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.