The Faith of The Universalist

Before I fully embraced Universalism I was constantly bombarded by internal strife. I was always worried that I wasn't certain enough, that I didn't believe enough, and yes that I wasn't good enough, for God to love me and forgive me. I was always searching for that perfect faith, that absolute certainty that unfailing confidence. Over time I started to see this is a kind of idolatry. For the quest for belief, for certainty, is a quest to take control over something in one's self, even if it is just to 'let go and let God'. Paradoxically, the more one seeks faith the less of it one seems to have. Soon religion become neurotic and self-destructive. I came to realize that in a very real sense I was seeking faith not in God, but in faith itself. I wanted to find faith in my own belief, my own certainty, rather than in Jesus Christ. I could not trust that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for my salvation, I rather was seeking to trust that my BELIEF in Jesus' sacrifice was necessary for it. and if I couldn't find that belief, well then I was in trouble wasn't I?

As I slowly gave myself over to Universalism, to the belief that indeed Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for all people at least be allowed into Heaven (if not now, then at some point, and if not as the totality of who they were, then at least in part), I found this neuroses melt away. All of a sudden, I found myself able to trust in Jesus Christ, in God, and in the Holy Spirit, and give up this idolatry of my own attitude. I will never know if I "believe enough", for I am a mystery even to myself, as Psalm 139 says.  I do not know who I am, but I know that God knows who I am, and that is enough. I do not know, but I am known, and that satisfies. I know longer worry if I am certain enough about my own salvation to warrant being saved. And somehow, this gives me a level of confidence I never had before. It is only through Universalism that I have fully found faith in Jesus Christ.

Now I still try to bring people into the light of Jesus' presence. But I don't do this in a neurotic or controlling way. I simply love, and proclaim what the Lord has done for me, and does for me every day, and I give the rest up to God. I found I have become a better evangelist since I have embraced Universalism. Of course, pragmatic concerns are not always the best way to adjudicate what one should believe. Truth is more important than 'what works' or what makes one happy. But when it comes to things like salvation, nobody really has a full handle on the truth. People can PRETEND they know for sure, but nobody really knows for sure. The Bible isn't clear one direction or another. So when one has a multitude of options, all seemingly equally rational, it is perfectly reasonable to use pragmatic concerns as the final court of appeal, if no other one exists. If Universalism makes me a better Christian, a better servant, and a better human being, and I think it has, then I see no reason why I shouldn't embrace it as I have.

One Post Wednesday: Weekly Homily

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mee4GkwHqKc

 

On The Parable of the Good Samaritan

New Offering

I think this might be the best thing I've ever written:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BLP1G4C

A Long Quote From Niebuhr

'However wide and deep the differences which separate the Christian view of life from that of Greek tragedy, it must be apparent that there are greater similarities between the two than between either and the utilitarian rationalism which has dominated contemporary culture. Both measure life in the same depth; and neither gives itself to the simple delusion that the titanic forces of human existence, whether they spring from below the level of consciousness or rise above the level of human limitations, can easily be brought under the control of some little scheme of prudent rationality.

Christianity and Greek tragedy agree that guilt and creativity are inextricably interwoven. But Christianity does not regard the inevitability of guilt in all human creativity as inherent in the nature of human life. Sin emerges, indeed, out of freedom and is possible only because man is free; but it is done in freedom, and therefore man and not life bears responsibility for it. It does indeed accompany every creative act; but the evil is not part of the creativity. It is the consequence of man's self-centredness and egotism by which he destroys the harmony of existence. The fact that he does this is not an occasion for admiration but for pity: "Weep for yourselves" remains Christianity's admonition to all who involve themselves in sin and guilt, whether by unconscious submission to forces greater than their will or by consciously affirming these forces...

It must be admitted, of course, that there are genuinely tragic elements in the human enterprise, simply because nobility and strength, dignity and creative ambition are mixed with this sin, and frequently make it more destructive. Thus Japan lives in greater ultimate insecurity than China because Japanese patriotism has created a nation of greater unity and force than China, a nation playing for higher stakes, at greater risks and with the certainty of ultimate disaster. In the same way the British Empire could not have been built without the solid achievements of British statecraft, a statecraft which made moral qualities serve political purposes. But the British aristocrats who built the Empire are also sealing its doom by policies which are prompted by some of the same class characteristics which were responsible for their original success. However we may qualify the judgment to allow for authentic tragic elements in human life, Christianity is right in its general indictment, "Weep for yourselves." Sin is pitiful.'

The Extremes

The farther along the path one is, the more dangerous corruption becomes. Great good can be transformed into great evil very easily. There is a reason why the devil worked so hard to tempt Jesus. This is also why pastors and religious leaders will sometimes commit such horrendous evils. The truth is that extreme good and extreme evil have more in common with each other than either one has with some stultifying neutrality or moderation.

More On The Names of God

From a Bible study I wrote on the subject:

El (Or Elohim) & Yahweh- El literally just means “God”, and is used as a proper name for God in the Exodus passage below. Elohim, used interchangeably with El, means ‘God of gods’. The use of the plural Elohim when referring to God has long been an issue of debate. Yahweh can be translated “I Am” or “I Am What I Am” or “I Will Be What I Will Be”. It is also used as a proper name for God in the Exodus passage.

Genesis 4:26

To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of [Yahweh].

Exodus 3:13-15

³ Then Moses said to [El], “Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you.’ Now they may say to me, ‘What is His name?’ What shall I say to them?” ¹⁴ [El] said to Moses, “[Yahweh]” and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘[Yahweh] has sent me to you.’” ¹⁵ [El], furthermore, said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘[Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is My memorial-name to all generations.

 El Shaddai- El Shaddai is usually translated “God Almighty”. It may literally mean ‘The God of the Mountains’ or ‘The God Who Nurses’. Another possible meaning is ‘God the Destroyer’. Most Bibles combine the first and third meanings and emphasize ‘Almighty’. Some translators suggest that we should combine the first and second meanings and translate it ‘The Breasted Lord’ or ‘The God of the Two Mountains’

Genesis 17:1-5

 ¹ Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him,

   “I am [El Shaddai];
Walk before Me, and be blameless.
² “I will establish My covenant between Me and you,
And I will multiply you exceedingly.”
 ³ Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying,
 ⁴ “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you will be the father of a multitude of nations.
⁵ “No longer shall your name be called Abram,
But your name shall be Abraham;
For I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

Exodus 6:1-9

¹ Then [Yahweh] said to Moses, “Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for ^[under compulsion he will let them go, and under compulsion he will drive them out of his land.”

 ² God spoke further to Moses and said to him, “I am [Yahweh]; ³ and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as [El Shaddai], but by My name, [Yahweh], I did not make Myself known to them. ⁴ I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned. ⁵ Furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. ⁶ Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, ‘I am [Yahweh], and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. ⁷ Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am [Yahweh] your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. ⁸ I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am [Yahweh].’” ⁹ So Moses spoke thus to the sons of Israel, but they did not listen to Moses on account of their despondency and cruel bondage.

Ezekiel 10:4-5

⁴ Then the glory of [Yahweh] went up from the cherub to the threshold of the temple, and the temple was filled with the cloud and the court was filled with the brightness of the glory of [Yahweh]. ⁵ Moreover, the sound of the wings of the cherubim was heard as far as the outer court, like the voice of [El Shaddai] when He speaks.
 ⁶ It came about when He commanded the man clothed in linen, saying, “Take fire from between the whirling wheels, from between the cherubim,” he entered and stood beside a wheel.

 El Elyon- Means literally ‘God Most High’.

Genesis 14:17-24

 ¹⁷ Then after his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). ¹⁸ And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of [El Elyon]. ¹⁹ He blessed him and said,

   “Blessed be Abram of [El Elyon]
Possessor of heaven and earth;
²⁰ And blessed be [El Elyon]
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
   He gave him a tenth of all. ²¹ The king of Sodom said to Abram, “Give the people to me and take the goods for yourself.” ²² Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have sworn to [Yahweh] [El Elyon], possessor of heaven and earth, ²³ that I will not take a thread or a sandal thong or anything that is yours, for fear you would say, ‘I have made Abram rich.’ ²⁴ I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share.”


Yahweh Rapha- Translated literally this means ‘I Am Your Healer’, “I Will Be Your Healer” or ‘Yahweh The Healer’. Eventually this aspect of God’s character was attributed to an archangel, Raphael. Notice in the name “Raphael” the terms ‘Rapha’ and ‘El’…Raphael means ‘God heals’.

Exodus 15:26

²⁶ And He said, “If you will give earnest heed to the voice of the [Yahweh] your God, and do what is right in His sight, and give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases on you which I have put on the Egyptians; for [I am Yahweh Rapha]


Qanna – Literally translated “Jealous” God tells the Hebrews this is His proper name when they are thinking about going after to worship other gods.

Exodus 34:14

¹⁴ —for you shall not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is [Qanna], is a jealous God—

 El Roi- This is the name that Hagar gave to God when she encountered him in the desert. It literally means “The God That Sees”.

Genesis 16:13-14
¹³ Then she called the name of [Yahweh] who spoke to her, “You are [El Roi]”; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?” ¹⁴ Therefore the well was called [The Well of the One Who Sees]; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered.


Shekinah- The name Shekinah means ‘the Presence’ or ‘The Face’. It is the name Jews use to describe the physical manifestation of God that was present in the Ark and the Temple. Shekinah is closely related to the idea of the Holy Spirit, at least in some parts of the Bible, and became one of the names of the Holy Spirit for Christians. Shekinah is a feminine term in Hebrew, and one of only two such terms used as names for God. Eventually, in some mystical sects of Judaism and Christianity, this term became very important indeed. People thought of Shekinah as the name of God within, the God we could access within ourselves.

Exodus 25:29-31

²⁹ You shall make its dishes and its pans and its jars and its bowls with which to pour drink offerings; you shall make them of pure gold. ³⁰ You shall set the bread of [Shekinah] on the table before Me at all times.

Exodus 33:12-22

 ¹² Then Moses said to the [Yahweh], “See, You say to me, ‘Bring up this people!’ But You Yourself have not let me know whom You will send with me. Moreover, You have said, ‘I have known you by name, and you have also found favor in My sight.’ ¹³ Now therefore, I pray You, if I have found favor in Your sight, let me know Your ways that I may know You, so that I may find favor in Your sight. Consider too, that this nation is Your people.” ¹⁴ And He said, “[Shekinah] shall go with you, and I will give you rest.” ¹⁵ Then he said to Him, “If [Shekinah] does not go with us, do not lead us up from here. ¹⁶ For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Your sight, I and Your people? Is it not by Your going with us, so that we, I and Your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?” 

Abba- This is the word sometimes used for ‘Father’ in the New Testament. Wherever it is used, the Greek translators include the Aramaic term, ‘Abba’ used as a proper name, and the Greek translation, which is ‘Father’. But literally translated Abba means ‘daddy’, it is a childlike way to talk about one’s parent.

Mark 14:36

³⁶ And He was saying, “[Abba], all things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”

Romans 8:15

¹⁵ For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “[Abba, which means] Father!”

 Adonai- Adonai is the name that is always used to refer to God when Jews make their prayers. They translate the name “Yahweh” as “Adonai”. It literally means “Lord”, and so in the Bible the name Yahweh is translated THE LORD (capitalized to emphasize its relationship with the name YHWH). Adonai expresses greatness, or beauty. It is a way to recognize that someone is ‘better than’ you are. The name Adonis has the same root.

Joshua 7:6-9
⁶ Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, both he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust on their heads. ⁷ Joshua said, “Alas, O [Adonai Yahweh], why did You ever bring this people over the Jordan, only to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? If only we had been willing to dwell beyond the Jordan! ⁸ O [Adonai], what can I say since Israel has turned their back before their enemies? ⁹ For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and they will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will You do for Your great name?”






Yahweh Shalom- Shalom is a very powerful, complex word in Hebrew. It is usually translated ‘peace’, and that is one aspect of Shalom. But a better translation may be something like ‘made complete’ or ‘made whole’. Translated literally this can mean “Yahweh Makes Us Whole”; “Yahweh Is Our Peace”; “I Am The One Who Makes You Whole” or “I Am The One Who Brings Peace”.

Judges 6:24

²⁴ Then Gideon built an altar there to the LORD and named it [Yahweh Shalom]. To this day it is still in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.


Yeshua Mesiah- The Aramaic/Hebraic equivalent of Jesus Christ. Literally translated Yeshua or Jesus means “God Saves”. Christ means “God’s Chosen” Jesus Christ would mean “The Anointed One Through Whom God Saves”.

Revelation 1:1-7

 ¹ The Revelation of [Yeshua Mesiah], which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, ² who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of [Yeshua Mesiah], even to all that he saw. ³ Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

 ⁴ John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, ⁵ and from [Yeshua Mesiah], the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— ⁶ and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. ⁷ BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 

Ruach Hakodesh- Literally “The Holy Breath” this is the proper name of the Holy Spirit. It emphasizes the Spirit as a life-giving force. It is sometimes closely associated with Shekinah and like Shekinah is a feminine phrase.

Acts 8:14-19

 ¹⁴ Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, ¹⁵ who came down and prayed for them that they might receive [Ruach Hakodesh]. ¹⁶ For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ¹⁷ Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving [Ruach Hakodesh]. ¹⁸ Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, ¹⁹ saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive [Ruach Hakodesh].” 

On The Name "Raphael"

In Exodus 15:26 God refers to Himself as "Yahweh Rapha" or "The One Who Heals". There are several places where God's name is modified by some other word. God is called "Yahweh Shalom", for instance, in Judges, which means "God is Peace". It may be that these various names and titles have to do with other gods that were worshipped by the Canaanites whose functions were subsumed under the worship of Yahweh alone. So at one time there was a god who was said to be a healer. But God tells the Israelites literally "I Am The One Who Heals", as a way of appropriating the activities of this other god. These other gods may have even, at one time, been looked at as other aspects of Yahweh. So monotheism takes place in stages, beginning with polytheism, and then moving into a period of syncretism where other gods are worshipped as aspects of the One True God, and finally to true monotheism.

Raphael is the name of an angels, found predominately in the Book of Tobit. Raphael literally means "God Heals". So the activity of healing, which once was explicitly attributed to God alone, is now attributed to an intermediary between God and man. This was the result of what is known as the apocalyptic worldview. This was the view that dark powers stood between God and man, and so God would not or could not directly interact with people. So God interacts through intermediaries, primarily angels. So in the Book of Tobit the power to heal comes from God alone, as does the command to heal, but the exercise of that power is in the hands of an intermediary, named Raphael. The evolution here is interesting: from a healer god, to that god acting as a kind of intermediary, to God being the sole source of action, and then back to that power being filtered through some other being.

The simple fact of the matter is that the world is not the perfect harmony it would have to be if it conformed fully to a single divine being. Thus polytheism always has something to commend it, intellectually. But morally and religiously, it is of little use. Moral experience demands unity. For to believe in multiple gods is to believe in a multitude of equally valid moral positions. On this view, murder is 'right' so long as there is some god who justifies it. A religion that doesn't help us make sense of the meaningfulness of the moral life, is all but useless, and should command no one's assent. But the insight of polytheism cannot be let go of so easily. In the end, positing other lesser cosmic forces in the universe that at time stand over against God and can at least at times frustrate His plans, is the only way I see of making sense of both insights. Our experience of cosmic evil is as palpable as our experience of cosmic good. But to hold onto monotheism is to stake a claim on the side of hope, hope that the invitation to love and the promise of good overcoming evil is not one that is given to us in vain. It is trusting in the Word of God, and in the reality of the good over the reality of the evil. The alternatives just undermine the very call that got us out on the road of redemption in the first place.

The Book of Tobit & The Apocrypha

The Book of Tobit is found in the Apocrypha, which are the additional books that are found in the Greek version of what Christians call the Old Testament, which are not found in the Hebrew version. I think the Apocrypha is incredibly important to get a full grasp on what God is revealing throughout the rest of scripture, especially in the New Testament. There are so many shifts in values and worldview that take place during that period of Israel's history which also set the stage for all that happens in the New Testament. For instance, it is impossible to understand the prevailing Jewish political understanding of Messiah, which is found throughout the Gospels, unless one understands the events surrounding the Maccabean revolt, which is recounted in the Apocryphal books 1 & 2 Maccabees. You cannot fully grasp the apocalyptic worldview of Jesus without books like the Book of Tobit.

The modern protestant rejection of the Apocrypha is strange, to me. It is based on a kind of elevation of the Hebrew version of the Old Testament over the Greek. Strangely enough, many of the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament come from the Greek, not the Hebrew, version. In fact, the Jews only chose to canonize the Hebrew version over the Greek in part to counter Christian use of the Greek books to argue that Jesus was Messiah. 

So I take the Apocrypha to be of some value as records of God's revelation of mankind. This has been true of me for most of my life as a Christian, as I grew up Catholic and today work in an Episcopal Church, both of which to different degrees accept the Apocryphal books as having revelatory validity. The Book of Tobit has been one of my favorite books since I was a child. It tells the story of two families, ripped apart by evil forces. Tobit is an old prophet who was renowned for his virtue, who has been struck blind by an unfortunate series of events. Sarah is a woman who has a stalker that is literally demonic, a fallen angel names asmodeus. He has killed seven men on the night they married her. Both Tobit and Sarah pray for death at the same time, and the message is brought to God by the archangel Raphael. God instructs Raphael to find a way to help both people.

About this time, Tobit sends his son Tobias on a long journey to collect some money owed the family by a distant relative. He instructs his son to find a kinsmen from the town that will go with him. Raphael takes this opportunity to disguise himself as a relative of the Tobit clan, and applies for the job. Tobit sends Tobias on his way with his newfound friend. On the road they encounter a monstrous fish, which they kill for food and because the innards have medicinal powers. They then stop off at the house where Sarah lives, and the hidden Raphael urges Tobias to marry her, as he has the right of redemption. Tobias  resists at first, but Raphael convinces him that all will be well, if he undertakes a specific set of steps to ward off the demon that assaults Sarah's suitors. Tobias uses parts of the fish to ward off asmodeus, and Raphael uses his holy might to chain the demon up in the desert.

Tobias and the hidden Raphael collect the money and go back home with their now expanded family, the money collected, and a considerable dowry for Sarah. There Raphael instructs Tobias to use the rest of the fish to cure his father. At a party not long afterwards, Raphael shows his true form, and instructs the men to give thanks to God alone for all that happened, as Raphael is merely his arm.

This story may seem strange and comic book-ish, but there is so much rich theology here as well. There is the expanded Jewish understanding of suffering. Neither Tobit nor Sarah suffer because of sin, which was the common reason given by the prophets for all suffering in the world. Rather Tobit was undergoing a test, and Sarah was assaulted by a demon. These two explanations for the problem of evil are starting to supplant the old prophetic answers, which I think is a big step forward for Jewish theology. Tobit puts this changing view on display.

It shows the growing importance of angels. People believed that dark powers stood between man and God and that God could only work through intermediaries at this time in history. This is a very important part of Jewish cosmology to understand if one is going to get a full understanding of what is going on in the Gospels. There is the idea of the guardian angel. I just love the thought that some little nodule of the divine is always with us, and always looking after us. There is one of the funniest stories in all of the Bible, when Sarah's dad, convinced that the morning after the wedding Tobias will be dead, digs a grave to put his body in. It lays down, as The Book of Sirach does, a theological attitude towards medicine. The Jews debated what the proper attitude towards medicinal sciences should be. Some thought that healing was in the hands of God alone. Others thought that anything that brought goodness and health was itself the hand of God. Tobit, like Sirach, comes out strongly on this latter side. And we are better for it. On and on, throughout the strange and mythical storytelling, is a glimpse into the mind of the evolving Jewish movement. It is a perfect example of why the Apocrypha is so important to get a full Biblical picture. I simply love it. 

More On The Wikipedia Article on The Word "Numinous"

From that wikipedia article I quoted in my last post:

"The idea is not necessarily a religious one: noted atheists Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have discussed the importance of separating the numinous from the religious. For example, when one experiences awe and fascination with natural phenomenon such as majestic landscapes and deep appreciation of fellow human creations such as art and engineering marvels. At times like these a feeling of the numinous can overwhelm the mind and body, yet in no way is this interpreted to be supernatural or of divine origin. The very fact that one feels inspired by such encounters extends the depth of feeling of the numinous and makes accessible a real sense of humane solidarity with ourselves and with our natural world. The unnecessary introduction of the supernatural only serves to remove this wonderment to some abstract realm and thus in fact cheapens the experience.^[2]"

But the question is whether our experience of the numinous is really justified. Is it just a flight of fancy? If so, why should one care? If, on the other hand, it is a feeling that is grounded in reality as it actually is, then that brings up some interesting questions. For that means our experience of value is grounded in something outside ourselves, that our values in some sense adhere in the universe. But what could that possibly mean if the universe is in fact indifferent to us? Further, what happens when I experience the numinous in some vision or mystical experience? What happens when I meditate and try to give myself completely over to the experience of the numinous and find that it leads to greater and stranger experiences, of a type that imply theism or at least something like it? At that point am I supposed to just abandon the quest? Why would I do that?

The Meaning of "Numinous"

Numinous (pron.: /ˈnjuːmɨnəs/) is an English adjective, taken from the Latin Numen, and used to describe the power or presence of a divinity. The word was popularised in the early twentieth century by the German theologian Rudolf Otto in his influential book Das Heilige (1917; translated into English as The Idea of the Holy, 1923). According to Otto, the numinous experience has in addition to the tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling, a quality of fascinans, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other. The numinous experience can lead in different cases to belief in deities, the supernatural, the sacred, the holy and/or the transcendent.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous

Placement of the Gospel Pericopes

E P Sanders is perhaps the best protestant New Testament historian/Biblical theologian. His work on the Jewishness of Jesus, placing Jesus within the proper historical context is groundbreaking and is the foundation for much of the great work done by Jewish New Testament historians like Paula Eisenbaum. I enjoy reading Jewish commentaries on the New Testament. Eisenbaum's book PAUL WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN is one of those books that just blew my whole world open. I never looked at the New Testament the same again.

Sanders writes about the New Testament's oral foundation, something that wasn't reflected upon enough until he came along. Sanders thinks about the stories of Jesus being broken into what he calls 'pericopes', simply small stories from and/or about Jesus that were kept alive orally. They include snippets from Jesus lives, lessons he taught, and many of the parables. The Gospel writers, when they decided to write down the story of Jesus' life, organized these pericopes into a narrative form. But most of what they had was simple these pericopes, these snippets. They really had little if any guiding light as to how to create a narrative out of them. That is why the same story will appear in all of the Gospels, but at different times. It is the reason why, for instance, the Gospel of John can have the story of Jesus clearing the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, while all the other gospels put that event towards the end.

One may think that so long as the stories are true, the order in which they are placed doesn't matter all that much. But in point of fact the writers of the Gospels had great power to influence the picture of Jesus we have, by how they placed the pericopes. One of my favorite examples, because it kind of came to me spontaneously, was the Parable of the Talents.

In Matthew, this story is surrounded by others: the prediction of the destruction of the Temple, the lesson of the faithful and unfaithful servant, the Parable of the Ten Virgins and the lesson about the Judgment of the Nations. Surrounded by these stories, the Parable of the Talents is about complacency in one's moral duties. One of the chief concerns of Matthew is the growing number of Christians who seem to be followers of Jesus in name only. These people lacked a deep moral commitment, and seemed to think that they could gain heaven if they believed in Jesus and went to meetings occasionally. Matthew emphasizes the law as no other Gospel does, in part to emphasize the fact that not all those who call on the Name of Jesus will necessarily be saved. Actions are as important as faith, in Matthew.

So the Parable of the Talents is about 'once-a-week Christians', Christians who believe and perhaps go to church from time to time, but who have made no fundamental commitment to a new way of life. Matthew's Jesus (and I use that phrase deliberately) warns us that a religiosity based on fear, seeking only to avoid God's wrath, will never be enough. Love of God and neighbor, which transforms one's life, is equally important if one wants to receive salvation. It is about putting one's all behind the Christian life, and not simply doing the minimal amount to try to avoid hell out of fear of God. That is the meaning of the parable, as Matthew presents it.

But in Luke, the pericope of the Parable of the Talents is placed differently. It follows the conversion of the Tax Collector and precedes the entry into Jerusalem. It is prefaced with a statement about the attitude of some Jews towards Jesus' expected entry into Jerusalem: they expected Jesus to establish a political Kingdom. Here the focus of the parable is not on the servants, but on the master, who here is a king. The parable acts as a warning that God's political kingdom will not come until after the "master" (Jesus) goes away for a while and comes back. It is to the return of Jesus after His death that people should look, rather than His entry into Jerusalem.

So the same story is given different meanings, simply by the placement and a few editorial changes. The point being that even if one believes that the Gospel writers invented none of what they wrote themselves, the editorial power in placing the stories is immense. This reinforces what I've always said: the Gospel tell us as much about the time when they were written and who wrote them than they do about who they are about, maybe more. That doesn't mean that nothing of Jesus is in these words, quite the contrary. But remembering the power of placement is important when approaching the text.

A Beautiful Thought

I had a dream last night in which God told me His name is Numinous. Fitting and righteous, this name. A definite connection to the name "I Am". 

New Approaches To The Good Samaritan

I have been thinking a lot about The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. Often forgotten is the conversation that surrounds the giving of the parable. That section of Luke begins with a teacher asking Jesus how one enters eternal life. Jesus responds with The Two Greatest Commandments. The teacher of the law isn't satisfied, and Jesus then gives the parable.

It is important to note that the very idea of a Samaritan being 'good' would've been an oxymoron if Jesus' time and place. Talking about a good and kind Samaritan would be like talking about a good and kind crack dealer today. Jesus has the un-savable person act righteously. The saved people would've been the Jews in the story: the man who was hurt and those who passed him by.

I think now that what bothered Jesus was the teacher's focus on being saved. It is like Jesus changes the parameters of religious morality. Instead of asking how one gets saved, Jesus wants us to ask the simple question: "who is suffering?" Our focus as Christians should not be heaven, but the alleviation of the pain of the other.

An extra layer: St. Augustine saw this parable as one that is about us. We are the beaten and lost man, found and loved by Christ Jesus. But the Samaritan is the one who is outside salvation. What if we are the Samaritan, and Jesus is the hurt man? What if the whole story is really a challenge to focus not on our own sufferings "but the sufferings of God in the world" (Bonhoeffer)? In God's suffering, in the suffering of the one who is truly saved, we get an opportunity for infinite friendship with God. Perhaps we also gain the opportunity to share in His salvation. But the main thing is simply our concern for the pain of God. People often think that saving souls is the only thing that matters...what could be of more import than this? In point of fact, the daily crucifixion of God would be infinitely more important than petty concerns about my own ultimate fate.

And even if salvation-by-faith types are right, concern for God's pain would still be the door to salvation. For how could one who cared not for such matters in any way claim to love God?

Secondary thought: what about the parable from a radical Pauline perspective a la Paula Eisenbaum? In this case the suffering of Jesus gives the unsaved and the lost, the Gentiles, the opportunity to share in the salvation of the Jews by caring for the hurt and broken Divine One in the form of the crucified Jew. 

Re-Post From Facebook

I was listening to this atheist on the radio promote his anti-religion book. He claimed he'd spent the last two years studying the Bible and religion, to the tune of 80 hours a week. One of the first things out of his mouth was that the Bible does not 'teach' free will and that the Old Testament does not teach 'the immortality of the soul'. This was enough to put me off. One of the biggest sign someone doesn't really have much training when it come so the Bible is when they claim that 'The Bible' 'says' or 'teaches', anything at all. The Bible is not a book, its a collection of books, manh of which are themselves a collection of oral traditions and earlier written works. If someone comes to you telling you what 'The Bible' teaches on this or that issue, you can pretty much suspect they don't know much of anything when it comes to the Bible. To give an example contradicting just one point the thinker made:
Sirach 15:11-20
Say not: "It was God's doing that I fell away"; for what he hates he does not do.
Say not: "It was he who set me astray"; for he has no need of wicked man.
Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him.
When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice.
If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will.
There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.
Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him.
Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing.
The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man's every deed.
No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies.
Ok that seems pretty unambiguous. And it is not completely an isolated example. There are, in fact, many Biblical passages suggesting or implying free will. There are many more that deny free will. The truth of the 'Biblical witness' on the matter is much more complicated than simply stating 'what the Bible says'. The Bible is, in fact, a collection of arguments, from various groups, concerning what conclusions we should draw from our experiences of God and our experience of ourselves. The Bible is an *anthology*, first and foremost. If someone isn't up front about this, or doesn't emphasize it in their thinking about the Bible, then they can't have thought much about it in any real significant way, at all.

The Trinity & Doctor Who

For my Doctor Who fans:

I have thought of two ways to explain the Trinity based on the popular British television show Doctor Who. For those of you who are not fans, become fans, because the show is awesome.

Now now explanation of the Trinity is all-encompassing. The Trinity will remain, to some degree, a mystery. But we can at least reduce the logical problems by building helpful models. In truth, there are physical objects that we cannot fully model, but that doesn't mean that modeling  them 'to the best of our abilities' isn't worth anything.

So one way to think about the Trinity is to think about the Doctor's regenerations. Every so often, the Doctor actually dies, and he comes back again with the same memories, but a different body and a vastly different attitude. He becomes a whole other person. Fans of the show will be VERY familiar with the concept. For those of you who are not, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(Doctor_Who)

Now, sometimes, very rarely, a couple of the versions of the Doctor will time travel so they can adventure together. This has happened three or four times in the history of the television show. Now it seems to me that there is at least a great illustration of the Trinity here. You really do have one Doctor who is three different persons at that point. I know this doesn't solve all the logical problems, but for fans of the show the picture should be instructive.

Another way of thinking about the Trinity: the TARDIS is a box that acts like a moving portal for a pocket dimension. The box leads to a giant facility. People often remark in amazement, "it's bigger on the inside". What if we thought of the Trinity as multiple TARDIS-es that all lead to the same pocket dimension. You'd have three boxes that are all really the same place. Anyways, some fun thoughts here, using my favorite show to talk about one of my favorite subjects.

Fighting The Demon of Anger

Paul instructs us in Romans 12:21 thusly: "Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good." I recently had an important insight into how this works. When someone does you wrong, and you want to forgive them but can't seem to make it happen internally, try doing something nice for them. Buy them a gift, say a kind word to them, promote something they have done right to someone else. Sometimes acting like you've forgiven someone has to precede you actually forgiving them. You will be surprised how well this works. Beliefs and attitudes often follow action. There is some truth in the 12-step suggestion that one can 'fake it til you make it' when it comes to faith. If what you do matches the emotion you want to have, the emotion you want to have will follow.

The more you struggle with the demon of anger, the more you try to beat it down through mental struggle, the stronger it gets. But if you go out of your way to do something nice for someone, all of a sudden you find those nasty feelings disappear. I doubt this is universally true, there are probably exceptions, but I find it works very well most of the time, at least in my case. So the next time you find yourself in this situation, take Jesus advice to 'turn the other cheek' literally, and see the wonders that result. You will see the person differently, as someone who deserves forgiveness, as a good person who deserves good things who may have made a mistake. You will feel better about yourself, and you will feel the power of God come alive within you.

Something to ponder: a lot of people who are into philosophy of mind are talking about embodied consciousness and cognition these days. This is a branch of the sciences of the mind that deals with the interconnection between our bodies and our conscious experience. For instance, notions of good and bad are instinctively associated with notions of higher and lower. And when we are absorbing information, we instinctively lean forward. The physical response and the conscious experience, the phenomenology, are intertwined. I wonder if this insight has some connection to this. What is really amazing is how transcendent it makes you feel to do this sort of thing. Jesus and Paul really knew what they were talking about here.

One-Post Wednesday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaxndOuJjK

My homily on Matthew 17

Ooops

Well I was wrong about the last post being my only post of the day. Bill Vallicella has made it impossible to hold to that 'promise'. Read his latest post on consciousness, it is good:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/02/bull-meets-shovel-could-consciousness-be-a-conjuring-trick.html

It reminds me of an exchange between Robert Wright and Freeman Dyson (this is my memory of the exchange):

Dyson: "You know these days some people try to say that it is an illusion."
Wright: "What, consciousness?"
Dyson: "Yes, mm-hmm."
Wright: "Maybe for them, I know I have it."
Dyson: "Ha ha, yes, that's my feeling too."





PS: This marks my 200th post on this blog. Two and a half months ago I started blogging daily, at the behest of my very wise and wonderful sister Jamie Nguyen. It has not always been easy, but the practice is very edifying. I feel myself growing daily as a Christian and a writer. Thanks to everyone who reads, it is an extra motivation to keep up with the practice.

Big Announcement

I have been doing so much editing the last two days I have little left for composition. So my only blog post to day is as follows:

I will soon have two new titles available on Amazon. They are both workbooks. They will each have a Kindle Version and a paperback version. 

One is:

"Blessings & Curses: The Gospel in the Film HOLES"

It uses the movie HOLES to teach some important Biblical passages & lessons.

Kindle Version: $2

Workbook (much better for groups): $10

The other is:

"The Lamb Vs The Dragon: Title Bout"

It is an in-depth study of the Book of Revelation.

Kindle Version: $4

Workbook (much better for groups): $20

Both will be useful for Bible study groups. If you buy the paperback, it should be easy to make copies for groups, which I am more than cool with. A third workbook may be coming soon, a Bible study of the Book of Ruth. 

You should be able to search for them on Amazon in 24-48 hours. You can buy them directly from me at a reduced price at some upcoming fairs. I will be at one in the Gilruth in March. More information will be forthcoming.

Update:
Links to the current Amazon pages are as follows:
http://www.amazon.com/Blessings-Curses-Gospel-Holes-Collection/dp/1482584220/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361312774&sr=1-2&keywords=orsak+blessings+curses

http://www.amazon.com/Blessings-Curses-Gospel-Collection-ebook/dp/B00BI15Z2I/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361312774&sr=1-1&keywords=orsak+blessings+curses

http://www.amazon.com/The-Lamb-Vs-Dragon-Revelation/dp/1481996746/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1361312632&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=orsak+lamb+vs+dragon

Quotables

"As the pattern gets more intricate and subtle, being swept away is no longer enough."- from the film WAKING LIFE

A Lesson From The Temptations

After Jesus' baptism, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him, the first thing that He does is goes into the desert. When we reach our greatest moral heights, it is important that we enter next into a time of self-reflection and testing. Spiritual energy is not to be wasted, it must be directed and controlled. Too often when we have our greatest experiences, we just bask in them as the energy slowly dissipates. We try to hold onto the beauty and majesty of the moment. Spiritual experiences are not ends in themselves. The increase in awareness and energy isn't some drug to be enjoyed. It is supposed to motivate us to action. If you are a person who is gifted with a deeper kind of sight, you should ask yourself whether you are taking those higher  experiences and pulling them into the very fabric of your everyday life. Are you living any better? If not, maybe you are wasting the energy you are being given. God has sent you a vision for a reason: use it or lose it. 

Increase Bible study, start working on accomplishing some real moral goals, get reflective, fast, meditate, pray more, and most importantly reach out to other people. These are the activities that you need to be engaging in if you have been gifted with God's presence. Don't just sit there waiting for the next experience. Mystical awareness is great, and I think everyone should cultivate it, but it can become idolatrous. 

In this sense it makes a lot of sense that Lent follows Epiphany. It is a chance to take all that spiritual power and start putting it to good use. Discipline combined with spirituality is life-giving. Spirituality without discipline is a waste. 

After Jesus has fasted, the devil comes to tempt Him. This, too, includes an important lesson. It is often at our highest spiritual moment that the devil will come to test us. In that moment when you have finally overcome a sin, or reached a deeper place in your relationship with God, immediately the sin of pride becomes a real danger. You start thinking about who well you are doing, how God has set you apart, and without knowing it you are worse off than you were before. Spiritual achievement brings with it terrible temptations. Mysticism can so easily, paradoxically, become a masked egoism. That much harder to root out because it so neatly presents itself as being self-negation. Sin is most dangerous when it is subtle. 

It is at the best and worst times in our lives when the devil comes to us. Learning how to navigate his temptations is an important lesson. How does Jesus defeat satan? In their great debate, both beings use the Bible to argue their case. That is important to remember: the devil can cite scripture for his purposes. But whereas the devil keeps putting the focus back on Jesus, Jesus keeps putting the focus back on God. The devil tells Jesus to feed Himself. Jesus talks of the word of God. The devil tells Jesus to display His power for all to see. Jesus says that the power is God's, and God is not to be tested. The devil tells Jesus to seek political power, Jesus says the only power He seeks is the Lord's. The way to avoid spiritual pride is to remember one's own sinfulness and unworthiness. That new power and awareness is a gift from God, and a gift you did not deserve. Keep the focus on God, and what He wants you to do, and you will be able to live the spiritual life to it's fullest, navigating the deep and dangerous waters that are present within it.

Another Great Mav Phil Post

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/02/intellectual-maturity.html

Bill Vallicella is simply brilliant. He is a intellectual blessing. 

A Brief History of Evil

Christians have this very specific picture of the story of satan in their heads, one that is at least to some degree founded on the Bible, but actually diverges from it more than they realize. The devil is not really much of a player in the Old Testament. In fact the name satan only appears in three passages. Now in the New Testament, he is a much bigger player. In fact, he is everywhere, he is the main antagonist of the Gospels. In the synoptics, it is really satan who is to blame for the death of Jesus. But the New Testament is really bringing together three independent Old Testament strands of thought.

The first can be found in the following places (for examples): Psalm 74:12-17, Job 3:8-10, Isaiah 51:9-10. Supplementing those read Genesis 1:1-9, Genesis 7:11-24, Exodus 14:21-22, and Daniel 7. In these passages, there is this ancient serpent or dragon, a watery beast that God killed before the world began. That beasts body became the great deep, the ocean of chaos out of which God makes the world. In fact if you read those passages in that order you can see a clear narrative, whereby God slays the dragon and out of it's watery body the world is created, only to later reassert itself at times in the form of the flood (the waters of chaos retaking the world), the Pharaoh and the Reed Sea, and then finally with actual beasts coming back out of the water in Daniel. So there is this idea that God created the world out of pre-existing Chaos, and indeed out of the body of a monster, and that sometimes that monster re-asserts itself, either by God's command (as a punishment upon some group) or on its own (to threaten God's creation).

The second motif is the War in Heaven story. The main texts for this are: Genesis 6:1-8, Numbers 13:25-33, Psalm 82 and Daniel 11. Here there is this idea that God has set angels over mankind, and they have either been derelict in their duties or have sinned against God. The Genesis passage gives lust as the reason, and Daniel just has this vision of different angels ruling over different countries and taking on the worst attitudes of nationalism. The idea is that angels have sinned and literally fallen, not to hell, but to earth. Here they set  themselves up as demi-gods, and have super-powered children who run amuck around the world. In Psalm 82, God judges the angels to whom He has delegated power to be unworthy of their positions, and thus they will be punished with death.

Finally is the satan story, which really only covers Job Chapters 1 & 2 and Zechariah 3:1-5. And satan is really just a stress tester for God. He goes around and tests things to make sure that they are as strong as they can be. He does cause trouble, but it is all at the behest of, and for the glory of, God. God needs to make sure His creation is as strong as it possibly can be, and that is satan's job. But part of his role is to accuse people, to act as prosecuting attorney in God's heavenly court. In this role, he is seen to sometimes go too far. In Zechariah he is chided by God for accusing and tearing down what was basically a good man who made a mistake.

Over time, the other two themes got subsumed under the satan theme. Perhaps this indicates that the Jews had come to see the problem of guilt, and its seeming intractability, as the primary problem that people face. If so, that would have an interesting consequence for soteriology and theories of atonement. In any case, satan came to be seen as the embodiment of all dark, chaotic and evil forces in the world and indeed the source of all rebellion against God. But it was not always so. The point is that the narrative many Christians have accepted about a satan who fell before the world was created, because of pride, and all that, is not a narrative really found in the Bible. Rather you have a jigsaw puzzle that can be put together in a multitude of ways. I do not believe that the standard story is the best way to do that. I have my own thoughts on the matter, which I am just starting to really develop. I leave you with one last thought: Mark Crawford and I were talking yesterday about all this and he mentioned a theologian who suggests that creation itself was an act of redemption. Bernard Batto makes a similar connection. I have long thought Batto was right and that creation and redemption are a unified act. The theological consequences of this line of thought, both good and bad, are huge.

Maverick Mystical Musing

Great post over at Maverick Philosopher:

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/02/the-strange-world-of-simone-weil-god-does-and-does-not-exist.html

Thought For The Day

Once we contemplate our true role in the universe: to alleviate the suffering of God, all other moral calculation ceases. This is the most important goal we can undertake, whether or not there is a Heaven, whether or not we get there. All other concerns fade away before the Pain of God.

Kneeling At Communion

I am at school today, so brevity will be the mark of the day's posts.

The Reformation churches debated whether one should kneel at communion. The concern was over venerating the elements themselves. My own theory of worship enlightens this debate for me. I have argued that worship is the path to union with God. In worship we lower ourselves and thus discover the God of Humble Love, which is paradoxically the greatest power in the universe.

Communion makes Christ's sacrifice present to us. It is not itself an additional sacrifice, in my view. Christ is present within not the elements, but in the moment, in a special way. Time is bent and transformed and in communion the crucifixion of Jesus is brought near. Almost a mystical time travel. We are brought near God's vulnerable love. Our own kneeling, then, is just part of the way we draw near that love. We imitate the moment the sacraments make near. We live, for a moment, the self-emptying of God. Thus we can make sense of the kneeling without worrying about us worshipping bread. The value is found not in the elements, but in what they bring near, it is the actions of the Incarnate Christ we mimic, after all.

Judaism's Mythos

Iam reading a book right now on Jewish Myth. Now I use the term myth here in a very technical sense. I do NOT mean "a story that isn't true", rather I mean something like "theological speculation in story form". The book is TREE OF SOULS by Howard Schwartz. I am thoroughly enjoying it.

It recounts the post-biblical cosmic storytelling of rabbinical Judaism. Judaism had a longer period of mythopoeic speculation than any other of the world's great religions. A couple of things worth noting:

1) Many of these reflections include speculation about semi-divine beings that stand alongside God and assist in His work. These beings are both other than God, and yet are also aspects of Him. They participate in the Divine being, yet their personhood is separate from Him. These reflections come very close to the doctrine of the Trinity. They are not the same, but they are so close it makes me wonder why Jews in general have such intense opposition to the Trinity. I understand why they reject it, but it seems to me that they should not have a major intellectual problem with it. Much of their own tradition plays with similar ideas.

2) There is so much about light and dark, which relates to much of my own thinking as of late. The stories in general resonate with insights and experienced gained during meditation. I really find a lot that speaks to the deepest part of my heart. If I didn't love Jesus so much, I'd definitely be Jewish.

3) There is a lot about the concepts of "Shekinah" and "Ruach", which are feminine aspects of God. It really speaks to my own thoughts about the Holy Spirit as being feminine in expression. I am now more convinced of this than ever.

Overall, I am deeply intrigued. Freeing the religious imagination is a dangerous endeavor. But with Christ as an anchor, the spirit can fly free in faith and without fear. Well, maybe a little fear.

Quotables (The Long Edition)

"God is that function in the world by reason of which our purposes are direct to ends which in our own consciousness are impartial as to our own interests. he is that element in life in virtue of which judgement stretches beyond facts of existence to values of existence. He is that element in virtue of which our purposes extend beyond values for ourselves to values for others. He is that element in virtue of which the attainment of such a value for others transforms itself into value for ourselves.

He is the binding element in the world. The consciousness which is individual in us, is universal in him: the love which is partial in us is all-embracing in him. Apart from him there could be no world, because there could be no adjustment of individuality. His purpose is always embodied in the particular ideals relevant to the actual state of the world. Thus all attainment is immortal in that it fashions the actual ideals which are God in the world as it is now. Every act leaves the world with a deeper or a fainter impress of God. He then passes into his next relation to the world with enlarged, or diminished, presentation of ideal values.

He is not the world, but the valuation of the world. In abstraction from the course of events, this valuation is a necessary metaphysical function. Apart from it, there could be no definite determination of limitation required for attainment. But in the actual world, He confronts what is actual in it with what is possible for it. Thus He solves all determinations.

The passage of time is the journey of the world towards the gathering of new ideas into actual fact. This adventure is upwards and downwards. Whatever ceases to ascend, fails to preserve itself and enters upon its inevitable path of decay. IT decays by transmitting its nature to slighter occasions of actuality, by reason of the failure of the new forms to fertilise the perceptive achievements which constitute its past history. The universe shows us two aspects: on one side it is physically wasting, on the other side it is spiritually ascending."- Alfred N Whitehead, from the conclusion of RELIGION IN THE MAKING

The Power of Prayer

I know the despair people often feel. Darkness is an old friend of mine. I know the frustration, the anger, and the pain of a world that so often seems like it cares little for our needs or even our existence. It just seems like such a giant mess sometimes doesn't it? I spend my life trying to make myself vulnerable to the world. I spend hours and hours meditating on making my heart and soul open so that my relationships can be pulled as far as they can go. I do this because I believe absolutely that God is the very substance of those relationships, that by making connections in this world we touch the face of God. Yet how often has that heart, given to another been stepped on, used and abused? Quite often, believe me. And because of the nature of my spiritual practices, the pain that results is deep. In those moments I hear a voice telling me that God is not love, that I am not cared for, and that life doesn't matter. What do I do in those moments?

I pray. Prayer is so very powerful, my friends, when used properly. No, you won't win the lottery, and the magical power to transform the physical world on a whim will not be focused into your hands. But the power of God to inspire, to build up, to fill up with love, will. If you pray for the strength to help others, you will find yourself helped. If you pray to have wisdom, wisdom you will find. Reaching out to God in the darkness can be one of the most healing and empowering things we can ever do.

But how can we make sense of God in the midst of darkness? How are we supposed to find him? When I despair, I remember a scene from the movie RETURN TO PARADISE. There is this guy, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who is stuck in a Malaysian prison waiting for some buddies of his to turn themselves in for certain crimes so that he may be spared the death penalty. He tells one friend that he prays all the time, in prison. He says he never prayed out in the world, but now he prays all the time. He says that out in the world, where God's presence is apparent, praying makes no sense, because life is a prayer. It's like when you are singing, in the shower, your voice sounds good because it is completely isolated, because it is the only sound in the soundless room. When you pray in a godless place, you make bring God into that place, and that can be the most beautiful thing in the world.

There is some truth in Gnosticism. No, the world is not inherently evil. No, mysticism is not an end in itself. No, there is not some aristocratic truth that only certain brilliant minds and souls can perceive, with everyone else left in the dark. But what is true is that there is genuine evil in this world and it has created some dark places. There are areas that are truly godless, in the sense of being in no way in line with the will of God. Some of those places reside within us, and sometimes they dominate us. It is at least partly true that what we are called to do is bring God to a godless world, or more accurately to godless corners of the world. So when times are tough, pray. Pray like your prayer is the birthplace of God, because in some ways it is.

One-Post Wednesday

My homily on Psalm 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6qU9d_gmqg

A Response To Kevin

My blog isn't letting me post comments on my iPad right now. So this is a response to a comment in my lad apologetics post:

The issue of God suffering through others is one of semantics. A better formula would be a God of radical vulnerability. So the universe is born of radical, vulnerable love. But no vulnerability without the possibility of suffering. In point of fact, I think the universe and God are co-eternal. They form a psychosomatic unity. But the are also co-creative. It is as true to say the universe creates God as it is to say that God creates the universe. 

You can learn more here: http://theology.co.kr/whitehead/religion/

God cannot but create a world where suffering is at least possible. That is just what creation is for God: a giving over. So if one is forced between creating nothing, or creating with risk, if those are the only options one has, it seems to me one is morally required to create. I think being is inherently more valuable than non-being, life than non-life, consciousness than non-consciousness. If creation entails risk, then better creation than no risk. No one can argue one into the inherent value of existence that is for sure. But it seems to me you have a hard time imagining a God that is not all-powerful. Try this model: a mother in a real sense creates life. What's more, a mother creates within herself, and may deeply love her newborn baby. But a mother's ability to influence the baby inside her is limited. To be sure, all the baby has and is, all safety, all sustenance is due to the mother's care. But the possibility of miscarriage cannot be avoided completely. This is how I think of God. God creates within God's self. God's presence and love sustains and brings growth. But God's power is limited. A world without suffering cannot be guaranteed any more than the mother can ensure the safety of the child within. But just as the mother can in no way be blamed for the miscarriage, God cannot be blamed for the suffering in the world

 As for the beauty in the world, you admit tacitly that emptiness is not really empty, we just can't see it's fullness. In a real sense, the universe is mostly made up of math. All one needs to know is that beauty pervades the universe. All of that beauty is in-principle experience-able. If beauty pervades, and our experience of beauty itself can be trusted, me arguments stands.

My Grand Apologetics Program Part 6c

See these previous posts:


http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-1.html?m=1

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-2.html?m=1

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-2-cont.html?m=1

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-3-a.html

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-3b.html?m=1

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-grand-apologetics-project-3c-f.html

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-4.html

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/01/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-5.html

http://ljtsg.blogspot.com/2013/02/my-grand-apologetics-project-part-6.html

c. The Problem of Evil

The most pressing problem that one faces when one makes a religious commitment is the problem of evil and innocent suffering. When we look at the world with our senses, we see a world that seems so evil, so terrible, that it stands as direct counter-evidence to the phenomenological evidence put forth by our deepest affective experiences.

Life is an endless parade of suffering and death. This has been particularly sharpened by the rise of our knowledge of natural selection. Natural selection is how any and all living things are shaped and come into being. And natural selection tells a terrible story, one of just mountains of suffering and death. It's terrible. Every day children are murdered and raped, torture is used as a form of punishment or to extract information. Even good people are faced with terrible choices, and forced to adjudicate between the lesser of two evils.

What's more, once one chooses to trust one's deepest affective experiences, there is a whole world of negative, indeed evil experiences that seem as intense as the positive experiences that led one to God. Horror, suffering, temptation, these experiences have their own phenomenologies, that literally invert the phenomenologies of humor, joy, play, etc. They come to us as indicators, as signs that the world is a terrible place, where joy is ultimately destroyed, where death will reign over life, and there is nothing to hope for. Their very nature is to threaten our sense that the world is ultimately meaningful. Worse yet, they may point to a kind of maltheistic worldview, the view that there is an ultimate reality and it is evil and hateful, rather than loving and good. The writings of HP Lovecraft capture this sense better than any source I know. The horror he captures is the horror that comes with the sense that god is not good.

The simple fact is that the problem of evil and innocent suffering represent the best counter-argument to the proposition I put forth earlier. And I think, ultimately, no religious person can also claim to be a person of reason if they fail to account for it properly. There has been an endless line of theodicies, attempts to make sense of or justify the reality of suffering in the face of the Reality one posits as a result of all the affective experiences that were written about at the beginning of this apologetics project. Put in it's rawest form, the problem of evil is this: how can one believe in a reality ultimately grounded in joy and hope given the vast amount of sense data that points to a world of terror and horror, and all the experiences we have that pull us away from our commitment to the positive encounters with the world that we spoke of earlier?

The first and most important thing that a person who is a believer or who wants to be a believer should do is realize that this problem is only real for the smallest part of the universe. Most of the universe is a place of beauty. Beauty is to my mind a more diffuse and less intense but very real form of goodness. Remember the experience of beauty whenever you reflect on the problem of evil. If the experience of beauty, which is one of the experiences I spoke of earlier, is taken seriously, than we see our first partial answer to the problem of evil. For one of the most shocking things that science has brought to the forefront of the religious person's worldview is just how pervasive beauty is. The universe is beautiful at every conceivable level, and that beauty is vast and impressive. So powerful is beauty that one of the ways scientists use to adjudicate between good and bad theory is aesthetic value. If a theory is not beautiful, it is probably not true. But what did we say about beauty before? That it comes to us as informational, as sending us a message. It tells us something about the world. Now that feeling may be just a feeling, and you can choose to ignore it. But if you made the move I suggested before and you have chosen to take this experience seriously, then you will see the world as mostly giving us a message of hope. The horrors, the genuine evils and ugliness, is operative in only the thinnest slice of the world.

But those horrors are genuine and must be addressed. Most of the ways in which they are addressed by most believers are absolutely terrible. Some will attribute suffering to human behavior. People get what they deserve, some people believe. I don't see how anyone can hold this view. How does one look into the eyes of a child dying of cancer and tell them they deserve it? On some level, the people who hold this view must know that this is a lie. Good people often suffer, and bad people often get off with good and easy lives.

The standard free will defense doesn't work for me either. Free will may be a necessary part of God's plan, but much of the evil visited upon the world has nothing to do with human agency. Nobody's sin causes tsunamis, despite what Pat Robertson might say. Further, it isn't clear why God can't infringe upon human free will to stop genuine horrors. If I stop you from killing someone, no one would say I 'infringed on your free will', they will just say I did the right thing. Why does God get a pass in a similar situation?

Dualism is one way to solve the problem. Positing a God of light and a god of darkness not only makes sense of the fullest range of human experience, but makes sense of both the good and the evil in the world. But I reject dualism on the grounds that it would make the adventure of good and the adventure of evil equally meaningful. If the quest for the meaning of life ends in non-moral terms, then it isn't a quest worth engaging in. Besides, this violates the sense we got from our moral awareness, and natural beauty.

For me, I believe in a God who is, ultimately, Suffering Love, and as such is limited in what He can do. God can do important things, He can't do everything. God provides freedom for the world, empowers it to act, invites it to act in the right way, and what's more God co-suffers with all those who experience horrors within the world. God is, in Whitehead's words, "The Co-Sufferer Who Understands". All evil in the world is visited upon God Himself. Think about cancer. Cancer is when a part of us goes haywire, and attacks the rest of the body. The cells themselves use their freedom to hurt the rest of the organic whole that makes us up. Evil, too, can stand over against God without being another god outside of Him. There could be no world, no future, and no freedom if God did not give power to the world. But God does not have the power to exercise that power over others. God is the source of all moral direction, and of every good experience, for all the power needed to make the world 'happen' comes from God. But the control of all power is delegated to the hands of the created. Some of the beings God has created have rebelled against God. That is true of the natural world as much as the human and social world. God cannot ultimately be over come, but in individual cases the world will not be what God wants it to be. But no experience is ever lost, for God shares in all that happens to every one of His creatures.

This is the reason why the Christian message appeals to me so strong. In The Book of Revelation, Jesus Christ is called the Lamb Slain From the Foundation of the World. Within this vulnerable being, we are told, is the power and force that is truly ultimate in the world. And over and over again our world produces stories, movies, and movements that insist upon the Ultimacy of Love. But that Ultimacy is not power as we normally understand it. It is not the power to force or control, it is the power to persuade and inspire. It is real, and it is the primary truth of the world. But it has limits, because there are somethings that love simply cannot do. There is a difference between being the Greatest Power and having all power. Jesus is the living embodiment of the nature of God: God as suffering love, not as controlling might. This God, a God who creates through His vulnerability and not through His strength, is not a God we can rightly hold responsible for the horrors of the world. Nor should those horrors surprise us, as vulnerability always implies the possibility of genuine suffering. In this way, I can hold on to the fullest range of human experience, taking all those affective encounters with the world I wrote about earlier seriously, while also taking seriously all I know through the senses and through the phenomenology of all that hurts and confounds me.

Conclusion

These are not all the possible objections one can make against my way of 'doing' religion. But these are the big ones, and they are the ones I think are most relevant to the argument I have made so far. So here I am, I think I am reasonable, but I am also religious, and I have told you why I think the one and am the other. Once one gives oneself to this kind of life, a journey begins. At first you don't know where it will lead, at the end perhaps one gives up the commitments made earlier. But for me, rather, the journey has led to more and more confirming evidence in favor of all I have said so far. Up to this point, I have appealed to religious experiences that I think everyone can relate to. I have tried to be as non-confessional as possible, and to give premises and draw conclusions that everyone can understand, if not agree with. But next I will be going into a far more confessional place. I will be talking about mystical experience, which is far different from the religious experiences we have spoken about so far.