A Blogspot Named Desire

faith vs. works

2007-04-23T22:54:00.001-04:00

Right after I became a Christian I went on a trip with some friends to Europe. It was a great time, mostly because it was led by Mr. Adamson, my 11th grade English teacher. Adamson was a great teacher and also was very friendly and approachable. Outside of teaching English he also was the staff advisor on the student newspaper at my highschool, The Green Raider, and I was known to spend many 4th periods hanging out with friends and also Adamson in the Green Raider room and also roaming the halls on "official business". While in Europe, I happened to be talking to Adamson about matters of faith and he jokingly mentioned Haile Selassie. During the course of the discussion, he said something that has stayed with me for some time. He said that people do everything in their own interest, in one way or another. I am not sure if I believe this or not, but the thought and the moment has stayed with me for a long time.
This week we will informally discuss the concept of faith and works. The bible has much to say on this topic:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

James 2

Yet the passage in James seems to conflict with what Paul says in the oft-quoted Ephesians 2:8-9:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

1. Do you think it is possible to do unselfish acts?

2. What role do you think works have in salvation, if any?

3. How should faith and works interact?

4. Is there any merit in works when a person's faith is waning or insincere?

2007-03-27T10:14:00.000-04:00

Ethics of Passion

by Alan Boswell

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. – I Corinthians 13

Kant

To be kind where one can is duty, and there are, moreover, many persons so sympathetically constituted that without any motive of vanity or selfishness they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy, and rejoice in the contentment of others which they have made possible. But I say that, however dutiful and amiable it may be, that kind of action has no true moral worth. It is on a level with [actions arising from] other inclinations, such as the inclination to honor, which, if fortunately directed to what in fact accords with duty and is generally useful and thus honorable, deserve praise and encouragement but no esteem.

It is in this way, undoubtedly, that we should understand those passages of Scripture which command us to love our neighbor and even our enemy, for love as an inclination cannot be commanded. But beneficence from duty, also when no inclination impels it and even when it is opposed by a natural and unconquerable aversion, is practical love, not pathological love; it resides in the will and not in the propensities of feeling, in principles of action and not in tender sympathy; and it alone can be commanded.

Morality  Dutiful action  The less “inner satisfaction,” the better

Kierkegaard

When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love.

Let others complain that the times are wicked. I complain that they are paltry; for they are without passion. The thoughts of men are thin and frail like lace, and they themselves are feeble like girl lace-makers. The thoughts of their hearts are too puny to be sinful. For a worm it might conceivably be regarded a sin to harbor thoughts such as theirs, not for a man who is formed in the image of God.

It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objectively, Christianity has no existence.

Truth is subjectivity  Parable of the pagan  Passionate pagan before idol is closer to the truth than the dispassionate church worshiper.

Morality  Character  Inwardnesss  Subjectivity

Discussion Questions

Does Christ / New Testament preach Kantian ethics, Kierkegaardian ethics, or somewhere in between?

What are the underlying philosophic foundation of an ethics of reason? ethics of passion?

Are an ethics of passion and an ethics of reason mutually exclusive?

Which side of this debate is currently the dominant one in our society today? in the American church today?

What are the implications of this debate upon our current system of government and legal system?

If one assumes that “God is dead,” what happens to each one of these spheres of ethics? Does this matter to the debate?

2007-03-19T21:48:00.000-04:00

Postmodernism

A guy was tried as an accessory to murder because he watched as his best friend murdered a girl and he did nothing to stop it. When he was asked why he didn’t do anything, he said it was because he knew his friend and he didn’t know the girl.

A large evangelical church declared that they were going to pray for the salvation Jewish people during a time of Jewish holy days. The media and Jewish leaders said that this was intolerant and encouraged hate crimes against Jews.

There was girl at a university who was taking a test that asked the meaning of the word juxtapose. She didn’t know the answer, so she wrote “‘Juxtapose’ means ‘cat.’ Since Heidegger said that reality is as we perceive it, this is what ‘juxtapose’ means to me.” since she had no other ideas. She received a perfect score and the professor praised her for her “insightful” answer.

These instances among others are what Millard J. Erickson describes in his book, The Postmodern World, as moments where the postmodernist culture strongly influences what happened.

In the first scene, postmodern ethics are illustrated. To the guy on trial, it was more important that his friend was doing something he wanted to do than it was that he was killing someone. In the second, a postmodern view raises issues about religion. In the third example, the postmodern view that truth is completely dependent on the individual’s opinion.

Postmodernism relates to the idea that there is no absolute truth, meaning that truth is determined by the individual or the group.

Questions that postmodernism raise:

How does postmodernism affect ethics?
If truth is relative to the individual, what is the point of someone studying to become an expert in their field? If the opinion of someone who has studied is equal to someone who has not studied, why study?
What is the point of paying tuition to learn that you create your own truth?
What is useful about postmodernism?

Christianity and Environmentalism

2007-02-26T22:43:00.000-05:00

blog by Chris Armstrong

I was never really very interested in the Environment. I grew up in suburbia and while I enjoyed times in wooded areas and forests, I never really experienced genuine untouched nature. Trash was everywhere. Behind my house is a nature reserve and even there I could find old tires and empty oil containers. While as I grew up I began to appreciate the environment, I also understood that jobs and resources were important too.
Sadly, it was not an experience with majestic, untouched nature that changed my mind about the environment. Last fall, I needed to do an internship. I applied to and was interviewed by the National Association of Evangelicals. I didn't know too much about the organization, but one thing that I learned was that they were heavily involved in protecting the environment. Despite my best efforts I felt a pang of worry. Though I was neutral to the environment, hearing that others were activists for it made me conjure the image of the radical left. As I learned more and more about Creation Care, a christian environmental initiative, I felt more and more strongly that protecting the environment was the right thing to do.
To say that there is not consensus on this issue within the Christian community would be an understatement. Many feel that while stewardship is an important call for humans, that the Earth was given to man to rule over. If man chooses to pollute the earth, that is within his ability as God has given man domain. Others in the christian community feel that though the environment is certainly important, that it is the responsibility to protect jobs and well-being of people, rather than trees.

1. What is the spiritual component to this issue, in your opinion? Is the issue of the environment a moral one?

2. Recently, many have begun to wonder whether Christians and Environmentalists would be able to bridge the massive gulf between them to work together on this issue. Do you think that such cooperation of vastly different groups is possible?

3. Many that question christians on this issue raise the point of those that believe that rapture is immanent. Do you feel that this issue has a place in the debate of spirituality and the environment? If the rapture were immanent, would your view of environmental responsibility change?

4. Given limited resources and attention spans, should christians devote significant time and energy to this issue? In the face of AIDS, widespread world hunger, and poverty, can money and resources spent working on the environment be better allocated to another issue?

5. With taxes for other government programs so high, what price should people be expected to pay for a clean environment?

2007-02-20T09:12:00.000-05:00

Liberation Theology & Social Christianity

blog by Trip Glazer

Liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on Jesus Christ as not only the Redeemer but also the Liberator of the Oppressed. It is predominantly practiced in the “periphery” of the Catholic Church’s jurisdiction, i.e. the Third World, but it enjoys supporters world wide.

Many argue that its origins lie in the writings of the German Lutheran theologian Grant Bro-- er, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, but the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) is perhaps a more precise derivation of its core principles. Before delving into these “core principles” it is necessary to define a few terms (for you non-Catholics, i.e. heretics).

II.

1. An Ecumenical Council or general council is a meeting of the bishops of the whole church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice. The numbering of these councils differs between the Eastern and Western churches, due to fundamental dogmatic discrepancies (cf. John of Damascus versus Augustine), but Vatican II is the twenty-first for the Western, Roman Catholic Church.

2. A liturgy comprises a prescribed ceremony, according to the traditions of a particular group or event. Vatican II was significant in the development of the Catholic liturgy in that it allowed for the use of vernacular languages in the performance of the liturgy, whereas before this Latin was used exclusively:

"Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4–5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism." (Sacrosanctum Concilium 14).

3. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) (Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei), also known as the Holy Office, is the oldest of the nine congregations of the Roman Curia. Among the most active of these major Curial departments, it oversees Catholic doctrine. The CDF is the modern name for what used to be the Roman Inquisition and still holds the same goal: to protect and advocate faithful Catholic teaching on matters of faith and morals and to punish whom they consider as offenders. As prefect of this office, now-Pope Benedict XVI (then Joseph Ratzinger) was the infamous opponent of Liberation Theology.

III.

What is Liberation Theology?

In essence, liberation theology explores the relationship between Christian, specifically Roman Catholic, theology and political activism, particularly in areas of social justice, poverty and human rights. The main methodological innovation of liberation theology is to approach theology (i.e. speak of God) from the viewpoint of the economically poor and oppressed of the human community. According to Jon Sobrino, S.J., the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace. According to Phillip Berryman, liberation theology is "an interpretation of Christian faith through the poor's suffering, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society and the Catholic faith and Christianity through the eyes of the poor".

Emphasis is placed on those parts of the Bible where Jesus' mission is described in terms of liberation and as a bringer of justice, e.g. Matthew 26:51-52 [1]. This passage is interpreted as a call to arms to carry out the Christian mission of justice -- literally by some. A number of liberation theologians, though not all, also add certain Marxist concepts such as the doctrine of perpetual class struggle.

Liberation theology also emphasizes individual self-actualization as part of God's divine purpose for humankind. In other words, we are given life so that we may pursue it to its full potential. Therefore, obstacles or oppressions put in our path must be resisted and abolished.

In addition to teaching at some Roman Catholic universities and seminaries, liberation theologians can often be found in Protestant-oriented schools. They tend to have considerable contact with the poor and interpret sacred scripture partly based on their experiences in this context -- what they label praxis. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

The focus on the humanity of Jesus is by no means unique to Liberation Theology; the so-called Antiochene School of theology of the early Church theologized in much the same way. A similar delineation between a focus on the humanity and divinity of Christ could be made of the Petrine (Mark, Luke, Catholic Epistles) and Pauline (Matthew, John, Paul’s Epistles) teachings, respectively.

Liberation Theology is considered an offshoot of the larger school of thought, Social Christianity, which focuses on how Christianity influences society. Other offshoots include Theological Realism, Radical Orthodoxy, and Christian Socialism.

IV.

Despite the generous ambition of the Liberation Theologians, they soon got themselves into trouble with Rome. On the one hand, they felt that Vatican II favored their approach to theology (A new approach to do interpretation was approved by the bishops at Vatican II. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the "mother tongues" of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives). On the other, Vatican II reaffirmed the internal power structure of the Church hierarchy, granting greater power to the bishops and pope. Therefore when Joseph Ratzinger silenced the teachings of Brazilian Liberation Theologian Leonardo Boff, the future of Liberation Theology was uncertain.

The silencing was not due, however, to doctrinal discrepancy, but rather to theological foundation. If I may say so (Grant will surely disagree), the theology of Ratzinger (and, subsequently, that of the Church) rouged itself up to woo philosophy while Liberation Theology rouged itself up to woo sociology (forgive me for the Kierkegaardian allusion). Ratzinger felt that Liberation Theology dangerously led theology away from its true object, a Catholic and Apostolic understanding of God as revealed in the scriptures.

Many Liberation Theologians have pled the “St. Augustine/St. Francis/St. Bonaventure” line of thought, to be distinguished from the drastically opposed “[St.] Aristotle/St. Thomas” line of thought, a claim I personally find fallacious. Augustine, after all, warned Christians of the sinful effects of pity. One should not pity a man for his material conditions, he said, but only for his distance from God.

Probably the most notable moment in Liberation Theology history was 24 March 1980, when Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while saying Mass, the day after giving a radio announcement in which he asked soldiers to disobey orders to kill civilians.

The interrogation of Boff by Ratzinger is another.

VI.

Questions:

1. One tenet of Liberation Theology is that “the poor are a privileged channel of God's grace.” Give Grant the floor on this one.

2. How might Liberation Theology be construed as a Bonhoefferian theology? Again, Grant.

3. Where should the locus of the focus (hocus pocus) of a Christian’s attention lie? On oneself, on others, or on God (again, to say “others” is very un-Augustinian)?

4. Do Christians have a greater responsibility to the poor than the rich?

5. Could material conditions possibly reflect one’s favor with God?

6. To what extent should an understanding of JC differ from culture to culture?

On Prayer

2007-02-05T13:57:00.000-05:00

On Friday night, Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship had, in my opinion, one of its most powerful annual events. As a fellowship, we fasted from our sleep and prayed through the night in a prayer vigil of sorts. We spent time in personal reflection and contemplation, time in praise and worship to God, and time praying for our nation and world.

The experience was a fulfilling one for me in ways that it hasn’t been in the past. Usually, I find that this event has the potential to disturb the emotions and have me crying and sentimental, unfortunately mostly for sentiment’s sake rather than for deep passion or desired change that will last and sustain me through time. However, during this time of prayer, I had a different strategy. I came late to the event so that I prayed for others rather than for myself because I’d missed the part of the evening that was structured for individual prayer. I reasoned that I pray enough desperate prayers for myself throughout the day, anything from “God, I love you” to “God, I really don’t know what to say in this Tuesday Night Discussion Group Blog, and it’s making me nervous.” Throughout the night, I was mindful of the needs of others and was edified and encouraged by praying with the group of my friends and fellow believers. At one point, though, I felt compelled to leave the corporate experience and then spent time alone in communication with God about events in my life and other concerns that wouldn’t be taken up in a larger group. I set some goals during that time that will shape the course of my semester and my life, and I’m convinced that those goals are of divine origin in some sense of the word divine and of the word origin.

But contemplating Friday night’s events leads me to many questions: What caused that compulsion to separate myself? What motivates me to pray in the first place? How can I hear from God? And how do I know that what I do hear is accurately heard?

Unpacking this event in my mind makes me think that I know very little of what actually went on Friday night, and I understand very little about the nature of prayer, though I try my best to make it a regular practice in my life.
What is prayer?

When I think about it, I understand that if you weren’t raised with prayer it must be a rather odd concept. Individual prayer wherein one claims to speak to God, perhaps even out loud, while on his or her knees or pacing, sitting or standing, with arms flailed towards the sky, entire body prostrate to the floor, can be daunting, seem like behavior acquired in mental or physical illness. I can only imagine the discomfort of seeing this undertaken in a large group. If you don’t understand what’s going on, it must be difficult to interpret the experience.

However, I wonder how many of those of us who pray understand what is going on when we pray or how we would describe the experience and give it a linguistic analytic presence in conversation. I have a hunch that prayer isn’t something you create easy paradigms for, that it isn’t something one can understand easily by a definition. Rather, one needs to practice prayer to understand prayer, and to continue in prayer to progress to understanding new dimensions of prayer over time.

The discourse that surrounds the practice of prayer is also interesting in terms of understanding the nature of the act. Here are some definitions of prayer gleaned from the internet:

“What is prayer? Prayer is our direct line with heaven. Prayer is a communication process that allows us to talk to God! He wants us to communicate with Him, like a person-to-person phone call. Cell phones and other devices have become a necessity to some people in today’s society. We have blue tubes, blackberries, and talking computers! These are means of communication that allow two or more people to interact, discuss, and respond to one another.”

“Prayer is the practice of the presence of God. It is the place where pride is abandoned, hope is lifted, and supplication is made.”

“Prayer is conversation with God; the intercourse of the soul with God, not in contemplation or meditation, but in direct address to him.”

“Prayer is doxology, praise, thanksgiving, confession, supplication and intercession to God. "When I prayed I was new," wrote a great theologian of Christian antiquity, "but when I stopped praying I became old." Prayer is the way to renewal and spiritual life. Prayer is aliveness to God. Prayer is strength, refreshment, and joy. Through the grace of God and our disciplined efforts prayer lifts us up from our isolation to a conscious, loving communion with God in which everything is experienced in a new light. Prayer becomes a personal dialogue with God, a spiritual breathing of the soul, a foretaste of the bliss of God's kingdom.” (Greek Orthodox archdiocese of America)

"Prayer is spiritual communication between man and God, a two-way relationship in which man should not only talk to God but also listen to Him. Prayer to God is like a child's conversation with his father. It is natural for a child to ask his father for the things he needs." (Billy Graham)

Prayer is an effort to communicate with God, or to some deity or deities, or another form of spiritual entity, or otherwise, either to offer praise, to make a request, or simply to express one's thoughts and emotions. (Wikipedia)

Now, I’m not entirely sure what a blue tube is, but I know that these definitions seem to center around one dominant metaphor for prayer -- prayer as a conversation or communication with God. This metaphor is popular and for good reason. When I use my language to reach out to another entity, I attempt communication with it, create dialogue or discourse. But even though this metaphor is popular, I can’t claim to understand it fully. Does God always speak back to me? Why is it always so seldom with words that He speaks? Good communication certainly isn’t just one-sided.

There are those, of course, who believe prayer to be a wish-fulfillment within our souls, and thus the conversation is really an inner dialogue with intentions we’ve always had and thoughts we just needed to be able to create perceived distance from in order to access. It’s tempting to believe this, when God can’t be seen, and when He has no physical voice that we can hear.

Here’s what I know from my experience: In prayer, I speak with either silent or spoken words. But I don’t know that I would have to. The Bible says that “the Spirit intercedes for us with groans no words can express.” I get a response from God that I can interpret sometimes, other times I get a response from God that I can’t understand or discern. Responses come from friends or family members, or they come from within my being (though they are certainly not my thoughts), or experiences tell me that my prayer was heard and answered. I hear taught in churches that God gives three answers to prayer: “Yes, no, and wait.” However, this seems too reductive to me, so I would reject it as a good description of the process of receiving an answer to prayer.

A summary of what the Bible has to say on prayer is this: Prayer is a privilege and an obligation of the Christian where we communicate with God. It is how we convey our confession (1 John 1:9), requests (1 Tim. 2:1-3), intercessions (James 5:15), thanksgiving (Phil. 4:6), etc., to our holy God. We are commanded to pray (1 Thess. 5:17). Some personal requirements of prayer are a pure heart (Psalm 66:18), belief in Christ (John 14:13), and that the prayer be according to God's will (1 John 5:13).

Part of beginning to understand prayer is to understand why we pray and what compels us to pray.

Why do we pray?

Do we pray to benefit ourselves? To benefit others? Do we pray because sacred texts command it? Do we pray to get our own way in the world, to attempt to manipulate the our own condition and the condition of those we love? Do we pray because we feel a spiritual compulsion to reach beyond ourselves and communicate with the divine?

How do we pray?

I used to pray a lot of “canned prayers” -- prayers that were written down and recited at certain specific times of the day or year. I know prayers that have been written down and then I speak them at certain traditional times. For example, here’s a prayer that my family said every night before dinner; perhaps yours did too.

God is great, God is good
Let us thank Him for our food
By His hands we must be fed
Give us, Lord, our daily bread.

Liturgical prayers play a large role in the establishment of many denominations of Christian faith, and even those groups which don’t write out the entire text of a prayer for its congregants teaches models of prayer.

I’ve also learned some prayer models over time which I’ve been taught are the correct way to pray. The most basic model of teaching prayer is the Lord’s prayer, the prayer that Jesus himself prayed in the Bible. Some humanly constructed models exist as well.

Here’s an example:

Prayer following the ACTS model looks like this:
First you pray through A: Adoration of God
Then C: Confession of Sin
Next T: Thanksgiving to God
Finally S: Supplication or asking God for needs.

While this is just a tool for prayer, some Christians pray through it faithfully. What are the advantages and disadvantages to models of prayer? Is prayer something that can be taught? Or should an individual experiment for himself or herself to find out what is an effective personal method for her to connect to God?

None of these models account for physical positions in prayer. In the church that I attend, when we wish to symbolize surrender in our prayers, we place our hands facedown, and then turn them upward again in order to receive from God. Can a physical position actually change the way in which our prayers are received? If not, then why adjust physical position to pray? If so, then how do we know what position to assume, and how can we make the positions consistent across culture?

Are there limits to what we should pray for?

To me, prayer seems a lot like that Rolling Stones song in that “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.” I’ve heard people pray for more wealth, for more health, and even for a space to open up in the church parking lot so that they can park close to the door. I often wonder what God thinks of those sorts of prayers, if there’s anything we can’t ask Him. If we say that there are limits to what we can ask for, we say that there are things that God cannot do, or will not. Yet, if we say we can ask for anything, we allow for prayer to be potentially trivialized. Perhaps it is safe to say we can ask for anything, but we might not get what we ask for. But then what do we make of the Biblical mandate “Ask and you shall receive”?

There are many questions to process in terms of prayer, and many experiences to contemplate. Perhaps the experience of prayer, however, still remains the best means through which to understand prayer.

Questions to consider:

1. Is prayer the same from religion to religion?
2. Should we view prayer as a social function in addition to a spiritual function? If so, can prayer ever be pure and disinterested in all but seeking connection to God?
3. Should we presume to be able to ask anything we want in prayer?
4. Do we even need to pray? Shouldn’t an all knowing God already understand our needs? And if prayer is all about aligning ourselves in God’s will, in demonstrating submission, then is prayer all about us and not about God?

Pascal's Wager

2007-01-27T16:06:00.000-05:00

When I was younger, my mother always used to tell me that she felt very certain that her faith in God was the correct choice for life. Something about the conversation that we would have on that point, however, made me rather uncomfortable. I agree that she made the correct decision to believe in the God of Christianity, so that wasn't our point of contention. Rather, I was uncertain that she gave a reason for faith that attracted me to further belief myself. She would always say, "Well, if I'm right, and there is a God, I'll be in heaven. And if I'm right, then those who don't believe won't be in heaven. But if I'm wrong, and there's no God, I'm a fool, but there won't be any consequences -- no one will be in heaven. Believing in God is the safest choice because it allows me the possibility of heaven if God is real. But those who don't believe have no chance no matter what. So it makes more sense to believe in God than not to."

Now, this wasn't my mother's only reason for faith, but she did cite this argument often enough to make it memorable to me. And she's not the first to have thought about Christianity in these terms. C.S. Lewis, another strong influence on my young adult faith, polarized Christianity into either infinitely true or infinitely false: Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." Lewis's statement fortifies a position like the one my mom talked about. If Christianity is infintely true and important, than belief in it is necessary, and if it is infinitely false and unimportant, at least belief in it won't harm you at all because it just doesn't matter.

Having had other influences in my life that espoused this position, I wasn't surprised when I read Blaise Pascal's Pensees, notes taken for an uncompleted defense of Christianity, and I found that Pascal actually tried to reduce belief in Christianity to a mathematical probability statement in order to convince those not compelled by other sorts of theological arguments by the use of reason. Pascal viewed Christianity as a wager in which all must cast a bet, either to believe in God or not to believe in God. His argument is that belief in God, while not a position that can be reasoned because of the mysterious and unknowable nature of God, is the safer argument because of it's statistical benefits.

The goal for this week's discussion will be to unpack the primary text from which Pascal's wager is drawn and analyze it's benefits and limitations. Here's the text in which Pascal makes his argument for Christianity as a safer bet than atheism. It's long, so if you'd rather read it elsewhere, here's a link: http://www.classicallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm. The wager is found in section 233.

233. Infinite--nothing.--Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature necessity, and can believe nothing else.

Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God as between unity and infinity.

The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.

We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?

We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.

But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.

Let us now speak according to natural lights.

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.

Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;^[28] and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.

For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.

"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose?

But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

The end of this discourse.--Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.

"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.

If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness."

Here's a chart that summarizes Pascal's position:

	*God exists*	*God does not exist*
*Wager for God*	Gain all	Status quo
*Wager against God*	Misery	Status quo

Now, there are many potential limitations to this argument. Let me list just a few for you to think through.
1. It assumes that God is a God who rewards belief rather than skepticism.
2. It assumes that Christianity is the only religion which makes claims to exclusivity.
3. It is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather for belief in God regardless of his existence.
4. It does not require true belief in God, but rather belief driven by fear of the potential consequences of unbelief.
5. It assumes that one can choose to believe, rather than being predestined to believe (a position which assumes that God controls who believes).

However, there are also benefits to the argument.
1. It allows individuals to consider the implications and potential problems with unbelief.
2. It explains the benefits of a certain type of belief.

Here are some further descriptions and resources on Pascal's Wager and it's benefits and limitations as an argument for faith in God. A composite of these resources explains the text better than I ever could. Please take the time to read them, because they will enrich our discussion and your understanding of Pascal's project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1987/ch871223.gif (A fun Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that plays upon the idea of Pascal's wager by applying it to Santa Claus)

Gender and Relgion

2006-11-27T21:17:00.000-05:00

I never remember seeing it in my childhood, but something I remember seeing as I grew more and more was women wearing the traditional coverings of islam. I immediately saw it as bizarre. In suburban Pennsylvania it is rare to see such things ever, and catholicism didn't require any special dress.

When I was 14 I met a girl named Megan that went to my middle school. Eventually she invited me to her church and I went to see what it was like. When we arrived at her church she put a doily on her head and all the other women in the church were wearing them as well. Their church had no pastor, and so the elders (men) of the church would speak for a few minutes on scripture or ask to sing a hymn. She explained to me later that only the men were permitted to speak during the service and that it was the women's job to pray for the men and ask God to guide their thoughts. I didn't think much about the service at the time, though it was much different from the mass I attended on holidays. As I grew and learned more about feminism I have begun to wonder about the way their service was organized.

One thing we talked of many times in past weeks has been the issue of Abraham and Isaac. We discussed how it took an irrational leap of faith for Abraham to be willing to kill his son. The intersection of these two issues is this: what is the role of gender in regard to religion.

This week I'd like to explore God's commandments about women. Here are some verses that may be helpful:

Ecclesiastes 7:28
while I was still searching
but not finding—
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.

I Peter 3:1-7
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without talk by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self; the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. For this is the way the holy women, of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master...Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.
(Emphasis added)

1 Corinthians 11:4-16
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

There are many more examples of scripture like this so we should this week examine the role of women in the church.

1. What ought to be the role of women in the church? Is this the same as what the bible teaches on the subject?

2. What role should context play in this discussion? Should context influence our understanding of all other issues?

3. How does the role of women in society impact our concepts of gender and religion? Should it?

4. How do you feel about submission? Is it incorrect for one gender to be asked to submit to another?

5. Think about other religions, is it acceptable for a society to do something thought harmful to one gender because of divine motivations?

A Consideration of Ethics: Kant and Kierkegaard

2006-11-13T00:27:00.000-05:00

Just to note: This week I'm talking about ethics in the blog through two philosophers that I'm most familiar with. However, all of you should feel free to post with your own preferred ethical systems and philosophies as well.

The Definition of Moral

1. a. Of or relating to human character or behaviour considered as good or bad; of or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, desires, or character of responsible human beings; ethical.

b. Of an action: having the property of being right or wrong, or good or evil; voluntary or deliberate and therefore open to ethical appraisal. Of a person, etc.: capable of moral action; able to choose between right and wrong, or good and evil.

3. b. Relating to, affecting, or having influence on a person's character or conduct, as distinguished from his or her intellectual or physical nature.

4. a. Of a person, a person's conduct, etc.: morally good, virtuous; conforming to standards of morality.

Ethics

One of the most basic questions that people seem to wrestle with is, “How can I know right from wrong? And how can I act rightly?” Another way of phrasing that question is, “What makes a person’s actions morally good?” Parents, teachers, and religious leaders try to interpret their thoughts and texts on the subjects in order to train children, students, and congregations to act in a way that is preferable. But just whose way is the preferable way? Whose right is the right right to choose?

We know that human beings generally don’t follow a moral system completely consistently. We all mess up sometimes, we fail, we act poorly. However, there are other times when even the constructed ideal moral systems of various families and communities collide in the most unfriendly of ways. For instance, one society believes in polygamy, and both men and women agree to the practice and would like to see it continued. Most of Western society considers this to be immoral. Is there a way to establish a moral system which could apply to all mankind? Can there be a universal code of behavior which all should follow? And can that code be universally implemented with any sort of practicality?

The intellectual study of ethics intercedes for basic human experience in answering these questions. If ethics is the science of morals, the study concerned with the principles of human duty, then ethical behavior at its basic level then, can be described as that which it is our human duty to discover and adhere to.

Some ethical choices seem obvious. Don’t murder someone. Don’t steal things that don’t belong to you. Don’t lie to each other. At least, we think these seem like simple ethical commands when we offer them to small children as guiding principles. As we get older, we realize, I believe, that none of these situations are as simple as they might seem. Don’t murder is a fine thing to say generally, but what if you are being attacked? Is it ok to murder in self-defense? Is it ok to steal from a store if you are literally starving? Is it ok to tell the little white lie to benefit someone’s self-esteem or make a situation easier to handle as long as the lie won’t hurt anyone? We tend to begin to think of ethical counter examples which we can justify as correct actions based upon circumstance.

Philosophers, religious teachers, and civic leaders have attempted to define limits for human behavior in order to create the best way for human beings to live. In order to structure our conversation about ethics, we will examine several ethical positions, religious and secular. We will entertain two main questions:

1. Should God be the sole determinant of ethics?
2. Can ethics exist outside of God?

Should the command of God be the sole determinate of ethics?

One perspective on ethics is that the command of God or gods ought to determine what constitutes a good and moral human being. Being the creator of human kind, or, at the least, more powerful and knowledgeable, a divine being should have the ability to command human beings, telling them what actions to take, and requiring immediate obedience. One might consider the Christian moral system to be such a system.

However, according to our wonderful friends as Wikipedia, “The theory runs into many philosophical problems. One objection is that it implies that morality is arbitrary. If divine command theory is true, morality is based merely upon god's whim. Thus, if god had willed cruelty and dishonesty to be virtues, and mercy and charity to be vices, then they would have been. The natural reply to this objection is that god would not have commanded such things because he would not command evil, but this faces the difficulty that, on divine command theory, it is only god's command that makes them evil.”

Fear and Trembling, Soren Kierkegaard

The explanation of the relationship between God and ethics unpacked by Soren Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling illustrates some of the problems with an ethical system determined by an absolute divine being, but states that these questions are central to the experience of being one who is faithful.

Kierkegaard uses the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac found in Genesis 22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=22&version=31&context=chapter) in order to illustrate the difference that the control of a higher power can make in ethical determination. Abraham is commanded by God to take his son Isaac to Mount Moriah to “sacrifice him there as a burnt offering,” and he complies, taking his son to the mountain and preparing him for death. At the final moment, God intervenes, providing a lamb for sacrifice and saving Isaac from death.

While religious communities tend to consider this story with awe at how the man of faith followed the command of God even when it was difficult, I can’t help but read it with a degree of horror. God has asked Abraham to commit murder, an act which God will include as sinful in the Ten Commandments given to Moses. Has God asked Moses to sin?

Kierkegaard expresses the same trepidation in ethical terms: “The ethical expression for what Abraham did is that he was willing to murder Isaac; the religious expression is that he was willing to sacrifice Isaac; but on this contradiction lies the very anguish that can make one sleepless” (31). Certainly it should make one nervous to consider that in this story the command of God is to be willing to murder. “If faith cannot make it into a holy deed to murder one’s own son,” Kierkegaard determines, “then let the judgment fall on Abraham as on anyone else” (31).

However, Kierkegaard explains that faith in fact can make it into a holy deed to murder one’s own son. He explains that “the ethical is the universal, and as the universal applies to everyone” (62). Faith, though, he explains as a paradox wherein “the single individual is higher than the universal” (63). When that is true, ethics are suspended. In fact, ethics can be, for the man of faith, a temptation. Kierkegaard writes, “What we usually call a temptation is something that keeps a person from carrying out a duty, but here the temptation is the ethical itself which would keep him from doing God’s will” (70).

If ethics is based upon duty, then, what is the duty of man according to Kierkegaard? He explains, “the duty is precisely the expression of God’s will” (70).

Scholar Geoffrey Clive, in an article entitled, “ ‘The Teleological Suspension of the Ethical’ in Nineteenth Century Literature” analyses Kierkegaard’s ethical examination of Abraham:

“One of Kierkegaard’s most arresting concepts is the ‘teleological suspension of the ethical,’ the transgression of the moral principle in Fear and Trembling” as required and justified by religious faith. Communicating indirectly through Johannes de Silencio, who, characteristic of bystanders, is at once incredulous and irresistibly fascinated, Kierkegaard discerns Abraham’s holiness as a paradox, namely his preparedness to stand above the Law out of respect for the Lawgiver. While it is incumbent upon every man qua father to love his own son, Abraham acknowledges a duty toward God which in effect contradicts his family obligations, let alone his natural impulses. He makes himself an exception to the universal, an offender of public opinion, by obeying an esoteric supernatural voice enjoining murder. Thus, Abraham is tempted by the ethical. Undoubtedly, his unwillingness to sacrifice Isaac would have gained for him the approbation of everyone, but acting against the inner light of human consciousness and the ruling ideas of the crowd, Abraham became holy by the “virtue of the absurd.” Surely no contemporary could understand him except God.”

Kierkegaard allows God to possess dominion over man outside of the ethical because God himself is outside the human ethical. The Bible cites other examples where God has called his people to do things which might be considered unethical, such as rewarding Rahab for lying in order to protect the Jewish spies she was housing.

Can ethics exist outside of God?

We have discussed morality based in God as supra-ethical and therefore the one who determines the action of man through the imposition of his will. However, not all believe in God. Is there an ethical system that human beings can create from rational principles which would apply to both religious and non-religious people in the same way? Are there central human duties which can be separated from religious duties?

The maintenance of a civic society would seem to indicate that the answer ought to be yes. Our society is governed by principles of jurisprudence which bring together people of diverse backgrounds, cultural experiences, and social classes. Immanuel Kant introduces one method of determining a principle through which all human beings can rationally and ethically act regardless of religious persuasion.

The Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant attempted through his philosophy to determine based upon pure reason the concepts which his society attributed to God. Because an individual can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, he ought to create hypotheses which can be innately reasoned within a human being.

Kant believes that a moral philosophy should be pure, that is it should be based upon the freedom of a man to reason judgment. To explain why Kant thinks a pure moral philosophy is necessary, we must first understand what Kant meant by the term “pure moral philosophy” . According to Kant, “All knowledge is either material and concerned with some subject, or formal and concerned solely with the form of understanding and reason themselves” (365a). Material philosophies are divided into two categories based on whether they are concerned with nature or with freedom. If they are concerned with nature, Kant calls them physics or natural philosophy. If they are concerned with freedom, Kant calls them ethics or moral philosophy (365a). Kant distinguishes two different types of philosophy -- empirical philosophy and pure philosophy. While empirical philosophy is formed on the basis of experience, pure philosophy is formed on the basis of a priori principles, defined as those precepts which are formed prior to experience and are innate in the mind (365a). The term for a pure philosophy which is “confined to determinate objects of the understanding” (365a), is metaphysics. According to Kant, the empirical part of metaphysics may be called practical anthropology and the rational part may be called morals. Based on the prior definitions, a pure moral philosophy is a philosophy of the freedom of man based on the innate principles of his mind. Practical anthropology, on the other hand, is the formulation of philosophy from the actions which one can observe in man.

Practical anthropology is lacking as an approach to moral philosophy because, as Kant claims, man “has not so easily the power to realize the Idea [of a pure practical reason] in concreto in his conduct of life” (366b). Therefore, using the actions of man to form a philosophy of the correct moral behavior which a man should follow cannot satisfy. Simply put, a man does not always do what he ought to do. A pure moral philosophy, however, uses man’s reason to inform the correct moral actions. Kant explains,

A metaphysic of morals is thus indispensably necessary, not merely in order to investigate, from motives of speculation, the source of practical principles which are present a priori in our reason, but because morals themselves remain exposed to corruption of all sorts as long as this guiding thread is lacking, this ultimate norm for correct moral judgment. (366a)

In order to create the grounding thread for the metaphysic of morals, Kant introduces the concept of the good will -- moral actions performed for the sake of the moral law (366a).

The good will is the quality which informs talents, temperament, and gifts of fortune and which directs them to their proper moral uses in spite of happiness or any other feeling. The difference between the good will and the talents, temperament and gifts of fortune is that the latter are morally neutral -- that is, they can be put to good use or to bad use (as in the example of the scoundrel on 367a) -- whereas, the good will cannot conceivably ever be used to unfavorable and incorrect moral ends. The good will “shines like a jewel for its own sake as something which has full value in itself” (367a). The good will makes a man perform his duty and take correct moral actions.

All correct moral actions rely upon the categorical imperative, a command for behavior which relies upon the support of the good will. The categorical imperative reads, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (380b). All moral action performed for the sake of the moral law follows from the categorical imperative.

The main reason Kant is against acting on impulse and instead demands action based upon duty is that impulse cannot be governed by the categorical imperative. Kant’s example of the suicidal man illustrates this principle. A man wishes to kill himself which is his impulse reaction to his ill luck. However, when he applies the moral test to his action, he finds that his duty to his own life forbids his action. Another of his examples is a man who wishes to keep his wealth to feed his impulse toward pleasure. Yet, his duty toward humanity requires that he help those in need, which actually helps himself in the long run, when the time comes that he himself is in need.

Many suggest that this principle sounds a great deal like Jesus’s command, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Geoffrey Clive compares the ethics of Kant to the ethics of Kierkegaard:

“The moral law being holy, Kant does not allow the moral agent to be answerable to God in a way that would conflict with his obligations towards other rational beings. In Streit der Fakultaten, he declares with regard to Abraham that the voice of God cannot be known save negatively as that not incongruous with the categorical imperative. However majestic, he argues, man construes his confrontation by God to be, it becomes illusory by virtue of violating practical reason. Abraham, accordingly, should have answered God as follows: ‘That I ought not kill my good son is certain beyond a shadow of a doubt; that you, as you appear to be, are God, I am not convinced and will never be even if your voice would resound from the heavens.’”

The claim Kant makes is that if God commands something against the ethical as determined by the categorical imperative, then it is not God who does so, and therefore man should not follow that command.

On some level, perhaps, this conversation is practical-application continuation of last week’s conversation concerning reason and faith. Is our behavior defined by reasoned contemplation of what we should do as defined by reasonable responsibility to other rational human beings? Or is it defined by a faithful adherence to a God who is beyond the human notion of the ethical?

Questions to consider:

1. From where do you obtain your notion of what constitutes an ethical human being? In other words, how do you personally determine right (good) actions from wrong (bad) ones?
2. Which ethical notion appeals to you more, that of Kant or of Kierkegaard, and why?
3. Are there ever exceptions to an absolute moral system? On what grounds are these exceptions derived?
4. Can God ever command man to do something that is unethical?

Faith vs. Reason

2006-11-06T22:39:00.000-05:00

"'It is my firm conviction that man has nothing to gain, emotionally or otherwise, by adhering to a falsehood, regardless of how comfortable or sacred that falsehood may appear. Anyone who claims, on the one hand, that he is concerned with human welfare, and who demands, on the other hand, that man must suspend or renounce the use of his reason, is contradicting himself.

There can be no knowledge of what is good for man apart from knowledge of reality and human nature — and there is no manner in which this knowledge can be acquired except through reason. To advocate irrationality is to advocate that which is destructive to human life.'

In the book Atheism: The Case Against God, author George H. Smith writes from the perspective that reason is the primary mode of processing all components of existence, and, therefore, faith. Smith concludes that though religious faithful think that they can rely on their faith to explain the world, religions rarely can be used to explain the world better than reason.

For many, no intersection between reason and faith exists. However, some Christians use the field of apologetics, a method of defending faith through the construction of reasoned arguments, to reinforce their beliefs. In both The Case for Christ, and The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel examines whether or not it is rational for people to accept the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels. The books are immensely popular and are some of the best examples of apologetics books.

To both atheists and agnostics there is no connection between reason and faith. Adherents to faiths which contain miracles are viewed as irrational and illogical. At best, they are misguided by the faith systems to cling to, at worst they rely on faith as a crutch to keep them alive.

Still others who are faithful look at faith without it being bound to rationality. They feel that faith shouldn't have to make sense to people, and that to believe in it requires a person to suspend their rational belief and to rely on faith alone.

1. What is the role of reason in regards to faith? Can faith be examined through the eyes of reason? Should faith be examined in a different way?

2. Looking back on the previous weeks disscussions, is it rational for someone to have faith in any metaphysical religion (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, ect.)? Should faiths be discounted because of the unreasonable things they suggest (water to wine, resurrection, metaphysical reality)?

3. Should the believer of a religion rely upon the creation of reasoned or factual defenses of faith?

4. If God is communicating with believers, why do people not all agree about questions regarding faith? Isn't it reasonable to believe that God would be sending people all the same message?"

Christianity and Ancient Paganism

2006-10-29T21:56:00.000-05:00

Halloween is an example of syncretism between ancient Celtic religious traditions and Christian ones. We’ve been saving this conversation until Halloween because we thought it fitting to discuss the relationship between Christianity and paganism on a holiday which, though it finds its origin in a paganism, has also been appropriated by the Roman Catholic church over the course of its history. You can find a history of Halloween according to the History Channel here: http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=713&display_order=1&mini_id=1076

But I digress. Our subject for discussion for this week will not be Celtic paganism or the traditions which Halloween has been based, but rather the ancient religions in the region surrounding the Mediterranean and their influence, or lack thereof, on the development of Christianity. A member of the Tuesday Night Discussion Group comments:

A topic that I think many will find interesting and deserves some analysis is the connection between Christianity and Greek paganism. We all know that most Christian holidays occur on the same day as pagan festivals and that many elements of Jesus' life are strangely similar to those of pagan gods/heroes. What are we to make of this?

What are we to make of this, indeed. Is Christianity, like some scholars believe, the Jewish embodiment of the cultural ideas and religions popular in ancient time? Or is the development of Christianity a historically unique process which relies upon its singular Jewish roots and factual events?

Throughout pre-Christian religious history, traditions in the regions surrounding Palestine comprise myths* concerning gods with dual divine and human relations and resurrection and recreation stories of gods. Could those traditions have fed into Jewish thought, thus creating a new mystery cult, called Christianity by its Hellenistic and radical Jewish followers?

The myth of Dionysus (Bacchus) is one myth that scholars believe could be a significant ideological contributor to the plot of Jesus‘ life. Two versions of the birth of Dionysus exist; however the main feature of both is that Dionysus was born of a divine male and a human female. In one version of the story, a disguised Zeus impregnates a human woman, Semele. Hera, Zeus’ wife, is jealous when she discovers the affair and tricks Semele into asking Zeus if he is a god and begging him to reveal himself. Because any human who sees a god must die, when Zeus reveals himself, Semele dies. Zeus rescues Dionysus, not yet carried to term, and sews him into his thigh until he is developed. Thus, Dionysus, according to some, has the same type of equally human and divine parentage as Jesus.

In a second version of the story, the young Dionysus is born as the son of Zeus and Persephone, but a jealous Hera has him torn to pieces by the Titans. The Titans eat all but his heart, which Athena rescues and gives to Zeus. Zeus uses the heart to reconstruct Dionysus inside Semele. Again, Dionysus is twice born, but also received back from the dead. Some versions of this story indicate that Semele was to eat the heart of Dionysis in order to birth him again, a potential indication of a ritual communion-like in nature.

Dionysus is also considered to be similar to Jesus in his relationship to wine. Dionysis was considered to be the god of wine, and Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding in Cana, according to the gospel of John.

Even considering these similarities to Christianity, most scholars think that Dionysis is merely a copy of another god, the Egyptian Osiris, whom many consider to be the first savior who is the form for all saviors of all other religions.

I will direct you to two other sites which have a deeper explanation of the Dionysus myth, and paganism’s potential influence on Christianity. Though neither may have the most solid academic basis, they will provide a solid understanding of the stories of Dionysus and Osiris, and seem consistent with the academic accounts that I’ve read on the subject.

Wikipedia on Dionysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysis
About Jesus.com: http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm#Dionysus

Scholars acknowledge the existence of these myths, yet there is great debate over the relationship between these myths and Christianity.

Scholar Shirley Jackson Case claims that these myths are supremely influential, and make Christianity richer for their influence. He claims,

We are leaving the cloister and going to the marketplace, believing that there we shall find religion at its best because we find it there in the making. If we believe that Christianity today should draw upon all sources of information available in modern life, why should we so religiously strive to make a purely other worldly product? Will it not gain rather than lose significance if we discover that even in the first century its foundations were broad and its inspirations as wide as those of life itself? (3-4).

One view on the matter then, is that Christianity can be the most inclusive and pertain the most to life itself if it in fact incorporates many ancient religious traditions.

Drs. John Ankerberg and John Weldon counter Case’s argument:

One consequence of interpreting Christianity as an embellished mystery religion is the conclusion that the Christian faith per se is the invention of man, not a revelation from God. In the end, virtually all the unique teachings of New Testament theology, including the distinctive doctrines of Jesus Christ, God, man, sin, salvation, ect. Are viewed as mere religious innovation after the fact. For example, concerning Jesus Christ, this would mean his incarnation and virgin birth, miracles and teachings, atonement for sin, physical resurrection from the dead, promised return are not historical facts, but later revisions of pagan myths. In essence, the cardinal teachings of orthodox Christianity become lies and falsehood, a conclusion that warms the heart of some people today.

In these scholars’ estimation, the association of Christianity with pagan myth is its very undoing.

To be sure, this idea seems to be either one of the most constructive or destructive to Christianity, depending on your perspective. Which will it be? The task comes to us to enter this dialogue about the origins of Christianity, and make judgments about its relation to its ancient counterparts. Please comment with your analysis the matter.

To ponder:
1. This question pertains to the origins of Christianity. Is Christianity the divinely inspired revelation of a historical son of God? Or product of the influence of a series of cultural exchanges between Jews in Palestine and their conquerors the Romans (who had a Hellenistic culture) and their near neighbors the Egyptians?

2. What difference does the origin of Christianity make to the claims of Jesus Christ? In other words, what if the “one and only Son” is not so unique after all?

3. How important is the historicity of Christianity?

*Contrary to popular notions of myth as fictional, in religion studies, myth indicates “a story which conveys spiritual truth” -- that is, one beyond the possibility of contradiction. In this sense of the word, the narratives in Genesis 1-11 can be called myths, regardless of their literal or figurative interpretation, in the sense that they reflect basic truths in ancient Israel.

Sources:
Ankerberg, John and John Weldon. “Did Christianity Arise Out of the Mystery Religions?” http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/DaVinci/PDF/Mystery-Religions.pdf

Case, Shirley Jackson. “Christianity and the Mystery Religions.” The Biblical World. Vol. 43, No. 3, p. 3-Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1914.

Fossum, Jarl. “The Myth of the Eternal Rebirth: Critical Notes on G. W. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity” Vigiliae Christianae. Leiden,Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers, 1999.

Wikipedia on Dionysis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysis

About Jesus.com: http://www.about-jesus.org/paganism.htm#Dionysus

Predestination: Did I pick this topic, or did this topic choose me?

2006-10-23T22:12:00.000-04:00

Perhaps one of the most controversial questions in regard to christianity is that of election. Election is an offset of the concept of predestination, or theological determinism. It is the idea that God exerts control over the way people make decisions. It is the lack of libertarian free will. Libertarian freedom is the ability to make a choice, but also the ability to have chosen another alternative given identical circumstances. Free will theists believe that God grants people libertarian free will. What theological determinists believe is much like a set of dominoes God has set up. Given certain antecedent conditions, events will unfold in a certain set way. God has set up the antecedent conditions and thus each person's actions are fixed.

Calvinists believe in 5 points. Please excuse my paraphrasing.

Total depravity- man is all bad

unconditional election- because man is totally depraved, God, because of His desire, chooses whom He will save through his mysterious plan.

Limited Atonement- because salvation is based on the desire and will of God, the atonement of sin is limited to only those God has elected.

Irresistible Grace- Those God elects must be saved. This doctrine is opposed to the idea that God's grace can be resisted, or that men can choose or resist the efficacious grace of God.

Perseverance of the saints- "once saved, always saved"

This debate has appeared again and again. Today, many that start as free-will theists have changed directions. "When you first become a believer, almost everyone is an Arminian, because you feel like you made a decision," said Laura Watkins, featured in a recent edition of Christianity Today magazine. Through developing a larger view of God's authority she has completely turned around. "I believe God is sovereign and has ordered things in a particular way," she explained. Just as "he's chosen those who are going to know him before the foundations of the earth."

One other facet of this debate is the concept of middle knowledge. This is a term for the knowledge of what all free creatures will do in any given situation.

The Southern Baptist Conference, the largest religious denomination in the country is beginning to see division over election, or reformed Theology. The current president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is known as a proponent of reform Theology, but many others do not agree with his views, namely election.

Here are just some of the many questions that one could ask in regards to this issue:

1. Does God predetermine people's actions? What about their salvation, does God elect those that are saved?

2. One offset of calvinism is the idea of the prosperity gospel, does God want you to be rich?

3. If it is indeed God, and not the individual that makes the decision over salvation, what is the role of evangelism?

4. Does God have middle knowledge?

5. If God gives humans free will, how is he constrained to act upon that free will?

6. If God is ever present and active in our lives, does that not violate human freedom?

Authority, Power, and Submission

2006-10-15T18:14:00.000-04:00

When I was in elementary school, I went to a Christian release-time program at 2:00 every Friday afternoon. As you might expect, we learned sang songs, played games, did crafts, and had other sorts of elementary school fun. Here’s something you might not expect, however. In that program, we sang several songs about obedience. I remember two that we sang nearly every week. One had the lyrics “Trust and obey, for there’s no other way to be happy in Jesus than to trust and obey.” The other taught us both to spell and to submit. “O-B-E-D-I-E-N-C-E,” we sang.

What surprises me most is how little it surprised me to sing these songs. My most cynical inclinations tempt me to wonder if I was being indoctrinated into an unfair submission. You see, as a child I never questioned authority. Now I seem to have nothing but questions: What is authority? Who should have it? Should we really wield power over each other? Why should I let anyone tell me what to do?

Traditionally, in Western society, the notion of authority implies hierarchical power or influence of some kind exercised over another to enforce or encourage obedience or submission to a behavior. However, authority does not always have to mean hierarchical influence. The Oxford English Dictionary includes three definitions of authority among others.

Authority, from the OED:
1. Power or right to enforce obedience; moral or legal supremacy; the right to command, or give an ultimate decision.
4. Power to influence the conduct and actions of others; personal or practical influence.
5. Power over, or title to influence, the opinions of others; authoritative opinion; weight of judgement or opinion, intellectual influence.

We see all three of these definitions competing for control in contemporary society daily. We see the authority of the law to command us to take certain actions and enforce our obedience. We see the authority our friends and family have to influence us practically to make personal decisions about both trivial and serious issues; more than likely we have influence in their lives as well. Those of us who are university students see the appeal daily to the authoritative opinions and intellectual influence of others in the work of our professors and instructors and the scholars they require us to read and understand as experts in our fields of study. We too, are striving to become experts who share mutual authority in academic disciplines. This is all to say that authority does not hold only one type of power in our lives -- it is not always the governmental, the dictatorial, the oppressive and controlling. Authority can also be mutually conferred, and, in that sense, is probably a natural part of daily existence.

Even as I write to you now, I know that I attempt to wield a certain amount of authority, though I hope it is of the benevolent and mutual kind. I desire to influence the way that you think about authority. I do not require that you agree with my opinion. In fact, your doing so entirely would lead to poor discussion and limited growth for us all. But I do in fact hope that you think about authority in perhaps a new way or think about it analytically for the first time. I wish that you should be changed by my work in some way and therein lies my own appeal to be authoritative towards you. You do not have to agree to be changed, however.

Just as you can choose any reaction you wish to my blog -- abandon reading it, adopt its assertions as your own, choose to discuss and in doing so change my opinion, you can choose several reactions to any authority in your life. You may rebel, you may challenge, you may question, you may accept, you may submit, you may love, you may understand, and respect and obey while disagreeing.

Thinking theologically, Christian submission to authority should be divided into at least two categories which have some degree of relationship with each other: submission to God and submission to fellow men and women.

Though this blog focuses on the submission of human beings to each other, an important point should be made about the submission to God. Submission to God is the primary Biblical task designated to one who follows the way and teaching of Jesus. After all, how can you follow someone whom you would not obey? When faced with the mandate to stop teaching in the temple about Christ, the apostles refused to obey.

The story is told in Acts 5 of what happens when the apostles are caught breaking the mandate given them by the religious authorities of their time:

Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!”

Christian submission to other people cannot be divorced from the notion of following God first and foremost. The story above relates that the Christian notion of submission to authority relies upon the fact that authority not disagree with the ways of God, which the Christian must first and foremost follow. Ephesians 5:21 encourages, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Submission to other people in the Christian sense derives directly from a knowledge of submission of our own personal desires in order to follow a better set of actions and values -- those taught by Jesus Christ in the Bible.

The Biblical position on submission to men in authority is that we should submit to our governments and obey those leading us in our churches. Romans 13:1-3 mandates,

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Rebellion, then, for a Christian, seems to be a non-option. Hebrews 13:17 continues the theme, exhorting, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Obedience rather than rebellion seems to be mutually beneficial. Obey and then those governing will have an easier job, and therefore govern better and without discipline, thus making your obedience a delight.

Let me say this: Obeying and submission can be wonderful. Learning and growing from those with more knowledge and authority than you have because of their experiences or outside work can benefit you. Life can’t just always be “Damn the man, save the Empire,” much as many in the world wish it could be.

However, questions arise when considering authority that, to me, indicate we should proceed with caution in claiming authority for ourselves or validating that of another, especially within the church. Many from high church traditions and conservative evangelical protestant traditions come to the table with an understanding of church leadership as mandates and hierarchy that we can’t question or influence because they come from God or the authority God has conferred on an individual to teach us. Here are some questions though. Has God appointed and ordained all those who govern churches today? In that case, what determines those who are appointed? What qualities do they have that we who have not been appointed do not have? Do all who have the title of minister deserve our unqualified respect and obedience? Surely we are not required to obey in the face of oppression and pain. But who is to draw the line of when oppression and mistreatment is intolerable and when it is simply a by-product of a fallen human nature? We mistreat each other daily without even realizing the power of our actions.

Our beliefs about authority are often shaped by our personal experiences as much as our rational ability to create a philosophy about leadership and power. Those in authority over us -- our parents, teachers, pastors, other spiritual leaders, mentors, political leaders, local governors -- have perhaps been the greatest influence in caring for us, protecting us, endowing us with values, love, faith, trust, and goodness. Those in authority may have been the best influences in our lives as they raised us to become who we are today. When that is the case, we must be thankful for those who have treated us so well and given us so much of themselves. It surely is not easy to do so because human beings are often very selfish by nature. However, more of us seem to remember the moments we’ve had with authority that make us less capable as individuals of healthy trust and growth. People in authority have disappointed us, mistreated us, hurt us, misjudged us, refused to trust us mutually, perhaps even oppressed us with their irresponsible use of power. These are the moments that lead us to mistrust and rebellion.

I would like to say that this never happens in the church, that only secular authorities bully or wield power inappropriately, refuse to acknowledge the talents and gifts of those “under” them in order to maintain their own position. I can’t say it. I have been in too many groups where the power of prayer and accountability has been manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally, into confused relationships of power. I do not discredit the power of prayer or accountability, I only acknowledge the brokenness of mankind and our inability to wholly treat each other well, especially in certain leadership structures.

In a blog I read this morning, I found a notion of authority that I could relate to. Brother Maynard (not his real name) says:

A week or so ago, I told someone that I could sum up 16 years of experience in a particular c church in this way: “No, I don’t have a problem with authority. You have a problem with control.” Hope that helps set the stage… the place I came from was pretty big on the notion of “spiritual authority,” by which I mean big… based on an understanding I couldn’t stand by…. Far from wanting to outline the problem and stop at a hopeless end, we tossed around ideas of what accountability, authority, and servant leadership should look like, and how it should work…. I postulated that authority was in many ways not something given by God to men who ruled over others as is commonly supposed, rather it is simply given by one person to another. Radical, yes. I wouldn’t suggest that God is completely uninvolved in the process, as he dispenses leadership gifts. People choose leaders to whom they will “submit” and they have the freedom to revoke that choice. If they don’t, they might end up stock-piling munitions and drinking magic Kool-Aid in the desert somewhere; not everyone chooses wisely. The main point here is that this kind of authority is never absolute, and with an eye to past abuses, it’s worth pointing out that one cannot legitimately appeal to a heirarchical structure leading from God down through their leadership and so exert their will upon another individual. Remember, the pyramid is inverted, and leaders are to be servants, not “lording it over” others. It’s the individual who decides if the leader has any “authority” over them or not. (You can check out the rest of his thoughts on authority and leadership at his blog Subversive Influence http://www.subversiveinfluence.com/wordpress/?p=874).

To summarize, Brother Maynard suggests that authority is derived from the willingness of an individual to follow and obey another. If no one chooses to obey you, you have no authority. While I believe that God plays a greater role in the determining of authority than Maynard does, in that God blesses those who follow Him and allows them influence that they may benevolently use, the notion of conferred authority appeals to me and seems to be best derived from lived experience.

The Flaming Lips have a song called “The Yeah, Yeah, Yeah Song.” I’m going to leave an excerpt from their lyrics as a final challenge, to speak from their own authority, and not my own.

If you could blow up the world
With the flick of a switch
Would you do it?
(Yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah yeah)
If you could make everybody poor
Just so you could be rich
Would you do it?
(Yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah yeah yeah yeah)

And so we cannot know ourselves
Or what we'd really do

With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?

Are you crazy?
It's a very dangerous thing to do
Exactly what you want
Because you cannot know yourself,
Or what you'd really do

With all your power
With all your power
With all your power
What would you do?

Questions to consider:
1. Whom do you allow to have authority in your life, and why?
2. Who has been one of the best authority figures you have had in your life? Why? Who has been the worst? Why?
3. Do you believe that authority can be conferred divinely by God? Or do you believe that authority is earned?
4. Are there ways to organize leadership in a church that are not based in hierarchy? Is hierarchy Biblically ordained? What are its benefits? Weaknesses?
5. Are there limits to obedience? What are they? From where do you derive the authority to disobey?
6. Let’s dream a little. What would an ideal power relationship look like? What can you do to the best of your ability to make your relationships look like your ideal vision, as much as it depends on you?

Religious Pluralism

2006-10-09T23:05:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest questions concerning faith is what happens to those faithful in other religions. Though there is no consensus among all people that describe themselves as Christians, the more classical Christian view, as a Southern Baptist described it, “Jesus Christ is the only way to God, and therefore every other religion in the world is wrong.” This seems to be one of the greatest objections to Christianity, the “exclusive” nature it has. Robert Jeffress, in his book Hell? Yes! Lists the things Christians usually here when claiming that Jesus is the only way to Heaven.

“You are being intolerant.”

“Exclusivity promotes hatred.”

“How can so many people be wrong?”

“All religions teach basically the same thing.”

“It is unfair for God to send people to hell just because they haven’t believed in Jesus.”

The primary belief surrounding this discussion is that of religious pluralism. Religious Pluralism in its strongest sense holds that no single religion can claim absolute authority to teach absolute truth. RP can stem from many things. For some, naturalists, religions as we know them are nothing more than the products of human nature and is not the result of contact between humans and the divine. The opposite of naturalism is the belief that there is one, true faith, and other religions must be viewed in the light of the one true religion.

Some religions, like Judaism, have tenets that are some what exclusive, but also include other faiths. Jews believe that Judaism represents the revelations of the one true God, but that when other cultures and religions respect the laws in the Mosaic tradition, they are on the path to revelation from the one true God.

In regards to the question “ Can any one religion be true?”, we see three answers emerge. The naturalist says “No. No religion is true.”, the exclusivist says “Yes. My religion is the one true religion.” And the Religious Pluralist has severe doubts about whether or not one religion is true, or thinks that while one religion may be true, human beings will never know if it is or not.

Our discussion tomorrow night will revolve around these questions. Christians, and believers of many other faiths believe that their faith is the only way. Naturalists believe that all religion is false, and Religious Pluralists don’t think that any religion is completely true, or that if one is, we can never know positively.

1. Is it possible that there is only one true religion? What accounts for the similarities in many religions?

2. What are some drawbacks in your opinion, of the three described perspectives? What fits your beliefs?

3. What consequences does a belief in religious exclusivism have on religious discrimination? Is it intolerant of Christians, or other faithful, to exclude others from salvation?

How to Read and Why: A Thought on Biblical Interpretation

2006-10-01T12:28:00.000-04:00

As a literature major, I understand that the way which we read has profound implications for the way in which we live. I’ve been reading as long as I can remember, from pouring through books about Cinderella when I was three, to reading Tolkien at fifteen, and on to reading Kierkegaard at twenty. There can be nothing more enjoyable than internalizing a fiction fantasy or philosophy for the first time. However, the process of reading involves more than examining letters on a page and consuming them as appear. All reading relies on varying levels of interpretation, the process through which we create meaning in what we read. No one comes to a text without their own particular context, background, aesthetic preferences, or educational training. All these factors come into play when reading even the shortest texts.

Let’s think about a brief example, which, though simplistic, reveals the difference between interpretation and reading. Consider the red octagon-shaped sign with white trim and letters that read “STOP.” We like to call this a stop sign. Though the text is relatively short, we all know how to react to the sign. When we are driving, we cease movement a reasonable distance in front of the sign, and then we wait for a few seconds, and then proceed again. We understand what the sign is saying because we have been taught to read it in a certain way by our parents, law enforcement officials, and societal conventions. The text itself, four simple letters, doesn’t actually tell us all the information that we need to fully understand the actions we need to take at the sign. The text of the sign tells us to stop, but questions arise. Stop? Stop where? Stop for how long?

I’ll admit that this example is a bit far-fetched. Yet, to me it illustrates a basic principle of interpretation vs. reading. Mere reading implies that every text read by every reader will elicit the same responses every time, without fail. Interpretation implies that the process of coming to a standard normative reading takes work and searching for all individuals and communities. Interpretation also implies that we can’t understand a text fully on our own. We have to outside the text itself for parts of its meaning.

In Acts chapter 8, the apostle Philip meets an Ethiopian eunuch reading the Hebrew Scriptures by the side of the road after worshiping in Jerusalem. While the man was moved by the texts that were read in service, he did not know how to make meaning out of them. When Philip approached him, asking “Do you understand what you are reading?”, the eunuch replied, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” The eunuch has reasonable questions about the meaning of the text, and knows that reading the text alone, while it probably produces good feeling in him, is not enough for creating meaning. He must ask questions of another, and extrapolating from the story a bit, ask questions of the text itself in order to discover the meaning of it. The reason why sermon giving is so important in churches, and why humans publish outside material on divine text is that, sort of like our stop sign, the meaning of sacred texts is illuminated by the interpretations that others present to us.

While I believe that learning to shrewdly interpret rather than merely read is crucial even for human fictions and philosophies, I believe that learning to interpret could have no better end than learning how to interpret the Bible. Even if one does not accept the claims of the Bible as true, one should learn that the claims made by the entirety of the Bible are quite serious. Men claiming to interact with God is not to be taken lightly. At the least, the Western culture in which we live has been profoundly altered by the claims of the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian New Testament. For that reason, if none other, one should learn to grapple with the serious issues of Biblical text.

In the Hebrew Bible class that I am currently taking at Wesley seminary, one of our textbooks, A Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament, talks about the Old Testament in terms of interpretive claims inherent in the text: “Claims are made by and for these ancient texts that make them more than the literature, history, and sociology of an ancient people called Israel. These texts are written, collected, and passed on through generations as the witness of a community of faith shaped in relation to the character and actions of the God of Israel” (Birch, et al. 1). We are caught in a tension. The Bible is a book that makes serious claims about a divine God, and yet it’s production and assembly -- from the writing and compiling of oral traditions, to the editorial work of rabbis, church fathers, and scribes, to the discovery and translation of various texts which show certain degrees of variance-- is quite human.*

According to Birch, et. al, in the twentieth century, under the rise of modernism, the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation and its variants (source criticism, form criticism, tradio-historical criticism, and redaction criticism) assumed that the one concrete meaning to the Biblical text could be established through the study of history, textual convention, and tradition. As modern assumptions about the world and man’s ability to improve it through enlightened thought have been contradicted by the chaos and disappointment of human experience in an increasingly turbulent world, new questions have been asked of traditional texts. Scholars, pastors, and serious readers of the Biblical text now consider issues of gender, class, ethnicity, and political difference when reading the Bible. Through asking questions in a different manner, the Bible comes alive again for a new generation.

This week at Davenport we’ll continue the conversation that I’ve been having with myself for some time. Here are some questions to think about and comment about here in preparation. As always, please feel free to participate in our discussion here even if you can’t come to our discussions.

1. Some suggest that only certain methods of interpretation are valid for Biblical scholarship because uncovering what might seem like potential contradictions in the text destabilizes the meaning and purpose of Christianity. In light of this thought, do you believe that there are certain ways which the Bible should not be read? Are there interpretations so dangerous that they should not even be entertained before they are rejected?

2. What should be understood by what some see as contradictions in the Bible? Can the Bible be contradictory if it is divinely inspired?

*Many, myself included, believe in an element of divine guidance and inspiration even in the human processes of compilation, editing, and translation.

The Problem of Pain

2006-09-25T22:58:00.000-04:00

Every time you turn on the news you see the same thing. Horrible disasters occur, genocides, and terrible murders. These events are so pervasive in our society that we have become numb to them. Desensitized by thing after thing, by the time I reached college, I no longer felt any pain or real sadness from the things I saw around me. Our world no longer seems to care. Genocides occur in Sudan and in other parts of the world, largely unhindered. We are rapidly killing our planet in ways that will hurt our children immeasurably, and throughout all these crises, our country seems not to care. In his book, The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel conducted a study for American adults. He asked them each if they had the opportunity to ask God one question that they knew he would answer, what would they ask? The number one response of adults was to ask God “why is there pain and suffering in the world?”

Eighteenth Century Philosopher David Hume asked of Christians: “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” Hume’s problem led him to three possible conclusions:

If God is gracious and loving and still allows evil, it is because He is unable to prevent it.
If God is able to prevent suffereing, but doesn’t, it is because He is evil.

If you refuse to accept either of these alternatives, Hume leads his reader to believe:

There is no God, since evil runs rampant in this world.

Modern Christian theologians respond to Hume by saying that he uses parts of Christianity in order to indict Christianity. In other words, without a Christian framework, there is no such thing as absolute moral law, so how can anything actually be evil?

Others advocate the position that God wants to interfere in the events of the world, but cannot. They say that either God is inherently limited or has limited himself by either natural law or an inability to interfere with human freedom.

Here are some questions for our discussion:

1. Why do you believe suffering exists in the world?

2. What are some reasons that God would restrict himself from interfering?

3. Who do you think is ultimately responsible for human suffering?

Separation of Church and State

2006-09-17T22:43:00.000-04:00

This week, I’d like to talk about one of the questions we generated a few weeks ago. Why do alot of Christians think that laws should enforce their religious beliefs? Isn't it better to keep church and state completely separate?

Whether you are a person of religious conviction or not, the separation of church and state has far-reaching implications for lifestyle choices that our government enforces upon us. Do we have rights to abortion? Homosexual marriage? Using birth control until or if we are prepared to have children? People with strong religious convictions feel so strongly about these issues that they wish to code laws preventing all citizens from having the freedom to make independent choices on these matters.

When the question was posed to him “Should the public square be naked of religion?”, Professor Peter Kreeft answered, “It is good that the public square be naked of religion. That is, it is good, in some sense of the word good, that the public square, in some sense of the public square, be naked, in some sense of the word naked, of religion, in some sense of religion.” In other words, this issue is complicated. It is complicated by definition of terms, by personal biases, by religious experiences, and by knowledge of the political history of the United States.

Kreeft explains concerning the role of history and perspective in determining the separation of church and state, “I don’t believe that it’s always true, though I believe that it’s probably true for our place and time. I personally would not, I think, favor the separation of church and state if I were a Jew in Jerusalem in 1,000BC, or if a Frenchman in Paris in the court of King Louis of France in the thirteenth century, or even if I were a Muslim in Pakistan today.” It is possible then, that there is an element of history that necessarily figures into our analysis of whether or not the separation of church and state is good for the nation.

So let's look at the issue historically. What role should God and religious beliefs play in the governance of our nation? What role has God and religious belief already played in the history of American government?

Many of our founding fathers drew their foundations for political liberty from their Christian faith. Although contemporary dialogue seeks to discredit the religious foundations of our early leaders by making claims about their secret relations with Freemasons or other sects, the entire accepted canon of the history of our nation cannot be overturned. Our founding fathers did in fact write letters to each other in which they debated the Christian principles of liberty. Perhaps they did not do so as frequently as religious conservatives would like to say, nor as seldom as secular liberals claim, but the textual evidence does exist. (For more detailed description of the founding fathers’ religious preferences, listen to the Bolton debate listed below). We must root out all historical bias on both sides of the political spectrum in regard to this issue.

At any rate, it cannot be argued that the fathers defended religious liberty. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This statement could be open to broad interpretation; however, it is important to note that the interpretation that has been chosen and popularized in American society is one originated in the mind of Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you may know, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, but rather in a letter of Thomas Jefferson’s. The letter which sparked the comment was written to Thomas Jefferson from the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on Oct. 7, 1801. As a religious minority, the group was afraid that their right to practice Christianity in their own way would be infringed upon. Jefferson’s reply does not come until Jan. 1, 1802, nearly four months later. It is in this letter that Jefferson uses the famous phrase, “wall of separation between church and state.” Jefferson’s own religious background plays a role in this discussion as well. While upholding the right of all to practice religion without impediment, Jefferson himself was a Deist. Jefferson edited a version of Scripture which excerpted statements made by Jesus, removing all those that mentioned him in any way being the Son of God. Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin served as a religious minority among the founding fathers.

Recent scholarship has uncovered earlier drafts of the Jefferson’s Danbury letter which were then turned into a display at the Library of Congress in 1998. What had been thought of as a quickly drafted afterthought to a religious organization is now seen as a part of on going conversation Jefferson had about the establishment clause and its interpretation. (Read more about the Jefferson letter drafts here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html)

Jefferson’s influential metaphor has influenced Supreme Court decisions, especially in the late 1940s. However, what if it was not what the founding fathers had intended to convey through the first amendment? Is there anyway to access that original historical intention and restore that to society? Here’s a better question: Would we even want to? Our nation is more religiously diverse than ever. Who gets to choose whose morality becomes the dominant societal paradigm?

Here are some sources that Tuesday’s discussion will draw from. If you are coming to join us at Davenport, I encourage you to do some of the reading and download one or more of the lectures. It’s not required, but doing so can only help you have authoritative sources to base your thinking upon for the discussion. We value everyone’s thinking, and we also value knowing why everyone is thinking what they are thinking.

Sources:
Bolton, Brian. God and Politics: Is There Historical Basis for Including God in Government and Public Institutions? Veritas Forum Media. Texas A&M University. 17 February 2005. http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/139 17 September 2006.

Danbury Baptist Association. “The Danbury Baptists’ Letter to Thomas Jefferson.” Separation of Church and State Home Page. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/baptist.htm 17 September 2006.

Hutson, James. “‘A Wall of Separation’: FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html 17 September 2006.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Draft and Recently Recovered Text.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html 17 September 2006.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists: The Final Letter, as Sent.” LC Information Bulletin. Library of Congress: Washington, DC. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html 17 September 2006.

Kreeft, Peter. The Relationship Between Religion and Public Education: Must the Public Square Be Naked? Veritas Forum Media. Louisiana State University. 11 March 2005. http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/presenters/101 17 September 2006.

US Bill of Rights. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm 17 September 2006.

Questions to think about and comment on:
1. Do you agree with the separation of church and state?
2. Should we maintain the separation of church and state just because we have historically done so? Would it be feasible now to reintigrate some form of religion into American government?
3. Should there be a moral basis for American law? If so, what should it be?
4. What role does God play in our political life?
5. What do you think the founders intended by the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Or what are some valid interpretations? Does it matter that Jefferson's is the interpretation that has most frequently been adopted if that is an opinion contrary to what the founders intended?

Fundamentalism

2006-09-11T19:53:00.000-04:00

Though it has sadly almost become a cliche, there is probably no better example of the dangers of religious fundamentalism than the 9/11 attacks. For the purpose of this post and to aid in our discussion, I'll use a definition from the American Heritage Dictionary.

Fundamentalism: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

I remember being in school on 9/11. I didn't know anything about what was happening until I walked into my English classroom. On TV, in the front of the classrooms was the first tower burning. I remember watching one of the towers fall live on TV. I distinctly remember a classmate joking the the back of the room and not paying attention to what we were watching, and I remember thinking that he did not understand what was happening. It's strange that I thought that, because I feel that really no one understood what was happening at the time.

My mom picked me up from school that day. She knew people that worked at Cantor Fitzgerald and was in tears when she brought me home early. I think more than any other event that day, that affected me. While I understood the gravity of what I saw happening, it didn't evoke feeling in me until I saw how it upset my mom.

Both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism have large impacts on the world around us. They also cause a very good amount of discussion. In his book End of Faith, Sam Harris argues that people too often suspend their own rational thought for the sake of religious beliefs. With access to WMDs becoming more and more easy, Harris argues that the world will become more and more violent because of relgious belief.

Interestingly, Harris says that religious moderation also posses a threat. He views the encroachement of religion into society and politics as a result of moderate beliefs, and says that relgion's role is now so strong that its influence blinds people.

Here are some questions to think about and comment on:
1. What has been your personal experience with religious fundamentalism?

2. Is there a need for radical opinions in order to promote progress? Would only moderate viewpoints actually cause progress?

3. What role do you think fundamentalism(Christian or Islamic) plays in the world around you?

4. If you felt strong religious conviction, why wouldn't you completely follow the doctrines of your faith (e.g. be a fundamentalist)? What are some drawbacks of extreme viewpoints?

Tuesday night conversation: Questions and Doubts

2006-09-08T18:19:00.000-04:00

Some great questions on Tuesday night. I have a feeling that this group will turn into an awesome community for discussion in the future.

Here are some question examples:

Why do I resent religious people so much?

Why do alot of Christians think that laws should enforce their religious beliefs? Isn't it better to keep church and state completely separate?

Does God choose who is going to believe in him?

God says he answers all our prayers, but I thought that his will was predetermined. Does that mean that he doesn't answer the prayers of the people he doesn't approve of? If God already knows what is going to happen, why does he just let us flounder around?

Does God honestly allow people who don't believe in him to go to hell?

Should Christians support the death penalty?

With everything the Bible went through to come into being in its current state (original transcriptions, translations, book selections), how do we know everything in it is "holy"?

Does believing in Christ/ the Bible have to come with the belief that that way is the only way?

This is some great stuff. We'll look forward to beginning to talk about it in the coming weeks. If anyone has any further questions, or thoughts on these questions, feel free to post them here.

Questions and Doubts

2006-09-04T19:56:00.000-04:00

When we are children, we are told by our teachers and parents, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." As we grow older, when our questions become higher risk because they have implications far beyond ourselves, I think we stop asking questions. We want to look like we already know the answers, or we want to keep our world stable, safe, and unchanging. Whatever the reason, no one I know believes that there is "no such thing as a stupid question" anymore.

In his book Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell describes a Doubt Night he had with Mars Hill church. He explains that the Doubt Night was a time for the members of his congregation to ask their deepest questions about God and man.

He writes, "People were encouraged to write down whatever questions or doubts they had about God and Jesus and the Bible and faith and church. We had to get a large box to hold all of the scraps of paper. The first question was from a woman who had been raped and didn't press charges because she had been told that doing so "wasn't the Christian thing to do. The man then raped several other girls, and this woman wanted to know if God would still forgive her even if she hadn't forgiven the man who raped her."

He goes on to explain that the questions the church received consisted of "Heaven and hell and suicide and the devil and God and love and rape -- some very personal, some angry, some desperate, some very deep and philosophical."

In the past, I've felt that churches stifled my ability to ask certain questions. It is as though my theological curiosity is threatening to the Christian faith. It is as though because I don't understand everything there is to understand about God and because I am searching to find the truth about him by defending and refuting ideas, I have no place in the faith yet. I can belong when I learn to accept everything at face value without asking any questions about the unfathomable mysteries of the faith in order to know them more intimately. This is how I've felt about asking questions in the past -- like I'm a problem that the church isn't ready to deal with yet.

I'm going to take back the right to ask difficult questions, not in order to threaten anyone or to be bitter, cynical, and skeptical so that I can tear faith apart and replace it with my own ideas, but in order to learn and grow and change. I agree with Rob Bell when he says, "A question by its very nature acknowledges that the person asking the question does not have all the answers. And because the person does not have all the answers, they are looking outside themselves for guidence."

One of our goals over the course of this semester will be to generate geniune questions that we have about God and our human existence. We may not always be able to find the answers easily, but through study and conversation God will meet us. Ranier Maria Rilke explains a way of questioning patiently while waiting for answers that seems useful to me: "I would like to beg you dear Sir, as well as I can, to have patience with everything unresolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language." When we ask questions, we cannot demand fast and easy answers. We must ask with patience and wait for the answers which might be a long time in coming. We must have faith that the answers will come.

I believe that we can all grow by being honest and open with our doubts and questions for God. I'd like to make this blog post the beginning of our desire to learn more about God by asking him the deepest questions that are in our hearts right now.

Take some time after reading this post, and be quiet to see what questions you might have. Perhaps there's something you are curious about and would like to learn more about from God. Perhaps something has happened to you in the past, and you'd like to ask God why. If the questions that come to you are something that you'd like to share, leave them as comments on the blog. You can make them anonymous if you want.

Ask anything and everything.

Expectation and Desire

2006-09-02T11:02:00.000-04:00

I've decided to let this blog be taken over by a discussion group that one of my best friends, Chris, and I leading this semester through the Christian Fellowship we are a member of at American University. Here's the description of the group from an email that I sent to our small group leaders:

"One thing that I care the most about right now is bringing honest and intelligent discussion about Christ into the conversation that happens in college classrooms. I'm hoping that this group can be a community where Chris and I can feed our mutual desire to see that happen and to bring some others along with us.

We start this Tuesday night, September 5, at 8:30pm at Davenport Coffee Lounge. We're a co-ed group that will meet to discuss God in a way that, fitting with this year's XA theme, will truly be deep and meaningful. People at all places in their relationship with Christ -- whether they are anti-Christians, pre-Christians, or long-time Christians -- are welcome. You all are more than welcome to attend if you are interested, and also keep in mind friends you might have that would be interested in coming. This kickoff week will be a bit more informal, but there will be free coffee of some kind, made and funded by yours truly.

Over the course of the semester, hopefully the group will have a few speakers from the interfaith community on campus. Some general topics I'm throwing around in my head relate to Nietzsche's statement that God is dead, Soren Kierkegaard's thought on the leap of faith, social justice in Christian community, and the reliability of the Bible (especially in the OT). None of these are certain, of course, just things that I'm thinking about. Topics will ultimately be directed by the interests of those who show up. Also, If you guys have any burning questions for God or something that has come up in a class of yours that might relate, let me know. Each discussion will have a short time of teaching before hand so that we can all be on the same page for the discussion."

I have several expectations and desires for the group:

1. That God will meet us.
2. That I will take time in study to be fully prepared.
3. That I will post in this blog at least weekly.
4. That people will comment on my postings.

This group is the reflection of one of my greatest desires -- to keep an ongoing conversation about God running through all of us students at American in a way that is intelligent and honest, and doesn't ignore the work that we are doing in the classroom.

If you can't join us on campus because of your schedule, or if you only interact with us through the internet community, please keep coming back here to check out what we are talking about and join in our conversation by commenting on our postings.

Thanks.