I just encountered a rather mind-blowing concept that I need to write out to process. It is significant because it comes from a direction I have consistently been opposed to, which gives it credibility against my biases.
Without belaboring the background, suffice to say I do not believe that reductionism is the key to undertanding. Things are greater than the sum of their parts. Experience is not reduceable simply to chemical impulses in the brain and bio-physio responses. But from that direction comes the concept of gene-culture interaction.
This author I'm reading recognizes that environment and genetics, nature and nurture, are inextricably linked. But here's the kicker. He points out that any attempt to overly encourage one factor over the other would be devastating. For example, he says if we had a totally controlled society that required everyone to be equal in ability and performance, giving intensive assistance to the lower performers and holding back the higher performers (e.g. every child goes to college), the result would be that both segments' environments would not allow them to develop genetic potential and variation would be lost, thus genetically reinforcing a loss of ability and variation. This type of society and it's ills have been described in countless movies and books, so I won't go on.
But on the other side, if we had a totally egalitarian society such that every child was allowed to fully explore their gifts and fully supported in achieving them (no-schooling), genetic heritability would increase to the point that the same societal abuses occur. It would be caste and feudal system to the ultimate degree in which people truly were born to be something and could not improve their lot.
In either case, you end up with a totalitarian society. The two ends of the spectrum are really neighboring points on a circle. Like Fascism and Communism, though ideologically polar opposites, they produce societies that are very similar; both abusive and controlling.
This is not new, really. Both sides have been treated extensively in literature and cinema. But what did hit me was the idea that we NEED in a fundamental and very real sense, adversity and diversity, not just in happy hippie self-help ways, but in gritty biological ways.
As a Christian who thoroughly believes in the sovereignty of God and orchestration on the universe, this explanation from a staunchly atheist and materialist quarter fairly solves the question of why bad things happen and why inequality persists.
Perhaps we're looking at it all wrong (what else is new). If God is sovereign and good yet bad things persist, it must be because those things we perceive as bad are actually in some way good. It's our definition that's wonky. Not bad, but perhaps unpleasant, inconvenient, even painful. But still good.
Now I hear myself starting to sound like Candide's teachers, and I'm not about to start arguing for the 'best of all possible worlds'. That's as absurd today as Voltaire portrayed it in the 18th century. I'm also not going to say that we shouldn't work to eliminate wrong and injustice. Evil is evil and should be stamped out. What I'm saying is that it doesn't follow that a kid born in a poor area should get a total hand out to bring him to the level of a rich kid. Neither does it follow that imposing no limits so everyone can 'be free' to follow their whims will lead to healthy people and society. What I'm saying is that fighting, struggling, dying, suffering, and going without while others go with is not necessarily bad. It's just how our habitat works. There is no such thing as a necessary evil, but adversity is not necessarily evil.
It is necessary to promote genetic potential and actually helps make the environments required for us to grow into what we were made to be. Adversity must occur and succor must be provided just like zebras eat
grass and lions eat zebras and hyenas eat lions and all turn back into
grass. A life lost or a case of suffering is to be mourned and helped, but eliminating the condition that led to the suffering is not in our power because it ultimately wouldn't be for our good. Like all ecology, it's the principle of balance. Ecology, as a nonreductionist science, a holistic science in the truest sense of the word, allows us to understand the nature of God imprinted in our world. We can trace the hand of God, see the trails of his garments. It's really sublime.
But don't dare take what I'm saying and use it to justify your system or even to form opinions about how the world should work. The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that we can't, shouldn't, and don't really run the world anyway. And I'm now more than ever convinced that the one who does is way better at it than we could be. Our purpose is not to take our place as gods, but to rise to our place within God's living relation.
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Showing posts with label God. Show all posts
Friday, September 15, 2017
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Faither o' Lichts
Today, I was sitting in church, expecting the usual shallowness and questionable theology. In front of me was a young man who was obviously disabled. His parents were on either side and doing a great job of lovingly regulating his lack of attention.
I've always had a soft spot for anyone weak or in need. So I exchanged a few smiles and a nod or two with him and began to pray for him throughout the service. I wasn't praying for healing necessarily, but for whatever he needed, whatever his parents needed, and that he would be a blessing and blessed like the blind man I wrote about last.
I couldn't help thinking of the mad laird from George MacDonald's book Malcolm. This character is similarly disabled and quite rejected. But is drawn to understand in what way he can, his purpose and destiny. At one point in the book the laird learns of God as the Father of Lights and latches onto the phrase. Eventually the laird sneaks into a church service where he is not wanted and can't help crying out this name of God. Not knowing where the sound comes from, it creates quite a stir and starts a sort of revival.
The laird repeats the phrase to his death as the only expression of faith he can make. The phrase resonates with me as one who has had many times when words fail. I kept hearing it in my head as I contemplated this boy.
At the end of the service, the pastor made a rare move for him and spoke prophetic encouragement to the congregation. I don't mean some kooky thing, but rather directed truth at us, saying each of us were directly chosen for a purpose, which is a departure from his usual academic expositing style. In the moment I was having, this jumped at me.
Just then, the boy in front of me shot his hands in the air grasping upward. He had not been so dramatic in his movements prior. At that moment, the phrase Faither o' Lichts, in the Scots, reverberated in my mind and I nearly yelled it myself.
The boy's Dad quickly grabbed his arms and lowered them to head off a scene he thought might be coming, and the boy returned to his quiet fidgeting.
But I didn't. I couldn't. I was stifling sobbing heaves and trying hard not to have to walk out of this conservative church with tears streaming down my face.
I made it to the car and broke down. God showed me for the third and most powerful time this week that he is truly everywhere. Nothing escapes his notice or his care. Even when we think we're doing the right thing yet actually stifling him. Even through this young man who no one perceives as capable of teaching us anything. Even in spite of the layers of manmade church crap piled on top of us in attempts to create the experience of greater reality we all need. This boy who is physically incapable of controlling his impulses shames us all in his understanding, and pierces the spring of my dry rock heart in the process.
Faither o' Lichts!!!
I've always had a soft spot for anyone weak or in need. So I exchanged a few smiles and a nod or two with him and began to pray for him throughout the service. I wasn't praying for healing necessarily, but for whatever he needed, whatever his parents needed, and that he would be a blessing and blessed like the blind man I wrote about last.
I couldn't help thinking of the mad laird from George MacDonald's book Malcolm. This character is similarly disabled and quite rejected. But is drawn to understand in what way he can, his purpose and destiny. At one point in the book the laird learns of God as the Father of Lights and latches onto the phrase. Eventually the laird sneaks into a church service where he is not wanted and can't help crying out this name of God. Not knowing where the sound comes from, it creates quite a stir and starts a sort of revival.
The laird repeats the phrase to his death as the only expression of faith he can make. The phrase resonates with me as one who has had many times when words fail. I kept hearing it in my head as I contemplated this boy.
At the end of the service, the pastor made a rare move for him and spoke prophetic encouragement to the congregation. I don't mean some kooky thing, but rather directed truth at us, saying each of us were directly chosen for a purpose, which is a departure from his usual academic expositing style. In the moment I was having, this jumped at me.
Just then, the boy in front of me shot his hands in the air grasping upward. He had not been so dramatic in his movements prior. At that moment, the phrase Faither o' Lichts, in the Scots, reverberated in my mind and I nearly yelled it myself.
The boy's Dad quickly grabbed his arms and lowered them to head off a scene he thought might be coming, and the boy returned to his quiet fidgeting.
But I didn't. I couldn't. I was stifling sobbing heaves and trying hard not to have to walk out of this conservative church with tears streaming down my face.
I made it to the car and broke down. God showed me for the third and most powerful time this week that he is truly everywhere. Nothing escapes his notice or his care. Even when we think we're doing the right thing yet actually stifling him. Even through this young man who no one perceives as capable of teaching us anything. Even in spite of the layers of manmade church crap piled on top of us in attempts to create the experience of greater reality we all need. This boy who is physically incapable of controlling his impulses shames us all in his understanding, and pierces the spring of my dry rock heart in the process.
Faither o' Lichts!!!
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Blown Again
I should be getting used to this by now. I have been teaching myself to read ancient Greek. It's slow, but I've got time. So I was reading Romans 3:22 and picked up on something that didn't seem right. The NIV translates it as (context included):
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
In ESV the last sentence carries into v25:
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
But the Greek doesn't say, "faith in Jesus". It says, "faith of Jesus". I thought I must be reading it wrong, But in the Greek, it is quite certainly the possessive form of the noun, usually translated as apostrophe s or "x of y". This is confirmed in extra-biblical sources. I'd eventually remembered seeing this translation before. Some versions like KJV, Darby, and Youngs render it this way. So it's not a verse about what we have to do, but about what Jesus did.
The thing is, that changes the meaning dramatically! If it's not about how to receive salvation, as I had been taught, then what is it about? So I looked further into the verse.
That's when another mistranslation jumped out at me. To get the idea, I'll give you a very literal translation from Young's:
And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, 22and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, — for there is no difference, 23for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God — 24being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,
And again in the most literal I found, Darby's (which was actually created not to be read, but to be an English study tool for people who didn't know Greek)
21But now without law righteousness of God is manifested, borne witness to by the law and the prophets; 22righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe: for there is no difference; 23for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which [is] in Christ Jesus;
Do you see the difference? This is not about how to, "be saved". There's no prequalifier directing this to only those who believe, or ascribe to the right system. No performance standard. That is the old religious mindset of the Jews, the Classical Pagans, and every other religion. Far from being an exclusive text, this is ultimately inclusive.
No one is right. All are justified, including those who believe, because of Jesus' faith. Not only those who believe in Jesus. "For there is no difference"! Why? Because ALL have fallen short, but are justified freely by the ransom (i.e. 'getting rid of-ness' in possessive form again) in Jesus.
Wow! Bomb dropped. Mind blown. Again.
Why is this a big deal? It's really good news! We're not exchanging one religious system for another. That's the point of the chapter! That's Paul's whole deal across all his writings! Remember this is coming from Paul, the guy that some think is so different from the other writers in the Bible he should be decanonized! But in this clearer understanding, he's right in line with the spirit of the other writers. We are all justified. Period. Jesus did away with everything else by his faith. Paul, the murdering jihadist, knew that better than anyone.
His faith in what? I'm not sure. But faith just means trust. That's really all the Greek word means. It was a banking term originally. Like you trust the bank with your money or a creditor trusts you enough to lend to you. I think it might be his trust that God was working for his good. In other words, his trust in God that all he was going through was necessary and would come out right. His trust that God loved him and was powerful enough to complete what he had set out to do. This is a Gospel...good news...I can get behind!
But what about belief? Am I saying even people who don't believe go to heaven? What about murderers and rapists?
OK. Slow down a minute. I am NOT discounting belief. The Bible talks about it a lot. Jesus himself says it. What I'm talking about is JUSTIFICATION. That doesn't depend on belief. Secondly, let's use another word. The original word is a verb form of the noun faith. So it isn't like believing a fact. To disbelieve a fact is idiotic. Even an abstract fact, like the sun coming up tomorrow. Sure we all know the world could end and the sun may not come up in some remote, all-possibilities-included, sort of way. But to seriously disbelieve this...enough to act on the belief, would be a sign of mental illness, not faith. Jesus isn't saying we have to believe in him like we believe in the sunrise...Yeah, he existed, even the demons believe that!
So if we sub in the word trust, it works a lot better. Jesus says we need to trust him. Yeah, of course. He trusted God, and see what happened? We have to trust him and act on what he said, then we'll see what happens too. Not until then. He is the first down the path. The firstborn, the Bible calls him.
Next, let's let go of this concept of salvation equalling heaven. That's a shallow piece of the puzzle. And I can tell you, for anyone who has really faced their demons, heaven is the least of their worries and not much of a reward. Sure I'll take it when I get there, but I really need the help NOW.
As for murderers and rapists, yeah, they are justified too. I don't get it either. But I trust God enough to know that everyone gets fair play and all wrongs are righted. So I don't know what has to happen to people like that. I don't know what they go through, internally, externally, in this life, or elsewhere. But I trust that their wrong will be righted. Not in vengeance alone, because that sort of retribution doesn't fix the wrong.
But in real ways that are bigger than me or them, I can see that for them to come to true realization of the horror they have inflicted, the horror they have become, is the best vengeance and for them to react to that by doing all they can to compensate for it (i.e. to repent) can lead to far more good than the wrong done. I also trust that the wronged person is not ultimately ruined, but can blossom from it into something so much more beautiful (hear me here: I know whereof I speak), and I can equally mourn the wrong and hope for the redemption of the wronger without hatred.
But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
In ESV the last sentence carries into v25:
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
But the Greek doesn't say, "faith in Jesus". It says, "faith of Jesus". I thought I must be reading it wrong, But in the Greek, it is quite certainly the possessive form of the noun, usually translated as apostrophe s or "x of y". This is confirmed in extra-biblical sources. I'd eventually remembered seeing this translation before. Some versions like KJV, Darby, and Youngs render it this way. So it's not a verse about what we have to do, but about what Jesus did.
The thing is, that changes the meaning dramatically! If it's not about how to receive salvation, as I had been taught, then what is it about? So I looked further into the verse.
That's when another mistranslation jumped out at me. To get the idea, I'll give you a very literal translation from Young's:
And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, 22and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, — for there is no difference, 23for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God — 24being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,
And again in the most literal I found, Darby's (which was actually created not to be read, but to be an English study tool for people who didn't know Greek)
21But now without law righteousness of God is manifested, borne witness to by the law and the prophets; 22righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ towards all, and upon all those who believe: for there is no difference; 23for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which [is] in Christ Jesus;
Do you see the difference? This is not about how to, "be saved". There's no prequalifier directing this to only those who believe, or ascribe to the right system. No performance standard. That is the old religious mindset of the Jews, the Classical Pagans, and every other religion. Far from being an exclusive text, this is ultimately inclusive.
No one is right. All are justified, including those who believe, because of Jesus' faith. Not only those who believe in Jesus. "For there is no difference"! Why? Because ALL have fallen short, but are justified freely by the ransom (i.e. 'getting rid of-ness' in possessive form again) in Jesus.
Wow! Bomb dropped. Mind blown. Again.
Why is this a big deal? It's really good news! We're not exchanging one religious system for another. That's the point of the chapter! That's Paul's whole deal across all his writings! Remember this is coming from Paul, the guy that some think is so different from the other writers in the Bible he should be decanonized! But in this clearer understanding, he's right in line with the spirit of the other writers. We are all justified. Period. Jesus did away with everything else by his faith. Paul, the murdering jihadist, knew that better than anyone.
His faith in what? I'm not sure. But faith just means trust. That's really all the Greek word means. It was a banking term originally. Like you trust the bank with your money or a creditor trusts you enough to lend to you. I think it might be his trust that God was working for his good. In other words, his trust in God that all he was going through was necessary and would come out right. His trust that God loved him and was powerful enough to complete what he had set out to do. This is a Gospel...good news...I can get behind!
But what about belief? Am I saying even people who don't believe go to heaven? What about murderers and rapists?
OK. Slow down a minute. I am NOT discounting belief. The Bible talks about it a lot. Jesus himself says it. What I'm talking about is JUSTIFICATION. That doesn't depend on belief. Secondly, let's use another word. The original word is a verb form of the noun faith. So it isn't like believing a fact. To disbelieve a fact is idiotic. Even an abstract fact, like the sun coming up tomorrow. Sure we all know the world could end and the sun may not come up in some remote, all-possibilities-included, sort of way. But to seriously disbelieve this...enough to act on the belief, would be a sign of mental illness, not faith. Jesus isn't saying we have to believe in him like we believe in the sunrise...Yeah, he existed, even the demons believe that!
So if we sub in the word trust, it works a lot better. Jesus says we need to trust him. Yeah, of course. He trusted God, and see what happened? We have to trust him and act on what he said, then we'll see what happens too. Not until then. He is the first down the path. The firstborn, the Bible calls him.
Next, let's let go of this concept of salvation equalling heaven. That's a shallow piece of the puzzle. And I can tell you, for anyone who has really faced their demons, heaven is the least of their worries and not much of a reward. Sure I'll take it when I get there, but I really need the help NOW.
As for murderers and rapists, yeah, they are justified too. I don't get it either. But I trust God enough to know that everyone gets fair play and all wrongs are righted. So I don't know what has to happen to people like that. I don't know what they go through, internally, externally, in this life, or elsewhere. But I trust that their wrong will be righted. Not in vengeance alone, because that sort of retribution doesn't fix the wrong.
But in real ways that are bigger than me or them, I can see that for them to come to true realization of the horror they have inflicted, the horror they have become, is the best vengeance and for them to react to that by doing all they can to compensate for it (i.e. to repent) can lead to far more good than the wrong done. I also trust that the wronged person is not ultimately ruined, but can blossom from it into something so much more beautiful (hear me here: I know whereof I speak), and I can equally mourn the wrong and hope for the redemption of the wronger without hatred.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Other Side
I'm pretty sure I've never blogged about this. At least not in any discernibly direct way. But I'm going to give it a shot. This blog is primarily a way for me to process thoughts or feelings. As such, it tends toward the confusing and angry, occasionally the mystical. But that of course is not all I experience. It's just that times of clear understanding or emotion don't need processing; they're just experienced. So I don't write about them. This other side makes up a significant portion of the contemplative Christian experience, at least for me and for many I read about and talk to. It's hard to describe, so I'm going to muddle on.
Right now, I'm coming off a brief mild illness. Just a cold. But it follows a stressful period and I have received it gratefully as an excuse to rest. I've been overwhelmed by a sense of peace in it. Just a deep soul-whisper of "thank you" for bringing me into the rest I could not give myself. Throughout it I've felt at ease. I've felt cared for. The back of my mind has been haunted by strains of music of a gentle love toward me and from me toward my God.
Please know that for me, this word 'God' is loaded very differently than most may use it. It's like the deepest self-giving love you may feel for a loved one, combined with an awe or respect given a hero or excellent father, and a sublime (look this word up) reverence as if looking into something huge and vast and powerful, yet gorgeously beautiful. There is nothing of punishment, nothing of justice.
Jody Foster echoes it in Contact when she cries in the fetal position in her journey. CS Lewis describes it in the Pevensie children burying their faces in Aslan's mane. It is a safety and a rightness found because of the power sheathed in gentleness, like a small Tarzan baby sound asleep in a gorilla's arms.
This is not why I became a Christian, but it is why I stay a Christian. This is why I can't accept any form of Christianity that takes away from this. This is irresistible love. This is looking into the dark chasm of the universe and finding everything you've secretly hoped for and never even admitted to yourself looking right back at you and smiling with a face that is more human than your own.
Right now, I'm coming off a brief mild illness. Just a cold. But it follows a stressful period and I have received it gratefully as an excuse to rest. I've been overwhelmed by a sense of peace in it. Just a deep soul-whisper of "thank you" for bringing me into the rest I could not give myself. Throughout it I've felt at ease. I've felt cared for. The back of my mind has been haunted by strains of music of a gentle love toward me and from me toward my God.
Please know that for me, this word 'God' is loaded very differently than most may use it. It's like the deepest self-giving love you may feel for a loved one, combined with an awe or respect given a hero or excellent father, and a sublime (look this word up) reverence as if looking into something huge and vast and powerful, yet gorgeously beautiful. There is nothing of punishment, nothing of justice.
Jody Foster echoes it in Contact when she cries in the fetal position in her journey. CS Lewis describes it in the Pevensie children burying their faces in Aslan's mane. It is a safety and a rightness found because of the power sheathed in gentleness, like a small Tarzan baby sound asleep in a gorilla's arms.
This is not why I became a Christian, but it is why I stay a Christian. This is why I can't accept any form of Christianity that takes away from this. This is irresistible love. This is looking into the dark chasm of the universe and finding everything you've secretly hoped for and never even admitted to yourself looking right back at you and smiling with a face that is more human than your own.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Good Question...
My son asked a deep question recently. He asked, if God knew everything was going to go wrong with his creation, why did he let it? Some form of this question has been debated for years. The truth is no one but God knows for sure. He hasn't told us.
But when he put out this question, I felt it deserved some response. I first told him I wasn't sure. Then quickly opened my mind to God hoping he would fill it as he's done in the past when the need arises. This is what then came out of my mouth in answer. I'm surprised by it myself, because I truly tell you I have not thought this before.
Before I get to it, I need to establish a little background though or it won't make sense. First of course is that God exists. There are proofs, but I won't belabor that here. Next is that God is almighty. He can do anything and nothing can stop it. And if there's anything he can't do, it is truly impossible in the most literal sense...like cease to exist or something.
Next is that God is good. This has to be the case or he would be no God. A god perhaps, but not God. Because good is clearly better than bad. Every serious religion, minor or major, and even hardcore athiests believe this. So God can't be a lesser thing or he wouldn't be almighty.
So here we are. How could this type of God let things go so badly if he knew it was going to happen? Wouldn't it have been better not to make it all rather than make it so it could destroy itself? So there would be suffering and evil? Doesn't sound very good, does it?
But here's what came out of my mouth:
Maybe he did it to show something that has never been done before. Maybe he did it to demonstrate to the universe that he is almighty. That even a creation which owed its very existence to him, could not live apart from him, but which chose to annihilate itself...even this most evil of evils he could work out to be good in the end. That even the worst thing that could possibly happen could not stop him or thwart his goodness. He WILL save his creation. He WILL NOT allow it to be lost. Even that which is given free will to go its own way even to the point of denaturing and destroying itself...even THAT, he can and will make right. EVERY wrong will be righted.
Wow. That did not come from me, I know that. Thank God for this. Both for it being true, and for how he revealed it.
I believe more than ever that God is not what most of us have been taught. He is closer than our own thoughts, more loving than we can imagine, more powerful than we can fathom. Everything we call good is epitomized in him. If there is anything that can be trusted it is him...or he would be no God at all.
But when he put out this question, I felt it deserved some response. I first told him I wasn't sure. Then quickly opened my mind to God hoping he would fill it as he's done in the past when the need arises. This is what then came out of my mouth in answer. I'm surprised by it myself, because I truly tell you I have not thought this before.
Before I get to it, I need to establish a little background though or it won't make sense. First of course is that God exists. There are proofs, but I won't belabor that here. Next is that God is almighty. He can do anything and nothing can stop it. And if there's anything he can't do, it is truly impossible in the most literal sense...like cease to exist or something.
Next is that God is good. This has to be the case or he would be no God. A god perhaps, but not God. Because good is clearly better than bad. Every serious religion, minor or major, and even hardcore athiests believe this. So God can't be a lesser thing or he wouldn't be almighty.
So here we are. How could this type of God let things go so badly if he knew it was going to happen? Wouldn't it have been better not to make it all rather than make it so it could destroy itself? So there would be suffering and evil? Doesn't sound very good, does it?
But here's what came out of my mouth:
Maybe he did it to show something that has never been done before. Maybe he did it to demonstrate to the universe that he is almighty. That even a creation which owed its very existence to him, could not live apart from him, but which chose to annihilate itself...even this most evil of evils he could work out to be good in the end. That even the worst thing that could possibly happen could not stop him or thwart his goodness. He WILL save his creation. He WILL NOT allow it to be lost. Even that which is given free will to go its own way even to the point of denaturing and destroying itself...even THAT, he can and will make right. EVERY wrong will be righted.
Wow. That did not come from me, I know that. Thank God for this. Both for it being true, and for how he revealed it.
I believe more than ever that God is not what most of us have been taught. He is closer than our own thoughts, more loving than we can imagine, more powerful than we can fathom. Everything we call good is epitomized in him. If there is anything that can be trusted it is him...or he would be no God at all.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Time warp
Have you noticed that time passes differently based on your particular perception of it? If we are busy it tends to pass quickly. If we're bored, it drags. But what time is cannot really be defined. We can tell that a duration has passed, but we can't measure it except by tracking some cycle within space. This is still a function of our perception. So if the rotation of that atom or star were to change speed, we would only be able to know it by the relation of it to another object also bound in space and time.
Think of it like an airplane. If there were no windows to see things moving past you, you'd have no idea whether you were actually moving or not because everything in the plane would be moving at the same rate, whether that rate was faster or slower, everything would continue to move in unison and you'd never know how fast it was going. Same goes for time. For all we know, time may actually not be static and might actually pass at different rates which we can't perceive because we can't step outside of it to find a fixed point of reference.
One thing that certainly seems to slow time is expectation. I've been looking forward to many things lately. Not in the sense of enjoyment, but simply, a lot of things to keep track of in the near future. This made the previous month drag like none other. I'm glad it's over so some of those things can actually occur and time can go back to the pace I usually perceive.
But this led me to remember something Augustine, the philosopher and theologian said. He talked a lot about time and said that what we call future is really just expectation of something coming into being. The past is the memory of that moment which no longer exists. So that makes the present the point between expecting something and remembering it...which really has no space at all. If you squeeze your conscious perception of time passing down to the smallest moment you can grasp, you'll experience an infinitesimally small point at which the future is sliding into the past, the expectation becoming memory. It seems to rocket by and can actually be quite dizzying. Try it right now and see. Faster than sand through a funnel, moments of potential are becoming memories and we can't hold on to any one of those points.
This tiny point that occupies no area, no space, no time, is the present. The eternal now. And that is all that really exists. If I focus on it too much, I seem to see everything around me like Neo seeing the matrix code; in constant flux through an infinitely minute Now.
At this point I also usually experience a sublimity. Something enormous and palpably greater than myself. It's there. And if I chase it, try to focus on it, I find that it's focusing right back at me. And that's where I usually lose it. My mind starts to unravel and the window closes, thankfully, so I can exist without being dissolved into that present.
I believe that this is a glimpse of the nature and reality of God. Not some man in the sky. If that's what you think then your conception of God is far too small. I'm talking about the Source of all sources. The prime. The thing from which all that is derives its being. And by many other philosophical proofs, I could demonstrate why it must be personal. In short, it can't be a nameless force or a reflection of my own infinity because it must needs be something higher than my faculty to perceive it or contemplate it. So if I can regard it, how much more would the source have to be capable of regarding? If I can think of it, how much more must it, first and to a greater degree, think of me. But there are treatises (literally) on this, and I invite you to do your own homework on it.
My point is that where else could such a being (even "being" is too small a word) exist but in the only spaceless, timeless space that does exist? That ever-present, unchanging Now. In that point, I can access the big bang. I can understand the origin of the universe. I can know the meaning of knowing. I can experience what IS on a deeper level than can be cognitively processed. It's right there all the time. Seriously try it, see what you experience.
Think of it like an airplane. If there were no windows to see things moving past you, you'd have no idea whether you were actually moving or not because everything in the plane would be moving at the same rate, whether that rate was faster or slower, everything would continue to move in unison and you'd never know how fast it was going. Same goes for time. For all we know, time may actually not be static and might actually pass at different rates which we can't perceive because we can't step outside of it to find a fixed point of reference.
One thing that certainly seems to slow time is expectation. I've been looking forward to many things lately. Not in the sense of enjoyment, but simply, a lot of things to keep track of in the near future. This made the previous month drag like none other. I'm glad it's over so some of those things can actually occur and time can go back to the pace I usually perceive.
But this led me to remember something Augustine, the philosopher and theologian said. He talked a lot about time and said that what we call future is really just expectation of something coming into being. The past is the memory of that moment which no longer exists. So that makes the present the point between expecting something and remembering it...which really has no space at all. If you squeeze your conscious perception of time passing down to the smallest moment you can grasp, you'll experience an infinitesimally small point at which the future is sliding into the past, the expectation becoming memory. It seems to rocket by and can actually be quite dizzying. Try it right now and see. Faster than sand through a funnel, moments of potential are becoming memories and we can't hold on to any one of those points.
This tiny point that occupies no area, no space, no time, is the present. The eternal now. And that is all that really exists. If I focus on it too much, I seem to see everything around me like Neo seeing the matrix code; in constant flux through an infinitely minute Now.
At this point I also usually experience a sublimity. Something enormous and palpably greater than myself. It's there. And if I chase it, try to focus on it, I find that it's focusing right back at me. And that's where I usually lose it. My mind starts to unravel and the window closes, thankfully, so I can exist without being dissolved into that present.
I believe that this is a glimpse of the nature and reality of God. Not some man in the sky. If that's what you think then your conception of God is far too small. I'm talking about the Source of all sources. The prime. The thing from which all that is derives its being. And by many other philosophical proofs, I could demonstrate why it must be personal. In short, it can't be a nameless force or a reflection of my own infinity because it must needs be something higher than my faculty to perceive it or contemplate it. So if I can regard it, how much more would the source have to be capable of regarding? If I can think of it, how much more must it, first and to a greater degree, think of me. But there are treatises (literally) on this, and I invite you to do your own homework on it.
My point is that where else could such a being (even "being" is too small a word) exist but in the only spaceless, timeless space that does exist? That ever-present, unchanging Now. In that point, I can access the big bang. I can understand the origin of the universe. I can know the meaning of knowing. I can experience what IS on a deeper level than can be cognitively processed. It's right there all the time. Seriously try it, see what you experience.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Perception is not reality
I described this to someone recently. I don't know where it came from originally. I don't claim credit for inventing it. She was going to look for it online. Now she'll find it.
Monday, June 23, 2014
God, help me.
Christians talk of love. We're told to overlook, forgive, bear with, no one is perfect, don't judge. And yet, in so many cases, this is entirely the duty of the listener and not at all reflected by the speaker or his organization.
It starts to sound hollow after awhile. So I'm supposed to be eternally forgiving offences against me, some of which are grossly wrong...morally, ethically, personally wrong...and yet the person/people preaching this are the very offenders who then refuse to show it to me, to bear with me, to overlook, forgive, withhold judgement of my faults.
Now the moralist in me is screaming that two wrongs don't make a right and that one must do right regardless of how one is treated. OK. I know this. But it doesn't change the bitterness and anger that rise up at it again and again. And it isn't everyone. I know many people who do live out their faith and have shown me great love, even when I don't deserve it. So again, I blame the institution for creating the paradigm in which a man can stand over anonymous heads and orate without having to answer to the eyes and mouths of those he speaks to. Where he doesn't have to feel the full and immediate effect of his words. There has to be a better way.
I feel like I know that way too. I have glimpsed it, smelled it, but can't quite apprehend it. I'm not planning anything. I'm over trying to work my own will in these cases. I just don't have the energy any more. But I want to understand, to walk in it, to help it grow where it sprouts.
Am I missing something? I find myself cringing from certain aspects of the faith. Embarrassed by them. I don't want to be caught listening to Christian radio. I don't even like the music. I just need some uplifting, faithful, stilling presence and commercial radio (at least the genres I can tolerate) is all about degradation and glory in low things. I hate to pray over meals in public, though I do it at home with a will and a desire to instill it in my son.
Am I embarrassed by the faith? No. I'm not. I'll easily tell someone I'm Christian, that I go to church, that I believe in universal Truth and live morally, etc. I'll discuss my faith at length and detail in certain contexts, not just amongst other Christians. So I am not embarrassed by the faith. So what is it?
If it was just hokey contrivances, I would not do them myself. So I see value in them. This means the issue must be deeper. Perhaps a fear of seeming naive or backward. Perhaps of being misunderstood. I can't tell what it is. My Evangelical background steps forward at this point and begins condemning me that those who are ashamed of Christ, he will be ashamed of. Words from his own mouth! And my heart quails. But yet I find the same reactions persisting.
I am fickle and inconsistent. And then I am reminded quietly of Peter who denied Christ three times after just proclaiming his allegiance and even using a blade against an armed troop of men to defend Jesus. I am reminded of Paul who could not do the good he wanted to do, though he knew what it was.
And so this Sunday, when I was sitting in church, at odds with the place and myself, the pastor, whom I don't even know if I like and certainly don't yet trust, calls us to take Communion in a way that does not put me off. Not single serving plastic wrapped. Not greatly orated. Simply saying that we will serve ourselves because, "you need no one coming between you and your God." And so I go forward, looking into my own heart, wondering what I will say to Him in the moment, though I feel something must be said. At the same time, I dred that my heart may burst out my eyes in front of everyone, as too often happens when I encounter God. I take the wafer, dip it in the cup, and at that second, my heart cries out, "God, help me."
I don't even know where it came from...well I do really. But I was not planning it, I promise you. I felt my eyes well, clenched my teeth to stop it, and rushed back to my seat. Then it came to me that this simple line is the essence of my faith, of all faith. I don't know. I can't do. God, help me.
And on this rock, I can stand. Nothing more, nothing less. God, help me. God, help me.
It starts to sound hollow after awhile. So I'm supposed to be eternally forgiving offences against me, some of which are grossly wrong...morally, ethically, personally wrong...and yet the person/people preaching this are the very offenders who then refuse to show it to me, to bear with me, to overlook, forgive, withhold judgement of my faults.
Now the moralist in me is screaming that two wrongs don't make a right and that one must do right regardless of how one is treated. OK. I know this. But it doesn't change the bitterness and anger that rise up at it again and again. And it isn't everyone. I know many people who do live out their faith and have shown me great love, even when I don't deserve it. So again, I blame the institution for creating the paradigm in which a man can stand over anonymous heads and orate without having to answer to the eyes and mouths of those he speaks to. Where he doesn't have to feel the full and immediate effect of his words. There has to be a better way.
I feel like I know that way too. I have glimpsed it, smelled it, but can't quite apprehend it. I'm not planning anything. I'm over trying to work my own will in these cases. I just don't have the energy any more. But I want to understand, to walk in it, to help it grow where it sprouts.
Am I missing something? I find myself cringing from certain aspects of the faith. Embarrassed by them. I don't want to be caught listening to Christian radio. I don't even like the music. I just need some uplifting, faithful, stilling presence and commercial radio (at least the genres I can tolerate) is all about degradation and glory in low things. I hate to pray over meals in public, though I do it at home with a will and a desire to instill it in my son.
Am I embarrassed by the faith? No. I'm not. I'll easily tell someone I'm Christian, that I go to church, that I believe in universal Truth and live morally, etc. I'll discuss my faith at length and detail in certain contexts, not just amongst other Christians. So I am not embarrassed by the faith. So what is it?
If it was just hokey contrivances, I would not do them myself. So I see value in them. This means the issue must be deeper. Perhaps a fear of seeming naive or backward. Perhaps of being misunderstood. I can't tell what it is. My Evangelical background steps forward at this point and begins condemning me that those who are ashamed of Christ, he will be ashamed of. Words from his own mouth! And my heart quails. But yet I find the same reactions persisting.
I am fickle and inconsistent. And then I am reminded quietly of Peter who denied Christ three times after just proclaiming his allegiance and even using a blade against an armed troop of men to defend Jesus. I am reminded of Paul who could not do the good he wanted to do, though he knew what it was.
And so this Sunday, when I was sitting in church, at odds with the place and myself, the pastor, whom I don't even know if I like and certainly don't yet trust, calls us to take Communion in a way that does not put me off. Not single serving plastic wrapped. Not greatly orated. Simply saying that we will serve ourselves because, "you need no one coming between you and your God." And so I go forward, looking into my own heart, wondering what I will say to Him in the moment, though I feel something must be said. At the same time, I dred that my heart may burst out my eyes in front of everyone, as too often happens when I encounter God. I take the wafer, dip it in the cup, and at that second, my heart cries out, "God, help me."
I don't even know where it came from...well I do really. But I was not planning it, I promise you. I felt my eyes well, clenched my teeth to stop it, and rushed back to my seat. Then it came to me that this simple line is the essence of my faith, of all faith. I don't know. I can't do. God, help me.
And on this rock, I can stand. Nothing more, nothing less. God, help me. God, help me.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Real Act
I just read an article citing statistical characteristics of kids who grow up in church and don't leave it when they get older. This is a huge phenomenon, if you don't know. Kids grow up going to church, doing good things, then leave either quietly or not so much, or fall into problems that most Christians think they should have been insulated against such as drugs, pregnancy, atheism, etc.
This article cited three main characteristics of those that stay. 1. they have had a conversion experience. Makes sense because those who simply grow up there can talk it and walk it, but it isn't necessarily a real thing for them. So can they truly be called Christians in the first place? As the Supertones said, "if you say you used to be a Christian, then you never were."
2. they are equipped to deal with life and not just entertained. Again makes sense because most contemporary protestant churches and probably many of the nonprotestant bent focus so much on drawing them in that they lose all but the merest shred of content and become nothing more than "clean" social clubs. Which apparently aren't that clean either given the ways in which so many I've known have fallen out. There's an infamous case (which could be rumor, though I don't doubt it could well be true) where a girl got pregnant in the church I grew up in while playing a youth group game...it resulted in a ban on any games that left us out of sight for more than like 5 minutes...which interestingly enough didn't stop any of those who fell out in my day from doing so...hmmm.
3. they are taught at home. Again makes sense. If a family is leaving their children's spiritual education up to professionals and volunteers who see them maybe 3 hours a week...c'mon. But even still this is not fool-proof and I know several very stable families who did everything right to no avail.
This struck me. I don't disagree with the article. Makes sense, right? But still doesn't seem to hit the nail on the head. So how many will read that article and try to engineer these traits? The thing is, I can point to many of my own friends who have had a so-called conversion experience who now reject the faith utterly, even those who came and left it far after their teens. I know people with advanced religious education who have done the same. These ought to be "equipped", yeah? And as I pointed out, even the best families can't control everything. I've seen the controlling ones who drive kids away and the more moderate who lose them still.
I don't know the answers here. But I do know I am one of those kids who didn't leave, and I know why. I did hit a wall in my faith as a teen. I shouldn't say wall...it was more like a desert. I had the so-called conversion. I had the equipping and the family training in the form of hours of formal discipleship and biblical training as well as the fortunate gift of logical training and reason. But it still all just seemed pointless. As my questions deepened and broadened, the answers I was getting were mostly insufficient because people who were teaching me didn't understand or couldn't articulate themselves. I naturally began to explore other things after my own peculiar flavor of poison. But in my case, God pursued me. He broke through my reality in seen and unseen ways. He brought notable people who would speak powerful lasers of truth into me...sometimes just one statement at a critical time. He sent me dreams...vivid visions. And he allowed me to break myself so that I would be receptive when he stepped in for a greater revelation.
That was when real conversion happened. Oh yes, it happened. But it isn't something that can be engineered in a building with lights and music and retreats. It is a deeply personal, tragic, painful sort of conversion in which I had nothing left and was given a new hope...a new life. This is why I say like CS Lewis, I was drug in kicking and screaming. In reality, I was more carried in after I had passed out and given up, but I was kicking and screaming up to that point in that I would accept nothing less than reality, Truth.
A few years after this, a mentor of mine posed this question that reveals for me how I felt prior and after. He said, "If you came to a fork in the road and Truth went one way and Jesus went the other, which way would you go?" My answer was a resounding "Truth". But here's the trick of the question: I've found that every time I perceive this dichotomy, it's because I have a false conception of...Jesus. (I bet you thought I was going to say Truth. If so, you need to stop drinking your evangelical koolaid.) You see, every time I went toward what I saw as Truth and left Jesus behind, I'd find a clearer, brighter, realer Jesus standing right around the bend. I couldn't get away from the guy! And Thank God! Because when I was utterly undone, he brought me back.
You see, it isn't a choice. It isn't a point of decision...though I guess that exists somewhere or for some people. It's an acceptance of what is. A giving up to what I couldn't change. The point of decision for me, has come multiple times after that as I am forced to decide whether my experiences are real or if I was/am psychotic. But when I think about it, I can't choose otherwise. There is nihilism, the nothing of no meaning, no caring, no feeling, emptiness of unrequited existence, or there is God who has revealed himself to me in the man Jesus. Psychotic or not, I'm not going back in the pit...probably couldn't if I tried. He'd just pull me back out again.
So, is Calvin right? Am I just Elect and these kids, men, women are not? I'm not building theology, here, just asking a legitimate question. Or are they just not at the point yet?
Really, this question isn't what we should focus on. Rather, what are we going to do about it. If Calvinistic, we don't know who is elected and have a duty to relieve the suffering of all anyway. If Evangelical, they're just not ready and no amount of coercing or engineering will change that. So I suggest we start with one thing. Be real.
Shed the pomp and hoohah. Cut the bright lights and fancy marketing tactics. Get off the rockstar pedestals and deeply search. Find out what's real. I'll help you. Come talk to me one on one, I promise I won't pull any punches. You'll walk away questioning things you never thought you could. Then, once we're gates of hell, standing in the burning pyre, flayed alive sure of what we believe, we simply act. In the moment, in the real, act. Feed, clothe, pray, comfort, support, help, encourage, love, bleed, cry, die in proportion to the faith we each have.
This is Jesus, by the book, man.
This article cited three main characteristics of those that stay. 1. they have had a conversion experience. Makes sense because those who simply grow up there can talk it and walk it, but it isn't necessarily a real thing for them. So can they truly be called Christians in the first place? As the Supertones said, "if you say you used to be a Christian, then you never were."
2. they are equipped to deal with life and not just entertained. Again makes sense because most contemporary protestant churches and probably many of the nonprotestant bent focus so much on drawing them in that they lose all but the merest shred of content and become nothing more than "clean" social clubs. Which apparently aren't that clean either given the ways in which so many I've known have fallen out. There's an infamous case (which could be rumor, though I don't doubt it could well be true) where a girl got pregnant in the church I grew up in while playing a youth group game...it resulted in a ban on any games that left us out of sight for more than like 5 minutes...which interestingly enough didn't stop any of those who fell out in my day from doing so...hmmm.
3. they are taught at home. Again makes sense. If a family is leaving their children's spiritual education up to professionals and volunteers who see them maybe 3 hours a week...c'mon. But even still this is not fool-proof and I know several very stable families who did everything right to no avail.
This struck me. I don't disagree with the article. Makes sense, right? But still doesn't seem to hit the nail on the head. So how many will read that article and try to engineer these traits? The thing is, I can point to many of my own friends who have had a so-called conversion experience who now reject the faith utterly, even those who came and left it far after their teens. I know people with advanced religious education who have done the same. These ought to be "equipped", yeah? And as I pointed out, even the best families can't control everything. I've seen the controlling ones who drive kids away and the more moderate who lose them still.
I don't know the answers here. But I do know I am one of those kids who didn't leave, and I know why. I did hit a wall in my faith as a teen. I shouldn't say wall...it was more like a desert. I had the so-called conversion. I had the equipping and the family training in the form of hours of formal discipleship and biblical training as well as the fortunate gift of logical training and reason. But it still all just seemed pointless. As my questions deepened and broadened, the answers I was getting were mostly insufficient because people who were teaching me didn't understand or couldn't articulate themselves. I naturally began to explore other things after my own peculiar flavor of poison. But in my case, God pursued me. He broke through my reality in seen and unseen ways. He brought notable people who would speak powerful lasers of truth into me...sometimes just one statement at a critical time. He sent me dreams...vivid visions. And he allowed me to break myself so that I would be receptive when he stepped in for a greater revelation.
That was when real conversion happened. Oh yes, it happened. But it isn't something that can be engineered in a building with lights and music and retreats. It is a deeply personal, tragic, painful sort of conversion in which I had nothing left and was given a new hope...a new life. This is why I say like CS Lewis, I was drug in kicking and screaming. In reality, I was more carried in after I had passed out and given up, but I was kicking and screaming up to that point in that I would accept nothing less than reality, Truth.
A few years after this, a mentor of mine posed this question that reveals for me how I felt prior and after. He said, "If you came to a fork in the road and Truth went one way and Jesus went the other, which way would you go?" My answer was a resounding "Truth". But here's the trick of the question: I've found that every time I perceive this dichotomy, it's because I have a false conception of...Jesus. (I bet you thought I was going to say Truth. If so, you need to stop drinking your evangelical koolaid.) You see, every time I went toward what I saw as Truth and left Jesus behind, I'd find a clearer, brighter, realer Jesus standing right around the bend. I couldn't get away from the guy! And Thank God! Because when I was utterly undone, he brought me back.
You see, it isn't a choice. It isn't a point of decision...though I guess that exists somewhere or for some people. It's an acceptance of what is. A giving up to what I couldn't change. The point of decision for me, has come multiple times after that as I am forced to decide whether my experiences are real or if I was/am psychotic. But when I think about it, I can't choose otherwise. There is nihilism, the nothing of no meaning, no caring, no feeling, emptiness of unrequited existence, or there is God who has revealed himself to me in the man Jesus. Psychotic or not, I'm not going back in the pit...probably couldn't if I tried. He'd just pull me back out again.
So, is Calvin right? Am I just Elect and these kids, men, women are not? I'm not building theology, here, just asking a legitimate question. Or are they just not at the point yet?
Really, this question isn't what we should focus on. Rather, what are we going to do about it. If Calvinistic, we don't know who is elected and have a duty to relieve the suffering of all anyway. If Evangelical, they're just not ready and no amount of coercing or engineering will change that. So I suggest we start with one thing. Be real.
Shed the pomp and hoohah. Cut the bright lights and fancy marketing tactics. Get off the rockstar pedestals and deeply search. Find out what's real. I'll help you. Come talk to me one on one, I promise I won't pull any punches. You'll walk away questioning things you never thought you could. Then, once we're gates of hell, standing in the burning pyre, flayed alive sure of what we believe, we simply act. In the moment, in the real, act. Feed, clothe, pray, comfort, support, help, encourage, love, bleed, cry, die in proportion to the faith we each have.
This is Jesus, by the book, man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
