I open Paul's Letter to the Romans. There before my eyes--
--first, let me to introduce some thoughts of Dallas Willard, professor of philosophy at the University of Southern California. (Much of the following argument is taken from his thoughts)
"Many fear that the physical universe, being what it is, makes communication with God impossible. It puts him too far away. Even some who understand both the lowliness of God's greatness and the greatness of God's lowliness and who really live to do the will of God are still troubled by the thought that brutal nature imposes itself as a barrier between us and him" (Willard, 1999; 71-72).
This fear is a direct result of the impact of secularistic modernism (see my essay below), even in the church. (Since the existence of God cannot be tested for in a physical science lab, then it cannot be considered.) This fear is also one of the primary causes of the anti-intellectualism in the church today. Many are afraid that if they investigate the sciences and history and philosophy, they'll surely lose their faith.
Let me assure you, with an open mind the opposite occurs. An unbiased observer, walking in and looking around at the world, would be shocked at the order of our universe. He would wonder who made these laws that control what we see.
Willard reminds us that when we think about the process that is necessary for any physical communication (like talking), we remember that soundwaves must be bent; the physical universe must be altered. But, "is this the only way in which God can communicate with us?" Willard asks (Willard; 73). Then he gives us a bit of wisdom from Blaise Pascal (1623-1662):
"When I see the blind and wretched state of men, when I survey the whole universe in its deadness, and man left to himself with no light, as though lost in this corner of the universe without knowing who put him there, what he has to do, or what will become of him when he dies, incapable of knowing anything, I am moved to terror, like a man transported in his sleep to some terrifying desert island, who wakes up quite lost, with no means of escape. Then I marvel that so wretched a state does not drive people to despair. I see other persons around me made like myself. I ask them if they are any better informed than I am and they say they are not. Then these lost and wretched creatures look around and find some attractive objects to which they have become addicted and attached. For my part, I have never been able to form such attachments and, considering how very likely it is that there exists something besides what I can see, I have tried to find out whether God has left any traces of himself" (Pensées, or, "Thoughts").
Contemporary physics gives us some insight.
Physicist Jack Sarfatti (1939-present) offers the following window into a trend in contemporary physics: "'an idea of the utmost significance for the development of psycho-energetic systems ... is that the structure of matter may not be independent of consciousness'" (Willard, 76). That is, the universe is more like a mind than anything else. Willard stresses that he isn't arguing that contemporary physics proves theological questions.
What he is saying is that "... there is, so to speak, an inside--or better, a nonside or an unside--to matter that allows for a non-spatial and yet causal dimension to be in action within the physical world" (ibid.). Thus, this allows for a direct connection between the "mind" of God and the mind of the apostle Paul, the self-proclaimed chief among sinners.
Like Willard, I'm not arguing that this proves direct communication, but that God could have communicated to the apostle directly through this "unside" of matter.
Okay, back to reading.
I take a sip of coffee and open Paul's Letter to the Romans. There before my eyes--if my argument about the historical accuracy of the New Testament convinced you--are the words of Paul, or, for the skeptics among us, someone who wrote and thought just like Paul.
Paul as he saw it. This letter contains direct theological statements about creation and Abraham, exodus and Moses, covenant and command, sin and death, Jesus and glory, predestination and freedom, and so on.
Did God have direct access to the mind of Paul?
Maybe. Any firm answer to that question, be it a yes or a no, rests on faith.
I take a sip of my coffee and begin reading. And I have faith that God, by his Holy Spirit and through the language of an first-century Jewish Christian, encounters my mind.
"3:21 But now athe righteousness of God bhas been manifested apart from the law, although cthe Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22 the righteousness of God dthrough faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. eFor there is no distinction: 23 for fall have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 gand are justified hby his grace as a gift, ithrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God jput forward as ka propitiation lby his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in mhis divine forbearance he had passed overnformer sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." (Romans 3:21-26, ESV)
To: John Hundley
ReplyDeleteFrom: Andrew Turck
I know this is more like Saturday than Wednesday, but I've been busy chasing down Native Americans to write a Crow Tribe election article.
My earlier statement, that the “Gospel narratives are representations” idea might make the Bible less of a book from God and more of a piece of religious propaganda, is based on the idea that everyone has a bias when writing about a historical event (except for journalists; we're perfect in every way). Miracles could become more miraculous. Speakers could become more eloquent. You know the drill.
Maybe Jesus turned out to be another failed prophet, and didn't resurrect, but the writers believed the legend of Jesus could save the world, ultimately dying for that belief (I'm going to Church in an hour, so the Eucharist will hopefully clean that sentence out of my mouth).
A lot of negative things can happen to historical records when one relies on his/her feelings.
As a side note, I've thought the Bible was written in the manner you said since high school, I just think it's important to note the potential pitfalls.
As for the idea that the world is a mind, through which one can come to know God, I like it, but what makes our understanding of the “mind of God,” or faith, any more certain than that of a Muslim, Hindu, Jediist, etc? Our certainty? There are probably hundreds of thousands of people from other religions who are more certain of theirs than I am of mine. They read the world differently, and why should anyone or anything blame them for it? I think I picked the right one, but I don't have much with which to back up that statement. Faith and indications: Two things that lack much substance.
Hopefully, God communicated to Paul through the “unside of matter.” I think he did. How do I know this? Hell if I know.
Same for how the universe was made. I think evolution was involved, because there are patterns in nature that indicate this to be so. I have an unofficial policy that when religion butts up against general scientific consensus, I give the point to science. After all, there isn't a mandate against testing science.
You said when people start studying history, philosophy, science, etc, their faith starts to strengthen. Both have happened to me at one point or another. I took a philosophy of religions course mostly aimed at making Christianity look rather silly. I think I did a pretty good job defending it (I used the “outside of time” argument by Thomas Aquinas to literally make the teacher drop his criticism on predestination vs. free will), but I felt, sometimes, that I was speaking up on behalf of a being who could have done a much better job than he actually did.
There's quite a few places where God seems to be an irredeemable jerk (see the Ark Narrative's random slaughter in 1 Samuel 6:19, the overly violent she bear incident in II Kings 2:23-24 or all sorts of others you're probably aware of). Also some silly rules (Shellfish? Really?).
Sometimes, I look at my faith as possibly a form of cowardice to the real world. I'll be able to argue it until the cows come home, but at the same time, I know I'd be a hell of an agnostic.
Anyway, see you later! I get to go to Church.
Andrew again. Here's some corrections on the previous post.
ReplyDeleteWith the fourth to last sentence, I realize I may not have stressed the word "sometimes" enough. It's rare that sort of thinking enters my mind, but I can't deny that it does.
Also, when I wrote "I've thought the Bible was written in the manner you said since high school," it was actually later in college. High school was more was more C.S. Lewis-y stuff.
Have a nice day!
I like it! I think that everyone has doubts, it's a part of believing something as a fallible human. The physics argument is not necessarily against the god of Muslims or Hindus. It's purpose is to simply make room for the possibility of God's communication. Whether that's Allah or Rama isn't part of the argument. That comes later.
ReplyDeleteAs for the reliability of the authors, that they may have somehow invented the story just doesn't add up historically. The resurrection (to name the most important of Jesus' miracles) is attested to by so many sources, both inside and outside the Bible, that to make up such a story would have taken more planning than a government conspiracy of 9/11. They just wouldn't have been able to convince so many wise and thinking people.
I think that we often think about the ancient world as some sort of primitive place that believed anything, including the resurrection of the dead. Let me assure you, this was positively not the case with the Hellenistic Greeks and Jews at the time of Jesus. Many of these had read the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and were versed in the language of the Homeric Universe. People do not come back from the dead, and it wasn't different for the Hellenes. That's why Justin Martyr, a second century CE Apostolic Father, had to remind even the Christians how to believe that resurrection was indeed possible.
What I'm arguing is that there is simply no way that this crazy story of a guy rising from the dead would have risen so quickly to such prominence if there were no historical credibility. There certainly would not have been several accounts written by several different thinkers, believed by leagues more, centering around that event. These were sensible people. They were homo-sapiens-sapiens, just like we are.
Apparently N.T. Wright's "Resurrection of the Son of God" addresses this powerfully. But it is 900 pages and I don't have time right now. Soon. Very Soon.
John