Struggles and a moment on Theology...

May has been a difficult month. Between working like crazy, confusion with relationships, and never seeming to find the time to work on my relationship with God. I truly feel like the seed in the thorns. It isn't just being busy, though. I have been struggling with this persistent feeling of worthlessness. However, I think the last two points may have a more intimate connection than I would or could otherwise recognize.

This is where the Theology comes in. Generally speaking, we, as humans, are not worthy of being saved by God. The world with all of its problems is the inevitable result of our nature. We are selfish and sinful beings. There is no question about the fact that our selfishness is largely responsible for all of the pain in the world. Our sinful nature manifests itself in a number of ways. This includes things like lust, greed, and gluttony. The fact is we do not, in any circumstance, deserve salvation. We have no right to stand before God as we are not worthy of that gift. This is precisely why we need God's Grace. This came to us in the form of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Absent that sacrifice, we would all be condemned for our nature.

It is not hard to have this feeling. I have no doubt that to some degree we all feel this way, though we no doubt interpret it in different ways. We also have different ways of dealing with the situation, too.

During the era of the black plague, there used to be a group that would go around in public flogging themselves because the plague was thought to be a punishment from God for the sins of humanity. In reality, it was a bacterium that grew in stagnating waste water. A sewer system that prevented waste water build up stopped its spread. The point of the story is how we deal with these issues. Plague grew as a result of a specific set of conditions created by our own waste, and flogging one's self as punishment didn't solve anything. There is no point to inflicting punishment upon one's self because salvation comes through committing ourselves to a relationship with God through God's mercy and Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

Bad things happen, good people do bad things, and the only plausible cause is that we are all fallibly human. The book of James suggests that we confront trials in order to bring us closer to God, that we suffer trials so that we may grow near to God by learning more about God. Repenting for Sin is a large part of this process. Being humble in the sight of God is more about admitting that you are a sinful being not worthy of God's grace, then enumerating those transgressions. At the same time, we shouldn't let these feelings of worthlessness prevent us from thinking that a meaningful relationship with God is impossible. If anything, this is just another diversion away from God. Micah put it best:

Do not rejoice over me, O my enemy. Though I fall I will rise; though I dwell in darkness, the Lord is a light for me. I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against Him, until He pleads my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me out to the light, and I will see His righteousness.

Micah 7:8-9. This reinforces the idea that though we sin and are sinful, there is salvation, and that we should not permit thoughts of worthlessness or inadequacy to permeate our feelings in a way that detracts from God since that is not what we have been promised by God's salvation through Christ's sacrifice.

After all of this theology, we get to the grand point. These feelings of worthlessness relate directly to our walk with God. Whether we let ourselves be consumed by feelings of self hate and loathing, and stray back into sin for satisfaction, or come to rely on God and pursue knowing more about God, is a determination ultimately up to us as individuals. I posit that the appropriate way here is to be humble before God, take the time we need, and avoid being the soil and seed choked by the vines and thorns of busyness that life in the modern western world forces upon us.

Thoughts on God and Time

The following is simply an argument regarding the characteristics of God found in the Bible with what we empirically know about our world.

As human beings we live in a world full of complexity. However, one very clear element of our world, what we could call our frame of reference, is that it is subject to constant change. A method for tracking this change is time. Arguably, time is little more than a scalar quantity used solely for the purpose of tracking change. However, it is a good common demoninator for describing this continual state of change.

Time, as we know it, always moves forward. Absent some force beyond nature, it plows forward with little control by that which is subject to it. In our frame of reference we are continually subject to time and its march towards infinity.

However, we know that God is not subject to time specifically because of the higher traits like omnipotence and omnipresence. If God were subject to time, God could not possess these characteristics since being tied to this frame of reference ultimately requires participation in the unknown chaos of change. Therefore, God must exist outside of our frame of reference, outside of our linear existence, and not subject to the forces of change that drive us ever forward here on Earth.

A moment on Colossians...

In Bible study, we have been working through Paul's commentary on Wisdom from Colossians. This post will focus predominantly on Chapter 3, verses 18 to 25. Like a number of other passages (I Peter 3:1-22 for example), this passage is often cited for its references to the way we should behave in our roles within the family unit. Verse 18 in particular states that wives should be "subject" to their husbands. (NASB 3:18) I take issue with much of this passage because of this interpretation. While I value the commentary, and Bible study did include conversation that changed my opinion on how this family structure should operate, I think these kinds of passages have a broader meaning. This is not meant to cheapen this reading of the passage, however, I feel there is a greater context to consider than the structure of the family unit. Specifically, I want to focus on Verses 23 to 25.

Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. (NASB 3:23-25)

This language along with the previous text suggests that this entire passage is really meant as a lesson on walking wisely in the roles you take on in life. Moreover, the idea that direct application is necessary is anachronistic since the passage has historical connotations specific to the the Colassians. The timeless lesson of how to act and live for God through the example of Christ stands out in sharp relief when put into this context. The broad idea of Wisdom is a great lesson.

Notes on Evolution...

My good friend Joe and I fell into an interesting conversation last Tuesday night during our regular social get together. The discussion centered around the validity of scientific theories regarding the origin of human life, but really extend all the way back to the origin of the universe as we are capable of understanding it in its vastness. You can find Joe's comments on the subject here

I want to be clear from the start that while much of what I will posit in this post may seem to question my faith in the Biblical God by interjecting ambiguity into themes and ideas prevalent in Christianity, the purpose is only to demonstrate what we are capable of knowing, thereby establishing a basic foundation for my argument. The overriding tenor of this argument should be little more than espousing my position on theories of Origin based on our limited understanding God's created whole.

Many of my observations come from my educational roots that include healthy doses of all major areas of science and philosophy. From a scientific perspective, the theories of Intelligent Design and Evolution seem loosely based on the same data set. Each side looks at the construction of the genetic code, the fossil record, recent discoveries in biology and chemistry, and come to different conclusions based on little more then their own analysis of their observations. Scientific method usually requires some kind of repeatable experiment yielding repeatable results. Those results form the basis of a theory. Here, though, the just have theories predicated on observation without the benefit of repeatable experimentation. Don't get me wrong, there are strong examples of biological adaptation in the world. Recent developments with the bollworm moth are a good example. However, this doesn't necessarily lend credence to evolution over intelligent design because an intelligent design theorist will likely say that this kind of adaptation is programmed into biology, or a natural part of the execution of life's design through beneficial mutation.

The conclusion regarding the validity of either argument remains the same: at no point can the results of either theory be verified by standard scientific method. These kinds of theories, then should be relegated to an abstract part of metaphysics, and left for the likes of Peter van Inwagen and David Chalmers (check out David Chalmers's Blog). Theories of origin are just that, theories, with little more hard fact from the metaphysics of Rene Decartes. This is not meant to discount Descartes contribution to the world of thought by any means either. The point is simply is that theories of origin belong in the area of empirical metaphysics. However, it is unlikely that this idea will be adopted and that evolution will no longer grace the pages of science books.

On Good and Evil...

What if there really weren't anything that could be considered evil in this world? What if, in reality, there are just varying degrees of good?

I have explained this argument in different terms before, specifically varying degrees of truth. The idea comes from the Biblical rhetoric that establishes God as the Truth in the universe, specifically the goodness of God as truth. The deity in its own right is absolute good and therefore absolute truth. The distinction of good and evil, then, makes up a continuum with absence of truth at one end (evil) to absolute truth (God's benevolence), with varying degrees of truth in between, as illustrated below.

Absence of Truth <----------------------->Absolute Truth

This is reinforced by the omniscience and benevolence of God. Specifically, if God is all knowing and all good, it necessarily follows that God's plan would include verying degrees of Good. This is supported by the book of Job and Habakkuk, and God's statement that all things occur according to God's plan. If this is the case, then even God will permit seemingly bad things to happen in the world to progress the grand plan. In reality, God is always acting in the world, influencing events to achieve God's goals. Evil, then, is our interpretation of God's plan. Evil, then, is little more than what doesn't subscribe to God's plan, namely sin, and our susceptibility to sin.

I would be interested in some thoughts on this, it is merely a musing on good, evil, and God's plan.

God's Mysterious Ways...

It is often said that God works in mysterious ways. I find it interesting that this maxim stands true even in the Bible. These verses from the book of John provide an excellent example:

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that yaer, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus wo0uld die for the Jewish nation, an not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together an dmake them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

John 11:49-53. I find it very interesting that even the Pharisees were, in effect, doing God's will. We benefit from knowing the end of the story here. As John recites his story, it becomes clear that God is working through the actions of those who didn't believe that Jesus was Christ. In fact, those actions condemning Jesus to death truly made Jesus our savior, since without the sacrifice we would not be forgiven for our sins. I find this a very interesting example of how God works in the world, bringing to fruition plans that would give birth to the Christian Church by utilizing the actions of the Pharisees.

The part of this that really bakes my noodle, though, is whether our sin can be part of God's plan, and whether these actions should rightly be called sin if they carry out the will of God. That distinction is no doubt for another, far longer, and more confusing post.

On Religion and Politics...

This is a companion post to one at In the Grey. Unlike the post there, this one will deal with the damage that politics can cause to religion. This post is necessarily limited to the United States of America. This does not suppose that some societies, based on a different form of government, should follow this line of thought. This line of reason would not apply to a theocracy. However, the point of this post is to consider why American politics has no role in religion.

Politics is a dirty business. Anyone who watches television during an election year can tell you that, especially in a swing state. Religious leaders lead their parishioners in the ways of their religion, not politics. Brining the world of politics in the religion denigrates the value of those beliefs, especially when those beliefs become the basis for laws. Eventually, in some way, shape, or form, church leaders that become political leaders begin to determine the direction of a religion. This is when politics on the pulpit becomes the most dangerous combination. Rulers like Constantine I are excellent examples of what happens when a political leader shares a place with leaders of the church.

The operation of American government demonstrates the clear need for separation between church and state. Moreover, restrictive imposition of the religious beliefs fails to benefit those who believe. Jesus spoke of living for God, and how faith is a matter of choice. "Imposed" faith is no more devout than fealty to imposed rule. Furthermore, walking with God is personal, and living for God results from that personal relationship. To install a religion at the head of a political organization, the personal nature of the belief structure is necessarily be lost. This results in Christians who believe out of fear of the law, not for their faith in God. This is the true danger of religion in the place of ruler.