The Christian Atheist

Sensitive Omnivore...Generous Vegetarian

2009-05-12T11:53:00.004-05:00

Alrighty bloggers,

Today's topic is one which (if you know me) strikes cord with my inner spirituality as well as how my faith integrates with my being in the world. It has to do with: animal welfare.

There's quite a bit out there both in published well researched arguments against the Factory Farming Industry (hereafter FFI) as well as the more edgy, blunt and in your face approach (PETA being the most well-known example).

However, while I could go on and on about the evils of the FFI, while I could show hours and hours of animal abuse, torture and dismemberment documented about the FFI, and while I could list (minus the extra abuse I just stated) the terribly hellish daily lives from birth until death that the big 3 go through (that'd be your cow [involving dairy, veal and standard beef], your pig and your chicken [both broiler and egg laying]). But that's not the point...at least of this blog.

Today's blog is about how to engage those don't know, about those who do know and are unsure and finally (the ever fun) bunch who know - but do not care.

First group: "Don't cows live on farms?" Those who don't know...

This was me 4 years ago. The key is sensitivity! People who don't know facts don't need to be raked over the coals about how their McDonalds' Big Mac is the terrible remains of a cow who's life was epitomized by lack of dignity and pain. They just are doing what is normative of the culture - good or evil. You're role, if you are a a Conscientious Omnivore or some form of No-Meat-atarian isn't to force knowledge down anyone's throat (especially if you're a Christian!) - it's to love the person where they are, and to try to offer as loving as possible the better, more God-centered alternative.

First things first, most people who don't know many things about the FFI, will ask questions when you first have any kind of conversation about what you do/don't eat. It may be sparked by what you bring to work for lunch, or if you go out somewhere with some friends/co-workers what you don't get! So just let them ask the questions!

Second, it's **so** very important that when you are communicating your disgust with the FFI that you don't focus on the person(s) who buy (and thereby support) Factory Farmed meat, eggs, dairy. The issue to sharpen your critique on is the FFI itself. "I don't eat meat largely because the way that nearly all meat in the US is breed, treated and killed is so horrific that I just can't allow myself to support them," - I use that sentence all the time. I have a more over-arching reason of living a Mercy based life that factors into my explanations also, but as a general principle, pointing to the FFI as the evil and not to the people they sell that meat to, is much more disarming to a listener.

Lastly, be patient. I went through a slow progression from any kind of meat eater, to what is termed a Conscientious Omnivore to (now) a Vegetarian. But it was a progression, and one I had to come to terms with. I've known people who took the knowledge of the FFI and acted on it almost immediately...and others who took a year...and some, who still don't want to change their eating habits.

Maybe in a few days I'll blog on a the other two groups I spoke of, but for now (so this isn't too long) we'll call today's blog done. Listed at the bottom you'll see a host of information oriented websites so if you are one of those millions of people who don't know about how the billions of animals killed yearly end up shrink wrapped and labeled in the meat isle can know.

Some images are hard to see, but there are also more summary oriented parts to these websites to it is not just a gore-fest.

Thanks for reading,
K

http://www.hsus.org/farm/multimedia/

http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp

http://farmsanctuary.org/issues/factoryfarming/

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/cesspools/cessinx.asp

On Rahab and Cornelius

2009-04-29T12:08:00.000-05:00

Welcome bloggers,

Last topic was concise and contemplative; today's is deep and controversial.

True Christianity has flourished where true purity has been maintained. True Christianity, as offered by Jesus and maintained throughout the New Testament, encompasses two foundational and (in terms of priority) interchangeable ideas.

The first: That God loves and cares for any and all of the world's people.

The second: That God has definitely and explicitly worked that Love in and through the work, death and raising of Jesus as Messiah.

We know God loves us because Jesus has come, died and been raised. We've experienced the risen Savior and thus know God's love. As Clark Pinnock said two decades ago, "God saved the many through the one."

This sums up the basis for Christianity.

Extrapolating those axioms into our pluralistic society however, raises not a few questions. However, while the range of those questions is beyond this one man's grasp, I do feel addressing one or two slowly and thoroughly might yield fruit we'd otherwise not harvest.

The question asked of me other day by a deep thinker taking a World Religions class went as such, "What about those, like the Native Americans, who knew nothing of Israel or their God, let alone Jesus and His Resurrection and died years - centuries! - before the first European missionaries stepped foot in the Americas? Are they consigned to Hell simply on the basis of being born hundreds of miles away from a message they could not receive? Is that Just? How is that a loving God?" A question well worth mulling over - hopefully answering in the end.

The question is actually a response to the largely overly accepted idea of Christian Salvation being stated thus: To be saved and to go to heaven means to accept Jesus in this life. To not accept Him means to have missed the Salvation boat - once and for all. This was the view of Augustine and Calvin.

The view I wish to lay before you is one not following those giants. I would submit that the God and Father of Jesus is not one who turns away genuine faith exercised in forms other than Christianity. Especially the faith of those in other religious contexts without any knowledge (let alone salvific knowledge) of Jesus. If God really is wishing that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9); if God is Love (1 Jn 4:8); if Jesus really will call all people (John 12:32); if all tribes, nations and tongues will be present before God's throne (Rev 5:9); if these are truths, how could that God turn away any who are genuine yet uninformed?

It appears hard to think He could. In actuality, the texts used to condemn those who 'never hear' are rather weak and empty (Jn 14:6, Acts 4:12 and 1 Jn 5:11-12). Getting back to my two axioms of Christianity, (God loves all and has explicitly acted in Jesus) I have full confidence that those honest to what was true in their conscience and their culture and their religion have given them a spot at God's dinner table. Allow me to substantiate this claim.

Hebrews 11 offers quite a list of those who exercised faith in the generations before Jesus; Abraham, Issac and Jacob are listed there - the patriarchal norms. But listed there also, are Abel, Enoch and Rahab. How did they exercise faith enough to be saved? Rahab remember, was a prostitute who lied to help the Hebrew spies - not quite the moral equivalent of what we'd call a Saint today. And let's not forget Melchizedek, Abimelech and Naaman - they are held as though their faith counted them faithful to God. This would make sense, though, considering Hebrew 11:6 says that you must believe God is and that He'll reward your searching for him. This is what theologians have termed the 'faith principle' to which I have added a qualifier: the general faith principle.

Faith, it seems, carries saving efficacy in a general sense rather than in just a specific sense (e.g. faith in the work/person of Jesus). Genesis 15:6 says Abraham was saved by faith, and according to Paul all who have faith are the children of Abraham and share the same blessing of salvation he received (Gal 3:7). Jesus seemed to follow this theological faith tradition when he pronounced upon an Israel-honoring Roman centurion that this unnamed centurion had greater faith than Jesus had found in all of Israel (Matt 8/Luke 7). Astounding.

For spaces sake, I will bypass the great reversal Jesus throws at His listeners in Matthew 25 nor will I (though tempted) to open up Acts 17, but will close with Peter and Cornelius. What begins in the tenth chapter of Acts by stating Cornelius 'and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly' reaches its climax in verses 35 and 36 where Peter proclaims 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.' Peter then explains the message of Jesus' death and the Spirit comes.

The Biblical literature on the topic is (I hope) obviously greater than perhaps slogans and rhetoric you've heard from shallow minded thinkers. God's grace cannot be confined. He loves everyone. He would rather have a pagan 'seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him' (Acts 17:27) than toss him away because his knowledge was incorrect. The Greeks were concerned with right knowledge - knowledge and faith are inextricably bound, I agree - but God's concern, it seems, is our hearts before our heads. "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified..." (Rom 10:10)

Silence as Prayer

2009-04-20T15:11:00.001-05:00

Hello all,

My last bit about church caused quite the flurry of comments and site visits. Thanks for reading!

My topic today is aimed at those who have commented in person or otherwise, "You blogs give me headaches; your blogs are too long; your blogs make me fall asleep." To you then I address!

My topic is one I have quite a lot to say about (but won't!). In fact, I'm going to quote some other person's thoughts on the matter all together. Today's blog is about Silence as Prayer and is from an article in a French tradition known as Taizé. For those with ears to hear:

The value of silence
Three times a day, everything on the hill of Taizé stops: the work, the Bible studies, the discussions. The bells call everyone to church for prayer. Hundreds or even thousands of mainly young people from all over the world pray and sing together with the brothers of the community. Scripture is read in several languages. In the middle of each common prayer, there is a long period of silence, a unique moment for meeting with God.
Silence and prayer

If we take as our guide the oldest prayer book, the biblical Psalms, we note two main forms of prayer. One is a lament and cry for help. The other is thanksgiving and praise to God. On a more hidden level, there is a third kind of prayer, without demands or explicit expression of praise. In Psalm 131 for instance, there is nothing but quietness and confidence: "I have calmed and quieted my soul … hope in the Lord from this time on and forevermore."

At times prayer becomes silent. Peaceful communion with God can do without words. "I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother." Like the satisfied child who has stopped crying and is in its mother’s arms, so can "my soul be with me" in the presence of God. Prayer then needs no words, maybe not even thoughts.

How is it possible to reach inner silence? Sometimes we are apparently silent, and yet we have great discussions within, struggling with imaginary partners or with ourselves. Calming our souls requires a kind of simplicity: "I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvellous for me." Silence means recognising that my worries can’t do much. Silence means leaving to God what is beyond my reach and capacity. A moment of silence, even very short, is like a holy stop, a sabbatical rest, a truce of worries.

The turmoil of our thoughts can be compared to the storm that struck the disciples’ boat on the Sea of Galilee while Jesus was sleeping. Like them, we may be helpless, full of anxiety, and incapable of calming ourselves. But Christ is able to come to our help as well. As he rebuked the wind and the sea and "there was a great calm", he can also quiet our heart when it is agitated by fears and worries (Mark 4). Remaining silent, we trust and hope in God. One psalm suggests that silence is even a form of praise. We are used to reading at the beginning of Psalm 65: "Praise is due to you, O God". This translation follows the Greek text, but actually the Hebrew text printed in most Bibles reads: "Silence is praise to you, O God". When words and thoughts come to an end, God is praised in silent wonder and admiration.

To Church or not to Church.

2009-03-29T10:47:00.004-05:00

So, not to sure who all is reading this, but we'll see.

The issue I'll delve into today is why I haven't been attending (with any sort of frequency) church. No particular Bible study; no Sunday services; no real 'group' gathering with others studying Jesus. A friend every now and then and my very routine podcast downloads are standard fare, but other than that - no real 'organized' Christian context.

Why?
In the last 2 posts, I spoke of my frustrations as well as my thoughts on some issues I felt/feel are not only damaging the Church (as a whole) but , as I see them, issues which tear down the beauty I (think I) see in Jesus.

As such, being in a church setting brings unavoidable conflicts where I see people singing and praising God as best they can; however the depth I see in Jesus I just (to be completely subjective for a moment) *felt* missing from those services. As a general footnote to this whole blog, I know God is active through anybody who is willing (Christian or not!) and as such I am not at all attempting to imply that God is not/was not active in and through these and similar modern services. I've been in them and I know God's presence is active. But the pain I feel in my spiritual walk was not appeased by what I felt was active in church...it was what I felt wasn't.

What I do do.
I want every day of my life to be encompassed by desire, an encounter, a transformation with Jesus. If that is not Christianity, then I am not a Christian. But I think I am :)

As such, I have not 'left the church' or abandoned faith. I'm currently finishing up a 1,200 page, 3 volume series (though it will eventually be 5 volumes) on Christian Origins by Dr. N.T. Wright of the Church of England. I listen regularly to Greg Boyd's sermons and, among other things, pray regularly.

I hope this does not sound boastful. It is merely to show, I still love God despite, for a season, having lost my ability to harmonize continuous church attendance and feeling conflicted. I merely want my faith, aside from church affiliation, to not be in question. If it will be, so be it; but I hope at least some will see I have some semblance of Christian faith.

Where do I go from here?
So, is this it? I live a fairly isolated and away-from-church Christian life, popping out a blog every week and reading books on my own? Is that my Christian life which I find 'better' suited to me as opposed to those who attend church week after week? Anathema!

I want to find a church. I want to find Christians who seem to exhibit the more intellectual and world-conscious Christianity that Jesus undoubtedly claimed as His mission. I want to find my family. I want to be home.

To use Dr. Clark Pinnock's phrase, I am a theological pilgrim. I'm not where I was, and I hope I won't be where I am. I want to progress, to conform to Jesus' awe-some image.

There is a season for everything, says the Ecclesiastical author. Perhaps this is just my season to find 'me' as well as a church.

Thanks for reading.
I welcome your comments,
Kevin

A Time to Love ... and be Humble!

2009-03-22T08:18:00.002-05:00

(Icon of Luke 18: The Tax Collector and The Pharisee)

Hello Online Friends,

My last blog received quite a few hits and quite a few thanks. Apparently I'm not the only one (phew!) who feels fairly frustrated with quite a bit of modern Christianity. On the flip side, I know some who felt (or more simply just asked) whether I was being 1) judgmental towards fellow Christians, 2) holding myself to the same standard, 3) whether any of this even helps and 4) does the way I've responded (in my personal life) help bring change to the church?

Well, all of these are valid and well thought out questions. It doesn't help to stand on the sidelines and throw stones and nobody likes a negative Nancy. Am I helpful; does this bring the Church (and thus, Christianity) back to more of what I consider a Jesus-style life; am I too high and mighty? We'll see!

Let's start with the second challenge: Am I holding myself to the same standard.

Yes...and no. Do I seek to love above all else; do I want to draw my image of God from Jesus and thus live like Jesus (and potentially die like Jesus) for the sake of others knowing God's redemption? I want to. Is my Christian life totally characterized by self-giving love and open ended service, not contingent upon the other for my own giving? I want it to be. Do I get frustrated with myself when I fail - because, let me the first to tell anyone reading: I FAIL. Sometimes, I FAIL BIG. So yes, I get frustrated with myself when I don't meet Jesus-style expectations.

But here's the thing. It's not about living like Jesus without fault - otherwise, Christianity is just a dream and we'd all better wake up. It's about expressing love to others because we've seen God's love in Jesus to us. I think the better question is (in lieu of my last blog) not: am I holding myself to the same standard, but, am I living a life that is attractive to those who are not Christians (and if not, why). In Pauline terminology, I want to be the aroma of life to as many as possible and not the aroma of death. Realizing all the while that Jesus wasn't the aroma of life to all - many of the Pharisees didn't smell that; but that I think just proves the point.

Am I holding myself to the same standard? You'll have to get to know me to make that decision! But I'm trying to...

Now, to the first question: Am I being judgmental of others (Christians)?

In other words, am I thinking I am able to put myself in a judicial place above/outside other Christians so as to make proper judgment? Am I above the gavel? "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." (Luke 6; par Matt 7) No, I am not above the gavel.

However, is it 'judging' to say I see fault in something? Is it judgment to ask why people seem so unloving who, often very loudly, confess to believe in a God of Love, a God who actually *is* love (1 Jn 4:8)? Isn't it at the Cross that followers of Jesus should be willing to be critiqued - not from Kevin Patton, but from the message of Jesus itself? Yes, my last blog was rough to read (for some). But is it better to be told we have a house with a foundation of sand before the storm hits...or after?

And the storm is already brewing...the forecast is stated: Preachers fear that preaching against homosexuality will soon become illegal, but to whom has that preacher shown love and acceptance? To whom does the church condemn but not offer fellowship? To those whom Christians do not offer grace, perhaps it should be illegal to preach against them. Maybe then the Church will choose the only option it should have chosen in the beginning: to be Jesus to the world. Do we just love our own? 'If [we] love those who love [us], what credit is that to [us]? For even 'sinners' love those who love them.' We must love more. We must love all.

Question 3: Does this help?

Yes...and no. It does if you want it to; it doesn't if you don't. If you have a Jesus-first mindset I imagine your heart on some level agreed with my blog. If you have been wounded by Christians I imagine to some degree you agreed with my blog. If you feel I'm being negative or rude, I doubt you think my blog helpful. If I thought I was being negative or rude I would doubt my blog helpful too!

My point was this: We need to revert from our post-modern, enlightenment, democratic, western world Christianity by-and-large and ask ourselves, 'What does Jesus mean to the world?' In all it's simplicity it's the only thing we can ask. Dare we put aside presuppositions about the Bible, about society and politics. Dare we move back in time to a world more politically and religiously charged than our own? Dare we seek the wisdom, the solace, the salvation from a poor Jew who began the eschaton? Dare we, in the words of the writer to the Hebrews believe that, Jesus is representation of the Father and thus where we should get our ideas about God? Dare we...?

It is my challenge that if we do, then *that* is what will help. I only hope my blog can be a (small) sign post to that path.

And most controversial (perhaps) of all: Does how I've responded in my own life to Church frustrations aide in the change I wish to bring to the Church?

To this, I believe, another blog is due. I hope enough fodder is here to mull over till next week :)

Peace and Love,
Kevin

Time to Love?

2009-03-15T10:07:00.004-05:00

I hope you all will allow me a brief tangent on the topic of Jesus, killing and Love.

I can't help but feel frustrated a great majority of the time; this feeling seems to smack home more often than not on this one day a week, this Sunday morning feeling of anger. Why should I feel angry - after all, this is one of my days off of work, a time to rejuvenate, refresh, read and be leisurely. Seems like the antithetical thing to be on a Sunday.

And yet I am. I am a Christian. As a small redefinition for a modern audience, it means (positively) that I want to be a single person who imitates, replicates and adheres - above all else - to following someone I view as God's ideal image, the person of Jesus. More to say on that below.

In a rather negative sense though, I feel defining oneself as a Christian needs one of a hundred footnotes - rather, maybe footnotes need the center stage for a generation. One of those footnotes is as follows:
Being a Christian isn't about exclusion, but inclusion. (There are somethings to exclude, but that's a different topic) Take a glimpse at the Gospels and see Jesus eat with 'sinners' - people religious higher-ups and societal norms said were not 'worthy' to eat with for one reason or another. Think a little more Jewishly on the topic and the great Banquet themes in the Hebrew Canon come alive but in a new way in the life and ministry of Jesus. Could Israel's hope of Jew and Gentile living in cooperation with faith in YWHW actually be happening in this man - I say yes. But which 'sinners' does mainline Christianity - at least much of what I see, you be your own judge - offer a meal (symbolically or literally) in our time?

And here in lies my frustration on this day, Sunday. Today is supposed to be a high day of worship for people calling themselves Christian. This is, in Johannine language, the 8th day - the day when Jesus was raised from the dead. It signifies New Creation, the day when the God of Abraham, Issac and Ruth acted decisively in the world to bring about this God's very own Justice. The reversal of death, the vindication of Jesus. The Jewish notion of Resurrection radically redefined around someone at the very least thought a prophet, now seen as something more. The day when God said heaven is not the goal - the goal is New Creation. On this day Christians - all people! - have cause to be elated. That is, until Church is over.

Then the flood of 'God's people' hits the commerce ridden culture we live in. The same person who was in tears in Church at the preacher's message will cut someone off in traffic only to then break the speed limit by 10mph to get wherever it's so important they go. I knew quite a few waiters/waitresses a few years back who said, without fail, Christians (they inferred they were Christians based on the influx of people on Sundays around a certain time and on the conversations about Church they would overhear) are the worst tippers. I myself work at Starbucks, and Sunday has a pre-church rush and a post-church rush - I wholeheartedly agree Christians can be all too rude. There's a much quoted and not-too-much-lived passage from the New Testament using peasant imagery about crops and harvesting - that God's Spirit should bring fruit in us; the fruit is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-control.

I think Christians (and I'm aware of the oversimplification) love this verse because it hits on such a basic quality of Jesus - and yet when The Barna Group surveyed 16 - 29 year olds what did they see as the modern Church's 'fruits' - we're Anti-homosexual, Judgmental, Hypocrites; we're too involved in politics and out of touch with reality; we're boring, insensitive and don't accept other faiths. I'd say that's the equivalent of an 'F' on our Jesus-like report card.

To be sure, if Christians are living like Jesus, then misunderstandings and false images are bound to arise - Jesus was misunderstood to some extant. But, the things cited above are issues relating to the very character of Christianity, and hence to Jesus. The religious authorities wanted Jesus gotten rid of because He said God was acting in and through Him to inaugurate that very God's Kingdom on Earth; this Jesus said that lines of separating people to remain pure were no more; this Jesus resisted pulls to engage Rome in political reform but instead effectively said 'your power is secured so long as your military and monetary structures endure; my Kingdom endures precisely because it is not founded on those corrupting foundations.' Hence his death.

But those misunderstanding and false accusations against Jesus were that he was too involved with the 'sinners' he met, to open, to welcome, not concerned enough about purity and holiness. Our problem is just the opposite - and the world sees it; and the world is quick to point it out, and thank God they do, because we don't seem to be able to see the tree trunk in our eye because we are too busy telling Obama about the speck of dust we think we see in his.

So, today, Sunday, the symbolic New Creation, the Lord's day, the eighth day - celebrate a loving God by being loving; give thanks to God by being thankful for every person you meet; don't just appreciate the literary qualities of Fruits of the Spirit, but the livable qualities of them. Every person you meet needs to know you love them if you a Christian. If not, then maybe you're more 'unChristian' than you think.

K

Who would Jesus kill?

2009-02-18T03:16:00.000-06:00

Man alive, I am bad at this (what I would like to see as a weekly) blogging thing! I think I am averaging one a month...if that! Sheesh.

Well, I'll try better :)

Alright, what an interesting blog title, eh? "Who would Jesus kill?" Now, I specifically phrased that using Jesus' name and not using the average noun (usually assumed to be a proper name by many) 'God'. If I had written, 'Who would God kill', the name God usually conjures up some remote idea of a Deistic theory of a distant God, who should theoretically be against evil and should thus theoretically be against what *I* consider evil (rape, murder, etc), and since I probably consider extreme evil as evil, God should be against those who perpetrate extreme acts of evil, which means if God has any sort of Justice in Him, He will want to stop and maybe even prevent extreme violence and as such He might agree with me (surprise-surprise) when I want certain people dead because it would seem life would be much less 'wrong' without them.

But I used Jesus.

Who would Jesus kill. Now, in the converse of envisioning God as some absentee land lord who seems to think all to similarly to what I think is right/wrong, I find many people see Jesus as the meek and mild teacher who wants peace, love and all to sing Quom-by-yah by the fire and live some sort of hippy-esque existence. Are those *really* my two options?!?!?!

Well, if we let Jesus (re)define our image of God and put Jesus in his historical context and place in the world then the Deism I loathe will vanish and the peace with no action Jesus will vanish as well, and I will be left with a Jesus who shows me a God passionately against violence but also thoroughly passionate about justice. Really? Yes, really!

So, to answer the question 'Who would Jesus kill" we'd need a few terms defined. I suppose the most obvious is 'who is Jesus'? On this, modern scholarship essentially divides. No room to dissect the debate here though...but essentially it divides on 'are the Gospels reliable?" If you want to define a Jesus to me different than the one I'll expound, I believe you'll bear the burden of historiographical proof. :)

And I'll go one step in the way of accepting someone who may doubt the Gospels as reliable, I'll keep John's Gospel out since it filled with dilemmas of harmonization compared against the three 'synoptic' gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). So, let's look at the roll of story in the 3 gospels listed and see what that means. The gospels are stories of Jesus, in a recent setting about his life, teachings, death and (in the case of Matt/Luke) his resurrection. (Mark hints at Jesus' resurrection but any ending beyond 16:9 seems lost...) Okay, so we have a man, a Jew, a rabbi, born to a poor Galilean family - Galilee being a rural Judaen city in the first century would almost necessitate His poverty primarily because with Rome, you needed urbanization to bring commercialization. Those on the outskirts skimped by. So Jesus was a poorer Jewish rabbi...at least until he began preaching.

Now, as one of only a few nearly indisputable facts (nearly every Jesus scholar who doubts the Gospels as reliable will grant this as fact) Jesus died a Roman style death by crucifixion. Again, what would that tell us? It means not (as many theologians and historians have said) that the Jews rejected Jesus and pressured Pilate, who really didn't want to kill Jesus, who acquiesced to the Jewish demands for blood. First off, Pilate, along with whoever Rome decided to be the Jewish 'king' (at the time of Jesus this would be Herod's son, Herod Antipas) essentially decided all things political in Israel. If there were Jewish uprisings against their decisions, Rome had one answer: The sword. Now, there are a few, albeit impressive, accounts of Jews being willing to die rather than allow Pilate or anyone else to pass what they deemed to be blasphemous laws (the erecting of a statue of the emperor in the Temple for example) which ended with non-violent protest giving the Jews victory without violence; no statue was put up. However, the great majority of protests to Rome by Jewish resistance was violent.

They fought because they hoped the God of Israel would fight with them, banish the pagans from their land and establish Israel again, as the Almighty had promised to do so to Abraham, Issac and Jacob and through the prophets. "God is with us, we can defeat them!" is not too far fetched to be always in the backs of many minds. Seeing as how revolts don't usually just 'happen', leaders of suspected uprisings were routinely put to death. One can just imagine how a fairly corrupt religious hierarchy (such as as the Sanhedrin was to the common Jew) and an oppressive regime like Rome would feel to Jews of Jesus day who would hear in synagogue, sing about at Temple festivals 3 - 5 times a year (if they could afford the journey), and recite in prayer daily about their idea of God as one who is close, concerned and wanting to free them. Wouldn't violent revolution (esp if you had just heard a passage in Joshua or perhaps more common, the Exodus) seem logical? Even holy?

Perhaps, maybe probably.

Enter Jesus. A leader of a movement. Critical of the religious establishment. No fan of pagan oppression, but not too keen on keeping the hated pagans (esp soldiers/centurions) at arms length. He ate with those marginalized by the Religiously active (i.e. Tax collectors and Sinners - probably including prostitutes)
and he commended the faith on one Roman as greater than that in all of Israel (thereby almost rubbing the noses of those who lived a highly 'pure' life by abstaining from all things pagan - i.e. the Pharisee). Was there any reason the religious powers of his day found him annoying - maybe even, supposing a large enough number of people began listening to his message - a threat to *their* well-being?

Back to Pilate. The one in charge of a hostile region prone to revolt. Trying to appease the masses with limited presence and propaganda in the Temple; putting to death routinely those who openly opposed your presence in 'their land'; having to answer for why you could not keep the peace to Caesar; needing to keep the land relatively calm so trade to Egypt could continue unchecked.

Enter Jesus. The Jewish priests you appointed are telling you there is another would-be revolutionary. What crimes has he committed? Just-cause was something Rome did demand (the reason Pilate actually was removed from his position in Palestine was because of Jewish claims of his cruelty and injustice to Rome). The priests tell you something odd - he does not incite violence. All they have is his messianic claims to Kingship. He claims to be a King - and only Caesar is King. Here a much needed explanatory note. From The Pharisee to the Essene, God alone was King. However, the more comfort you acquired through collaboration with Rome it became less necessary to feel them the one who was oppressing you. As such, the Sanhedrin and the rich priests of Jesus time were closely aligned with Rome's agenda almost always it seemed over-and-against the desires of their people. The average Jew would say no King but God - or at the very least, God's appointed King (like David) - not Herod Antipas whom Rome appointed! "This man," says the high priest, "this would-be messiah, is another threat to you Pilate and to us, he should be killed to prevent his leading another revolt. It is in your best interest ya know..."

Imagine this scenario and you can imagine Jesus' time...just a bit. Radical huh?

Well, now we can see why someone would want to kill Jesus. He's a threat. He makes us look bad when we challenge him. He offers welcome to those we cast out. And what about his supposed miracles? He's another problem leader. He'll incite a rebellion, that the Roman's will crush (that's all they've done since they got here after all). Then, Rome may then be outraged that we, the ones they put in power (Jewish and Roman) couldn't do what we were hired to do. Maybe we'll be tortured...maybe we'll be removed from office, without compensation, and have to skimp an existence in poverty - that is, if no radicals kill us as compromisers to the faith. And what about Pilate - shall he be known as the one who couldn't coddle the Jews? All of that upheaval... or just have another hopeful messiah put in their place (a cross) by the real power holders, Rome.

What would you choose? What would I choose? Either way, next blog we'll see what way Jesus chose...and why.

Until then (hopefully before March!), thoughts?

Perspectives on "New Year...More Violence"

2009-01-19T19:25:00.011-06:00

Well, it seems that the lack of comments on the topic of the Middle Eastern conflict could be perhaps because I failed to offer any hint of what to talk about! I thought a hint was there, but maybe because I had my own thoughts as a context to what I wrote I lapsed into assuming you readers out there would just knowwhat was going through my mind. My bad!

In the context of the "Middle East Crisis", the three main components of instability have been Israel, the Palestinians and eventually, now, Iran. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, among others, have indeed played a role - sometimes a more active role and sometimes a more passive one.

But those three have become the standard.

There are always the objective facts: there are Arab and Islamic splinter groups that want Israel 1) wiped off the planet 2) reduced to rubble and 3) would like the same done to America.

But I must force myself to face the more presuppositional dilemma: isn't it reasonable to ask what happened to bring such hatred to existence?

What I mean is, *why* does Hamas seem to be hell bent on destroying a Jewish country? As if indiscriminately launching rocket after rocket will finally bring Israel to it's knees.

And conversely, what would cause Israel to launch a military response so decimating that many schools, shelters, food banks and children have been annihilated.

In this battle alone, Israel has killed nearly 100 Palestinians for every one Israeli killed by the Hamas rocket attacks. What could cause such retaliation?

Has anybody thought about *those* questions? (you, me or anyone involved)

I ask only, because wouldn't it seem that if we dealt with what caused such anger- such hatred and death - we could perhaps begin the long road of walking towards peace? And furthermore, for the Christians reading this blog, wouldn't that seem like the *real* Jesus-like mindset. Not taking sides over an issue we don't fully understand, but to take a stand against not fully understanding? And in that, we could express God's love for Jew and Arab so that maybe those who reject peace might be more swayed into it's loving guidance?

Isn't that an idea worth pondering...

Aren't those questions worth asking...

New Year ... More Violence

2009-01-11T21:34:00.004-06:00

Welcome back ... to me!

After a month's lagging behind on my blog, I'm back.

Sorry for the delay, but those darn holidays consumed everything in me...and when I had 'me time', I really just wanted to read ... a lot. So I did. It was so refreshing that I realized something I'd been missing as a constant part of my life - that of intellectual study. I love reading, love debating, love learning; and yet when life gets 'busy', it's the part that seems quickest to vanish esp when I'm tired. Well no more to that! I finished a 700+ page book I'd slowly dived into back in April and knocked out 650+ pages in a little over 3 weeks. :)

Amid all the hurrah's for me, I was heart stricken to once again turn on the mega-news stations to see the all to haunting images of rockets firing from what seemed to be Arab militants. Hamas had started (in their eyes continued) their 'holy' war against the Jewish state. In response, Israel has offered an onslaught of military responses that raises many questions about proper Nationalistic response under such circumstances. The devilish irony not withstanding, each side appears to hold on for better or worse, that more violence - more taking, destroying and marring life - will finally bring this 'problem' to a close.

I am no Zionist; I am no Palestinian freedom fighter; but I wish to be a peacemaker. Just before the end of December, President Bush held a press conference about his last few months in office and how his administration had, in this last leg of his office, pushed for serious diplomacy in that region. President Bush said that the ground work had been laid for future negotiations and peace. Then the bombs fell.

This is no slam on President Bush; it is more symptomatic of a pandemic among Westerners that pay little to no attention to Arabs or Israel (unless it has to do with terrorism effecting us and our normally conjured up allies: Britain, France, etc) Unless one side is warring against the other, we here do little to actually think about the problem - because as long as there aren't bombs dropping, is there really a problem at all? We have to be concerned about Iran and any nuclear power it might bring into existence, but surely that has nothing to do with Israel and the Palestinians! After all, Iran isn't even an Arab country...or are there bigger connections we in the West miss?

As President Elect Obama and V.P. Joe Biden had their different debates with Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, Israel was brought up a few times. Every time the answers were "We completely support the Jewish State of Israel." (Perhaps the days of 'fully' or 'completely' supporting any state need come to an end...esp given that with the last 2 terms of this administration, Israeli settlements grew 45% - something Israel publicly announced it would cease furthering)

Weeks later - bombs fall - retaliation is planned - and more bombs fall. Both sides feel justified and yet neither side will seem to do what it takes to make peace. The history is longer than just these last few weeks; and the complexity of the issue becomes more entangled as you see just how many governmental powers have pushed the course of this thing to the debacle you see on CNN or Fox or MSNBC (or whatever).

Voices shout from both sides: "Israel tortures prisoners!" "Palestinians are all terrorists!" "Israel doesn't have a right to the land I've been forced to move off of!" "Jews don't have a homeland - Arabs have thousands of miles of land!"

And so it continues...

Before we discuss the topic, I wonder if *you* would offer your thoughts/opinions on the matter just to see how many different views lie within this blogs readership. Click on 'comments' below and post your thoughts. Be as detailed or as brief as you like, and let's see what kind of thoughts we have!

Just because I have to say this, I will moderate any bigoted and rude comments - though I may leave them for a day or so just we all can acknowledge how horrible some of the stereotypes run - before I remove them.

Here's to deep thinking on a very tough and challenging issue...
I look forward to your thoughts,
Kevin

A Documentary Worth Watching

2008-12-10T11:23:00.006-06:00

Well, I'm taking a short breather from the foreknowledge discussion to offer a little 'food for thought'.

To those of you who don't know, I am a vegetarian. I have been for about a year-and-a-half now and hope to be so until I die. I felt a real longing in my soul to try to be as merciful as I could to as many beings as I could for the most time that I could to do the most good I could. (For those of you who also don't know, my wife is what she terms an 'Conscientious Omnivore'. That is a little different than where I am but a very noble endeavor she pursues. She has listed a few reasons and options at her blog: http://omahagoodeats.wordpress.com so check it out and find out something you didn't know!)

Recently, the Humane Society of the United States has offered a more faith oriented film for those in the Christian faith who may be unaware of the horrible conditions and terrible treatment that goes on in modern Factory Farms to produce that tender chicken breast or veal cutlet on your plate.

Now, there is no condemnation for those in Jesus (Romans 8) and abstinence from meat is not a Christian requirement (Romans 14); however the theme of Recreation and Nonviolent Restoration are also Biblical themes and ones that need examining.

This is very mild expose on Factory Farming, but a good introduction for those completely unaware. Once we get beyond the Foreknowledge topic, perhaps I can circle back and give a fuller, more in depth reasoning behind my choice.

But for now, enjoy!

On the Inadequacy of Definite Foreknowledge - Part 5

2008-11-30T09:28:00.000-06:00

And we're back on track!

As you bloggers sip your Single Grande Soy No Whip Peppermint Mocha Twist, we shall continue our deep discussion on God's foreknowledge.

Last blog we examined and found lacking the Arminian/Weslyan model's attempt to give human freedom libertarian definition while still retaining a definition of Omniscience which has God holding only definite beliefs about the future; leaving no room for 'maybe' with God. That left us with a God who cannot help us even when he knows terrible things are coming despite whether He wants to help or not, because His knowledge confines His actions.

Today we'll see what hope lies for God (and us!)in Molinism. During the great upheavals of the 16th century many theological changes were seen. Luther's 95 thesis and separation from Roman Catholicism. Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion was published. Jacob Arminius was born. But as it retains to Molinism, Luis de Molina wrestled with God's foreknowledge.

Roman Catholic and Jesuit, Molina had a firm understanding of the Augustinian (which was reborn so to speak in Luther, his contemporary) but also favored a definition of Free Will which brought him in direct conflict with Augustine and Luther. He reconciled these differences in what we've called "Molinism" or "Middle Knowledge".

So, in this model God knows how each and every possible human will respond to each and every possible circumstance in each and every possible created world. But middle knowledge is actually step two in the three piece description of God's knowledge. Molinism states 3 logical moments to God's knowledge:

1. Natural Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of all necessary and all possible truths. In this “moment” God knows every possible combination of causes and effects. He also knows all the truths of logic and all moral truths.

2. Middle Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what a free creature would do in any given circumstance. This includes knowledge of what philosophers call counterfactuals.

3. Free Knowledge – This is God’s knowledge of what He freely decided to create. God’s free knowledge is His knowledge of the actual world as it is.

As we can see, God knows what we will freely do and decides based off of his Natural Knowledge. This is key and important distinction for the Molinist. Because classic Augustinian/Calvinistic criticism of Arminian/Weslyan/Open Theistic models is that those Free Will models puts God in a dependent status upon Humanity's actions. Molinism claims to avoid this status since God's Middle Knowledge of our actual/potential actions is based off of his Natural Knowledge. Hence God knows our actions because He has natural knowledge. So his knowledge of our choices is based on his ability to have Natural Knowledge. Not because he finds out our choices (whether in Time or Timelessly) but because He the necessary preconditioned knowledge to know human free choices. Hence God's knowledge of us is responsive (he doesn't control our choices) but he doesn't 'find out' our choices, he knows them logically. This allows, says the Middle Knowledge proponent, God to allow us Free Will, while adhering to the Traditional Definition of Omniscience.

So, does this model meet what we are searching for as we try to understand God's knowledge? Well, while deeply philosophical and enjoyable to dissect its inner workings, a few points of interest seem to scream out at me.

First, it seems highly problematic to just claim that God 'knows' our choices. After all, this entire debate going on between Augustinian/Calvinist/Arminian/Weslyan/Molinist/Open Theist is not just *what* does God know, but *how*! I have never in all the debates, articles and lectures I've read/listened to ever heard how God can know Freely Willed choices by humans. The Molinist just says that God does because God has Natural Knowledge. As I see it, weakness #1.

Second, similarly to the problems I see in the Calvinistic model, this God of Molinism lacks total personality. Defined by the three logical moments above, God appears to operate more as a computer than as the God and Father of Jesus. The Molinist may respond by stating that God's ability to know our decisions does not preclude his sorrow and dismay (and conversely joy and satisfaction with) our choices and hence preserve a strong sense of God's personality that we see in Jesus' life and teachings. Doesn't this sound familiar though?

Doesn't this taste a bit like the Arminian/Weslyan model? After all, they hold that while God (either Timelessly or in Time) knows our choices, He is responsive. I think though that it becomes increasingly incoherent in a definition of personality to say that having full and complete knowledge of future actions allows God to genuinely have responsive feelings/actions to that knowledge. Try to imagine: God knows that Joe Smith is going to chose to steal millions from a bank. He knows Joe will be caught, found guilty in court and murdered in prison. To what will God respond with genuine emotion? Will He try to speak to Joe to prevent him from stealing? How and why - God knows it will happen. Will God be saddened by Joe's murder in prison? Surely, but to what extant? After all, this is the world out of all other possible worlds God could create, so there must be some reason why all the evil occurs...that reason as I've heard William Lane Craig (probably the most passionate defender of Middle Knowledge currently) is that this is world where the most number of people will respond to God's message of love in Christ. This means that while Joe's death in prison is lamentable, it is necessary for God's will on earth to be brought about. Hence, we shouldn't be too sad for Joe since he chose against God's plans; instead we should probably thank God for creating a world where Joe is allowed to perish since in this world we have chosen God and as such, are safe. Joe's life is sad, but only sad in that he is not one of the Elect, but since that was God's decree, not something we should lament to harshly else we wish to lament God's will. Weakness #2.

And finally (though I do have more reasons ;) is that there is no reason given why future decisions must necessarily be known. The statement that "God does know the future" is just a presupposition that the future can be known in certainty. The Molinist position presupposes this, primarly because of the context of it's birth (on the heels of Aquinas and steeped in Augustinism's belief of predestination of all things) the debate about Free Will in the 1500's tried to reconcile Free Will and Foreknowledge without wondering what foreknowledge might mean. This to me, is the 3rd and potentially most fatal weakness I can find.

So, while philosophically intriguing and mentally enjoyable, I must reject it's combination of Foreknowledge and Free Will because it lacks explanation of how God knows our choices, denies God Jesus' taught personality and is laced with presuppositions that do not allow it to explain itself coherently.

Oh well, we shall move on.

Keep thinking,
Kevin

A mid-topic break...

2008-11-25T13:39:00.006-06:00

Well, I believe I've almost hit the 2 week mark without a blog...

My apologies! For those of you who don't know, I work at Starbucks and not just any Starbucks...the busiest Starbucks in Nebraska! Oh yeah, that's where they put their ace employees ;)

Any-whoos, I thought I'd take a small break from the deep, deep, deep thinking we've been doing on God's foreknowledge to reflect on something more practical.

As I'm sure many of you are (or maybe are not) aware, there is fantastically terrible HIV/AIDS virus that has been on the rage for almost 3 decades now. What began as a viral epidemic in the male homosexual community in the early 80's has mutated into a full fledged global pandemic.

What was once seen as the 'Gay Cancer' is now known to be a much more understood but also still ostracized disease that without proper medical treatment and prevention, condemns its victims to painful and early deaths. As developed societies, we have scientifically made breakthroughs only dreamed about 15 or 30 years ago; breakthroughs that prevent unborn children from contracting HIV/AIDS from their infected mother and prescriptions, which after 60-65 day use can take someone from death's door to a life full of vigor and motivation. This is part of the intricate reason for the sharp reduction of new HIV/AIDS infections in North America and Europe (a few other reasons are proper education of how STD's are transferred and the importance of condoms as a measure to reduce the spreading of blood born pathogens).

However, as we would expect, the countries where education, access and funding are limited (or hindered if there is a highly dishonest dictator/fascist/factioned government in place) have been hit the worst numbers wise (I say 'numbers wise' because I realize the emotional loss of someone to HIV/AIDS is equally painful for all involved - I lost a friend myself to this virus). Thus, the focus for many aide organizations on Africa - specifically the Sub-Saharan area. HIV/AIDS is highly dangerous, deadly and spreading in these areas, but all that could be used in slowing/stopping it's spread, are things we here in the West tend to be ignorant of and take for granted.

Enter Product (Red). Known primarily as the offshoot of U2 front man Bono (although Robert Shriver is to be credited also), Product (Red) has enlisted the help of companies willing to not make as much money as they could in order to offer a product (or many) which carries the label and color red to the consumers they target. Converse, Dell, Windows, Armani, AmEx, Apple, Gap and Hallmark have all become (Red) carriers. As such, over $110 million dollars have been raised with 100% of those funds going to HIV/AIDS treatment/prevention. This money is then given through an organization called Global Fund which funds HIV/AIDS (as well as TB, malaria and training/educating) programs in the countries it has access.

Some stats on HIV/AIDS medicine:

$13 is the equivalent of one month’s worth of antiretroviral medication for one person.

$157 is the equivalent of one year’s worth of antiretroviral medication for one person.

For the (Red) products, a certain amount of the purchase price is allotted to go directly to Project (Red) and then to Global Fund. Why do I delve into all this?

Well, beginning Friday, November 28 at all Starbucks locations you are going to be seeing a *major* shift in holiday oriented decorating and product merchandising. I actually cannot get into detail as an employee, but I can say this: the ridiculousness of how impactful what starts Friday could be is amazing.

So, you'll have to stop in and find out yourself. And I know, I know...Friday is 'black Friday'...or will it now be called 'Red Friday'...? You'll have to stop in either this Friday or soon after to find out all the details...

And if you think that is anticipation driven...wait until December 1st - World AIDS Day.

Just remember as (most) all of us sit around with food and family this Thursday, how many people both in our city and around the globe are going hungry, cold and without anyone to be with. Give real thanks for real things that make real differences and come into Starbucks and make a real difference starting this Friday.

Enjoy!
Kevin

For HIV/AIDS, (Red) and the Global Fund's facts and figures:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#international
http://www.joinred.com/Home.aspx
http://www.unaids.org/en/
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/

On the Inadequacy of Definite Future Foreknowledge - Part 4

2008-11-11T19:34:00.000-06:00

Hello Blog-ites,

So in the last blog we established a superior and reality grounded definition of Omniscience. God’s knowledge contains all those statements which are true, could be true, are not true and could not be true. If we were to explain this to a 4 or 5 year old, we may say, “God knows what’s yes, no and maybe so!”

Now, it is to the ‘maybe so’ section that this blog is dedicated. What does it mean for something to be possibly true, or more philosophical: contingently true? These facts about the past, present and future are sometimes stumbling blocks for even the most attuned theologian. And as I do not pretend to be the most attuned, I accept my own potential for folly. To use the more common term for these potentials: what makes up God’s knowledge of Counterfactual Statement of Truth? I am wearing a black polo right now, but do I have to be wearing this polo? Not at all! A counterfactual statement of truth is that I could be wearing a blue shirt under different circumstances, but that under these circumstances I have chosen a black one. The difference in the statements ‘I am wearing X-shirt now’ and ‘I have shirts Y and Z I could be wearing’ is that one is what is actually true while another had the possibility of becoming true. How do the potential shirt choice(s) I have before me and the fact of what I have chosen relate; they relate because what is potential becomes what is actual upon my action of choosing.

I can hear you now: But how does this relate to foreknowledge?!? Well, let me ask you: If God knew before Time and Creation what shirt choice I would make, despite the other color options laid before me and if it is ontologically impossible for God to hold to a false belief (to believe what is not true) did I actually have the ability to choose any other shirt than the one God’s knowledge demanded I choose? Let’s elaborate this to more general model: If God knows before human choices occur in Time what they will choose, do people have the ability to make choices based on their will or because God’s knowledge cannot be false? If it is because God’s knowledge cannot be false, then am I culpable for what I do if I cannot do other than what God ‘knows’ I will? Conversely, if we/they are culpable, how? And even if they are culpable, if God knows it will occur, shouldn’t He be doing something to prevent it from occurring? And how in the world does God know something will occur before it does? Can God see the Future; is He in the future? Is God outside Time and thus able to ‘view’ the whole of time and hence know it all? Or, since our future decisions don’t seem to be made, (from our vantage point that is) if we use our definition of Omniscience, is God’s knowledge of all things still perfect even though He doesn’t know in certainty what in the future humans (and angels/demons perhaps) will choose; meaning that since future free willed decisions are not actual, God’s knowledge of them isn’t something possible.

Well first, I believe it necessary to establish what seem to be the stronger/strongest potentials (!) and if any weak outliers exist, to vanquish them first.

So, to the Calvinistic/Augustinian model: God wills all that is; or as in the infamous Westminster Confession of Faith, “God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass”. It would follow logically that God would know the future simply and deductively because He causes the future. This case seems strong internally. Likewise, it would matter little God’s relation to time for if God is atemporal, His Willing it from all eternity fits with Him knowing the future in certainty and if in Time, God would certainly be able to know everything that progresses according to His decree. However the weakest point of the Omni-Determining model is not it’s internal consistency, but it’s 1) Biblical Consistency and 2) it’s failure to explain what a Timeless being can do/know/cause with Time bound creatures. But that is not for this blog to dissect. Overall a descent case is made.

Arminian/Welyan: God sees into the future or is outside of Time. God seeing into the future potentially solves the dilemma by stating that God, as a responsive and loving Being, looks forward into Time to gain his knowledge though this ‘peering’ is not to be over-anthropomorphic. It is not something God does in Time, a measureable span where God didn’t have knowledge of the future, began to peer and then gains His knowledge. He always has had this knowledge, though in terms of logical priority, it comes before His and our actual actions. However, God also in possession of an Indeterministically Free Will, was not bound to create this type of a world (or any world at all!) so it needs to be emphasized that his Knowledge does not bind him. He knew what this world would be like if He created it and did so; i.e he did not create this world because He knew He would, He created it because He decided on this.

In my eyes, this all this sounds like great theological stuff… but when prodded around a bit, amounts to merely great theological ‘fluff’.

What it means for God to peer into the future is an oftly vague and undefined thing. It is cautioned against being overly analogical by it’s proponents, however once we cease the overly-human sense, it looses any real analogical value. Merely saying God does something like ‘this’ is only helpful if I have some sense of what ‘this’ is; and I only a have an analogical understanding of the statement ‘God peers’ because I myself ‘peer’ as a creature who 1) gains knowledge 2) in time. Take those key pieces out and I lose any sense of what the equation is trying to say. And any sense of how God knows my future and yours.

The great benefit of this model is it’s image of a responsive and compassionate God. As He looks ahead into the future and sees our choices and then responds, He then sees our next response and Himself responds, ad infinitum. But is this any real help to God? Is it any real help to us? I mean, God being Omnipotent as well as Omniscient should be able to handle anything we created beings can throw at Him. However, using this model, God’s knowledge becomes the confines for His Omnipotence. Allow me to explain with a thought experiment: Jane meets Joe. They fall in love and Jane wants to marry Joe. God sees their future together, but it is nothing good! Joe, the once kind gentleman, becomes a heavy drinker and prone to violent outburst at Jane. God sees their life together ending in shambles and utter ruin. Jane looses her faith in a God who would allow this and Joe hasn’t a thought about God much left in his intoxicated head. God, looking ahead sees this terrible situation… but what can the Omnipotent God do? Nothing! Nothing else, that is, than what He knows He will do. He already knows His own actions to such a situation and how they’ll respond. If there were some flexibility to the problem, some potential for God to use what He knows to be able to warn in the present, but He cannot; His knowledge is Definite and not Potential. What God knows will come to pass, there is no room for other options. If God were to respond to His knowledge of the future (say, tell Jane to RUN in any direction except Joes!), what He knows about Himself and us would change because God would be responding a to what He knows the future will be; but then God’s knowledge of the future would not be Definite Knowledge. What He’s sees as the future would be potentially changeable because after He sees it (and sees how He will respond) he would react to it… again. But then what He ‘knew’ the first time, would not really be what He ‘knew’ but what could have been, until he reacted a second time. But then that would become His ‘new knowledge’, set in stone as the unmovable and inevitable course we all will follow. Under this model of God’s foreknowledge we become victims in a trap of God’s Divine Peering; and our only potential aide, God, is held under it’s foot also!

And to think, it sounded so promising!

Well, this blog has trailed on enough for us to have a couple talking points. What God knows of the future is inextricably linked to the How’s. It is no longer acceptable as doctrinal affirmation alone; it must have reasons. Vague attempts at claiming atemporality or Divine Timelessness amount to gibberish if we are to have any actual analogical value taken from these Time based analogies. We have also noted the rigorous internal consistency afforded in the Augustinian/Calvinist model, despite it’s rather brash assertions at God’s direct and indirect causation of evil. We haven’t examined Counterfactuals of Creaturly Freedom in the Middle Knowledge (Molinistic) model and have not touched on the Open Theist model of what of the future God can and does know. But now we will rest.

Keep reading…

On the Inadequacy of Definite Future Foreknowledge - Part 3

2008-11-05T08:58:00.003-06:00

And I’m back!

Sorry for the week-long delay in getting this next blog out, but between work and work, I’ve been fried. But I’m back!

So, in our last excursion, we dipped into the ‘why’ of this issue. It creates a terribly damning case against Christianity should we not have real and pragmatic answers to people’s daily lives. ‘Why did my mother die of breast cancer at 40?’ and ‘Why is genocide allowed in a supposedly loving God’s creation?’ pose impressive and justifiable questioning to anyone who theorizes about the existence of God. So, baring any new theological developments and models from emerging, which of the ones we’ve dipped into appears to have both the external defendability and internal consistency to give us peace of mind in a God of Love and to continue on as Students of Jesus?
First we must define our terms. Omniscient/Omniscience are very weighty theological terms usually defined with divine implications. In a general sense, omniscience is knowing all truth. However this definition, though common (see: http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_l-o.htm#_1_122) is highly simplistic, even over simplistic.

Eminent philosopher and debater William Lane Craig defines omniscience as:

(O) For any agent x, x is omniscient = def. For every proposition p, if p, then x knows that p and does not believe not-p.

This definition roughly defines omniscience as a being knowing all truth (what actually was, is and will be) but also qualifies it as not believing falsehoods. For example, God could not be labeled omniscient in this model if He say, believed George Washington were still alive. However upon reflection doesn’t it seem implicit that in believing only truth, you would not hold false beliefs? I feel a revision to such a definition is necessary for three reasons.

The debate surrounding God’s knowledge of the future, our freedom and how the two meet is not at all helped by this definition because it is precisely what is true about the future and what is not that is being debated! In essence, all three theological models discussed could each claim their version gives God complete omniscience though
The definition is also lacking in defining what is logically possible for a being such as God to know. The essence of the debate is ‘what is possible for God to know based on what He has created’. Not ‘does God hold true beliefs’.
Lastly, one of the biggest and most over looked items in this debate is what I feel would bring much clarity to the issue from the Molinist/Arminian/Weslyan side. Namely, if God allows creaturely freedom how does God know our future free actions? Standard definitions of omniscience merely beg the question by stating God just does know, but do not even touch this item unless they say he looks ahead into the future OR that he, well, he just does! I feel it of the utmost importance to not just define what Omniscience is, but how it operates. It is beneficial to be warmed by they Sun’s heat, but is better to know how it operates so we can better harness it’s energy.

I feel on this issue the better definition of Omniscience comes from the Open Theist camp. Another eminent and well respected philosopher/debater William Hasker offers a different motif:

(O1) = For any agent x, x is omniscient = def. for every proposition p, if p is logically able to be known by x, then x knows p.

This definition, while perhaps more technical, affords the theologian the ability to begin to entertain ideas of what God actually knows whereas the older model simply says in a general detached sense that God knows everything true and nothing false. One sounds more abstract than actual while this new motif offers an intersection for faith and life.

So, now that we have established a new and superior definition of this quality of God, we must now put it to work. If God knows only that which is logically possible for God to know, it seems inevitable that the next question arises: What is logically possible for God know?

To answer this, we must delve into the nature of Time, God’s relation to that and what God knows of the future.

Does anyone else get excited about this stuff?

Keep thinking…

On the Inadequacy of Definite Future Foreknowledge - Part 2

2008-10-30T10:25:00.000-05:00

So bloggers,

Last blog we heard the general ideas around how 3 main theological systems interpret God’s will as it interacts with human beings. Those three ideas described are: Open Theism, whereby God grants humans a freedom which is so much like God’s it restricts the future from being actual until present tense decisions are made by agents with free will. Conversely the Augustinian/Calvinistic model holds God’s will being an omni-determining causal force which, since it causes and brings in to being any and all events and persons, naturally entails the future is set and known by God with certainty simply by the very nature that it is God who is making it all that way. Then there are the 3 main theologies comprising middle ground whereby God is in full knowledge of the future with certainty (there is no room for option A or B to come about in the future, since God knows A will occur). However, in an attempt to balance the two seemingly contrasting views (Freedom and Foreknowledge), the Weslyan-Arminian-Molinistic attempts to hold God knows the future WHILE simultaneously affirming we have what philosophers call indeterministic or libertarian free will.

Where do we go from here? Well, we could go to the numerous other blogs, lectures, books, articles, debates and sermons going back and fourth on the subject (and to this I do recommend!) however for the purposes of summary and offering my take on things, I believe the better method is to look at why this debate is even important to discuss.

First the obvious. Ultimately, this is not important. You aren’t a follower of Jesus because of how you come down on this topic. However, in what has come to be known as the Wesly-Quadrilateral, there is an element in life for every human (and so, in the life of every Christian) of Experience that demands answer through Theology. No matter how eloquent a sermon or perfectly worded a theological definition, if a theology fails to meet the demands of the day-to-day issues people face, then it is potentially a fine theory, but ultimately useless. There must be an intersection between Life and Theology and to that point this question of God’s knowledge and our Freedom have profound effects.

Warning: Tangent Ahead

But as to whether this ‘makes or breaks’ a Christian, I must just say that I have neither seen or heard ANY reason for such criticism as to exclude those who espouse one view over the other from the family of faith. Perhaps one sect is radical and new, but then again, wasn’t Jesus? And aren’t our comforts and presuppositions about God and humanity exactly the kinds of things we should seek and change if our current beliefs are found to be lacking in logical and exegetical correctness; and how will they be found to be lacking or solid unless we ask? All of these and many other reasons are why I feel this question is a valid one in most general sense. Now to the specific: What does this matter?

Theodicy. In non-theological terminology, it is how can God still be good in a world where evil exists. How does this apply to foreknowledge? Well: If God know Hitler would exist, why did He create him? If God knew Adam would eat the fruit, why did create him? If God really loves humanity, why doesn’t he just wipe evil out? If God knew someone’s marriage would fail why did he give them ‘peace’ when they prayed about marrying the faulty partner? Why does God create children who will be kidnapped, raped and tortured and then murdered by a serial killer? If God knew all this evil would happen, why doesn’t he 1) stop it or 2) do more to stop it? If the future is set, then do any of us have responsibility for our actions? Tying back in to the beginning of this paragraph, if we can’t alter the future should Hitler be judged by history as guilty of terrible genocide and hatred or simply a victim of fate? And if nothing can be different except that which is already slated to happen in God’s knowledge, what kind of difference does it make if I pray about anything or nothing? Who cares if I do everything in my power to relieve poverty in my city; whether I do or whether I don’t, it was all going to happen regardless of anything I hope would or could happen. If the future is known in certainty, what is my role?

Do I have your attention now?

On the Inadequacy of Definite Future Foreknowledge - Part 1

2008-10-27T20:23:00.000-05:00

So bloggers,

There was and still is a rather contentious issue among modern scholars and theologians of the Christian variety encompassing human freedom, God's will, God's knowledge and how those topics mesh.

The more modern (but not without pre-modern sources) idea being advanced by some very prominent minds is a view of the future which, by defining God's will and love in extremely relational terminology, sees a 'free'dom in Free Will given by God as logically (and necessarily) entailing the idea of future events as entirely contingent upon what we (and God, angels and demons) choose right 'now'. This leads to the most troubling (for some) part of this open model of theology (oddly enough called Open Theism) which says that since the future is contigent upon what we, God, angels and demons choose 'now', the future is not set. As such (brace yourself) God does not know the future with certainity since there is nothing actual to know.

The more vocal, long standing and critical of the above view goes by many names but is typically lumped under the general headings of Augustinian or Calvinistic theology. Both names borne from their historical personage responsible for a large following in the Christian Church. Augustine (4th and 5th century) naturally influencing Calvin (16th century), also was natrually repsonsible for influencing Luther and those of the 16th century who rallied against (at that time) Roman Catholic teaching of indulgences and the theory gaining access to heaven by what you 'did' (or spent!). Ultimately salvation (or soteiorology to the theologian) rested in the hands of the all powerful and all knowing God who alone was able to convert a heart solely dead in sin, utterly resistant to God. As such, God chose who would become Christian and who would not; what then follows seem inevitable: if God controls these contigencies (as well as ALL contingencies under a Augustine/Calvin model) then the future is necessarily not only known in certainity by God, but caused by God's will.

Now, so as not to be unfair, the length in above descriptions does not reflect the author's feelings or leanings to the above discussion, only a desire for fullness of definition.

Finally, there is a middle ground position postulated by many (maybe even you!) which seeks to hold both ends of the spectrum. The different camps in this middle ground are largely made up of the 3 following theologies: Arminian, Weslyan and Molinistic. Without defining and giving the historical context of each of those three, allow me to sum up a small aspect of their teaching in reference to God's foreknowledge.

They all 3 hold that God knows what will come to pass in the future; some resolve the issue by removing God from time all together (not just measureable time) and say while God is not causing all things (Augustinian/Calvinism) he knows all things. He interacts with us in a timeless 'Now' that God experiences (an all time at once mode of existance for God) Others try to hold God experiences Time but knows the future as simply a necessary quality of His omniscience about humanity. God knows us well enough to know our choices (think of offering a child brocolli or ice cream for example) but this small argument is not so simplistic. Other deep thinkers advance a theory of God's knowledge which encompasses Gods knowing that in circumstance X, for example, Joe will choose option W; but in a different situation, situation B, Joe will choose option D. God logically has this type of knowledge for all people. This knowledge logically follows into soteriology where in world X, a certain number of people would respond to the Gospel call.

It follows if God is the most loving being then he would want to actualize a world where the maximal number of people would respond to His call; thus, this camp of people (the Molinists) hold that God knows how all people would react in any place at any time AND under any circumstance. As such, the world as we have it is the world in which the maximal number of people will respond to God's call (since He know's how everybody will respond in this world) and so he knows how this world will play out (i.e. the Future) and hence knows all things in certainity.

Now before I weigh on any number of the questions I'm sure are being raised in your thoughts right now, the first question I will tackle (in my next blog, this one is HEFTY enough already) is what advantages/disadvantages does it make for people to hold one or the other? Why does it matter and how does it help God?

Keep thinking... :)

America and God's Will

2008-10-25T15:40:00.000-05:00

Hello blogging peeps,

I thought I'd share a 'Call to prayer' by a somewhat prominent Christian leader/author/preacher who issued this statement as the elections grow closer and closer. Dutch Sheets, the author of the article, founder of Dutch Sheets Ministries and influential Christian speaker says:

My response:

As much as I respect Dutch Sheets heart, Lou Engle's desire for Abortion to cease and the Religious Right's vision for a more moral America, I can't help but stand aghast at the idea that God's sole political vision is the destruction of Roe v. Wade and the appointment of 2 'conservative' judges to the Supreme Court.

If partial birth abortions are totally banned with no amendment for the life of the mother what do you do when there are complications at birth and the life of the mother and child is compromised? If God is so concerned for the lives of children, why not ALSO look to a candidate who will confront Pharmaceutical evils who do not provide at cost the medicines that could save the lives of poverty stricken born children every day. If God is pro-life, what about the candidate who is going to confront the 30,000 children who die of extreme poverty, preventable diseases and malnutrition EVERY DAY; that's nearly 7.5 times as many as abortion in America (not to mention another 30,000 women who die from the same issues - but not men...)

I know Sheets and Engle have a vision for America that is much steeped in the religious culture and morality of an America long since passed, but to assume that because you hold *those* values God ONLY cares about one issue is utter nonsense. God cares about the unborn and the mother who is too poor to keep the child, would have to drop out of high school to work to provide just a little of what the child needs, and then will face a life of minimum wage jobs and no benefits which will give her newly born child a future which is just as bleak as the mother's was (which is what the statistics say, the poorer an area, the more abortions there are).

So maybe voting for the candidate who is pro-choice but will DEAL with poverty is just as Christian as voting for McCain and Palin who want just judges who think like them in power. Engage politics like Jesus would and don't speak God's will.

Think about it...

Welcome

2008-10-25T09:34:00.001-05:00

Well, here is the first post from the Christian Atheist. I guess I'll tackle the elephant in the room and answer the question, "What does 'Christian Atheist' mean?" Well, it is actually an ancient satirical name said in condescension towards the first and second century followers of Jesus by Roman authorities.

In the ancient world temples, idols and rituals were all very common and even a necessary element of religious life. If your primary god of worship was Aphrodite, you went to one of her many temples, worshiped and sacrificed through the cultural customs to her statue(s) and performed certain rites ordained by the local priests.

However, when the Christian message of Love and Reconciliation to God began to spread, those followers saw little to no value in such rites and images. As such, their meetings were in homes (they were not welcome after a time to synagogue - the first Christians were Jews remember). As the following grew and more met in houses and did not establish temples, Roman authorities began to take interest.

Once they looked into the movement they realized this religious group did weird things and acted differently then any other group within the Empire at that time. They sang hymns to this man named Christ who was killed under Pilate; they shared meals together; they had religious meetings behind closed doors. Odd indeed.

As a negative association and almost sneering jibe, the governing authorities gave the Christians the title of 'atheists' since they did not meet the norm of Roman religion: namely, temple and idol. Since they did not do the things traditionally done when claiming a deity, they were titled as though they had none.

I can provide the sources if need be, but for now, that summary will suffice.

I hope to be a different kind of Christian in this blog, the kind that will inspire introspection and question, motivation and mediation, deep thinking and reflection. To all the other future Christian Atheists, I say, "Welcome!"