If you read through the comments in my Reader's Challenge post, you will see something quite interesting.
I think, I am trying to discuss a fact.
Carl is trying to talk about belief.
The two things are very different.
I stated in one of my sermons that Christianity is unique because it alone of all religions and philosophies states that salvation and the satisfaction of justice comes not through any actions of humankind, but solely through the actions of God.
This is a statement of fact. It can be falsified rather easily. If there is another religion that proclaims this, then my statement is untrue. My statement is not narrow, if it is true anymore than the statement two plus two is four is not narrow. It is simply a fact.
Beliefs are another matter. Beliefs are not easily falsified. For instance:
Christianity claims/believes that Jesus is God in flesh. Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice of atonement and was raised from the dead.
Islam claims/believes that Jesus was a prophet; he was not the Son of God; he didn't really die therefore was not raised from the dead.
These are two completely contradictory beliefs/claims.
Either they are both false or one is correct. They both cannot be true. You cannot say that Jesus was the Son of God and he wasn't the Son of God. You cannot say that Jesus was raised from the dead and he was not raised from the dead. Factually, this is impossible.
Similarly, the most basic difference between atheists and theists is the following:
Theists believe there is something beyond this physical universe.
Atheists believe there is nothing beyond this physical universe.
One of these statements is true. The other is false. They cannot both be true.
The question is: which one is ultimately true?
The answer is: we don't know for certain.
There is no way to scientifically test whether or not Jesus was the Son of God or if he was raised from the dead. There is no way to scientifically test what is beyond this physical universe. You can only make that decision based upon how you read evidence and which authorities you trust.
If you trust that Mohammed is Allah's prophet and his words are true, you will be a Muslim and believe Jesus is not God's Son and that he was not raised from the dead.
If you trust the biblical witness you will be a Christian and believe that Jesus is the Son of God and was raised from the dead.
If you look at the evidence and conclude there is nothing beyond this physical universe, you will be an atheist.
If you look at the evidence and conclude there is something beyond this physical universe, you will be a theist.
There is plenty of room to argue the evidence for these matters. There is plenty of room for open dialogue and discussion of these things. Facts can be laid out. Arguments can be made for the authority of the Koran or the Bible. Evidence can be pointed out for something outside the universe, and evidence can be pointed out for the non-existence of something outside this universe. Weaknesses of arguments can be pointed out. Such things can be done because we are dealing with beliefs--points which can be disputed.
But you cannot dispute a fact.
You can show your ignorance.
You can pretend the fact does not exist.
You can uncover evidence to prove that what was thought was fact was indeed wrong. (Science progresses in just this fashion!)
But in the absence of such evidence, you must admit that a fact is true.
2+2=4
Islam and Christianity have very different beliefs about who Jesus is.
Atheists and Theists have very different understandings about what lies beyond this physical universe.
And Christianity is unique among world religions and philosophies in that it claims that salvation and the satisfaction of justice are brought about by God's action alone and not by our own.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Thursday, July 10, 2014
The "Something" Out There is Personal
Michio Kaku offers an interesting take on transcendence and whether or not God exists.
Interestingly enough, this famous physicist ends up basically where I left this blog yesterday. There is a transcendent reality, but it isn't personal.
I would like to argue that this transcendent reality is indeed a personal reality, and I would like to start with a common parable--one which I have used in my sermons a couple of times--the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
This parable is about a group of blind men who stumble upon an elephant in their path. They strive to see the elephant. Each touches a different part of the elephant, and then they argue about the nature of that elephant. One argues the elephant is like a spear--he touched the tusk. One argues the elephant is like a hose--he touched the trunk. One argues the elephant is like a wall--he touched the torso. One argues the elephant is like a rope--he touched the tail. One argues the elephant is like a tree trunk--he touched the leg. And so on and so forth. Each believed his piece of the elephant constituted the entire reality of the elephant, but they were all wrong. In one way, they were all right, but in another, they were all wrong.
Folks like to use this analogy/parable and apply it to religions. Most religions worship a transcendent reality, but how does one know what that reality is like? The parable suggests no one really knows for sure--all are blind and only "see" one part. None has the big picture.
This might be an interesting argument to talk about the nature of religions except for one small problem--the parable doesn't work unless someone knows what the whole elephant looks like to begin with. Only an outsider who knows what the whole elephant looks like can say, "All the guys were right, and all the guys were wrong." Therefore, if you want to use this parable to talk about religion--and how religion views God, then you either have to admit you are blind (and only have a limited knowledge of God yourself) or that you somehow see the entire elephant. At this point, you've actually backed yourself into the proverbial corner.
Unless there is someone who has actually seen the nature of God. Unless there is someone who has encountered the transcendence and become immanent.
Christianity is the only religion which professes such a thing to have happened. Christianity is the only religion which claims the transcendent reality of God took on flesh and lived among us. Christianity is the only religion which claims we don't have to work our way up to God, but God worked His way down to us.
If we as humankind are striving to work our way up to a transcendent reality, we will never make it. We will never know what kind of transcendence is out there. It is an impossibility. But, if that transcendent reality has made itself known...that changes everything.
Christianity claims Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God--being fully God and fully human, and this claim grounds itself in the writings of Scripture. Jesus claimed to be God and to know God.
The claim was radical--absolutely radical--especially given the Jewish culture to which Jesus entered into. It would have done more than raise eyebrows. It would have been cause to see Jesus as insane, dangerous, blasphemous, even evil. We see hints of this throughout the gospel stories.
Which brings me to the crux of the argument--if the transcendent indeed became immanent in Jesus, then the stories about Jesus must be reliable. Are they?
Another blog topic.
Interestingly enough, this famous physicist ends up basically where I left this blog yesterday. There is a transcendent reality, but it isn't personal.
I would like to argue that this transcendent reality is indeed a personal reality, and I would like to start with a common parable--one which I have used in my sermons a couple of times--the parable of the blind men and the elephant.
This parable is about a group of blind men who stumble upon an elephant in their path. They strive to see the elephant. Each touches a different part of the elephant, and then they argue about the nature of that elephant. One argues the elephant is like a spear--he touched the tusk. One argues the elephant is like a hose--he touched the trunk. One argues the elephant is like a wall--he touched the torso. One argues the elephant is like a rope--he touched the tail. One argues the elephant is like a tree trunk--he touched the leg. And so on and so forth. Each believed his piece of the elephant constituted the entire reality of the elephant, but they were all wrong. In one way, they were all right, but in another, they were all wrong.
Folks like to use this analogy/parable and apply it to religions. Most religions worship a transcendent reality, but how does one know what that reality is like? The parable suggests no one really knows for sure--all are blind and only "see" one part. None has the big picture.
This might be an interesting argument to talk about the nature of religions except for one small problem--the parable doesn't work unless someone knows what the whole elephant looks like to begin with. Only an outsider who knows what the whole elephant looks like can say, "All the guys were right, and all the guys were wrong." Therefore, if you want to use this parable to talk about religion--and how religion views God, then you either have to admit you are blind (and only have a limited knowledge of God yourself) or that you somehow see the entire elephant. At this point, you've actually backed yourself into the proverbial corner.
Unless there is someone who has actually seen the nature of God. Unless there is someone who has encountered the transcendence and become immanent.
Christianity is the only religion which professes such a thing to have happened. Christianity is the only religion which claims the transcendent reality of God took on flesh and lived among us. Christianity is the only religion which claims we don't have to work our way up to God, but God worked His way down to us.
If we as humankind are striving to work our way up to a transcendent reality, we will never make it. We will never know what kind of transcendence is out there. It is an impossibility. But, if that transcendent reality has made itself known...that changes everything.
Christianity claims Jesus came to reveal the true nature of God--being fully God and fully human, and this claim grounds itself in the writings of Scripture. Jesus claimed to be God and to know God.
The claim was radical--absolutely radical--especially given the Jewish culture to which Jesus entered into. It would have done more than raise eyebrows. It would have been cause to see Jesus as insane, dangerous, blasphemous, even evil. We see hints of this throughout the gospel stories.
Which brings me to the crux of the argument--if the transcendent indeed became immanent in Jesus, then the stories about Jesus must be reliable. Are they?
Another blog topic.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
If They Found the Bones of Jesus (Part 2)
Further thoughts about why I would cease to call myself a Christian if the bones of Jesus were found:
Christianity is not a system of morals.
Let me be very careful here. Christianity does have a moral component. There is no doubt about that. We are called to live a certain way individually and corporately. We are called to a high standard of living with one another. Jesus outlines this very, very clearly.
But much of what Jesus taught was not new. Even the command to love one's neighbor as one's self was quoted from the Old Testament and is found in some form or fashion in just about every world religion and culture. Many of the great moral teachers taught the same thing as Jesus. In fact, this is one of those arguments used by atheists to diminish the Christian worldview.
If Christianity were just one more attempt to teach the world morality, then if they found the bones of Jesus, I could easily continue to call myself a Christian without any sort of intellectual problem.
But Christianity goes much further than simply being a moral system. It goes much further than simply being a system of justice. Christianity is about God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself.
Without the resurrection, the proclamation of Christianity falls short. There is no reconciliation. There's just one more dead wanna be Messiah.
Without the resurrection, we are still under the Old Covenant with its legal code. Either become Jewish and work to follow the law or one is screwed. And then those sticky questions arise as to whether or not one can be a gentile convert to Judaism or if one can only be a "God-fearer."
Without the resurrection, grace is essentially null and void. It's right back to works/righteousness. And hey, I've already figured out, I don't even come close.
Without the resurrection, I'm toast.
Might as well enjoy what I can.
But if Christ is raised from the dead...
Well, that changes everything.
Christianity is not a system of morals.
Let me be very careful here. Christianity does have a moral component. There is no doubt about that. We are called to live a certain way individually and corporately. We are called to a high standard of living with one another. Jesus outlines this very, very clearly.
But much of what Jesus taught was not new. Even the command to love one's neighbor as one's self was quoted from the Old Testament and is found in some form or fashion in just about every world religion and culture. Many of the great moral teachers taught the same thing as Jesus. In fact, this is one of those arguments used by atheists to diminish the Christian worldview.
If Christianity were just one more attempt to teach the world morality, then if they found the bones of Jesus, I could easily continue to call myself a Christian without any sort of intellectual problem.
But Christianity goes much further than simply being a moral system. It goes much further than simply being a system of justice. Christianity is about God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself.
Without the resurrection, the proclamation of Christianity falls short. There is no reconciliation. There's just one more dead wanna be Messiah.
Without the resurrection, we are still under the Old Covenant with its legal code. Either become Jewish and work to follow the law or one is screwed. And then those sticky questions arise as to whether or not one can be a gentile convert to Judaism or if one can only be a "God-fearer."
Without the resurrection, grace is essentially null and void. It's right back to works/righteousness. And hey, I've already figured out, I don't even come close.
Without the resurrection, I'm toast.
Might as well enjoy what I can.
But if Christ is raised from the dead...
Well, that changes everything.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Hell of a Shouting Contest (Who Can Judge Me?)
Wow!
Anthony Weiner, of course, became the target of many when he sexted with numerous women. It cost him his job in public office. Yet, in a bit of hubris in my opinion, he decided to run for mayor of New York City. Well and good. To err is human. To forgive is divine. Well... Um... That is... Until it is found out that the sexting continued even after he was caught the first time.
Apparently, the guy in the video objected to Weiner's decision to remain in the public eye, and they stood toe to toe.
And this is what I found interesting:
The repeated mantra, "Who are you to judge me? What makes you morally superior to me? Are you my judge? And you are perfect? You know who judges me? You want to think of me as your superior. Where do you get the morality to judge me? You are not my God."
Weiner and this guy going back and forth are Jewish, and it would be an intriguing question for them to sit down with a Rabbi and indeed hash this thing out. But there is a bigger problem raised in this exchange:
What is the standard for morality within our nation?
I'll give you 30 seconds or so.
Found it yet?
That's because I think you won't. I don't think you will find a moral standard which covers 100% of the folks in our nation.
This is one of the fall outs of the Post-modern world. Essentially, one can do whatever one wants as long as it does not "harm" anyone--to one's best definition of the word harm. Where this is exactly rooted as a particular philosophy in life, one must question for there are more than a few examples of where harming someone short term is actually a good thing in the long run. Don't believe me: vaccines. Short pain for the kids. Long term protection. But that is another issue.
What is at stake is how does one confront someone who has done something which the majority of people in society feel is wrong (sending nude pics and receiving nude pics from others when married)--when that person doesn't necessarily feel like he's done anything wrong? How does one invoke morality and a standard of life when another doesn't hold that same standard? How does one find some sort of moral high ground to point to when two people have such a vehement disagreement?
I mean, I could type this post out and fill it with all sorts of colorful language. Some of you might call me on it and say, "As a pastor, you should not be using such language."
I could easily respond, "God judges me. You don't. I don't believe I am doing anything wrong."
"But society thinks it's wrong. There are societal norms, and you are violating them."
"And society's norms are perfect? We live in a perfect society? What if their norms are wrong? Like back in the early history of our nation when people of color were thought to be less than fully human? Society dictates the norms?"
One can easily undermine any sort of argument just as Weiner does to this chap in the video.
Now, it is one thing to point to one's religious faith as a resource for such norms. It is another to point to the U.S. Constitution. It is another thing to point to case law interpreting that Constitution. It is another thing to point out the interpretation of certain passages from the Bible. All of these things are different!
Where is the agreed upon base, foundation, center?
We don't have one.
And until we get one, I believe we will see more shouting contests.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
I Have Been Ruined
I know that sounds like a strange title, but I found out something about myself this past weekend.
On Saturday, the family and I traveled to Camp Lutherhill in La Grange, TX. This year, my oldest will be attending summer camp, and we wanted to give her the chance to see camp and become a little more comfortable before leaving the nest for a week. It just so happened that Lutherhill was having "Open Camp" this Saturday, so not only did we get to see the camp, we got to experience it.
Open Camp gives folks the opportunity to engage in camp activities including swimming, archery, ropes, worship, and dining--all for free. It's a fantastic idea and one that really put my eldest at ease. As we were leaving, she even remarked, "I want to stay for two weeks!"
Now, enough of the advertisement for camp. Let's address the title of this post.
At 11:00 a.m. we gathered at the main outdoor chapel for worship and a sing-a-long. The camp counselors provided the music as we sang a host of camp songs, and in the midst of that sing-a-long, I discovered I had been ruined.
The song leader would get up to lead a song. He played guitar. He would play in one key, and he would sing in another key.
Musicians are cringing at this moment.
Those with little to no musical background are probably thinking, "What's the big deal."
Well, for those who have trained ears, having someone play in one key and sing in another is tantamount to:
nails on a chalkboard
rubbing a cat the wrong way
squeaking a balloon for hours
rubbing sandpaper on your bare butt
Yes, it's that bad.
I found that I couldn't sing along. I couldn't get into the music. I was ruined.
Years ago, this wouldn't have made a difference at all to me. I'd have simply followed the voice and not worried about the music. Heck, I'd have probably even sung in a third key, but things have happened to me over the years.
I began playing the guitar.
I began singing in a choir on a regular basis.
I began singing in a gospel band on a regular basis.
My ears began to change.
Perhaps this is a stretch theologically, but I don't think so.
I believe developing an ear to listening for God and developing an ear for music have several similarities:
On Saturday, the family and I traveled to Camp Lutherhill in La Grange, TX. This year, my oldest will be attending summer camp, and we wanted to give her the chance to see camp and become a little more comfortable before leaving the nest for a week. It just so happened that Lutherhill was having "Open Camp" this Saturday, so not only did we get to see the camp, we got to experience it.
Open Camp gives folks the opportunity to engage in camp activities including swimming, archery, ropes, worship, and dining--all for free. It's a fantastic idea and one that really put my eldest at ease. As we were leaving, she even remarked, "I want to stay for two weeks!"
Now, enough of the advertisement for camp. Let's address the title of this post.
At 11:00 a.m. we gathered at the main outdoor chapel for worship and a sing-a-long. The camp counselors provided the music as we sang a host of camp songs, and in the midst of that sing-a-long, I discovered I had been ruined.
The song leader would get up to lead a song. He played guitar. He would play in one key, and he would sing in another key.
Musicians are cringing at this moment.
Those with little to no musical background are probably thinking, "What's the big deal."
Well, for those who have trained ears, having someone play in one key and sing in another is tantamount to:
nails on a chalkboard
rubbing a cat the wrong way
squeaking a balloon for hours
rubbing sandpaper on your bare butt
Yes, it's that bad.
I found that I couldn't sing along. I couldn't get into the music. I was ruined.
Years ago, this wouldn't have made a difference at all to me. I'd have simply followed the voice and not worried about the music. Heck, I'd have probably even sung in a third key, but things have happened to me over the years.
I began playing the guitar.
I began singing in a choir on a regular basis.
I began singing in a gospel band on a regular basis.
My ears began to change.
- Whereas I used to have difficulty finding my part in singing in a choir--it comes with much more ease.
- Whereas I used to strum my guitar without worrying if a string were a little off--because I couldn't hear it, now, I stop and adjust if things are wonky.
- Whereas I used to sing and not worry about hitting pitch, I can immediately tell when I am off, and I have to adjust.
Perhaps this is a stretch theologically, but I don't think so.
I believe developing an ear to listening for God and developing an ear for music have several similarities:
- The more you are around music, the better you become at hearing the harmony. The more you immerse yourself in Christian disciplines--prayer, study, worship, fasting, etc.--the better able you become at distinguishing God's voice in the crowd.
- The more you are around music, the better you become in hearing that which is off key and out of tune. The more you have immersed yourself in disciplines--leading to distinguishing God's voice--the more you can tell when something is out of tune and out of line with God's will and desire.
- To truly develop your musical ear, you need to work with people--in a choir, in a band, with a coach. Going it alone only gets you so far. Ditto with developing your relationship with God; we need worship, coaches, pastors, scholars, those who write books, spiritual directors, and others who help in discerning God's voice.
- When you develop that ear, you are ruined. No longer do certain things satisfy. No longer is singing off key acceptable. No longer is it acceptable to allow a guitar string to be flat or sharp. Constant adjustment is needed. Same with living a live tuned into God. Constant adjustment is needed (repentance, forgiveness, absolution). No longer do the same things satisfy--"Man does not live by bread alone." You can see things which are out of tune with God--injustice, hunger, sickness, suffering. You desire to bring things back into tune and do so to the best of your ability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)