Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
I readily concede at least the following:
For 2,000 years Christians have known that God is absolute: The Absolute. This has been axiomatic for the finest Christians the church has produced. This is the judgment of all the great doctrinal statements of Christian history. As I challenge this historical and traditional understanding of God, I understand that these are not the bad guys; they are the epitome of the Christian religion.
Clearly, at least in our ordinary usage of the word, the biblical God appears to be absolute. This is the strong consensus all across Christian history. Obverse, in the way we ordinarily use the word, we have a hard time believing that the biblical God is relative.
For 2,000 years Christians have known that God is absolute: The Absolute. This has been axiomatic for the finest Christians the church has produced. This is the judgment of all the great doctrinal statements of Christian history. As I challenge this historical and traditional understanding of God, I understand that these are not the bad guys; they are the epitome of the Christian religion.
Clearly, at least in our ordinary usage of the word, the biblical God appears to be absolute. This is the strong consensus all across Christian history. Obverse, in the way we ordinarily use the word, we have a hard time believing that the biblical God is relative.
Good people, great people, truly devout and highly intelligent people have thought, felt, proclaimed, and defended the absolute, unchanging, all-knowing, totally sovereign and transcendent character of God. Yes, it is easy, perhaps natural, to read the Bible and see it a God who is absolute, in total control, and who changes not. On the other hand, it is natural and easy to see that God is love, is trinitarian, and holds us responsible for out decisions and subsequent actions.
I am "absolutely" certain that there are no absolutes, but I cannot say "absolutely" that everything is relative. But of this I am sure: everyone, everything that I know and have known, seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched was related to other things. Likewise, every emotion, hope, fear, love, ambition–never isolated, always related to. Everything is always connected to something else, and that something else is always connected to something else, ad infinitum.
Nothing happens always; nothing is everywhere. All happens somewhen; all happens somewhere. You say, all except God, and truth, and right and wrong, and maybe more.
"Common sense" knows intuitively that there is no way everything, God included, is relative. Something has to be absolute if for no other reason, to supply the relativities something thing to be relative to.
Relativity is relative. Everyone has their own idea of what the word means, just as everyone knows that God–if there is a god–is absolute. That is what "God" is understood to mean: absolute, authority, power, control.
Relativity is relative? Yes. There is no fixed, standard definition of the word; it depends on who is using it. Einstein’s general theory of relativity is an idea that differs widely from moral relativity, or the relativity of color, or of truth, or of cousins, grandchildren, and all the rest of our kinfolk–our relatives. In what sense is God relative? Is he our relative?
I assume that if God is not absolute, there are no other contenders for absolutism; everything would be relative if God is not absolute. But, someone might say, is not that claim absolute? No. It is total, conclusive, all in all: everything is related, directly or indirectly, to everything else, and all is relative to God, just as God is relative–related–to all.
What is more, and foundational to all the rest, God is relative to God. God the Father relates to God the Spirit, who is relative to God the Son, the Son relative to the Father and the Spirit, always, eternally the Christian trinitarian God, who is the one God, is relating internally. Since God is relative, everything else follows suit.
God is love.
We’ll have to revisit this from other directions because most if not all, of what is told in the biblical story is relative one way or another.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
I had intended to delete the previous post on this verse, but since there was response from Norwood, I will leave it in place despite the need of some editing. I like what Norwood has to say, and take no real exception to it. Well, one exception. A better term might be "essentially relative," but certainly not "relatively essential."
My intention in this blog is to show that divine relativity is the essence of God, as best a human can comprehend the divine mystery.
This post contains the revision of the earlier post, and a followup on it.
_____________
\
"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
AV (KJV)
I memorized this verse more than sixty years ago, and have never forgotten it. In my memory it lives in the phrasing of the King James Version. And in the words of that version, it has disturbed me for a couple of decades. So, finally, I have devoted time to deliberately scrutinize the verse.
I have learned, through the process described in this blog, that part of my frustration lies in the King James language. But that doesn’t cover it all. I intend to bring this quandary, and this post, to a relatively satisfying conclusion.
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold new things have come." NASB
2 Corinthians 5:17 is one of the most widely quoted verses in the New Testament. On a first reading, it no problem to understand.
If anyone has given their life to Christ (is a Christian, a believer in Christ), God fashions them into a completely new person (born anew, re-generated). The person they were no longer exists. See (examine with your own eyes, observe, it is obvious), a new person has appeared.
But this poses a logical dilemma:
Either 2 Corinthians 5:17 speaks of total conversion, or it is not literally true.
If it refers to total conversion, then it is a false statement
If not literally true, it could be relatively true
Therefore, 2 Corinthians 5:17 either is a false statement, or it could be relatively true
This verse is in the form of a conditional (if, then) statement. Logically, when the if part of the statement is true, the then part of the statement must be true. To state it a different way, when the then part of the statement not true, the if part of the statement cannot be true.
If an individual is completely converted, their old life is completely gone
The old life is not completely gone; elements of the old life remain
Therefore, they are not completely converted.
To restate:
If an individual is "in Christ," then it is a certainty that their old attitudes, values, and way of life have disappeared. If we find that the life of a person who claims to be "in Christ" retains any of the same old attitudes, values, and ways of life, then we must conclude they are not truly "in Christ."
Long-term observation indicates that some old attitudes, values, and ways of life continue in the lives of all professing Christians. If this is true (and I think it can be demonstrated), then no professing Christian is "in Christ." In fact, there are none "in Christ." Can one be a Christian, but not "in Christ?" If so, then what does "in Christ" mean?
On the other hand, if we understand this verse to be relatively true, then it is possible that an individual might have a definitely positive relation to Christ--relatively in Christ--but not completely. They could be a relatively new creation with their old life relatively gone. The new is in the formative process, and the old in the process of being eradicated.
Of course, this raises a question about the nature of the entire Bible.
If the Bible is absolutely true, then 2 Corinthians 5:17 must be absolutely true
2 Corinthians is not absolutely true (so it seems from the preceding)
So, the Bible cannot be absolutely true
If 2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true, then the Bible is relatively true
2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true (so it seems from the preceding)
Thus, the Bible must be relatively true.
This necessitates a complete re-viewing of the Bible, a re-vision of our understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Now, it must be looked at from a new perspective, a perspective that differs from the consensus of Christian tradition.
________________
The above is a revision of the post,
I have not only revised, but have written a followup of the above.
The following is the followup
________________
Several Translations
"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
AV (KJV)
This seems to speak to the individual who is "in Christ," therefore , since "he is a new creature" for whom "all things are become new," the implication is that all the "old things are passed away."
The entire conditional statement indicates a complete change, conversion, of the person. Nothing of the pre-Christian life remains.
Obviously, the color of a person’s eyes, their fingerprint, and such, will not have changed. If those changes are excepted, where can we draw the line between those things that don’t change, and those that do. "All things?" What does "things" comprise?
For me, this translation indicates that when one becomes a Christian, all of the spiritual--moral and religious–life is transformed, made new. Thus, if all is not new, if some of the old remains, the person is not "in Christ." I’ve not known anyone where this total transformation has already come into being. If not, either the passage is not a true statement, or there are no Christians to be found.
Neither of these conclusions is acceptable, so we look to other translations to see if they might clear this dilemma for us.
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."
NKJV
The New King James did not clarify, rather it turned the word "creature" into the more ambiguous, "creation."
"When anyone is joined to Christ, he is a new being; the old has gone, the new has come."
TEV
Here, the word, "therefore," is omitted. It is no longer presented as a logical conclusion of what precedes the verse.
For me, "joined to" Christ has a clearer and more distinctive sound than "in."
"Being," rather than "creature, creation," moves from the language of God’s creation to the abstraction of philosophical terminology.
(We may begin to wonder what the Greek text says, in order that we may better evaluate these variants among the translators.)
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"
NIV
I have arbitrarily chosen the NIV rather than the KJV, as the base translation to compare others to.
This, like the NKJV, prefers, "creature." The only help with the dilemma is the deletion of the word, "all." This legitimate deletion–it does not occur in the Greek text--allows a relative conversion rather than an total, or so-called absolute conversion.
"Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come!"
NASB
Nothing much different.
"And for anyone who is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old creation has gone; and now the new one is here."
JB
"Therefore" omitted, losing this as a conclusion from the preceding.
"Creation," is ambiguous in this context. It could mean the Genesis creation, and that creation renewed.
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold the new has come!"
RSV
I like the "passed away," our common euphemism for "died."
"Anyone who belongs to Christ, is a new person, The past is forgotten and everything is new."
CEV
A wide departure from the Greek text.
"There is a new creation whenever a man comes to be in Christ; he is a new creation; what is old is gone, the new has come."
Moffatt
The sentence is changed from a conditional to a categorical, declarative.
"So if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new being; the old state of things has passed away there is a new state of things."
NEB
The state of what things? This language is more philosophical than biblical.
"For anyone united to Christ, there is a new creation; the old order has gone; a new order has already begun."
REB
The verse seems to speak of individuals, but the REB seems, with the word, "order," to be speaking more universally.
"Accordingly, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old is gone. Look! The new has come!"
Verkuyl
A quite good translation. Therefore, accordingly, so, hence, function as synonyms.
"So, if anybody is in union with Christ, he is the work of a new creation; the old condition has passed away, a new condition has come!"
Williams Translation
Nothing significantly different.
"Therefore if any person is (engrafted) in Christ, the Messiah, he is (a new creature altogether,) a new creation; the old (previous moral and spiritual condition) has passed away, Behold the fresh and new has come."
Amplified Bible
"This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!"
NLT
"This means that," functions synonymously with "Therefore."
The NLT seems true to the meaning of the Greek text, but departs freely from a literal translation.
__________
The following is my concise and literal translation:
"Therefore, if anyone in Christ, new creation. The old has passed away. Look, has been made fresh."
Roark translation of the Greek New Testament, British and Foreign Bible Society,1958
Optional terms that may be legitimately substituted, are shown in what follows:
"Therefore [so, accordingly, thus, hence, we may conclude that], if anyone in Christ, new creation; the old has passed away [gone, no longer here], look [Behold] become [come to pass, been made, made, come, become, is, done, created, happening] new [fresh]."
Expanded, but still true to literal Greek: "Therefore, if anyone (in Greek, ‘is’ is implied) is in Christ, the old has passed away. Look, has already begun afresh."
So, what follows is Roark’s preferred variant, but still a literal translation into ordinary English:
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the old has passed away. Look a fresh beginning has been set in motion."
_______________________
What does "in Christ" mean: united to, joined to, in union with, belongs to, or something else?
The old what is gone?
Has passed away? Dead, gone, no longer here? Other options?
How dead? None of it remaining, all gone?
A new, or fresh beginning? What is new, how fresh?
Has begun, or, on the other hand, has become, or come to pass?
Is it a process that has begun, or is it an accomplished deed?
My last translation indicates that I take this verse to be understood relatively. However, it remains ambiguous.
One thing rings true: We need to carefully scrutinize both our relation to Christ, and the conduct of our actions.
My intention in this blog is to show that divine relativity is the essence of God, as best a human can comprehend the divine mystery.
This post contains the revision of the earlier post, and a followup on it.
_____________
\
"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
AV (KJV)
I memorized this verse more than sixty years ago, and have never forgotten it. In my memory it lives in the phrasing of the King James Version. And in the words of that version, it has disturbed me for a couple of decades. So, finally, I have devoted time to deliberately scrutinize the verse.
I have learned, through the process described in this blog, that part of my frustration lies in the King James language. But that doesn’t cover it all. I intend to bring this quandary, and this post, to a relatively satisfying conclusion.
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold new things have come." NASB
2 Corinthians 5:17 is one of the most widely quoted verses in the New Testament. On a first reading, it no problem to understand.
If anyone has given their life to Christ (is a Christian, a believer in Christ), God fashions them into a completely new person (born anew, re-generated). The person they were no longer exists. See (examine with your own eyes, observe, it is obvious), a new person has appeared.
But this poses a logical dilemma:
Either 2 Corinthians 5:17 speaks of total conversion, or it is not literally true.
If it refers to total conversion, then it is a false statement
If not literally true, it could be relatively true
Therefore, 2 Corinthians 5:17 either is a false statement, or it could be relatively true
This verse is in the form of a conditional (if, then) statement. Logically, when the if part of the statement is true, the then part of the statement must be true. To state it a different way, when the then part of the statement not true, the if part of the statement cannot be true.
If an individual is completely converted, their old life is completely gone
The old life is not completely gone; elements of the old life remain
Therefore, they are not completely converted.
To restate:
If an individual is "in Christ," then it is a certainty that their old attitudes, values, and way of life have disappeared. If we find that the life of a person who claims to be "in Christ" retains any of the same old attitudes, values, and ways of life, then we must conclude they are not truly "in Christ."
Long-term observation indicates that some old attitudes, values, and ways of life continue in the lives of all professing Christians. If this is true (and I think it can be demonstrated), then no professing Christian is "in Christ." In fact, there are none "in Christ." Can one be a Christian, but not "in Christ?" If so, then what does "in Christ" mean?
On the other hand, if we understand this verse to be relatively true, then it is possible that an individual might have a definitely positive relation to Christ--relatively in Christ--but not completely. They could be a relatively new creation with their old life relatively gone. The new is in the formative process, and the old in the process of being eradicated.
Of course, this raises a question about the nature of the entire Bible.
If the Bible is absolutely true, then 2 Corinthians 5:17 must be absolutely true
2 Corinthians is not absolutely true (so it seems from the preceding)
So, the Bible cannot be absolutely true
If 2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true, then the Bible is relatively true
2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true (so it seems from the preceding)
Thus, the Bible must be relatively true.
This necessitates a complete re-viewing of the Bible, a re-vision of our understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Now, it must be looked at from a new perspective, a perspective that differs from the consensus of Christian tradition.
________________
The above is a revision of the post,
I have not only revised, but have written a followup of the above.
The following is the followup
________________
Several Translations
"Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
AV (KJV)
This seems to speak to the individual who is "in Christ," therefore , since "he is a new creature" for whom "all things are become new," the implication is that all the "old things are passed away."
The entire conditional statement indicates a complete change, conversion, of the person. Nothing of the pre-Christian life remains.
Obviously, the color of a person’s eyes, their fingerprint, and such, will not have changed. If those changes are excepted, where can we draw the line between those things that don’t change, and those that do. "All things?" What does "things" comprise?
For me, this translation indicates that when one becomes a Christian, all of the spiritual--moral and religious–life is transformed, made new. Thus, if all is not new, if some of the old remains, the person is not "in Christ." I’ve not known anyone where this total transformation has already come into being. If not, either the passage is not a true statement, or there are no Christians to be found.
Neither of these conclusions is acceptable, so we look to other translations to see if they might clear this dilemma for us.
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."
NKJV
The New King James did not clarify, rather it turned the word "creature" into the more ambiguous, "creation."
"When anyone is joined to Christ, he is a new being; the old has gone, the new has come."
TEV
Here, the word, "therefore," is omitted. It is no longer presented as a logical conclusion of what precedes the verse.
For me, "joined to" Christ has a clearer and more distinctive sound than "in."
"Being," rather than "creature, creation," moves from the language of God’s creation to the abstraction of philosophical terminology.
(We may begin to wonder what the Greek text says, in order that we may better evaluate these variants among the translators.)
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"
NIV
I have arbitrarily chosen the NIV rather than the KJV, as the base translation to compare others to.
This, like the NKJV, prefers, "creature." The only help with the dilemma is the deletion of the word, "all." This legitimate deletion–it does not occur in the Greek text--allows a relative conversion rather than an total, or so-called absolute conversion.
"Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come!"
NASB
Nothing much different.
"And for anyone who is in Christ, there is a new creation; the old creation has gone; and now the new one is here."
JB
"Therefore" omitted, losing this as a conclusion from the preceding.
"Creation," is ambiguous in this context. It could mean the Genesis creation, and that creation renewed.
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold the new has come!"
RSV
I like the "passed away," our common euphemism for "died."
"Anyone who belongs to Christ, is a new person, The past is forgotten and everything is new."
CEV
A wide departure from the Greek text.
"There is a new creation whenever a man comes to be in Christ; he is a new creation; what is old is gone, the new has come."
Moffatt
The sentence is changed from a conditional to a categorical, declarative.
"So if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new being; the old state of things has passed away there is a new state of things."
NEB
The state of what things? This language is more philosophical than biblical.
"For anyone united to Christ, there is a new creation; the old order has gone; a new order has already begun."
REB
The verse seems to speak of individuals, but the REB seems, with the word, "order," to be speaking more universally.
"Accordingly, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old is gone. Look! The new has come!"
Verkuyl
A quite good translation. Therefore, accordingly, so, hence, function as synonyms.
"So, if anybody is in union with Christ, he is the work of a new creation; the old condition has passed away, a new condition has come!"
Williams Translation
Nothing significantly different.
"Therefore if any person is (engrafted) in Christ, the Messiah, he is (a new creature altogether,) a new creation; the old (previous moral and spiritual condition) has passed away, Behold the fresh and new has come."
Amplified Bible
"This means that anyone who belongs to Christ has become a new person. The old life is gone; a new life has begun!"
NLT
"This means that," functions synonymously with "Therefore."
The NLT seems true to the meaning of the Greek text, but departs freely from a literal translation.
__________
The following is my concise and literal translation:
"Therefore, if anyone in Christ, new creation. The old has passed away. Look, has been made fresh."
Roark translation of the Greek New Testament, British and Foreign Bible Society,1958
Optional terms that may be legitimately substituted, are shown in what follows:
"Therefore [so, accordingly, thus, hence, we may conclude that], if anyone in Christ, new creation; the old has passed away [gone, no longer here], look [Behold] become [come to pass, been made, made, come, become, is, done, created, happening] new [fresh]."
Expanded, but still true to literal Greek: "Therefore, if anyone (in Greek, ‘is’ is implied) is in Christ, the old has passed away. Look, has already begun afresh."
So, what follows is Roark’s preferred variant, but still a literal translation into ordinary English:
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the old has passed away. Look a fresh beginning has been set in motion."
_______________________
What does "in Christ" mean: united to, joined to, in union with, belongs to, or something else?
The old what is gone?
Has passed away? Dead, gone, no longer here? Other options?
How dead? None of it remaining, all gone?
A new, or fresh beginning? What is new, how fresh?
Has begun, or, on the other hand, has become, or come to pass?
Is it a process that has begun, or is it an accomplished deed?
My last translation indicates that I take this verse to be understood relatively. However, it remains ambiguous.
One thing rings true: We need to carefully scrutinize both our relation to Christ, and the conduct of our actions.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
2 Corinthians 5:17: a Dilemma
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold new things have come." NASB
2 Corinthians 5:17 is one of the most widely quoted verses in the New Testament. On a first reading, it no problem to understand.
If anyone has given their life to Christ (is a Christian, a believer in Christ), God fashions them into a completely new person (born anew, re-generated). The person they were no longer exists. See (examine with your own eyes, observe, it is obvious), a new person has appeared.
---------------
But this understanding poses a logical dilemma:
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold new things have come." NASB
2 Corinthians 5:17 is one of the most widely quoted verses in the New Testament. On a first reading, it no problem to understand.
If anyone has given their life to Christ (is a Christian, a believer in Christ), God fashions them into a completely new person (born anew, re-generated). The person they were no longer exists. See (examine with your own eyes, observe, it is obvious), a new person has appeared.
---------------
But this understanding poses a logical dilemma:
Either this is absolute literal truth or it is relative truth
If absolute literal truth, then for anyone who is a Christian, their old ways of life are no longer a part of them; the life they are now living is a new way of life, different from the old.
If relative truth, then for anyone who is a Christian, their old ways are relatively gone; the life they now live is relatively new.
Therefore, either they are complete converted, or they are not completely converted.
-------------------------
This verse is in the form of a conditional (if, then) statement. Logically, when the if part of the statement is true, the then part of the statement must be true. To state it a different way, when the then part of the statement not true, the if part of the statement cannot be true.
If an individual is completely converted, their old life is completely gone
The old life is not completely gone; elements of the old life remain
Therefore, they are not completely converted.
To restate:
If an individual is "in Christ," then it is a certainty that their old attitudes, values, and way of life have disappeared. If we find that the life of a person who claims to be "in Christ" retains any of the same old attitudes, values, and ways of life, then we must conclude they are not truly "in Christ."
Long-term observation indicates that some old attitudes, values, and ways of life continue in the lives of all professing Christians. If this is true (and I think it can be demonstrated), then no professing Christian is "in Christ." In fact, there are none "in Christ." Can one be a Christian, but not "in Christ?" If so, then what does "in Christ" mean?
-----------
On the other hand, if we understand this verse to be relatively true, then it is possible that an individual might have a definitely positive relation to Christ--relatively in Christ--but not completely. They could be a relatively new creation with their old life relatively gone. The new is in the formative process, and the old in the process of being eradicated.
-------------
Of course, this raises a question about the nature of the entire Bible.
If the Bible is absolutely true, then 2 Corinthians 5:17 must be absolutely true
2 Corinthians is not absolutely true (so it seems from the preceding)
So, the Bible cannot be absolutely true
---------------
If 2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true, then the Bible is relatively true
2 Corinthians 5:17 is relatively true (so it seems from the preceding)
Thus, the Bible must be relatively true.
_____________
This necessitates a complete re-viewing of the Bible, a re-vision of our understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Now, it must be looked at from a new perspective, a perspective that differs from the consensus of Christian tradition.
Monday, January 01, 2007
It’s little wonder that people don’t like God. He has been misrepresented. When we listen to the diverse testimony of the Bible, it is easy to see how we might get off track and miss the main line. Which of these many witnesses are we to believe? Can their divergent testimony be harmonized?
No simple resolution of the tensions will work, mainly because God is not simple. He is complex, and so is the story the Bible tells–it has to be if it is to faithfully represent God. The Bible and its God are complex, difficult to comprehend, and always relative. The guitar, an apparently simple instrument, turns out to have unimaginably rich possibilities beyond strumming three chords. Life is not simple, nor is love, nor truth, nor the Bible, nor the gospel, nor God, nor the guitar. Add to that:, nor am I, nor are you. Michael Levine observed that "Some people involve themselves in religion as an opportunity to approach mystery, and other people go into religion to escape mystery."
God has been misrepresented because of naivete, obscurantism, and self-interest. It is just as naive to reduce God to "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so," as it is to think that God’s main concern is getting us into his heaven. It is just as obscurantist to believe that Augustine and John Calvin are the final authorities on God as it is to believe that John Wesley or Thomas Aquinas can tell us all we need to know. It is just as selfish to identify God with Americanism, capitalism, or the Republican party as it is to believe that God will produce abundant health and wealth to all who faithfully obey him. God can be reduced to neither John 3:16 nor the prayer of Jabez.
You may not agree. You may be one of those who believe that God reveals himself clearly, that any sixth grader can understand the Bible, or that all we need to know about God is how to "get saved" so we can avoid hell when we die (a concern to an ever decreasing number, at least in Europe, the Americas, and Australia). If you find this way of thinking satisfactory, then you haven’t read the whole Bible, paying attention to what it tells about God, and what God himself says. Or, you have read, selected the conventional, and ignored the rest.
I suggest that the Bible is more akin to a complexly plotted novel or a rich orchestral symphony than to a blog of children’s literature or a three-chord popular song. It is more akin to a kaleidoscopic view of God than it is to a how-to blog, a blog of rules, or a blog of doctrines. It is more akin to poetry with its metaphor, simile, and suggestiveness than it is to an encyclopedic reference blog filled with objectively validated facts.
"In the beginning God." That’s where you have to begin, otherwise you begin, and end, with nothing. You come to life’s end with nothing. That’s no way to live, and certainly not what you want to realize your life has come to at its close.. So many deaths are sad, are failures, are empty, a waste. On the one hand many in the 21st Century are convinced that the only honest beginning for thought and life is to realize there is nothing: no truth, no meaning, no purpose, no goal. Nothing. "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!"
And on the other hand, if it is true that the only place to begin is with God; if the only place to begin to make sense of life, to give meaning to our own actual, personal, precious life is to start with God, then the question becomes, "Which God? What do you mean by the term, the concept? What God are you proposing?" In this blog we are dealing explicitly with the God to whom the Christian scriptures, in their complex and simple, clear and obscure way, bear witness.
Don’t be too sure you already know all about him, have him all figured out, and have lost interest. The fact remains that everything we think or do, everything we treasure or hate, is rooted in our response to the God question: is there a God or not, and if so, what is he/she/it like? Paul Tillich claimed that everyone has a god, that whatever is your ultimate concern, that is your God. One versified response to Tillich got directly to the point: "My ultimate concern is whether the ultimate is concerned with me." A philosopher once was asked, "What is the most important of all questions?: He answered, "Is the universe on our side?" And yes, the ultimate is concerned with us, the Creator of the universe is on our side.
What I’m proposing in this blog is a Copernican revolution of our understanding of the Christian God. Remember. Copernicus didn’t deny the existence of the sun, the earth, or any other phenomena of astronomy. He simply changed the perspective with which we considered them, and that changed everything. It opened the way for all kinds of new understandings, many of which led to new courses of action, making possible, among other things, all our space exploration. When the Copernican cosmology was first presented and explained it was not at all clear what it might illuminate and change. Nonetheless, in time, it constituted an amazingly productive revolution.
Remember also that Copernicus was strongly opposed in the beginning, but now is accepted almost universally. I hope to convince you that we have been presented with major misunderstandings of who God is, what he is like, what he wants, and how he goes about what he does. I intend to present a better perspective from which to understand and respond to God.
I intend to be as faithful to the biblical materials, even to the mainstream of Christian belief, as Copernicus was to the facts of our solar system. Nothing new will appear on these pages, rather there will be a shift of center. It is all to be found in the Bible, always has been, but sometimes it is hard to see what we what is right in front of us. Whether this is so, you will have to examine and decide.
Now if you believe there is no such thing as transcendence, no mystery, nothing that can’t be stated precisely, you might as well click onto some other site. Your blinders will prevent you from seeing. If you believe all can be reduced to scientific explanation and technological solution, don’t expect a blog written in your language. On the other hand, if you expect a defense of liberal or conservative, evangelical or mainline views of God, you will not be hearing the insider language of your chosen habitat.
I have lived on the border between the church and the world, know both languages, both ways of thinking, and cross the border often. My citizenship is on the church side. On that side we can discern two perceptibly different ways of sensing, understanding, and responding to God. They are not inherently incompatible, in essence they are harmonious, but too often in practice they have gone their separate and destructive ways. Most of the criticism of Christianity, some quite valid, stems from this division.
No simple resolution of the tensions will work, mainly because God is not simple. He is complex, and so is the story the Bible tells–it has to be if it is to faithfully represent God. The Bible and its God are complex, difficult to comprehend, and always relative. The guitar, an apparently simple instrument, turns out to have unimaginably rich possibilities beyond strumming three chords. Life is not simple, nor is love, nor truth, nor the Bible, nor the gospel, nor God, nor the guitar. Add to that:, nor am I, nor are you. Michael Levine observed that "Some people involve themselves in religion as an opportunity to approach mystery, and other people go into religion to escape mystery."
God has been misrepresented because of naivete, obscurantism, and self-interest. It is just as naive to reduce God to "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so," as it is to think that God’s main concern is getting us into his heaven. It is just as obscurantist to believe that Augustine and John Calvin are the final authorities on God as it is to believe that John Wesley or Thomas Aquinas can tell us all we need to know. It is just as selfish to identify God with Americanism, capitalism, or the Republican party as it is to believe that God will produce abundant health and wealth to all who faithfully obey him. God can be reduced to neither John 3:16 nor the prayer of Jabez.
You may not agree. You may be one of those who believe that God reveals himself clearly, that any sixth grader can understand the Bible, or that all we need to know about God is how to "get saved" so we can avoid hell when we die (a concern to an ever decreasing number, at least in Europe, the Americas, and Australia). If you find this way of thinking satisfactory, then you haven’t read the whole Bible, paying attention to what it tells about God, and what God himself says. Or, you have read, selected the conventional, and ignored the rest.
I suggest that the Bible is more akin to a complexly plotted novel or a rich orchestral symphony than to a blog of children’s literature or a three-chord popular song. It is more akin to a kaleidoscopic view of God than it is to a how-to blog, a blog of rules, or a blog of doctrines. It is more akin to poetry with its metaphor, simile, and suggestiveness than it is to an encyclopedic reference blog filled with objectively validated facts.
"In the beginning God." That’s where you have to begin, otherwise you begin, and end, with nothing. You come to life’s end with nothing. That’s no way to live, and certainly not what you want to realize your life has come to at its close.. So many deaths are sad, are failures, are empty, a waste. On the one hand many in the 21st Century are convinced that the only honest beginning for thought and life is to realize there is nothing: no truth, no meaning, no purpose, no goal. Nothing. "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity!"
And on the other hand, if it is true that the only place to begin is with God; if the only place to begin to make sense of life, to give meaning to our own actual, personal, precious life is to start with God, then the question becomes, "Which God? What do you mean by the term, the concept? What God are you proposing?" In this blog we are dealing explicitly with the God to whom the Christian scriptures, in their complex and simple, clear and obscure way, bear witness.
Don’t be too sure you already know all about him, have him all figured out, and have lost interest. The fact remains that everything we think or do, everything we treasure or hate, is rooted in our response to the God question: is there a God or not, and if so, what is he/she/it like? Paul Tillich claimed that everyone has a god, that whatever is your ultimate concern, that is your God. One versified response to Tillich got directly to the point: "My ultimate concern is whether the ultimate is concerned with me." A philosopher once was asked, "What is the most important of all questions?: He answered, "Is the universe on our side?" And yes, the ultimate is concerned with us, the Creator of the universe is on our side.
What I’m proposing in this blog is a Copernican revolution of our understanding of the Christian God. Remember. Copernicus didn’t deny the existence of the sun, the earth, or any other phenomena of astronomy. He simply changed the perspective with which we considered them, and that changed everything. It opened the way for all kinds of new understandings, many of which led to new courses of action, making possible, among other things, all our space exploration. When the Copernican cosmology was first presented and explained it was not at all clear what it might illuminate and change. Nonetheless, in time, it constituted an amazingly productive revolution.
Remember also that Copernicus was strongly opposed in the beginning, but now is accepted almost universally. I hope to convince you that we have been presented with major misunderstandings of who God is, what he is like, what he wants, and how he goes about what he does. I intend to present a better perspective from which to understand and respond to God.
I intend to be as faithful to the biblical materials, even to the mainstream of Christian belief, as Copernicus was to the facts of our solar system. Nothing new will appear on these pages, rather there will be a shift of center. It is all to be found in the Bible, always has been, but sometimes it is hard to see what we what is right in front of us. Whether this is so, you will have to examine and decide.
Now if you believe there is no such thing as transcendence, no mystery, nothing that can’t be stated precisely, you might as well click onto some other site. Your blinders will prevent you from seeing. If you believe all can be reduced to scientific explanation and technological solution, don’t expect a blog written in your language. On the other hand, if you expect a defense of liberal or conservative, evangelical or mainline views of God, you will not be hearing the insider language of your chosen habitat.
I have lived on the border between the church and the world, know both languages, both ways of thinking, and cross the border often. My citizenship is on the church side. On that side we can discern two perceptibly different ways of sensing, understanding, and responding to God. They are not inherently incompatible, in essence they are harmonious, but too often in practice they have gone their separate and destructive ways. Most of the criticism of Christianity, some quite valid, stems from this division.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
