect divinity are essential components of the human race. In the eyes of a Hindu, the sacrifice of Christ was unnecessary and in fact scandalous.
That the collective karmic debt of the entire human race from the past to the future can be erased by the act of anyone is beyond comprehension. Each one is responsible for the consequences of past and present incarnations. The debt is personal and cannot be satisfied by another being.
The idea of an eternally absolute God which is distinct from the work of divine creation is rejected by Hindu thought. The notion of divine revelation as a top-down understanding of knowledge acquisition means that all which pertains to Hindu thought is discovered rather than disclosed. As such, new additions to older versions of religious thought is not so much welcomed as permitted and expected. In this manner, the Vedas were superseded by the Upanishads, which were themselves imposed upon by the Bhagavad Gita of the Mahabharata.
An basic understanding, however superficial, of the development of Hindu thought and religious practices, helps us empathize with the spiritual journey of billions of Indians through the ages as they try to make sense of a fearful reality, one in which the ravages of time reduce the powerful societies of humanity to dust, without exception. The finality of death and the intensity of human suffering adds to the despair which prompted philosophers to account for the meaning of life in terms of justice and love. Where no overriding divine proclamation of love is evident, justice becomes the virtue of choice.
It is through the lens of justice that Hinduism finds its foundation: the doctrines of karma (which assures us that ‘the wages of sin is death’ and the ‘God will not be mocked’), samsara (which gives us hope that our squandered opportunities in life will not end in the final curse but will result in yet another opportunity to seek liberation), and moksha (the ultimate desire of all Hindus to find release from the endless cycle of rebirths and redeaths that accompanies all life.)
What can Christians learn from Hinduism(s)
This religion of the east has as its final goal, the hope of salvation from suffering.
We are all creatures of our environment. Our contexts shape the rationality which in turn, shapes our worldview. Yet being conditioned by our circumstances does not entail being determined by them. We are creatures with the will to believe and hope beyond the limits of our direct perceptions.
The gospel is the final and most promising hope for all Hindus who truly acknowledge the predicament that we are in.
Christians ought to be RAW witnesses
This entails being ready, able and willing to proclaim the message of the Cross to a hurting people. To be ready involves girding oneself with the resolve to offer the sacrifice of time and ego, to lower personal expectations of rewards for the sake of the gospel that others too may know of Christ’s love for them. To be able involves taking the costly effort to learn something about the religions of the world, in this case, Hinduism, that we may be equipped for the daunting task of inviting others to transform their worldviews.
To be willing is to make the intellectual determination overcome internal obstacles which may privilege personal benefits over those of others, to will the right and the good, not for their own sakes but because we are redeemed children of a generous God. The RAW witness is generous beyond belief!
What should we tell a Hindu about Christ?
Hinduism claims that truth is one. If Christianity is true, Hinduism cannot sustain any credibility. The best reason to bear witness to anyone about anything is because it is true. It is impossible to be an effective witness if we do not really believe what we witness to. Discovering the world of Hinduism for the purpose of bringing the gospel to our Hindu friends and loved ones forces us to confront the challenges of Hindu thought for a more robust Christian belief.
Hindu teachings will confront our presuppositions about Christianity and the Gospel message, shaming us into developing a comprehensive worldview by which God’s revelation through the Scriptures may be offered as the worldview of choice for everyone -
because it is TRUE!
Darwinism: Meaning and Implications
Meaning of Darwinism
Charles Darwin guessed that the economic realities of a geometric increase in population could not be matched by the arithmetic increase in the food supply demanded that some sort of selection is made so that some survived and others died out. What or who made such horrendous choices. He rejected the religious climate of 19th century England which appealed to God as the supernatural selector and instead posited a mechanism which he calls natural selection to avoid any appeal to supernaturalism. Natural selection then provided the means for speciation, a necessary process which also removes the apparent need for a God who makes every type of creature. This is to be distinguished from agenesis, in which the evolutionary process during which a single species is transformed. Speciation happens when genetic changes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species, but not throughout the entire species, as that isolated population adapts to its changing local conditions. Gradually it seizes a new ecological niche. At some point in time, it becomes irreversibly distinct, so different that its members can no longer interbreed with the rest. Two different species now exist from one former species. darwin called this phenomenon of splitting-and -specializing the “principle of divergence.” This became an important part of his theory, explaining the overall diversity of life as well as the adaptation of individual species.
Darwinism is an explanation of how so few species became so many, which relies on natural selection as the mechanism, and which has been adopted by other disciplines as an organizing principle. Darwinism is not a theory about the origin of anything, whether the universe, life, or humanity
The Biblical creation account is a theological account of who created the universe and why, as well as a theological account of who humanity is in relation to God. We are created real, good, designed and finite. We are real in opposition to pantheism (matter is illusory), good in opposition to legalism (nature is inferior: Greek philosophy), designed in opposition to secularism (nature is an accident and may be exploited), and finite in opposition to paganism (nature is deified for worship). Biblical Christianity celebrates creation (privilege) and tends to nature (responsibility). The Biblical creation account is not a mechanistic account of how the universe, life or even humanity was created, and an exhaustive chronological nor historical account of the creation of the universe . The Bible does not tell us how old the universe is and neither does Darwinistic evolution. However, while the Christian faith is not dependent on our estimation of the age of the universe, evolutionary theories as they now stand, are. Modern geology makes an attempt to estimate the age of the earth by assuming several environmental regularities in order to utilize a natural measuring mechanism by which to ‘measure’ exposed surfaces of the earth that are accessibly to researchers. This provisional nature and methodology of scientific testing is shared by astronomers and cosmologists who attempt to date the age of the universe. Universal physical constants are needed to begin the process of measurement. Margins of error persists and must be tolerated because there is no alternative. Evolutionary biology also faces no strong alternative and remains the singularly most appealing explanation of observational phenomena.
One of the ultimate questions in philosophy and theology is that of the origin of humanity, leading to the question of the origin of life. Contrary to popular belief, what we commonly call Darwinism or Evolution, does not explain the origin of life, but rather the origin of species.
From The Origin of Species, 1859, Darwin argued that (a) evolutionary descent with modification: Life-forms change over time and offsprings of meiotic reproduction are not replicas of their parents, (b) gradual adaptation: Necessary variation allows for adaptation to changing environmental conditions over a very long period of time, and (c) natural selection privileges the Survival of the Best Adapted: Survivors of random mutation and chance emerge as new generations.
From ‘The Descent of Man’ 1871, Darwin claimed that (a) Humans and other primates descended from a common ancestry. Man was not specially created, and (b) sexual selection is a special form of natural selection
Implications of Darwinism
Darwinism as a theory can imply that (a) nature knows of no morality, not that the strongest will win but that the strongest won, (b) there is no scientific reason to help those who are not able to survive unaided (Peter Singer), (c) there is no meaning to and purpose in life (secular existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre), and (d) if God exists, he is immoral11; suffering must then be beyond his ability or desire to eradicate . Remember, these implications are not part of the scientific theory. This means it is possible to hold to a Darwinian theory without necessarily holding to these implications, but it would be a weak one since implications are very suggestive of the internal logic of any theory.
Christians object to such implications but often as if they were elements of the theory rather than mere implications, by arguing that (a) Darwinism leads to atheism by suggesting that God need not exist and humans are not privileged within the animal kingdom as the Bible claimed (Charles Hodge), (b) Darwinism robs humanity of its anthropocentric position (The Vatican), (c) Darwinism cannot be reconciled with a commitment to a Young-Earth Creationist view that God created the universe in 6 literal (24-hour cycle) days, (d) Darwinism suggests that there is no such thing as a universal morality, (e) Darwinism suggests that there is no natural place for compassion, and (f) Darwinism suggests that there is no expectation of hope. We despair (J. P. Sartre)
Darwinians reply in equally misguided form, such as that (a) the Bible is not a privileged source of authority, (b) the anthropic primacy of cosmology was defeated by Copernican heliocentricism, (c) The metaphorical language of Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be read literally, (d) the universal morality is that of survival, eternal existence through progeny (Dawkins), and (e) with no moral imperative, we should try to be good to everyone - Pragmatism (C. S. Peirce, J. Dewey, M. Heidegger, L. Wittgenstein, R. Rorty, J. Stout)
Charles Darwin guessed that the economic realities of a geometric increase in population could not be matched by the arithmetic increase in the food supply demanded that some sort of selection is made so that some survived and others died out. What or who made such horrendous choices. He rejected the religious climate of 19th century England which appealed to God as the supernatural selector and instead posited a mechanism which he calls natural selection to avoid any appeal to supernaturalism. Natural selection then provided the means for speciation, a necessary process which also removes the apparent need for a God who makes every type of creature. This is to be distinguished from agenesis, in which the evolutionary process during which a single species is transformed. Speciation happens when genetic changes accumulate within an isolated segment of a species, but not throughout the entire species, as that isolated population adapts to its changing local conditions. Gradually it seizes a new ecological niche. At some point in time, it becomes irreversibly distinct, so different that its members can no longer interbreed with the rest. Two different species now exist from one former species. darwin called this phenomenon of splitting-and -specializing the “principle of divergence.” This became an important part of his theory, explaining the overall diversity of life as well as the adaptation of individual species.
Darwinism is an explanation of how so few species became so many, which relies on natural selection as the mechanism, and which has been adopted by other disciplines as an organizing principle. Darwinism is not a theory about the origin of anything, whether the universe, life, or humanity
The Biblical creation account is a theological account of who created the universe and why, as well as a theological account of who humanity is in relation to God. We are created real, good, designed and finite. We are real in opposition to pantheism (matter is illusory), good in opposition to legalism (nature is inferior: Greek philosophy), designed in opposition to secularism (nature is an accident and may be exploited), and finite in opposition to paganism (nature is deified for worship). Biblical Christianity celebrates creation (privilege) and tends to nature (responsibility). The Biblical creation account is not a mechanistic account of how the universe, life or even humanity was created, and an exhaustive chronological nor historical account of the creation of the universe . The Bible does not tell us how old the universe is and neither does Darwinistic evolution. However, while the Christian faith is not dependent on our estimation of the age of the universe, evolutionary theories as they now stand, are. Modern geology makes an attempt to estimate the age of the earth by assuming several environmental regularities in order to utilize a natural measuring mechanism by which to ‘measure’ exposed surfaces of the earth that are accessibly to researchers. This provisional nature and methodology of scientific testing is shared by astronomers and cosmologists who attempt to date the age of the universe. Universal physical constants are needed to begin the process of measurement. Margins of error persists and must be tolerated because there is no alternative. Evolutionary biology also faces no strong alternative and remains the singularly most appealing explanation of observational phenomena.
One of the ultimate questions in philosophy and theology is that of the origin of humanity, leading to the question of the origin of life. Contrary to popular belief, what we commonly call Darwinism or Evolution, does not explain the origin of life, but rather the origin of species.
From The Origin of Species, 1859, Darwin argued that (a) evolutionary descent with modification: Life-forms change over time and offsprings of meiotic reproduction are not replicas of their parents, (b) gradual adaptation: Necessary variation allows for adaptation to changing environmental conditions over a very long period of time, and (c) natural selection privileges the Survival of the Best Adapted: Survivors of random mutation and chance emerge as new generations.
From ‘The Descent of Man’ 1871, Darwin claimed that (a) Humans and other primates descended from a common ancestry. Man was not specially created, and (b) sexual selection is a special form of natural selection
Implications of Darwinism
Darwinism as a theory can imply that (a) nature knows of no morality, not that the strongest will win but that the strongest won, (b) there is no scientific reason to help those who are not able to survive unaided (Peter Singer), (c) there is no meaning to and purpose in life (secular existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre), and (d) if God exists, he is immoral11; suffering must then be beyond his ability or desire to eradicate . Remember, these implications are not part of the scientific theory. This means it is possible to hold to a Darwinian theory without necessarily holding to these implications, but it would be a weak one since implications are very suggestive of the internal logic of any theory.
Christians object to such implications but often as if they were elements of the theory rather than mere implications, by arguing that (a) Darwinism leads to atheism by suggesting that God need not exist and humans are not privileged within the animal kingdom as the Bible claimed (Charles Hodge), (b) Darwinism robs humanity of its anthropocentric position (The Vatican), (c) Darwinism cannot be reconciled with a commitment to a Young-Earth Creationist view that God created the universe in 6 literal (24-hour cycle) days, (d) Darwinism suggests that there is no such thing as a universal morality, (e) Darwinism suggests that there is no natural place for compassion, and (f) Darwinism suggests that there is no expectation of hope. We despair (J. P. Sartre)
Darwinians reply in equally misguided form, such as that (a) the Bible is not a privileged source of authority, (b) the anthropic primacy of cosmology was defeated by Copernican heliocentricism, (c) The metaphorical language of Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be read literally, (d) the universal morality is that of survival, eternal existence through progeny (Dawkins), and (e) with no moral imperative, we should try to be good to everyone - Pragmatism (C. S. Peirce, J. Dewey, M. Heidegger, L. Wittgenstein, R. Rorty, J. Stout)
Evolution: Meaning and Implications
Meaning of Evolution
To evolve simply means to change. As far back as Aristotle, philosophers have noticed that time is related to change, i.e., in time, all things change. (We shall not discuss an even more important issue, whether time exists when matter does not change at all, or does time necessitate change in matter). Aristotle calls birth and death generation and corruption.
Today, the modern scientific theory of biological evolution refers to the observable fact that species transmute and the inference that change in the development of life forms from a common ancestor. The problem is to explain the fact of evolution. How does it come about and what makes it continue to do so?
The ancient Christian doctrine of creation and providence asserts that God alone is the creator of all that exists and is primary source of power. Modern science emerged to observe, measure and tabulate such changes and the hunt for a theory to explain evolution was on. It was Charles Darwin who provided the most successful theory to date. While it is not perfect, it remains the most popular and persuasive explanation we have. However, when he then suggested that his explanation did away with any intellectual belief in the existence of God, he crossed the metaphysical boundary and spoke ultra vires. It is this implication that is now hotly debated in the united States between what has been erroneously named “Darwinists” and “Creationists”/”Intelligent Design movement”. What is important to note is that there are many theories of biological evolution, some are Darwinian while others are not.
Any discussion ought to define the type of evolution is question.
Implications of Evolution
Biological evolution as an observed fact implies that (i) the universe is very finely-tuned, (ii) biological systems are highly interdependent so that cosmological existence as an accidental occurrence is highly unlikely. This has led atheists like Stephen Jay Gould to claim that life is a lucky strike which could not be relied upon to happen again if we spin the dice’ of time again. We of the living universe are lucky accidents. For theists like Simon Conway Morris, evolution implies the existence and participation of a God who created beautifully and bountifully. Life is inevitable. Neither views are necessary elements of biological evolution but mere implications or suggestions which are not justifiably verified. What about Darwin’s type of evolution?
Darwinian theories of evolution can imply atheism while non-Darwinian ones can imply theism or directionality from purpose (teleological). Implications are suggestive but not necessary entailments so it is possible to hold to even a theistic Darwinian view of evolution. Evolution certainly implies a finely-tuned universe which is either an incredible accident of history (Gould) or an inevitable result of purpose (Morris). Let us see how far implications can go:
Modern Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins introduced the idea of the ‘selfish gene’ to suggest that living forms are merely repositories of genes who are ‘copy-me’ sets of proteins, whose entire agenda is to never die, to be passed on with each generation. It has no final purpose. The Christian Bible claims that God is the creator of the cosmos, and of life. This has never been challenged by Darwinism. What can been inferred by Darwinism is that morality need not be absolute and God is no longer needed. Darwinism does not impinge upon where all these living forms came from anyway. The last passage in The Origin of Species offers no clue as to what was responsible for the existence of life or the universe. Although Darwin himself allowed for a ‘creator’ to ‘breathe’ into inanimate matter, the essence of life, he regretted what he wrote because readers may take him to mean that he was thinking about God. Darwin did not claim as much as he was later said to have.
Some say that Darwinism is dangerous because it leads to harmful philosophies, such as Nazism and greed. We need to distinguish identification from propositions. Nazism identifies with but is not a proposition of Darwinism. Science by its very nature is descriptive, then predictive. Theology is prescriptive and normative.
When evolutionary biology identifies the engine behind survival instincts, which include killing in order to eat or removing competition in order to acquire more, it plays no part in prescribing such behavior as normative. This is the realm of theological ethics. We are free to make decisions on values. John Duns Scotus and his view on will as rationality advances the idea of personal responsibility and sin.
For the Christian, evolution ought to show that God exists because our scientific knowledge of nature do not make us capable of making just decisions.
Evolution shows that God is necessary because science cannot judge with justice.
To evolve simply means to change. As far back as Aristotle, philosophers have noticed that time is related to change, i.e., in time, all things change. (We shall not discuss an even more important issue, whether time exists when matter does not change at all, or does time necessitate change in matter). Aristotle calls birth and death generation and corruption.
Today, the modern scientific theory of biological evolution refers to the observable fact that species transmute and the inference that change in the development of life forms from a common ancestor. The problem is to explain the fact of evolution. How does it come about and what makes it continue to do so?
The ancient Christian doctrine of creation and providence asserts that God alone is the creator of all that exists and is primary source of power. Modern science emerged to observe, measure and tabulate such changes and the hunt for a theory to explain evolution was on. It was Charles Darwin who provided the most successful theory to date. While it is not perfect, it remains the most popular and persuasive explanation we have. However, when he then suggested that his explanation did away with any intellectual belief in the existence of God, he crossed the metaphysical boundary and spoke ultra vires. It is this implication that is now hotly debated in the united States between what has been erroneously named “Darwinists” and “Creationists”/”Intelligent Design movement”. What is important to note is that there are many theories of biological evolution, some are Darwinian while others are not.
Any discussion ought to define the type of evolution is question.
Implications of Evolution
Biological evolution as an observed fact implies that (i) the universe is very finely-tuned, (ii) biological systems are highly interdependent so that cosmological existence as an accidental occurrence is highly unlikely. This has led atheists like Stephen Jay Gould to claim that life is a lucky strike which could not be relied upon to happen again if we spin the dice’ of time again. We of the living universe are lucky accidents. For theists like Simon Conway Morris, evolution implies the existence and participation of a God who created beautifully and bountifully. Life is inevitable. Neither views are necessary elements of biological evolution but mere implications or suggestions which are not justifiably verified. What about Darwin’s type of evolution?
Darwinian theories of evolution can imply atheism while non-Darwinian ones can imply theism or directionality from purpose (teleological). Implications are suggestive but not necessary entailments so it is possible to hold to even a theistic Darwinian view of evolution. Evolution certainly implies a finely-tuned universe which is either an incredible accident of history (Gould) or an inevitable result of purpose (Morris). Let us see how far implications can go:
Modern Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins introduced the idea of the ‘selfish gene’ to suggest that living forms are merely repositories of genes who are ‘copy-me’ sets of proteins, whose entire agenda is to never die, to be passed on with each generation. It has no final purpose. The Christian Bible claims that God is the creator of the cosmos, and of life. This has never been challenged by Darwinism. What can been inferred by Darwinism is that morality need not be absolute and God is no longer needed. Darwinism does not impinge upon where all these living forms came from anyway. The last passage in The Origin of Species offers no clue as to what was responsible for the existence of life or the universe. Although Darwin himself allowed for a ‘creator’ to ‘breathe’ into inanimate matter, the essence of life, he regretted what he wrote because readers may take him to mean that he was thinking about God. Darwin did not claim as much as he was later said to have.
Some say that Darwinism is dangerous because it leads to harmful philosophies, such as Nazism and greed. We need to distinguish identification from propositions. Nazism identifies with but is not a proposition of Darwinism. Science by its very nature is descriptive, then predictive. Theology is prescriptive and normative.
When evolutionary biology identifies the engine behind survival instincts, which include killing in order to eat or removing competition in order to acquire more, it plays no part in prescribing such behavior as normative. This is the realm of theological ethics. We are free to make decisions on values. John Duns Scotus and his view on will as rationality advances the idea of personal responsibility and sin.
For the Christian, evolution ought to show that God exists because our scientific knowledge of nature do not make us capable of making just decisions.
Evolution shows that God is necessary because science cannot judge with justice.
The Difference between Meaning & Implications
All sorts of problems arise when we do not take care in making arguments. Our topic here is what Darwin means and what he implied. Let us call Darwin’s own proposal ‘Classical Darwinism’ and the contemporary variations of evolutionary theories either Neo-Darwinism or Non-Darwinism. Most Neo-Darwinian models of biological evolution maintain Darwin’s argument that ‘natural selection’ is entirely devoid of any divine intent. On the other hand, many Non-Darwinians maintain a theory of evolution which replaces natural selection with either ‘intelligent design’ or some form of ‘divine direction’ amounting to a teleological view.
How are the words Darwinism and Evolution related. Darwinism is an example of a theory attempting the explain the scientific fact of biological evolution. We shall now attend to what each word means and what they do not. This is different from what each word implies and what they do not. Since these are scientific words, their meanings are always scientific in character but since their implications may extend beyond the boundaries of science, they may include non-scientific conclusions, such as philosophical and theological.
Hence the fact of biological evolution:
1) means that all life forms emerge from a common ancestor (scientific) but may
2) imply that the laws of physics evolve over time from a single theory of everything (philosophical) or that religious morality is an unnatural impediment to progress (theological).
In the same manner, the theory of Darwinism
1) means that Darwin believed natural selection is a sufficient explanation for evolution. When he then said that God was not necessary, it was
2) an implication from his theory, not part of the meaning of his theory. We need to discern what is a meaning and what is an implication of a fact and of a theory.
Any debate must begin by stating whether it is the meaning or the implications of either Darwinism per se or the theories of evolution that is at stake.
How are the words Darwinism and Evolution related. Darwinism is an example of a theory attempting the explain the scientific fact of biological evolution. We shall now attend to what each word means and what they do not. This is different from what each word implies and what they do not. Since these are scientific words, their meanings are always scientific in character but since their implications may extend beyond the boundaries of science, they may include non-scientific conclusions, such as philosophical and theological.
Hence the fact of biological evolution:
1) means that all life forms emerge from a common ancestor (scientific) but may
2) imply that the laws of physics evolve over time from a single theory of everything (philosophical) or that religious morality is an unnatural impediment to progress (theological).
In the same manner, the theory of Darwinism
1) means that Darwin believed natural selection is a sufficient explanation for evolution. When he then said that God was not necessary, it was
2) an implication from his theory, not part of the meaning of his theory. We need to discern what is a meaning and what is an implication of a fact and of a theory.
Any debate must begin by stating whether it is the meaning or the implications of either Darwinism per se or the theories of evolution that is at stake.
The Christian Confusion about Evolution: Divine Selection
Let us begin at the beginning. It is important for the purpose of this seminar to limit all meanings of evolution to biological evolution. We do not refer to all manner of evolutionary ideas now adopted by many fields of inquiry.
Biological evolution states that all living things share a common ancestor by descent with modification. Charles Darwin did not discover evolution. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin published one of the first formal theories on evolution in his two volume Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life in 1794 and 17964 . In 1801, almost 60 years before Charles Darwin published his ideas about natural selection, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck (1744-1829) whom history would know simply as Lamarck introduced the idea of evolution.
Charles Darwin’s contribution was the plausible mechanism called natural selection, which sorts random mutations, privileging those which maximizes optimal survivability. Lamarck’s mistake was to suggest that function creates the organ, e.g., giraffes have long necks from trying to feed from tall tress rather than organ provide function, e.g., tall giraffes survive better because they can feed from tall trees.
Biological evolution is a fact and can be observed in nature. Darwinism is a theory to explain the fact of evolution by adopting the mechanism of natural selection.5
The science and religion argument is not over the fact of evolution but over the theory of Darwinism. We are sometimes confused over this and think that the central issue is evolution itself when we think of evolution as necessarily Darwinian. This has led the Christian Intelligent Design movement to insist that evolution is not a fact but rather an hypothesis while creationism is a scientific program. This is not a helpful caricature of an already disputed notion. Few scientists and informed lay people deny the idea of evolution. What we are uncertain of is the mechanism behind it and the implications for our future existence.
The notion of ‘special creation’, i.e., that God created each new species separately from others is not biologically tenable. This does not mean that it is untrue, but that it cannot be a ground for an understanding of biology. Some would say there is no warrant for such an understanding even from the Bible itself. The majority of confession Christians in science do not hold to the theory of special creation for each species but believe that after the initial events of creation, possibly with distinct acts of creation for planet and animal life, all species of life forms came out of continuos lines of existing species. This expands the idea of a common ancestor to one of several early ancestors.
What are Post-Darwinian Theories of Evolution?
Charles Darwin lived and wrote at a time before modern Mendelian genetics and molecular biology became understood and incorporated into the many theories of evolution. After Darwin, several modern evolutionary theories emerged to account for observable nature.
Post-Darwinian evolution consists of both Darwinian and Non-Darwinian theories which incorporate the latest scientific findings discovered after Charles darwin’s death. Darwinian theories of evolution generally points to an accidental beginning with no need for a creator God and a bleak future after biological corruption, or death. Non-Darwinian theories of evolution posit a theory by which it is possible to reconcile evolution with a biblical explanation of creation along with an optimistic hope for a future when biological limitations on our brains will no longer constrain what our minds can achieve.
Every Christians ought to know this: there is no single theory of evolution today. While they share a common belief that life is continuos with each other so that man for example, is a kind of animal and that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are part of animated matter, they do not agree with the mechanism or even the source of life. For example, some theories argue for natural selection while others for what I call divine selection.
Biological evolution states that all living things share a common ancestor by descent with modification. Charles Darwin did not discover evolution. His grandfather Erasmus Darwin published one of the first formal theories on evolution in his two volume Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life in 1794 and 17964 . In 1801, almost 60 years before Charles Darwin published his ideas about natural selection, Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck (1744-1829) whom history would know simply as Lamarck introduced the idea of evolution.
Charles Darwin’s contribution was the plausible mechanism called natural selection, which sorts random mutations, privileging those which maximizes optimal survivability. Lamarck’s mistake was to suggest that function creates the organ, e.g., giraffes have long necks from trying to feed from tall tress rather than organ provide function, e.g., tall giraffes survive better because they can feed from tall trees.
Biological evolution is a fact and can be observed in nature. Darwinism is a theory to explain the fact of evolution by adopting the mechanism of natural selection.5
The science and religion argument is not over the fact of evolution but over the theory of Darwinism. We are sometimes confused over this and think that the central issue is evolution itself when we think of evolution as necessarily Darwinian. This has led the Christian Intelligent Design movement to insist that evolution is not a fact but rather an hypothesis while creationism is a scientific program. This is not a helpful caricature of an already disputed notion. Few scientists and informed lay people deny the idea of evolution. What we are uncertain of is the mechanism behind it and the implications for our future existence.
The notion of ‘special creation’, i.e., that God created each new species separately from others is not biologically tenable. This does not mean that it is untrue, but that it cannot be a ground for an understanding of biology. Some would say there is no warrant for such an understanding even from the Bible itself. The majority of confession Christians in science do not hold to the theory of special creation for each species but believe that after the initial events of creation, possibly with distinct acts of creation for planet and animal life, all species of life forms came out of continuos lines of existing species. This expands the idea of a common ancestor to one of several early ancestors.
What are Post-Darwinian Theories of Evolution?
Charles Darwin lived and wrote at a time before modern Mendelian genetics and molecular biology became understood and incorporated into the many theories of evolution. After Darwin, several modern evolutionary theories emerged to account for observable nature.
Post-Darwinian evolution consists of both Darwinian and Non-Darwinian theories which incorporate the latest scientific findings discovered after Charles darwin’s death. Darwinian theories of evolution generally points to an accidental beginning with no need for a creator God and a bleak future after biological corruption, or death. Non-Darwinian theories of evolution posit a theory by which it is possible to reconcile evolution with a biblical explanation of creation along with an optimistic hope for a future when biological limitations on our brains will no longer constrain what our minds can achieve.
Every Christians ought to know this: there is no single theory of evolution today. While they share a common belief that life is continuos with each other so that man for example, is a kind of animal and that viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are part of animated matter, they do not agree with the mechanism or even the source of life. For example, some theories argue for natural selection while others for what I call divine selection.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
THE UNTRUTH THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE TRULY TRUE or KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM FOR THE CHRISTIAN MIND
Life begins with the acquisition of knowledge - the knowledge that we exist! Even before the baby’s first cry as she gasps for air to her lungs, the fetus lives in a dependent relationship with her mother. We do not know that she knows anything, but she at least knows that she is, even if she cannot remember such knowledge. After birth, knowledge accumulates rapidly as the baby learns to survive. In the spiritual birth of a Christian, before anything else, she has to have minimal knowledge of God, that God exists, that we are not God and that God has spoken. Armed with this knowledge, we are able to make sense of the world around us. Concepts such as contingency, absolutes, time, space, truth, matter, form, life, existence etc. begin to make sense. The mind in the life of a Christian knows of God.
How does God expect us to use our minds? Knowledge is merely interpreted data, information filtered through our rational minds and shaped by our prior commitments. It is not wisdom. Knowledge becomes wisdom only when it is used in furtherance of God’s will. Thus anyone can acquire knowledge of say, the natural sciences, or mathematics, of economics, or art. Anyone can live a life and thrive as humans in this world with mere knowledge.
However, it is only when we turn knowledge into wisdom that we begin to KNOW WISDOM because we have learned to use KNOWLEDGE WISELY. As we turn our knowledge into wisdom, we learn to worship, to exercise faith, to seek holiness, learn to trust God in guidance, and to love of others, expressed in evangelism and discipleship.
1 KNOWLEDGE FOR WORSHIP
If our knowledge does not lead us to worship God, we are in danger of acquiring undevotional theology, which is just as dangerous as untheological devotion1 . True worship is intelligent worship. We must know the whats, the whens, the hows, and the whys of our worship. It must not be accidental or incidental, but deliberate. Worship must be done in truth and with all our mind (John 4:24 and Luke 10:27). Worship is the praising of God’s name and work of creation. Israel worshipped God as the lord of nature and the lord of nations2 , not some abstract philosophical construct.
Worship includes the intelligent private and public response to God’s revelation. Hence corporate worship in church and private reading and meditation of the Bible are essential aspects of Christian devotion. For Paul, all true worship involves the active engagement of the mind. So Paul was concerned about the Corinthian preoccupation with speaking in tongues without interpretation. “For if I pray in tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also ...” (1 Corinthians 14:13-15). This side of heaven, Christian worship will not be perfect, for only when we see God face to face will we be able to praise God perfectly.
2 KNOWLEDGE TO EXERCISE FAITH
Knowledge is the foundation of faith. It makes faith reasonable. Those who know God’s name put their trust in Him (Psalm 9:10). It is impossible to have faith in someone you do not know. We cannot believe without knowing and we cannot know without believing. The believer is privileged to benefit from God’s word because he now has faith which seeks understanding (Hebrews 4:2). It is like knowing mathematics before studying physics, or knowing the principles of music before learning to play the piano. Faith dramatically enhances our knowledge of God. Paul teaches that God’s power accomplished in Christ is now available to those who believe (Ephesians 1:18-20). Thus we find that faith and knowledge is inextricable bound in the Christian life.
What is faith? Is faith an irrational, illogical belief in the improbable? Let us start with describing what faith is not.
2.1 Faith is not credulity. H. L. Mencken was wrong when he said that faith is an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable3 . For Mencken then, faith and reason are incompatible. Credulity refers to gullible, uncritical, undiscerning and unreasonable belief. In 2 Corinthians 5:7, it is faith and sight which are held in opposition, not faith and reason. Indeed, the Lord in invites the reader to “come now and reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). The reasonableness of faith is based on its trust in the character and promises of God, which comes through knowledge and reflection. However, a rejection of the reasonableness of faith without any reason is nothing but dogmatic belief in disbelief.
2.2 Faith is not optimism. The late popular preacher Norman Vincent Peale promoted a promising power of positive thinking. However, he makes no distinction between faith in God and faith in oneself4 . His mantra is a daily dose of saying “I believe” three times5 , with no concern about the object of that belief. This was his “worry-breaking formula”. He ends his book with the words “so believe and live successfully” with no indication of what it is that we are to specifically believe in. This is perhaps the secret to the success of the book’s sales. It can apply to anything and essentially ... nothing. Peale’s faith is essentially self-confidence and ungrounded optimism applied to religion. While Dr. Peale apparently modified his position before his death, the book remains in print and defines faith as little more than wishful thinking6 . Instead of the optimism of “positive thinking” or “positive mental attitudes”, Christian faith is reasoning trust. In many of the travails of David in the Old Testament, he gained strength from his faith in God only after recalling God’s promises or thinking about God. Faith and thinking goes hand in hand. It was not a resolve to have faith in the abstract.
.3 KNOWLEDGE IN PURSUIT OF HOLINESS
We need to know who we are in relation to God. During the temptations that Jesus faced, all three times he prefaced his response with “It is written”. Jesus trusts the authority of the Scripture (OT only) and demonstrated how Christians are to think of themselves as made in the image of God. We find sanctuary and wisdom in God’s word. Clear biblical knowledge of God’s will is the starting point. We must then make a commitment to obey it.
With our increasing knowledge of God comes greater responsibility to put what we know into practice, to live a holy life. We know God’s law in order to better obey it. Jesus himself, after washing the feet of his disciples and teaching them, said “If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them”. James also echoed this with the words “Be doers of the word, and not only hearers who deceive themselves” (James 1:22). The disobedient Christian is one who believes theoretically but is effectively a practical atheist.
To live a holy life is to seek a life of self-control, which in turn, is really mind-control. What is the alternative? Our minds will still be controlled by our passions and cravings, except this time, the controls will be haphazard and inconsistent. We are in the business of redeeming the mind for Christ. Socrates scolded the people of Athens for spending time and money on feeding their bodies while neglecting their minds.
4 KNOWLEDGE TO SEEK GUIDANCE
How do we discover God’s will? There is God’s general will and God’s particular will for us. God’s general will for everyone is to be conformed to the image of his Son. This can be gleaned from the Scriptures for it applies to everyone. But God’s particular will for your life and personal decisions are not to be sought in Scripture. Such personal wills are different for everyone. Since Scripture does not contradict itself, we have no warrant to look to the Bible to ask what specific actions we should take. God has given us an intelligent mind to think.
For example, on the question of marriage, the general will of God is that marriage is God’s good purpose for humanity and the single life is God’s good purpose as the exception to the rule. Within marriage, companionship and intimacy is a primary goal for which every marriage should honor. But who one should marry is not found in the Bible.
We are to
use our mind and the common sense given to us,
pray for guidance on the matter, and
seek opinions of family and friends who know us best, before making up our minds.
Psalm 32: 8-9 gives us a threefold promise by God to instruct, teach and guide us, but we are to be instructed, taught and guided with understanding. Again we are to use our minds. We need to be spartan in our loose use of statements such as “The Lord called me to do ...” or “The Lord sent me to ...”, as if we have a special email from God. Such talk often weakens the meaning of God’s communication with us and weakens our witness. While we may say that our reading of the Scriptures lead us to believe that ... or our understanding of the ways of God convinces us that we should do ..., we take license in the faith when we declare what may be untrue or irresponsible us of the words used by the apostles “The Lord said...”.
God will guide us in the way of love, for in a deep sense, God is love. Knowledge of God reality should lead to love. The more we know about God’s love for us and His plans for our future, the more we should want to share that knowledge with others. Sometimes, we need love to restrain the harshness of our knowledge, to learn to be sensitive to others as we share the incredible news of the gospel. While knowledge can puff one up with pride, love can build others up in the Lord. Knowledge without love is then but a clanging cymbal (1 Corinthians 13:1). This love is best expressed in apologetics, evangelism and discipleship (AED).
Apologetics is pre-evangelism, removing obstacles to effective evangelism. Evangelism is the faithful proclamation of the gospel. Discipleship is the equipping of the saints that they may go and do likewise.
5 APOLOGETICS
Knowledge of our world is helpful in the art and science of apologetics, the constructive removal of obstacles to the preaching of the gospel or evangelism. Sometimes, people do not hear the gospel because they are distracted by unanswered questions which turn their attention away from the issues at hand. It may be a past experience of misinformation or a prejudice undetected or a hidden emotional attachment to a foundational philosophy. In these postmodern times, the most important apologetic issues are the dominance of scientism (the assumption that science alone can answer all questions) and the ideology of religious pluralism (the assumption that all religions are not mutually exclusive, i.e., that they are all equally valid, if not true).
True lovers of science and respecters of religious distinctives are scandalized by these outrageous assumptions that have come to take root in the way society as a whole learn, think, and teach with conviction. The great sorrow is not that truth is banished but that many people actually believe THE UNTRUTH THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE TRULY TRUE.
6 EVANGELISM
A thoughtful proclamation of the gospel is the most effective way to have the gospel heard, that God may arouse the faith in the listeners. Too often, we see emotional appeals for decisions with an inadequate explanation of what is to be decided. Paul summed up his evangelistic ministry with two words, “to persuade” (2 Corinthians 5:11)7 . This is an intellectual exercise, to marshall arguments in order to prevail on people to change their minds. Following Paul’s teaching by argument, explanation, proclamation, and persuasion, for three weeks in the synagogue, the writer of the Gospel according to Luke records that some “were persuaded” (Acts 17: 2-4). Paul sought to convince in order to convert. So when we say that our friend has converted, it should mean that he was persuaded. We should make a reasoned presentation of the gospel because people respond to the truth rather than directly to Christ. It is only later that Christians learn about Jesus. Thus, acknowledging, believing and obeying the truth are the elements of Christian belief. Objections to a reasoned evangelism.
(i) Does this not advocate intellectual pride? Yes, it is a lurking danger, but we distinguish between intellectual flattery and respecting intellectual integrity.
(ii) Does this not disqualify uneducated people? Not if the presentation seeks to reach the rationality rather than the content of knowledge. Even uneducated people can think rationally.
(iii) Does this not dispense with the Holy Spirit? Not at all. It is the power of the Holy Spirit alongside a reasoned presentation that marks evangelism. Without the Holy Spirit, it is mere human rhetoric, and without a reasoned presentation, it is a display of our laziness. Human argument is insufficient but it is not unnecessary8 so that human participation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for effective evangelism.
7 DISCIPLESHIP
The life of a Christian is not complete without the commitment to disciple oneself and others in thinking and living as a Christian should. Discipleship begins with discipline. Just as we learn to work as a midwife, lawyer, an accountant, a janitor or an electrician, the Christian life has to be learned. Discipleship causes our minds to interact as a community, holding each other accountable to the spiritual disciplines and encouraging us to grow in the Lord. As we learn to listen, pray, read, study and meditate on the Scriptures, we enrich our experience with God and heighten our sense of the divine in our souls.
How does God expect us to use our minds? Knowledge is merely interpreted data, information filtered through our rational minds and shaped by our prior commitments. It is not wisdom. Knowledge becomes wisdom only when it is used in furtherance of God’s will. Thus anyone can acquire knowledge of say, the natural sciences, or mathematics, of economics, or art. Anyone can live a life and thrive as humans in this world with mere knowledge.
However, it is only when we turn knowledge into wisdom that we begin to KNOW WISDOM because we have learned to use KNOWLEDGE WISELY. As we turn our knowledge into wisdom, we learn to worship, to exercise faith, to seek holiness, learn to trust God in guidance, and to love of others, expressed in evangelism and discipleship.
1 KNOWLEDGE FOR WORSHIP
If our knowledge does not lead us to worship God, we are in danger of acquiring undevotional theology, which is just as dangerous as untheological devotion1 . True worship is intelligent worship. We must know the whats, the whens, the hows, and the whys of our worship. It must not be accidental or incidental, but deliberate. Worship must be done in truth and with all our mind (John 4:24 and Luke 10:27). Worship is the praising of God’s name and work of creation. Israel worshipped God as the lord of nature and the lord of nations2 , not some abstract philosophical construct.
Worship includes the intelligent private and public response to God’s revelation. Hence corporate worship in church and private reading and meditation of the Bible are essential aspects of Christian devotion. For Paul, all true worship involves the active engagement of the mind. So Paul was concerned about the Corinthian preoccupation with speaking in tongues without interpretation. “For if I pray in tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also ...” (1 Corinthians 14:13-15). This side of heaven, Christian worship will not be perfect, for only when we see God face to face will we be able to praise God perfectly.
2 KNOWLEDGE TO EXERCISE FAITH
Knowledge is the foundation of faith. It makes faith reasonable. Those who know God’s name put their trust in Him (Psalm 9:10). It is impossible to have faith in someone you do not know. We cannot believe without knowing and we cannot know without believing. The believer is privileged to benefit from God’s word because he now has faith which seeks understanding (Hebrews 4:2). It is like knowing mathematics before studying physics, or knowing the principles of music before learning to play the piano. Faith dramatically enhances our knowledge of God. Paul teaches that God’s power accomplished in Christ is now available to those who believe (Ephesians 1:18-20). Thus we find that faith and knowledge is inextricable bound in the Christian life.
What is faith? Is faith an irrational, illogical belief in the improbable? Let us start with describing what faith is not.
2.1 Faith is not credulity. H. L. Mencken was wrong when he said that faith is an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable3 . For Mencken then, faith and reason are incompatible. Credulity refers to gullible, uncritical, undiscerning and unreasonable belief. In 2 Corinthians 5:7, it is faith and sight which are held in opposition, not faith and reason. Indeed, the Lord in invites the reader to “come now and reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). The reasonableness of faith is based on its trust in the character and promises of God, which comes through knowledge and reflection. However, a rejection of the reasonableness of faith without any reason is nothing but dogmatic belief in disbelief.
2.2 Faith is not optimism. The late popular preacher Norman Vincent Peale promoted a promising power of positive thinking. However, he makes no distinction between faith in God and faith in oneself4 . His mantra is a daily dose of saying “I believe” three times5 , with no concern about the object of that belief. This was his “worry-breaking formula”. He ends his book with the words “so believe and live successfully” with no indication of what it is that we are to specifically believe in. This is perhaps the secret to the success of the book’s sales. It can apply to anything and essentially ... nothing. Peale’s faith is essentially self-confidence and ungrounded optimism applied to religion. While Dr. Peale apparently modified his position before his death, the book remains in print and defines faith as little more than wishful thinking6 . Instead of the optimism of “positive thinking” or “positive mental attitudes”, Christian faith is reasoning trust. In many of the travails of David in the Old Testament, he gained strength from his faith in God only after recalling God’s promises or thinking about God. Faith and thinking goes hand in hand. It was not a resolve to have faith in the abstract.
.3 KNOWLEDGE IN PURSUIT OF HOLINESS
We need to know who we are in relation to God. During the temptations that Jesus faced, all three times he prefaced his response with “It is written”. Jesus trusts the authority of the Scripture (OT only) and demonstrated how Christians are to think of themselves as made in the image of God. We find sanctuary and wisdom in God’s word. Clear biblical knowledge of God’s will is the starting point. We must then make a commitment to obey it.
With our increasing knowledge of God comes greater responsibility to put what we know into practice, to live a holy life. We know God’s law in order to better obey it. Jesus himself, after washing the feet of his disciples and teaching them, said “If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them”. James also echoed this with the words “Be doers of the word, and not only hearers who deceive themselves” (James 1:22). The disobedient Christian is one who believes theoretically but is effectively a practical atheist.
To live a holy life is to seek a life of self-control, which in turn, is really mind-control. What is the alternative? Our minds will still be controlled by our passions and cravings, except this time, the controls will be haphazard and inconsistent. We are in the business of redeeming the mind for Christ. Socrates scolded the people of Athens for spending time and money on feeding their bodies while neglecting their minds.
4 KNOWLEDGE TO SEEK GUIDANCE
How do we discover God’s will? There is God’s general will and God’s particular will for us. God’s general will for everyone is to be conformed to the image of his Son. This can be gleaned from the Scriptures for it applies to everyone. But God’s particular will for your life and personal decisions are not to be sought in Scripture. Such personal wills are different for everyone. Since Scripture does not contradict itself, we have no warrant to look to the Bible to ask what specific actions we should take. God has given us an intelligent mind to think.
For example, on the question of marriage, the general will of God is that marriage is God’s good purpose for humanity and the single life is God’s good purpose as the exception to the rule. Within marriage, companionship and intimacy is a primary goal for which every marriage should honor. But who one should marry is not found in the Bible.
We are to
use our mind and the common sense given to us,
pray for guidance on the matter, and
seek opinions of family and friends who know us best, before making up our minds.
Psalm 32: 8-9 gives us a threefold promise by God to instruct, teach and guide us, but we are to be instructed, taught and guided with understanding. Again we are to use our minds. We need to be spartan in our loose use of statements such as “The Lord called me to do ...” or “The Lord sent me to ...”, as if we have a special email from God. Such talk often weakens the meaning of God’s communication with us and weakens our witness. While we may say that our reading of the Scriptures lead us to believe that ... or our understanding of the ways of God convinces us that we should do ..., we take license in the faith when we declare what may be untrue or irresponsible us of the words used by the apostles “The Lord said...”.
God will guide us in the way of love, for in a deep sense, God is love. Knowledge of God reality should lead to love. The more we know about God’s love for us and His plans for our future, the more we should want to share that knowledge with others. Sometimes, we need love to restrain the harshness of our knowledge, to learn to be sensitive to others as we share the incredible news of the gospel. While knowledge can puff one up with pride, love can build others up in the Lord. Knowledge without love is then but a clanging cymbal (1 Corinthians 13:1). This love is best expressed in apologetics, evangelism and discipleship (AED).
Apologetics is pre-evangelism, removing obstacles to effective evangelism. Evangelism is the faithful proclamation of the gospel. Discipleship is the equipping of the saints that they may go and do likewise.
5 APOLOGETICS
Knowledge of our world is helpful in the art and science of apologetics, the constructive removal of obstacles to the preaching of the gospel or evangelism. Sometimes, people do not hear the gospel because they are distracted by unanswered questions which turn their attention away from the issues at hand. It may be a past experience of misinformation or a prejudice undetected or a hidden emotional attachment to a foundational philosophy. In these postmodern times, the most important apologetic issues are the dominance of scientism (the assumption that science alone can answer all questions) and the ideology of religious pluralism (the assumption that all religions are not mutually exclusive, i.e., that they are all equally valid, if not true).
True lovers of science and respecters of religious distinctives are scandalized by these outrageous assumptions that have come to take root in the way society as a whole learn, think, and teach with conviction. The great sorrow is not that truth is banished but that many people actually believe THE UNTRUTH THAT TRUTH CANNOT BE TRULY TRUE.
6 EVANGELISM
A thoughtful proclamation of the gospel is the most effective way to have the gospel heard, that God may arouse the faith in the listeners. Too often, we see emotional appeals for decisions with an inadequate explanation of what is to be decided. Paul summed up his evangelistic ministry with two words, “to persuade” (2 Corinthians 5:11)7 . This is an intellectual exercise, to marshall arguments in order to prevail on people to change their minds. Following Paul’s teaching by argument, explanation, proclamation, and persuasion, for three weeks in the synagogue, the writer of the Gospel according to Luke records that some “were persuaded” (Acts 17: 2-4). Paul sought to convince in order to convert. So when we say that our friend has converted, it should mean that he was persuaded. We should make a reasoned presentation of the gospel because people respond to the truth rather than directly to Christ. It is only later that Christians learn about Jesus. Thus, acknowledging, believing and obeying the truth are the elements of Christian belief. Objections to a reasoned evangelism.
(i) Does this not advocate intellectual pride? Yes, it is a lurking danger, but we distinguish between intellectual flattery and respecting intellectual integrity.
(ii) Does this not disqualify uneducated people? Not if the presentation seeks to reach the rationality rather than the content of knowledge. Even uneducated people can think rationally.
(iii) Does this not dispense with the Holy Spirit? Not at all. It is the power of the Holy Spirit alongside a reasoned presentation that marks evangelism. Without the Holy Spirit, it is mere human rhetoric, and without a reasoned presentation, it is a display of our laziness. Human argument is insufficient but it is not unnecessary8 so that human participation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for effective evangelism.
7 DISCIPLESHIP
The life of a Christian is not complete without the commitment to disciple oneself and others in thinking and living as a Christian should. Discipleship begins with discipline. Just as we learn to work as a midwife, lawyer, an accountant, a janitor or an electrician, the Christian life has to be learned. Discipleship causes our minds to interact as a community, holding each other accountable to the spiritual disciplines and encouraging us to grow in the Lord. As we learn to listen, pray, read, study and meditate on the Scriptures, we enrich our experience with God and heighten our sense of the divine in our souls.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Academy for Christian Thought Seminar: The Natural Sciences & Christian Theology
areopagus2005
The next ACT seminar on April 16th [What Every Christian Ought to Know About Science and Christian Theology] at the Empire State Building will be delivered by Ron Choong. This 3 hour seminar will consider the philosophical commitments intrinsic to the natural sciences and Christian theology. Each field of inquiry assume the significance of metaphysics to shape its ontology. The proposal for a doctrine of science will assess Alister McGrath's appropriation of Roy Bhaskar's critical scientific realism. In what he calls a scientific theology, McGrath argues for an a posteriori critical realist methodology to articulate a possible dialogue between science and theology. In addition, Wentzel van Huyssteen's postfoundationalism and Nicholas Rescher's mathematical notion of transversal rationality will be considered for a democratic platform by which to buttress McGrath's model. Ron Choong's notion of science as discovery of divine disclosure (DDD) and theology as a commitment to a convictional confession (CCC) will be used to describe a creational origination of reality. The case study for this will be an interdisciplinary redescription of the Christian doctrine of creation which can account for a scientific quest for the question of origins (universe, life and reflective consciousness). If it is possible to articulate a biblically faithful doctrine which is both coherent to revelational reflection and corresponds to observational speculation, a major advance may be claimed for progress towards a true theory of everything (TTOE), not one limited to just physics ala Stephen Hawking's TOE.
The next ACT seminar on April 16th [What Every Christian Ought to Know About Science and Christian Theology] at the Empire State Building will be delivered by Ron Choong. This 3 hour seminar will consider the philosophical commitments intrinsic to the natural sciences and Christian theology. Each field of inquiry assume the significance of metaphysics to shape its ontology. The proposal for a doctrine of science will assess Alister McGrath's appropriation of Roy Bhaskar's critical scientific realism. In what he calls a scientific theology, McGrath argues for an a posteriori critical realist methodology to articulate a possible dialogue between science and theology. In addition, Wentzel van Huyssteen's postfoundationalism and Nicholas Rescher's mathematical notion of transversal rationality will be considered for a democratic platform by which to buttress McGrath's model. Ron Choong's notion of science as discovery of divine disclosure (DDD) and theology as a commitment to a convictional confession (CCC) will be used to describe a creational origination of reality. The case study for this will be an interdisciplinary redescription of the Christian doctrine of creation which can account for a scientific quest for the question of origins (universe, life and reflective consciousness). If it is possible to articulate a biblically faithful doctrine which is both coherent to revelational reflection and corresponds to observational speculation, a major advance may be claimed for progress towards a true theory of everything (TTOE), not one limited to just physics ala Stephen Hawking's TOE.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
The Trinity, Jesus and the Y-chromosome
Thinking Things Through
The Academy for Christian Thought
Bulletin #1 - March 2005
What we look forward to in 2005
Paideia Bible Studies for international students and scholars will reflect the Old Testament theme with a global perspective, asking after the relevance of the Hebrew-Jewish-Israelite experience for a universal faith. These studies engage contemporary issues prevalent on the campus and workplace.
The completion of the first full year of Project Timothy. This novel approach to a close reading of the Scriptures in community guided by lectures in theology, biblical history and philosophy provides a strong foundation to understand the Bible. Forming Prayer Triplets for accountability, each participant learns to use biblical tools such as concordances, commentaries and historical atlases and formulate their apologetic and missional thoughts responsibly. In having to offer a testimony to be critiqued by the group, each member has to rethink what it means to be a witness. I am assisted by two able tutors who are former PT graduates, Vivek Mathew and Gene Yuan.
The Areopagus Seminars for 2005 feature studies in Christianity and World Religions as well as Science and Theology. The 30 titles of ACT manuals are now available for purchase online. We began the year with a survey of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds titled “What Christians Really Believe”. I spoke on the significance of a creedal faith in a relativistic world. The Scriptures serve as an anchor for the church and provide a peerless measure of confessional stability. This speaks against the charge that Christianity is what Christians practise. The February seminar was “Quest for the Christian Mind”, a survey of the 3 Cs of Christian belief - convictional commitment to the confession - that Christ is God and Lord. The next seminar is an introduction to the 1947 discovery of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and its implications for Christianity.
The Kairos Lectures in Systematic Theology have generated requests for recordings. (see next point). In the first quarter, I examined the twin doctrines of creation and providence, topics which are crucial for our understanding of theology in a postmodern scientific world. Then we considered the doctrine of man, exploring what it means to be made in the image of God and how this can address the life sciences. Next, we will cover the Bible’s historical role in shaping the Church, including a survey of the Lost and the Banned Books.
In this Bulletin, I would like to explain why we ought to be interested in apologetics (the art of giving a reasoned defense of what we believe). In the early Christian church, apologetics was the first duty of every Christian. Without it, the church as we know it would not have arisen and much of what we take for granted as ‘gospel truth’ would be nothing but blind faith.
Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
We conclude that our God is one, Father, Son and Spirit. While we testify to God’s singular and unified will, we cannot and need not explain either to the satisfaction of history, philosophy or science, any verification of just such a claim. All three fields of inquiry are limited by the powers of human perception. As a metaphysical claim, it is beyond the competence of human inquiry to devise a test, and if a test exists, no one can understand or even recognize it. The non-verifiability of doctrines is the consequence not of theological weakness but of the limits of human inquiry. In this apologetic, we use philosophy to keep both scientific and theological claims honest. The nature of scientific inquiry is to observe, ponder and explain natural phenomena by inference to the best explanation (IBE). It offers descriptive rather than truth statements. This is why progress in science, replacing wrong knowledge with better but not necessarily correct knowledge, is an acceptable practice. Theological doctrines however, are not observational approximations by inference. Rather, they are truth claims and may not be fully understood even by the messenger, since such claims are revelatory and not inferential. Science discovers what God discloses. Theology reflects on what God reveals. Philosophy keeps both of them honest. However, responsible doctrinal effort always takes into account the inferences of the sciences, the imagination of the arts, and the poetic expressions of literature as it reflects theologically. A complete theological construct of reality engages every sphere of human culture because that is the way we know knowledge about anything. We ask how this insight from revelation that God is triune helps us better understand the worlds of the natural sciences, the fine arts, literature, history, philosophy, the business world, economics, politics and “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” (man in the street). At the very least, it distinguishes the Christian faith from both Judaism and Islam. That God is trinitarian allows for a divine judge, redeemer, and comforter. That God is creator answers the question of origins. That God loves and judges answer the questions of ethics. No philosophy or religion offers such a comprehensive worldview.
In my next Bulletin, I shall examine the rejection of the virgin conception which led to the birth of Jesus, our Lord. This leads to two heresies, Docetism and Ebionism. The first is the teaching that Jesus is divine and cannot be fully human while the second is the claim that Jesus is a great human but not divine. One easy way to remember the difference is that just as D comes before E (Docetism before Ebionism), so the heresy about Jesus’ humanity comes before the rejection of Jesus’ divinity. The issue at stake is whether Jesus, if he was indeed fully human and male at that, had a Y-chromosome, which all human males possess? If he does not have a Y-chromosome, he is not fully human male. If he has a Y-chromosome, where in the world did he get it from? The only possible answer is that he got it at conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. All other human males received from paternity of another human but Jesus in this case, did not. Is this a serious argument against the doctrine of Christology, that Jesus is both God and man? While this may seem a flippant attack on Christianity, be assured that at biology classes all over the world, millions of Christian students who accept the doctrinal teaching of the Church begins to wonder when they come to Genetics 101.
Until the next Bulletin, may the grace of the Lord be your peace, Ron Choong
The Academy for Christian Thought
Bulletin #1 - March 2005
What we look forward to in 2005
Paideia Bible Studies for international students and scholars will reflect the Old Testament theme with a global perspective, asking after the relevance of the Hebrew-Jewish-Israelite experience for a universal faith. These studies engage contemporary issues prevalent on the campus and workplace.
The completion of the first full year of Project Timothy. This novel approach to a close reading of the Scriptures in community guided by lectures in theology, biblical history and philosophy provides a strong foundation to understand the Bible. Forming Prayer Triplets for accountability, each participant learns to use biblical tools such as concordances, commentaries and historical atlases and formulate their apologetic and missional thoughts responsibly. In having to offer a testimony to be critiqued by the group, each member has to rethink what it means to be a witness. I am assisted by two able tutors who are former PT graduates, Vivek Mathew and Gene Yuan.
The Areopagus Seminars for 2005 feature studies in Christianity and World Religions as well as Science and Theology. The 30 titles of ACT manuals are now available for purchase online. We began the year with a survey of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds titled “What Christians Really Believe”. I spoke on the significance of a creedal faith in a relativistic world. The Scriptures serve as an anchor for the church and provide a peerless measure of confessional stability. This speaks against the charge that Christianity is what Christians practise. The February seminar was “Quest for the Christian Mind”, a survey of the 3 Cs of Christian belief - convictional commitment to the confession - that Christ is God and Lord. The next seminar is an introduction to the 1947 discovery of the “Dead Sea Scrolls” and its implications for Christianity.
The Kairos Lectures in Systematic Theology have generated requests for recordings. (see next point). In the first quarter, I examined the twin doctrines of creation and providence, topics which are crucial for our understanding of theology in a postmodern scientific world. Then we considered the doctrine of man, exploring what it means to be made in the image of God and how this can address the life sciences. Next, we will cover the Bible’s historical role in shaping the Church, including a survey of the Lost and the Banned Books.
In this Bulletin, I would like to explain why we ought to be interested in apologetics (the art of giving a reasoned defense of what we believe). In the early Christian church, apologetics was the first duty of every Christian. Without it, the church as we know it would not have arisen and much of what we take for granted as ‘gospel truth’ would be nothing but blind faith.
Let me begin with a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundation of the Christian faith. Do Christians worship one god or three gods? Both options are incorrect. We worship the god who is one! The maker of heaven and earth, who spoke to Adam and Eve, saved Noah and his family, called Abram out of Mesopotamia, named Jacob Israel, called Moses to lead the Hebrews out of Egypt, and who guided Joshua into Canaan, is the God who is one and, not one god. The shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 [Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one ] and James 2:19 [You believe that God is one; you do well...] refer not to one God but God who is one. Christianity is not a monotheistic faith. It is a trinitarian faith. We have become theologically corrupted by well-meaning but biblically-challenged worship songs which have become a major source of our biblical knowledge, so we sing “The Lord our God is One Lord”, suggesting that we worship one God rather than the God who is one. But who can understand this mathematical conundrum? It is easier to say that we worship one God expressed in three forms rather than a unitary of three gods. Yet this has no biblical warrant. It is just a cop-out. We should be bold enough to say that God revealed in the Scriptures as the Father, the Son and the Spirit are titles describing the three distinct persons of the trinitarian godhead, for which any attempt at mathematical formulation will collapse. What they have in common is the same will. This we need not wonder about or guess at - they do not contradict each other. It is this character of God which makes our Lord one. In every other respect we do not have a biblical description of a singular god.
We conclude that our God is one, Father, Son and Spirit. While we testify to God’s singular and unified will, we cannot and need not explain either to the satisfaction of history, philosophy or science, any verification of just such a claim. All three fields of inquiry are limited by the powers of human perception. As a metaphysical claim, it is beyond the competence of human inquiry to devise a test, and if a test exists, no one can understand or even recognize it. The non-verifiability of doctrines is the consequence not of theological weakness but of the limits of human inquiry. In this apologetic, we use philosophy to keep both scientific and theological claims honest. The nature of scientific inquiry is to observe, ponder and explain natural phenomena by inference to the best explanation (IBE). It offers descriptive rather than truth statements. This is why progress in science, replacing wrong knowledge with better but not necessarily correct knowledge, is an acceptable practice. Theological doctrines however, are not observational approximations by inference. Rather, they are truth claims and may not be fully understood even by the messenger, since such claims are revelatory and not inferential. Science discovers what God discloses. Theology reflects on what God reveals. Philosophy keeps both of them honest. However, responsible doctrinal effort always takes into account the inferences of the sciences, the imagination of the arts, and the poetic expressions of literature as it reflects theologically. A complete theological construct of reality engages every sphere of human culture because that is the way we know knowledge about anything. We ask how this insight from revelation that God is triune helps us better understand the worlds of the natural sciences, the fine arts, literature, history, philosophy, the business world, economics, politics and “the man on the Clapham Omnibus” (man in the street). At the very least, it distinguishes the Christian faith from both Judaism and Islam. That God is trinitarian allows for a divine judge, redeemer, and comforter. That God is creator answers the question of origins. That God loves and judges answer the questions of ethics. No philosophy or religion offers such a comprehensive worldview.
In my next Bulletin, I shall examine the rejection of the virgin conception which led to the birth of Jesus, our Lord. This leads to two heresies, Docetism and Ebionism. The first is the teaching that Jesus is divine and cannot be fully human while the second is the claim that Jesus is a great human but not divine. One easy way to remember the difference is that just as D comes before E (Docetism before Ebionism), so the heresy about Jesus’ humanity comes before the rejection of Jesus’ divinity. The issue at stake is whether Jesus, if he was indeed fully human and male at that, had a Y-chromosome, which all human males possess? If he does not have a Y-chromosome, he is not fully human male. If he has a Y-chromosome, where in the world did he get it from? The only possible answer is that he got it at conception by the power of the Holy Spirit. All other human males received from paternity of another human but Jesus in this case, did not. Is this a serious argument against the doctrine of Christology, that Jesus is both God and man? While this may seem a flippant attack on Christianity, be assured that at biology classes all over the world, millions of Christian students who accept the doctrinal teaching of the Church begins to wonder when they come to Genetics 101.
Until the next Bulletin, may the grace of the Lord be your peace, Ron Choong
Kant and Christianity
What follows is very brief summary of an essay I wrote some years ago at Yale for a seminar rethinking Kant's posture with respect to the Christian doctrine of atonement. John E. Hare had just been appointed to the Noah Porter chair in philosophical theology to replace my other teacher there, Nicholas Wolterstorff (who retired). Hare is both an internationally recognized Kant as well as Kierkegaard scholar. I quickly wrote to ask if we could do a one-on-one tutorial comparing the two masters of philosophy. he agreed and two other doctoral students joined us for a semester (12 weeks) of intense close reading. Both Hare and I studied under the same professor at Princeton, the just retired Diogenes Allen (for whom I served as his last teaching fellow), famed for his absolute intolerance for any lack of precision and rigor in philosophical argumentation.
Both Hare and I were taught (many moons apart) by Allen and his generation of Oxford trained scholars, that Kant moved away from orthodox Christiantiy. However, starting some 15 years ago, a fresh generation of thinkers began to change their impression of Kant's famous First Critique. Among them was a young John Hare, son of Oxford's legendary philosophy don R. M. Hare (an atheist). John's view piqued my interest and I decided to read for myself and hear John out in a serious engagement where the stakes really count - in a seminar where as a student, I have everything to lose. I was duly impressed by Hare's principal argument and explored Kierkegaard myself to make a comparison.
Here, I argue that Kant has been misunderstood for several generations and a new generation of Kant scholars, including evangelicals, have begun to question the popular view that Kant was anti-Christian.
Due to the length of the essay (almost 60 pages), I am posting a summary and a part of the conclusion. Please ignore the numebrs (footnote numbers)
THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT IN KANT AND KIERKEGAARD
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence” Immanuel Kant - Critique of Practical Reason, 1788
INTRODUCTION
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) deny that we can acquire a theoretical knowledge of God. For Kant, we know of God by intuition and for Kierkegaard, by experience. By objective and subjective ways of knowing God, both try to show that God cannot be known with objective certainty, i.e., by verification, but can be known through religious belief.
This paper will examine Kierkegaard’s criticism of Kant’s notion of atonement as insufficient and ask if Kierkegaard had correctly interpreted him. For Kant, religious belief is found in pure practical, as opposed to pure theoretical reason. Belief in God is generated by human reflection of the moral gap between what we are and what we ought to be. He has often been thought of as negating the true meaning of Christian theological doctrine of atonement by his rejection of divine grace in favor of auto-salvation.
We begin with a brief survey of Kant’s notion of religion and atonement found in his second critique and his major work on religion. Then we shall summarize Kierkegaard’s three stages of life in his pseudonymous Either/Or. Next, we will discuss Kierkegaard’s critique of Kant’s theory of atonement. We conclude with an appraisal of Kierkegaard’s critique with a commentary on the advantage of literary pseudonymity and the limitation of writing within the limits of reason alone.
cont'd:
The key to understanding Kant is to note his thought experiments in his preface to the second edition of Religion, in which he explains the title of the book. Consider a sphere of pure religion of reason within a larger sphere of historical revelation. All confessional statements describing historical events fall within the part of the larger sphere outside of the smaller sphere, while matters of reason fall within the smaller sphere. He explains that “The philosopher, as a teacher of pure reason, must confine himself within the narrower circle ... and waive consideration of all experiences”41 . While the inner circle rules out parts of the historical revelation as it is interpreted, it does not rule out religion.
This distinction between religion per se and historical events of religious significance is important because it hints at Kant’s determination to control the selection of what is properly within the confines of knowledge by reason alone. He also considers a second thought experiment in which he privileges some alleged divine revelation and leave out the pure religion of reason to examine the revelation as an historical system in the light of moral concepts and see where it leads. If the experiments are successful, he wishes to show that “reason can be found to be ... compatible with Scripture [and] also at one with it, so that he who follows one will not fail to be conformed to the other”. Otherwise, we will have two religions, one of human reason and one of divine revelation42 .
When we read Kant’s notion of atonement in Religion, we must bear in mind the purpose for which he wrote it. Kant’s project of translating religiously significant historical events known to us by divine revelation to the religion of pure reason is not an act of reducing religion to morality. It is an interdisciplinary attempt to speak confessional language in philosophical terms of reference.
Even when he speaks of “Man himself must make or have made himself ... in a moral sense ... whether himself good or evil... an effect of his free choice”, Kant qualifies this statement by limiting it to the moral sense. Likewise he writes that we must understand the phrase Man is created good as Man is created for good, i.e., the original disposition of man is good43, even if his propensity is for evil.
Kant adopts the Lutheran form of the doctrine of total depravity and the human propensity to evil which corrupts us all in the whole along with the original predisposition to good, which helps us survive the Fall.
What of grace then? Is there space for grace in Kant’s view of religion? For Kant, the pure religion of reason can admit the concept of divine grace as something incomprehensible but cannot adopt44, in the doctrine of atonement because grace is beyond the possible scope of sense experience. This does not deny grace if understood from an exposition of religion not limited to the limits of reason alone.
Another feature of Kant’s doctrine of atonement is that it does not permit the transfer of liability because this cannot make sense to pure reason45. But does the transfer occur in Kant’s historical realm? We have to speculate that Kant would say, sure, strictly from the point of view of the historical realm.
Hare argues that Christ takes over our failures when he takes us as members of his own body. The Christ-human relation is qualitatively different from the inter-human relation46 . Will this overcome the Kantian objection against the transmission of liability? From the general perspective of theology, this makes sense, but within the limits of reason alone, I fear not. For reason alone cannot be made to comprehend divine-human relationality short of a confessional conviction that Jesus is God. The framework Kant set up limits his ability to make such a claim, even if he himself believes it, like a faithful Lutheran.
Conclusion:
Kant’s view of atonement is inadequate for Christian orthodoxy if understood to be an historical explanation but within the limits of reason alone, it is an adequate and not unfaithful presentation. The question of whether it will be useful as an apologetic is a different matter.
Was Kierkegaard’s demonstration of Kant’s theory successful in showing the inadequacy of Kantian ethics? Again, as a historical account, Kierkegaard was correct, but within Kant’s own stated terms, he was probably misunderstood by Kierkegaard.
If Kant is read as limiting reason to make room for faith in the sense of partitioning knowledge, he would have done Christianity a disservice. However, if we take him on his word that he sought to see what can be universally understood by all humanity regarding God with the use of pure reason alone, he in fact advanced our understanding of God. Hare argues that Kant wished to translate rather than reduce religion to morality. He attempts to recover a Kantian reading that is more in line with orthodox Christian teachings, especially with regard to the doctrine of atonement. How persuasive is this argument?
The title of Kant’s book, Religion Within The Limits of Reason Alone does not refer to a reduction of religion to morality, but rather to a limitation of pure theoretical reasoning as opposed to pure practical reasoning regarding the nature of religion. Short of practical reasoning, one cannot understand historical events such as the virgin conception and incarnation of Christ. This explanation seems to be in line with Hare’s claim that Kant has been unfairly treated and badly misunderstood. I shall argue that Kierkegaard himself failed to carefully interpret Kant. But why did this happen? Why does it continue to happen? I think it is because of Kant’s ambitious project coupled with an inadequate use of literary style for which Kierkegaard was a master.
We are quite aware of the intended effect of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writing style, of which Either/Or is one. It permits Kierkegaard to make statements he would be reticent to make if he wrote it under his own name. While it limits what the book can say, what it permits it to say, it can be said very well. In the same manner, Kant’s writings on religion and atonement in the Critique of Pure Reason and in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone reflects a self-imposed writing paradigm which limits what Kant can say, but permits us to understand from the point of view of someone not confessionally committed to the Christian faith, the limits to which reason alone can comprehend the nature of religion and specifically, of the Christian religion. Kierkegaard adopted a pseudonymous writing style to lead the reader into an apologetic for the Christian faith. But he seriously misunderstood Kant’s style of writing, one strictly from the point of view of a pure atheological philosopher. Kant was perhaps also as a nuanced apologist for the Christian faith, to show that the belief in immortality, God and divine grace is not a violation of pure reason in its complete, theoretical and practical senses. The advantage Kierkegaard has over Kant is that the former wrote under several pseudonyms, so that as Victor Eremita in Either/Or, Kierkegaard is free to express rather extravagant statements about life and faith which he himself does not share, while as Anti-Climacus (the only pseudonym who knows Christianity from the inside47 ), in Sickness Unto Death, he was able to present the view that sin is innate to the human condition and yet can be eliminated by the atoning effect of Jesus Christ, who bears infinite responsibility48 .
Kant does not share the privilege of this literary tool and he paid the price of flying too near the sun without protection. His project to demonstrate the philosophical cogency of the Christian belief in God did not manage to persuade a Christian writer of Kierkegaard’s genius.
Both Hare and I were taught (many moons apart) by Allen and his generation of Oxford trained scholars, that Kant moved away from orthodox Christiantiy. However, starting some 15 years ago, a fresh generation of thinkers began to change their impression of Kant's famous First Critique. Among them was a young John Hare, son of Oxford's legendary philosophy don R. M. Hare (an atheist). John's view piqued my interest and I decided to read for myself and hear John out in a serious engagement where the stakes really count - in a seminar where as a student, I have everything to lose. I was duly impressed by Hare's principal argument and explored Kierkegaard myself to make a comparison.
Here, I argue that Kant has been misunderstood for several generations and a new generation of Kant scholars, including evangelicals, have begun to question the popular view that Kant was anti-Christian.
Due to the length of the essay (almost 60 pages), I am posting a summary and a part of the conclusion. Please ignore the numebrs (footnote numbers)
THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT IN KANT AND KIERKEGAARD
“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe... the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence” Immanuel Kant - Critique of Practical Reason, 1788
INTRODUCTION
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) deny that we can acquire a theoretical knowledge of God. For Kant, we know of God by intuition and for Kierkegaard, by experience. By objective and subjective ways of knowing God, both try to show that God cannot be known with objective certainty, i.e., by verification, but can be known through religious belief.
This paper will examine Kierkegaard’s criticism of Kant’s notion of atonement as insufficient and ask if Kierkegaard had correctly interpreted him. For Kant, religious belief is found in pure practical, as opposed to pure theoretical reason. Belief in God is generated by human reflection of the moral gap between what we are and what we ought to be. He has often been thought of as negating the true meaning of Christian theological doctrine of atonement by his rejection of divine grace in favor of auto-salvation.
We begin with a brief survey of Kant’s notion of religion and atonement found in his second critique and his major work on religion. Then we shall summarize Kierkegaard’s three stages of life in his pseudonymous Either/Or. Next, we will discuss Kierkegaard’s critique of Kant’s theory of atonement. We conclude with an appraisal of Kierkegaard’s critique with a commentary on the advantage of literary pseudonymity and the limitation of writing within the limits of reason alone.
cont'd:
The key to understanding Kant is to note his thought experiments in his preface to the second edition of Religion, in which he explains the title of the book. Consider a sphere of pure religion of reason within a larger sphere of historical revelation. All confessional statements describing historical events fall within the part of the larger sphere outside of the smaller sphere, while matters of reason fall within the smaller sphere. He explains that “The philosopher, as a teacher of pure reason, must confine himself within the narrower circle ... and waive consideration of all experiences”41 . While the inner circle rules out parts of the historical revelation as it is interpreted, it does not rule out religion.
This distinction between religion per se and historical events of religious significance is important because it hints at Kant’s determination to control the selection of what is properly within the confines of knowledge by reason alone. He also considers a second thought experiment in which he privileges some alleged divine revelation and leave out the pure religion of reason to examine the revelation as an historical system in the light of moral concepts and see where it leads. If the experiments are successful, he wishes to show that “reason can be found to be ... compatible with Scripture [and] also at one with it, so that he who follows one will not fail to be conformed to the other”. Otherwise, we will have two religions, one of human reason and one of divine revelation42 .
When we read Kant’s notion of atonement in Religion, we must bear in mind the purpose for which he wrote it. Kant’s project of translating religiously significant historical events known to us by divine revelation to the religion of pure reason is not an act of reducing religion to morality. It is an interdisciplinary attempt to speak confessional language in philosophical terms of reference.
Even when he speaks of “Man himself must make or have made himself ... in a moral sense ... whether himself good or evil... an effect of his free choice”, Kant qualifies this statement by limiting it to the moral sense. Likewise he writes that we must understand the phrase Man is created good as Man is created for good, i.e., the original disposition of man is good43, even if his propensity is for evil.
Kant adopts the Lutheran form of the doctrine of total depravity and the human propensity to evil which corrupts us all in the whole along with the original predisposition to good, which helps us survive the Fall.
What of grace then? Is there space for grace in Kant’s view of religion? For Kant, the pure religion of reason can admit the concept of divine grace as something incomprehensible but cannot adopt44, in the doctrine of atonement because grace is beyond the possible scope of sense experience. This does not deny grace if understood from an exposition of religion not limited to the limits of reason alone.
Another feature of Kant’s doctrine of atonement is that it does not permit the transfer of liability because this cannot make sense to pure reason45. But does the transfer occur in Kant’s historical realm? We have to speculate that Kant would say, sure, strictly from the point of view of the historical realm.
Hare argues that Christ takes over our failures when he takes us as members of his own body. The Christ-human relation is qualitatively different from the inter-human relation46 . Will this overcome the Kantian objection against the transmission of liability? From the general perspective of theology, this makes sense, but within the limits of reason alone, I fear not. For reason alone cannot be made to comprehend divine-human relationality short of a confessional conviction that Jesus is God. The framework Kant set up limits his ability to make such a claim, even if he himself believes it, like a faithful Lutheran.
Conclusion:
Kant’s view of atonement is inadequate for Christian orthodoxy if understood to be an historical explanation but within the limits of reason alone, it is an adequate and not unfaithful presentation. The question of whether it will be useful as an apologetic is a different matter.
Was Kierkegaard’s demonstration of Kant’s theory successful in showing the inadequacy of Kantian ethics? Again, as a historical account, Kierkegaard was correct, but within Kant’s own stated terms, he was probably misunderstood by Kierkegaard.
If Kant is read as limiting reason to make room for faith in the sense of partitioning knowledge, he would have done Christianity a disservice. However, if we take him on his word that he sought to see what can be universally understood by all humanity regarding God with the use of pure reason alone, he in fact advanced our understanding of God. Hare argues that Kant wished to translate rather than reduce religion to morality. He attempts to recover a Kantian reading that is more in line with orthodox Christian teachings, especially with regard to the doctrine of atonement. How persuasive is this argument?
The title of Kant’s book, Religion Within The Limits of Reason Alone does not refer to a reduction of religion to morality, but rather to a limitation of pure theoretical reasoning as opposed to pure practical reasoning regarding the nature of religion. Short of practical reasoning, one cannot understand historical events such as the virgin conception and incarnation of Christ. This explanation seems to be in line with Hare’s claim that Kant has been unfairly treated and badly misunderstood. I shall argue that Kierkegaard himself failed to carefully interpret Kant. But why did this happen? Why does it continue to happen? I think it is because of Kant’s ambitious project coupled with an inadequate use of literary style for which Kierkegaard was a master.
We are quite aware of the intended effect of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous writing style, of which Either/Or is one. It permits Kierkegaard to make statements he would be reticent to make if he wrote it under his own name. While it limits what the book can say, what it permits it to say, it can be said very well. In the same manner, Kant’s writings on religion and atonement in the Critique of Pure Reason and in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone reflects a self-imposed writing paradigm which limits what Kant can say, but permits us to understand from the point of view of someone not confessionally committed to the Christian faith, the limits to which reason alone can comprehend the nature of religion and specifically, of the Christian religion. Kierkegaard adopted a pseudonymous writing style to lead the reader into an apologetic for the Christian faith. But he seriously misunderstood Kant’s style of writing, one strictly from the point of view of a pure atheological philosopher. Kant was perhaps also as a nuanced apologist for the Christian faith, to show that the belief in immortality, God and divine grace is not a violation of pure reason in its complete, theoretical and practical senses. The advantage Kierkegaard has over Kant is that the former wrote under several pseudonyms, so that as Victor Eremita in Either/Or, Kierkegaard is free to express rather extravagant statements about life and faith which he himself does not share, while as Anti-Climacus (the only pseudonym who knows Christianity from the inside47 ), in Sickness Unto Death, he was able to present the view that sin is innate to the human condition and yet can be eliminated by the atoning effect of Jesus Christ, who bears infinite responsibility48 .
Kant does not share the privilege of this literary tool and he paid the price of flying too near the sun without protection. His project to demonstrate the philosophical cogency of the Christian belief in God did not manage to persuade a Christian writer of Kierkegaard’s genius.
Where did the Bible come from?
Who wrote the Bible?
The world’s all time bestseller, the Christian Bible, has been translated in part into over 3000 languages. A closer examination reveals that none of the writers of the 66 ‘books’ claim authorship, i.e., they acknowledge penmanship without claiming to be the authors of the material. While most contemporary books identify their authors by name, the Holy Bible makes its own internal collective affirmation that the primary author of the text is none other than the God who made the universe.
What does this mean and why is the answer thus far seemingly unsatisfactory to most of us? This is because we are creatures of habit and culture, in their historical contexts. It is the habit within living memory that anything published in documentary form usually identifies the author/s or if not, evidence can point to the writers, always of human origin.
The astonishing claim of the Bible is that the author is non-human (in fact, divine). Furthermore, the books were written over a great span of time and geography. Is it reasonable to accept that the writers (human agents) of the Bible, who wrote largely in ignorance of each other, converge on a united theme which stands the test of time as well as it does? Let us examine some of the objections to this claim.
Objections
1) No known book or work of literature exists which spans such vast stretches of time and geography.
Answer: This absence of comparable collections is no obstacle to the possible existence of such a work. It is like saying that because machines which can travel faster than the speed of sound did not exist in 1920 must mean that the Concorde airplane cannot now exist.
2) There is no externally corroborative claim to support the internal claim of the Bible.
Answer: In every other field of intellectual inquiry, scholars always look to internal evidence of documents to establish their character and thereby privilege what the document says of its identity. To disallow this methodology for one of the world’s oldest known collections of literature is disingenuous.
3) The Bible does not explain how it came about, mechanically. Answer: According to our best scholarship, history and tradition show that the textual materials were inherited from an ancient oral tradition which dates back to at least the twentieth century B.C. with the earliest written forms emerging around 1500 BC. While the collection of the Hebrew Bible was more or less completed by 200 B.C., the texts of the New Testament became a fixed compilation only in the fourth century A.D. Over time, various translations have been effected to accommodate the changing speech and literary patterns of human languages.
If these objections hold, they pose compelling arguments against the Bible’s own claim. If not, the objections are exposed for what they are - mere prejudices!
Bible Tidbits: Did you know that ...
Before the invention of mass-produced printing (c.1455 A. D.), the Bible was transmitted by anonymous monks who patiently copied biblical manuscripts by hand.
It would take months to copy a single book such as Jeremiah.
Today, there are about
2300 surviving Bible manuscripts copied from 300 to 1500 A.D.
55001 Greek manuscripts that contain portions of the New Testament
8000 in Latin and
1000 in other ancient languages2 .
Most copies are about 100 years later than the autographs (originals).
Hand copying was tedious and errors invariably crept in due to the frailties of human effort. The invention of spectacles in 1375 A.D. helped greatly, as did the invention of the movable printing press in 1455 A.D. The earlier the document used, the closer to the original. The KJV used Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from the 12th and 13th centuries. Modern translators use New Testament manuscripts from as far back as the 3rd century and Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from the time of Jesus
The Need for a Complete Bible
The last great persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire came under Emperor Diocletian in February, 303 A.D. Its failure to eradicate the faith completely led to the victory of the church. In 306 A.D., General Constantine was declared ‘Augustus’ by his troops at York in ‘England’ and in 312 A.D., was so affirmed by the Senate at Rome, (becoming sole emperor in 324). In 313 A.D., Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which declared Christianity a legitimate religion (it became the official religion of the empire in 381). The new capital of the empire was now Byzantium, later called Constantinople (modern day Istanbul in Turkey). In 332, Emperor Constantine himself ordered from bishop Eusebius, 50 copies of the Bible in vellum.
The Greek New Testament was written as a series of unbroken letter formations. One had to determine from the context, where one word ended and another started. Chapter divisions were created in the 1200s A.D. by a lecturer at the University of Paris and its current verse divisions were completed in 1551 A.D.
For example, the Gospel according to Mark in early documents might be written something like
THBEGINNINGOTHGOSPELOJESUSXTHSONOGOD
or rather
??????????????????????????????????????
which had to be broken up into discrete words, like so
????- ??? - ??????????? - ?????- ???????- ????- ????
which transliterate into English as
“Beginning - the - Gospel - (of) Jesus - Christ - Son - (of) God”
and translate into
“The beginning (of the) Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God”
Today, we know it in the modern Greek form (UBS4) as
???? ??? ??????????? ????? ??????? ???? ????
and in English
“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God”
Learn more about the canonization of the Bible from the ACT Seminars or from the ACT Canonization Manual.
www.actministry.org.
ACT, Box 20376, New York, NY 10001
The world’s all time bestseller, the Christian Bible, has been translated in part into over 3000 languages. A closer examination reveals that none of the writers of the 66 ‘books’ claim authorship, i.e., they acknowledge penmanship without claiming to be the authors of the material. While most contemporary books identify their authors by name, the Holy Bible makes its own internal collective affirmation that the primary author of the text is none other than the God who made the universe.
What does this mean and why is the answer thus far seemingly unsatisfactory to most of us? This is because we are creatures of habit and culture, in their historical contexts. It is the habit within living memory that anything published in documentary form usually identifies the author/s or if not, evidence can point to the writers, always of human origin.
The astonishing claim of the Bible is that the author is non-human (in fact, divine). Furthermore, the books were written over a great span of time and geography. Is it reasonable to accept that the writers (human agents) of the Bible, who wrote largely in ignorance of each other, converge on a united theme which stands the test of time as well as it does? Let us examine some of the objections to this claim.
Objections
1) No known book or work of literature exists which spans such vast stretches of time and geography.
Answer: This absence of comparable collections is no obstacle to the possible existence of such a work. It is like saying that because machines which can travel faster than the speed of sound did not exist in 1920 must mean that the Concorde airplane cannot now exist.
2) There is no externally corroborative claim to support the internal claim of the Bible.
Answer: In every other field of intellectual inquiry, scholars always look to internal evidence of documents to establish their character and thereby privilege what the document says of its identity. To disallow this methodology for one of the world’s oldest known collections of literature is disingenuous.
3) The Bible does not explain how it came about, mechanically. Answer: According to our best scholarship, history and tradition show that the textual materials were inherited from an ancient oral tradition which dates back to at least the twentieth century B.C. with the earliest written forms emerging around 1500 BC. While the collection of the Hebrew Bible was more or less completed by 200 B.C., the texts of the New Testament became a fixed compilation only in the fourth century A.D. Over time, various translations have been effected to accommodate the changing speech and literary patterns of human languages.
If these objections hold, they pose compelling arguments against the Bible’s own claim. If not, the objections are exposed for what they are - mere prejudices!
Bible Tidbits: Did you know that ...
Before the invention of mass-produced printing (c.1455 A. D.), the Bible was transmitted by anonymous monks who patiently copied biblical manuscripts by hand.
It would take months to copy a single book such as Jeremiah.
Today, there are about
2300 surviving Bible manuscripts copied from 300 to 1500 A.D.
55001 Greek manuscripts that contain portions of the New Testament
8000 in Latin and
1000 in other ancient languages2 .
Most copies are about 100 years later than the autographs (originals).
Hand copying was tedious and errors invariably crept in due to the frailties of human effort. The invention of spectacles in 1375 A.D. helped greatly, as did the invention of the movable printing press in 1455 A.D. The earlier the document used, the closer to the original. The KJV used Greek and Hebrew manuscripts from the 12th and 13th centuries. Modern translators use New Testament manuscripts from as far back as the 3rd century and Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from the time of Jesus
The Need for a Complete Bible
The last great persecution of Christians under the Roman Empire came under Emperor Diocletian in February, 303 A.D. Its failure to eradicate the faith completely led to the victory of the church. In 306 A.D., General Constantine was declared ‘Augustus’ by his troops at York in ‘England’ and in 312 A.D., was so affirmed by the Senate at Rome, (becoming sole emperor in 324). In 313 A.D., Constantine issued the Edict of Milan which declared Christianity a legitimate religion (it became the official religion of the empire in 381). The new capital of the empire was now Byzantium, later called Constantinople (modern day Istanbul in Turkey). In 332, Emperor Constantine himself ordered from bishop Eusebius, 50 copies of the Bible in vellum.
The Greek New Testament was written as a series of unbroken letter formations. One had to determine from the context, where one word ended and another started. Chapter divisions were created in the 1200s A.D. by a lecturer at the University of Paris and its current verse divisions were completed in 1551 A.D.
For example, the Gospel according to Mark in early documents might be written something like
THBEGINNINGOTHGOSPELOJESUSXTHSONOGOD
or rather
??????????????????????????????????????
which had to be broken up into discrete words, like so
????- ??? - ??????????? - ?????- ???????- ????- ????
which transliterate into English as
“Beginning - the - Gospel - (of) Jesus - Christ - Son - (of) God”
and translate into
“The beginning (of the) Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God”
Today, we know it in the modern Greek form (UBS4) as
???? ??? ??????????? ????? ??????? ???? ????
and in English
“The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God”
Learn more about the canonization of the Bible from the ACT Seminars or from the ACT Canonization Manual.
www.actministry.org.
ACT, Box 20376, New York, NY 10001
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Evil and Suffering
One the great unanswered questions is why evil and suffering exists.
It is commonly assumed that the two words are related and sometimes, they are used synonymously.
However, evil is often the name we use to describe a cause and suffering is used to describe the consequence.
Hence, while not all evil results in suffering, and not all suffering a result of evil, their relationship may be stated as follows:
1. Evil which does not result in suffering (Wicked actions which misses causing suffering such as a failed attempt to murder)
2. Evil which results in suffering (Wicked actions by people which cause suffering such as murder. Animals are exempt because we do not expect them to be morally cognitive)
3. Suffering not caused by evil (Such as that caused by natural disasters)
4. Suffering caused by self-infliction (This may be simply the result of making poor judgments)
Are there any other categories that I have missed?
Check out comment #4 for my response to the issue of evildoers who escape punishment
It is commonly assumed that the two words are related and sometimes, they are used synonymously.
However, evil is often the name we use to describe a cause and suffering is used to describe the consequence.
Hence, while not all evil results in suffering, and not all suffering a result of evil, their relationship may be stated as follows:
1. Evil which does not result in suffering (Wicked actions which misses causing suffering such as a failed attempt to murder)
2. Evil which results in suffering (Wicked actions by people which cause suffering such as murder. Animals are exempt because we do not expect them to be morally cognitive)
3. Suffering not caused by evil (Such as that caused by natural disasters)
4. Suffering caused by self-infliction (This may be simply the result of making poor judgments)
Are there any other categories that I have missed?
Check out comment #4 for my response to the issue of evildoers who escape punishment
Friday, March 18, 2005
What is good?
Some 2500 years ago, Socrates wondered about gods and goodness. In ancient Greece where he lived, many of the gods indulged in behavior which even mortals felt were bad, killing, stealing, commiting incest, destroying etc. He posed the question to Euthyphro about whether the gods love what is holy or holiness is what gods love. Socrates's student Plato wrote about. Today, this is known an Euthyphro's dilemma. Is God good because he conforms to a behavior that we all agree is good, or is good that which we attribute to what God does? If there is a good to which God has to conform in order to be good, then God is not the highest good and ought not to be called God in the first place. If good is what God does, then there is nothing that God does which is not good. In other words, is God good, or is good God?
Some say that this is a problem for Christians since if good is God, then God can be arbitrary and command evil which we have to define as good!
While this is a philosophical possibility, it assumes that goodness lies in the commands of God rather than in the nature of God. If god's nature is what we define goodness to be, then God's nature which determines God's commands, cannot be evil.
Some say that this is a problem for Christians since if good is God, then God can be arbitrary and command evil which we have to define as good!
While this is a philosophical possibility, it assumes that goodness lies in the commands of God rather than in the nature of God. If god's nature is what we define goodness to be, then God's nature which determines God's commands, cannot be evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Useless Knowledge
Subscribe To Faith Seeking Understanding
Posts
All Comments
Blog Archive
Links
About Me
- Ron Choong
- New York, NY, United States
- Apologist and Founder of ACT, neurotheologian, philosopher of science