Metaphysics of The Supernatural Reality

On the Destiny of Man - Humanism's Real Goal

2010-10-02T11:41:00.000-07:00

Written for apologetics.com
10-1-2010

This article will investigate the depths of the human struggle to become un-human in order to be God. It considers the implications of subjectivism, existentialism, and humanism (as seen in current bioethical issues) as articulate expressions of the destiny of man. As such, we will see how our human condition is bleak and impoverished, but is endlessly conquering – even conquering ourselves – to our own abolition. Yet it is our destiny apart from God. It will be finally made clear that the Christian mode of being is one of refreshment, stability, and peace.

Introduction – Bioethical Issues as Beacons of Darkness

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blaire said that we can’t let morality get in the way of science when he once told a newspaper of Britain’s plans to clone human embryos: “Our conviction about what is natural or right should not inhibit the role of science in discovering the truth.”[i]

Before unraveling what is behind Blaire’s statement, let us consider a quick breakdown of some current bioethical topics to whet the appetite for what is really at stake in our scientifically advanced generation.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESR)
Around 400,000 human embryos exist in the freezers of fertility clinics around the U.S.A. these are from leftover In Vitro-fertilization.[ii] Researchers want to harvest them (this kills the embryo) to help other people with damaged cells. [iii]

Cloning
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) cloning allows us to create organs from the embryonic stem cells of the patient by creating an exact genetically matching embryo. Therapeutic cloning is still reproductive and still requires embryos to be destroyed.[iv]

Genetics Engihneering, Trait Selection, Designer Embryos & Gender Selection

We are doing primitive form of eugenics where you can pick the traits and gender with sperm separation technology to 85% reliability allowing parents to get the boy or girl baby they want. Companies like “Microsort” are actively doing this.

Population control, Eugenics, & Human Genome Mapping

Already the Sanger Institute, a leading United Kingdom disease research center which uses genotyping infrastructure, claims that “In the next two years, we will sequence more than 1000 human genomes. By 2012, we will make stem cells in more than 10,000 genes.”[v]

These bioengineering practices have never been as significant to the future health and progress of the human race as they are now.

Moreover, no one can deny that bioethics is a necessary field of research and thought. The issues surrounding the various scientific advances are quite complex and extraordinary. This article will not have space to address these bioethical issues. But they are presented here because each bioethical issue raises passionate appeal to either the human condition or human nature.

At the moment, there is tremendous concentration in research to develop immunities and cures for fatal diseases. While this seems to be the honorable thing to do, now and in the coming years there are great fathoms of ethics to consider before making public policy against such ‘ethical pro-activism.’ In fact, this area of thought is not new. Previous western philosophical movements have already unveiled certain secretive plans.

One incredibly strong force that has not, is not, and will not quit lies beneath all bioengineering research. The force of human destiny. It is the destiny of man to assert his existence (to be) and fully attain master control of nature and himself to live as long as possible. Man is a being which strives to perpetually recreate himself, take the place of God in this world, to conquer and have control of his own destiny. This is the powerful but subtle goal of the philosophy of humanism.

One can easily see that humanism is the common worldview of the non-religious western person. Additionally, we have many formal groupings that evidence our plague. Organizations like the Council of Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/) and the Alliance of Secular Humanist Societies have dozens of local groups all around America. In their statement of affirmations:

“We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems. We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation…We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so..”[vi]

These organizations embody and champion such humanistic expressions of Paul Kurtz, Peter Singer, Richard Carrier, Tom Flynn, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and others.

However, this default orientation is the not the result of the underlying modern, existential, or postmodern systems of thought – although they have expressed it thoroughly. These systems, like bioethics, are pointers to justifications of deeper modes of being. Deep inside our entire reason for being is appeased with our own cure, ourselves conquering ourselves.

To reiterate, this article will investigate the depths of this struggle by considering subjectivism, existentialism, and humanism as more of the fruit rather than the root (i.e., the description rather than the prescription) in our history to become God. As such, we will see how our human condition is bleak, impoverished, but endlessly conquering to our own detriment.

Mankind has always longed for the power to create his destiny and control the one thing that no one has ever been able to control, death. To decide what he is, does, and when he dies is to be God. But this is man. The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) bluntly stated in his famous “Existentialism is Humanism” 1945 lecture that “man is the being who wants to be God.”[vii]

This was even written by certain Christian theologians. In the middle ages, Maximus the Confessor (580-662) wrote as follows:
“In the same way in which the soul and the body are united, God should become accessible for participation by the soul and, through the soul's intermediary, by the body, in order that the soul might receive an unchangeable character, and the body, immortality; and finally that the whole man should become God, deified by the grace of God become man, becoming whole man, soul and body, by nature, and becoming whole God, soul and body, by grace.”[viii]

Obviously, this is heretical theology to the church. However, we must note our tendency to develop such a ‘Christian’ doctrine in light of our broken and inexhaustibly driven human nature.

That is our crux, we are made in his image but scarcely realizing it.

We are:

Of him, but not for him.
With godlike attributes, only longing for their enhancements.
Deriving his being, but hoarding it.
Free to master, yet enslaved by ourselves.

And left to ourselves we are:

Warriors, yet weak.
Conquerors, yet hungry.
Achievers, yet scared.
Lovers, yet cold.
Givers, yet jealous.
Dreamers, yet unsatisfied.
Explorers, yet bored.
Hopeful, yet unsustainable.

Our inescapable fragility and inability to conquer our wounded selves has always been our anguish. Now, on the horizons of what was once a perpetual future of the human race, we can glimpse the coming end.

We have recently understood that the planet and sun have a shelf life, that Earth’s resources are in fact finite, and that our current consumption pace will destroy ourselves sooner that the 2nd law of thermodynamics will. If Jesus doesn’t return first, we can now see our end as a species. In this generation, we have never seen it so clearly.

Coincidentally, we see ways to improve our conditions now as we never have before – such as those bioethical issues mentioned above.

Poignantly, our technology provides us a place to be a God to ourselves.

Motivation
Humanism’s destiny of man must be reckoned with or the Christian world will not understand the extent of the depravity of man and will find this destiny is ineffective in providing the saving alternative to man. The issue is ultimately daunting to today’s Christian. By knowing the forces that are behind the intricately crafted thoughts, cliché sayings, and the cultural isms of our time we can adequately understand the pitfalls and shortcomings so as to avoid the destructive nature of their consequences. For those interested in apologetics, it is even more crucial that we understand the destiny of man for without having a firm grasp of the current technological and cultural issues of our time we will misunderstand them and will succumb to the powerful forces that push them onto us. Os Guinness puts it this way,

“What often happens is that Christians wake up to some incident or issue and suddenly realize they need to analyze what's going on. Then, having no tools of their own, they lean across and borrow the tools nearest them. They don't realize that, in their haste, they are borrowing not an isolated tool but a whole philosophical toolbox laden with tools which have their own particular bias to every problem…The toolbox may be Freudian, Hindu or Marxist. Rarely, is it consistently or coherently Christian. When Christians use tools for analysis which have non-Christian assumptions embedded within them, these tools eventually act back on them like wearing someone else's glasses or walking in someone else's shoes. The tools shape the user.”[ix]

Thus, it is imperative that we ourselves do not reflect a destiny back to culture that culture is forcing on us. We must find our destiny that God has created us to fulfill and reject the human notions that lead us to the contrary. These will become more clear in this article. To this end, we hope to invite our current culture to drink from a different fountain for once, a fountain whose source is from “everlasting to everlasting” rather than a fountain of concocted man-made ingredients. As the psalmist refreshingly captures it this way, “For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light.”[x] Augustine so perfectly adds, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”

Preliminary Considerations of Humanism, Becoming, & Conquering
How great is the temptation of every generation to manage the affairs of its decedents. How absurd it is that in an age of scientific achievement, technological brilliance, and star trek like capabilities, we decide to reject objectivism. Up until the dawn of the Enlightenment, despite our human condition, past generations yielded objectivism to the next generations. In our current age, rather than having received the inheritance of tradition, objectivism, and solid religion, we received a weaker inheritance. One filling our current world with dismay, trouble, and fear. We see this in our inherited international nuclear threats, Islamic faith ‘tolerance’, and wayward professors who poison millions of students daily behind the pulpit of ‘peace’ and ‘freedom.’ This is the inheritance of lost value by power collecting. How brilliantly subtle is the force pulling our unsustainable, dehumanizing, inherited human condition.

But our species is and always has been trying to re-make itself, not with our minor improvements of ourselves but with major transcendent ones. To enhance the quality of life with infrastructure and nation-building, to dignify the mentally ill, and to bring water, food, and clothing to the destitute are noble, moral, and appropriate goals of every human. However, our continuous state of affairs is to eventually become something we are not, that is, humans becoming un-human. While trying to be human gods we un-will our humanness to that which we seize power from. This power is definitely not of God but a perverted power of man which can easily be influenced by Satan. The absurdity is we use our self power to undo ourselves, making us unrecognizable creatures of immorality, lust, and greed. But this is our destiny in a world of ruled by humans.

Without getting into ethics, ethical philosophy, or even Christian theology, one can easily see dehumanizing affects of our technological modifications of ourselves and progressive re-creation of our super un-human-like selves.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization) Bioethics group declares, “Genetic research, in particular the sequencing of the human genome, has opened the way for far-reaching medical research and biomedical applications. The number of genetic databanks is rising, with some containing more than a million records…contain samples from virtually entire national populations. In this rapidly developing field, many people fear that human genetic data will be used for purposes contrary to human rights and freedom.”[xi]

One website bluntly reports, “The current mapping of the human genome has produced many tools that will become quite useful in future eugenics work.”[xii] Additionally, “Current experimentation includes hybrid biological/electronic devices, biological computer memories and research leading to the minimum molecular complexity for life. Creation of new life forms directly from biological raw (non-living) materials are quite possible in the near future.”[xiii]

Are we considering at all the greed for power over ourselves that is taking place when we actually begin to fulfill the destiny of man?

Similarly, are we contemplating that getting new teeth, leg, or heart is one thing. But getting a new face is not something totally different? Want a new organ? Sure. But want an enhanced new body feature? Why? Why do we need plastic surgery to modify to our looks?

We think that these improvements will change who we are and make us immune to criticism. We think we can alleviate suffering. We think it gives us the power of choice and the capability of redefining ourselves to be renewable beings. It’s being born again: regenerate by “divine” scientific grace.

Playing God in these areas is only the beginning. Becoming God is totally different.

Seizing our destiny as an individual and as humanity is not new. It’s just that now we have the knowledge and power to actually do it.

Syntopical Discussion: Man’s ultimate destiny as becoming a being of his choice in existential humanism or who God’s creation
To help us understand this oiling of the human super machine driving of the cliff edge, let us turn to those whose thoughts on the issue are second to none. We would then be looking back about 75 years to some of the last centuries most brilliant secular thinkers, who finally articulated humanism’s ideas on the destiny of man with perfect clarity in the existential movement. This movement in philosophy is also known as ‘continental philosophy.’ Thinkers such as Ortega, Jaspers, Heideggar, Satre, Camus and others (Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche – existentialist forerunners of the 19th century) spelled out our human condition without restraint. Let us consider 3 select views from Spain, Germany, and France.

In this article, we will not attempt to treat Heideggar’s views, for we have enough to cover as it is. “In general terms, existentialism can be divided between philosophers, such as Jean-Paul Sartre (as well as Ortega and Jaspers), who defined existentialism as a humanism, and those, such as Heidegger, who saw the organization of philosophy around the analysis of human determinacy as a metaphysical corruption of philosophy.”[xiv] Thus, we will stick to an understanding that existentialism is a type of humanism that clarifies the human condition by way of appealing to concepts freedom, dread, anxiety, absurdity, etc, whereby one can choose to reinvent, redefine, recreate himself and humanity. Let us begin.

Ortega: Man’s destiny is to “make itself” since “man has no nature."
The Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega (1883-1955) thought that humans are not like things whose potentiality is already actualized in reality. Human life is a project to prove existence. Man starts as a ‘not yet’ but aspires to be. Conquering non-existence to earn life. “But man must not only make himself: the weightiest thing he has to do is to determine what he is going to be.”[xv] For Ortega, man seeks and finds concepts that God tried to formulate.

Ortega goes as far to say that “Man has no nature.” Man is capable of being anything because he has no nature and is limitless except for the one limit of the past which narrow man’s future so there is only one pre-established course. To be free means that man is forced by his nature to not have “constitutive identity.” To be unstable and undetermined. All this will accumulate in being and man will make himself through these series of experiments. Finally, he states that “Man is the entity that makes itself, an entity which traditional ontology only stumbled upon precisely as its course was drawing to a close.” Man must develop a second program. The first (objectivism, traditional ontology, theism, etc.) had “inadequacy”. “One aims at avoiding in the new project the drawbacks of the old.”[xvi]

So we see in Ortega a very certain humanistic idea of becoming a being by a new project of de-traditionalizing human identity.

Jaspers: Man’s destiny is to “gain mastery over all Being without yet Being anything himself.”
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), the German psychologist who converted to a humanist philosopher, knew that science itself will fail the ‘Being question’ for man. For Jaspers,

“True humanity is thus a condition of free self-possession and transcendent authenticity. The argument runs through all his early works that human beings are distinguished by the fact that they have authentic attributes of existence and transcendence—that is, by their ability to raise questions about themselves and their freedoms which cannot be posed in material or scientific terms, and by their resultant capacity for decisive reversal, self-transformation and transcendence.”[xvii]

Here Jaspers spells out that man has a transcendent connection to the divine, but nowadays “Man is less certain of himself than ever.”[xviii] His philosophy employs a 2 fold presupposition 1) man is autonomous and 2) man is a datum of transcendence. While he states that decisional obedience to the Transcendence (Deity as an impersonal force) leads to man’s own ‘Being’, he further presses that man in his wealth of knowledge “could gain mastery over all Being without yet Being anything himself.”[xix]

Moreover, he thought that reflective existential philosophy would help man have and become the being he can be. At this point in history Jaspers says that “man is reduced to a condition of perplexity by confusing the knowledge that he can prove with the convictions by which he lives.”[xx] He says that “to fail to be human would mean to slip into nothingness. What man is and can become is a fundamental question for man…Man always becomes man by devoting himself to this other (Transcendence).”[xxi] In that, Jasper’s contends that our aboutness towards becoming ‘something’ makes us human.

For Jaspers, by philosophizing about Existenz (similar to Kierkegaard and Socrates), Man can arrive at free self-being, decisional truth, and a becoming reality. Truth is “founded in the Existenz that we become.” He boldly states that “What matters is that our life is guided by something unconditional which can only spring from the decision. Decision makes Existenz real, forms life, and changes it in inner action…which keeps us soaring upward.” In other words, truth and reality must be based on our decisions or our existence is not one of becoming and being.

Interestingly, he admits that “if he makes himself the immediate object of his efforts he is on his last and perilous path.” (pg 168) In doing so man will lose the Transcendence and while grasping himself will not understand himself. Man will become clear as the “greatest potentiality and the greatest danger in the world.”[xxii] I think he nailed it here.

But, Jaspers further contrasts his somewhat Eastern views of transcendence with the cult religion (Christianity). Although, Jaspers grounds Man in his original Being (the Deity), Jaspers doesn’t really follow through on giving an approach to connect to the Transcendence while engaging in existential thinking towards being and becoming. So by following the general direction which he points, man still is left to himself to decide how to maintain openness to some higher power but push the limits of his own becoming forward to wherever it takes him. This is a scary path and a bad religion.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Jaspers understood man’s origins from and dependence to such a God this well, but still leads towards such an open ended future of Man as becoming ‘Being’. This is because there is more subjectivism and humanism in Jaspers than there is spiritualism. He states, “for us the Deity, if it exists, is only as it appears to us in the world, as it speaks to us in the language of man and the world.” (pg 169) Clearly we see that Jaspers maintains such openness that he won’t state in certain terms that the Deity even exists. But more importantly, Jaspers, in the end of his writings, espouses such a strong commitment to the openness of Being itself, that there is rarely talk of Deity or even ‘Transcendence’, just ‘Being’ and ‘Encompassing’.

It seems then, that Jaspers goal is to push man towards Man’s ultimate destiny by starting with his derived god-like nature and leading to his existential becoming “unlimited ranges of Being.” He invites his readers “to grasp the whole spaciousness of Being without losing oneself in the void of the mere universal…”[xxiii]

What does this ‘whole spaciousness of Being’ lead Man to? We see here a very clear expression of the man’s inevitable losing oneself while becoming “unlimited being.” Man becoming a god.

Sartre: Man’s destiny is “to be God”
The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) bluntly stated in his famous “Existentialism is Humanism” 1945 lecture that “man is the being who wants to be God.”[xxiv]

The following is considered Sartre at his best. No straw man is presented here as this is his most recognized lecture summarizing his beliefs and philosophy of existentialism. The quotes indicated in the following paragraphs are from this lecture, thus specific citations aren’t necessary.

Sartre 1st responds to Christian attacks on the existentialist’s loss of values. He states that existentialism has been attacked as an ideology of quietism in despair. Gloomy and harsh people are the ones that attack it as gloomy.[xxv] Sartre contends that it’s the optimism of existentialism and the possibility of choice that confronts such people.

Sartre’s existential destiny of man
Sartre’s describes existentialism as an optimistic view that makes life possible where truth and action are subjective. In the existentialist view, existence precedes essence and one begins from the subjective: as opposed to the classical view. In the classical view, man is the realization of the concept god has in his mind and human nature is the universal that we all instantiate. That is, God has a concept of man in his mind then designs then creates; it starts in his understanding then in the will. This classical view holds that essence precedes - is prior to chronologically and more importantly, higher in worth - existence.

Whereas, Sartre’s atheistic existentialism presupposes that God does not exist. That with no God and with man existing prior to any conception of himself, man is not predefined and therefore not predetermined. Man first exists, then encounters himself, then defines himself. Man is that which he wills to be and makes of himself. This is existence preceding essence, in that there is not a human essence that he must adhere to, rather, he is a subjective being that propels himself toward the future of his own choosing. Sartre urges, “Man will only attain true existence when he is what he purposes to be.” Man possesses himself in that he possesses ultimate freedom and the ultimate responsibility that comes with such a radical freedom.

In every other system man is an object and is predetermined. So the existentialist is in fact optimistic, gives dignity to man, encouraging man to action since there is no hope except in action; this is “what permits him to have life;” it is the “ethic of action and self-commitment.” He vividly clarifies that “The destiny of man is within himself.”

For Sartre, in subjectivism there is first the freedom of the subject, and second, man is a being which can’t get past his subjectivity. But, man chooses himself means that man creates himself as he wills to be and chooses to for all men. The future of all is based in my will & created image for myself and for all men. He states,

"Existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole…I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man."[xxvi]

This sounds to me like 1 person to control them all – great responsibility for all men – which makes sense in light of Sartre’s Marxism.

Sartre’s qualification & defense of subjectivism.

Sartre thinks that we give value to something when we choose it. He advocates taking action and not living inaction. There is no determinism if there are no objective values. We don’t need God for the objective values. “For if indeed existence precedes essence one will never be able to explain one’s action by reference to a given and specific human nature, there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom. Man is condemned to be free.” That is man is condemned (fated in a sense) to invent man as he wants. Man was thrown into this world not by his own choice but carries radical freedom to choose himself and is entirely alone in his responsibility to decide what to be.

He quotes Dostoevsky, “If God did not exist, everything would be permitted.” This is the starting point for existentialism. This is radical freedom. For Sartre, concerning man’s choices, there are no excuses, no prepared road maps, and no help anywhere. In an ethical dilemma that he presents, the Christian morality doesn’t even help or address what to do. There is no a priori answer or ethical guideline. Additionally, impulse and instinct cannot be relied upon to help in answering the dilemma. Also, a professor or priest aren’t helpful because their answer is known to the questioner before the person goes to ask them and thus invalidates the advice because he is only going to them already knowing what they would say. Sartre’s advice: “You are free, therefore choose – that is to say, invent.”[xxvii]

People who make excuses in life are their own jury, pronouncing themselves as unfulfilled with deceptive dreams and abortive hopes. Man is the sum of his actions. People hate the optimism of the existentialist because he allows someone weak and base to be someone special. Many people think that a coward and a hero are born that way and are resigned to think that nothing can be done. But the existentialist would say that we make ourselves to be cowards and heroes. We can make ourselves heroes even when society thinks we are born that way. We can redefine ourselves in spite of them. For Sartre, this is a more appealing life than what Christianity offers.

People condemn the existentialist for his subjectivity, to which the existentialist Sartre replies that “we seek to base our teaching upon the truth, and not upon a collection of fine theories (like objectivism), full of hope but lacking real foundations.” The base foundation of the existentialists truth is Descartes “I think, therefore I am.” Somehow Sartre thinks that this Cartesian cogito is objective absolute common sense truth that starts with one self awareness. All other subjective truths comes from this truth.

But, he further explains that there is “inter-subjectivity” where there is a need for others to confirm our subjective truth. “It is in this world that man has to decide what he is and what others are.” Although there is no universal human nature as an essence (a universal), there is a universal human condition. This is both subjective and objective.[xxviii]

Sartre is truly a subjectivist and is not a postmodern relativist, as he believes that we can understand other cultures and realize that we all go through the struggles of life similarly. In every culture, we perpetually make ourselves. He says, “What is at the very heart and center of existentialism is the absolute character of free commitment, by which every man realizes himself in realizing a type of humanity – a commitment always understandable, to no matter whom in no matter what epoch.”

At the center of existentialism is man’s free choice to realize himself and humanity in all times and in all cultures.

Sartre responds to attacks on subjectivism
Attack 1: “It does not matter what you do”…so any choice is morally acceptable even evil choices.

Sartre’s response to 1: Man always chooses even by not choosing. But moral choices are comparable to a work of art. Art is creative and innovative like morality, in which “We cannot decide a priori what should be done.” Man invents the law for himself. “Man makes himself; he is not found ready made; he makes himself by the choice of his morality, and he cannot but choose a morality.”

Attack 2: “You cannot judge others for there is no reason for preferring one purpose to another”

Sartre’s response to 2: we do not believe in progress…but freedom. Freedom is the foundation and goal of all values in willing with others. Sartre believes though that we cannot will the freedom of others just will that others have freedom. Those who hide from the freedom or those who believe that their existence is necessary and determined, Sartre calls “cowards” and “scum.” Also, those who are self-deceived are in error. So he can make moral judgments on others because certain people “hide from themselves the wholly volunteer nature of their existence and its complete freedom.”

Attack 3: “Everything being merely voluntary in this choice of yours, you give away with one hand what you pretend to gain with the other.” Meaning that, you choose your own values so they are not serious.

Sartre’s response to 3: God is not the author of values, they come from us inventing them. “If I have excluded God the Father, there must be somebody to invent values…there is no sense in life a priori. Life is nothing until it is lived; but it is yours to make sense of, and the value of it is nothing else but the sense that you choose.”

The humanism that Sartre despises is one that has man as the goal, which “upholds man as the end-in-itself and as the supreme value.” That humanism essentially declares that man is magnificent, which is absurd to Sartre because it judges men so he dismisses it. It tries to ascribe value to men according to their deeds. Man is defining himself so he can never be the goal. “An existentialist would never take man as the end, since man is still to be determined.” This is the ‘cult of humanity’ humanism, so Sartre rejects it.

Sartre’s Existential Humanism
In regards to existential humanism, Sartre is truly a man of the cloth. Sartre describes his view of humanism with man as the legislator of his destiny. “Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist.” In that man is the center of his self-surpassing transcendence and the center of his subjective universe. Existential humanism is that there is no other legislator than man so he must decide for himself; that man seeking liberation can realize himself as truly human.

Sartre just draws the conclusion from the atheistic perspective, which is not a despairing or pessimistic view, but optimistic and one of action. Existentialism is not necessarily an atheist system for “even if God existed that would make no difference from its point of view.” For Sartre, theism or atheism doesn’t matter. “Man needs to find himself again and to understand that nothing can save him from himself, not even a valid proof of the existence of God.” It is the Christians who are self-deceived and confuse their own despair with the existentialist so as to describe the existentialist as someone without hope.

So that is Sartre at his best. Again, no straw man is presented here. Instead of attempting to rebuttal Sartre’s views myself. I will implore one far better mind.

The Christian response: C.S. Lewis: Man destiny is to destroy itself
C.S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man takes on all of these existential and becoming themes and delivers a crushing blow in one of the best books in the last 100 years. The National Review ranked the book #7 in its 100 Best Non-Fiction Books of the 20th Century list. The Intercollegiate Studies Institute ranked the book as the #2 best book of the 20th century. Not bad at all as the book is actually a transcript of 3 lectures.[xxix]

The following is my attempt to summarize Lewis’ adamant message to show the peculiarities of the danger of subjectivism, liberalism, existentialism, and humanism. The quotes indicated in the following paragraphs are from this lecture, thus specific citations aren’t necessary. To those who espouse such dangerous views, Lewis refers to as “Men Without Chests.” That is, they used to be men, but have given themselves over to power and have lost what makes them real humans, thus they are “without chests.” These are those who are actually setting out to destroy the real nature and future of mankind.

Rebuttal to existential humanistic subjectivism
For Lewis, if a society follows subjectivism it will destroy itself. But, the subjectivists write as if they have a purpose to write. They take a position that is practical and that some state of affairs they desire is good and ought to obtain. They are trying to convince someone to take their side. They are trying to rid society of objectivism, “in order that ‘real’ or ‘basic’ values may emerge.” They try to ground real or base values in something other than what is objective. The subjectivists good is altruism. But why ought one be altruistic?

The subjectivists attempt to ground values (e.g. heroic acts like self-sacrifice for the good of the other) in altruism. They know that the preservation of man is man’s goal, so altruism is reasonable. But for Lewis, what is rational doesn’t lead to “do this.” He states, “From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn.” This is similar to the notion in philosophy that distinguishes an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ That is, you cannot get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’ Additionally, being altruistic is not more rational then another being altruistic to preserve society by laying down his life rather than mine.

Another, subjectivists attempt at grounding values is Instinct. They say we have an instinctive urge to preserve our species. Humanism’s goal is the preservation and advance of man But for Lewis, all justice and morality is swept away when it conflicts with the preservation of mankind or man as an individual. Before sex was taboo outside of marriage because of the consequences. After contraceptives sex is ok as long as it doesn’t conflict with the preservation of man. The subjectivists say that instinct must be obeyed. Happiness and satisfaction will be the result of such obedience. But altruistic death brings no satisfaction – because you’re dead. Plus, instinct has to be obeyed so there is no ought or satisfaction. The subjectivists say that we ought to obey instinct – not that we have to obey it; which instinct then ought we to obey? Which instinct do we control to free the other?

The subjectivists say that we ought to obey instinct that preserves the species. But what rule gives precedence to obey the instinct that preserves society over another instinct. That judgment is itself not instinctive. “The judge cannot be one of the parties judged.” So then why preserve oneself? Why preserve the species instead of enjoying pleasure?

They will decide with their reasons what kind of motives and values they want. They are really motivated by the ‘I want’ and their own pleasure and impulse. They stand outside value judgments and cannot ground a preference of one impulse to another. When it comes down to it, they choose by the strength of the impulse to the point which the words ‘corruption’ and ‘degenerated’ will not even have meaning to them.

For Lewis, one instinct or impulse is not deeper than another. There is no way to know that from instinct. Plus, this is merely a descriptor which are not ‘oughts’ or conclusions for practical choices. It is instinctive that parents sacrifice for their babies. Then comes rational planning which is by choice and reflection which is less obligatory than instinct. Care for our future lineage (in that sense is preservation of species) is human but this is not justified in instinct.

The result is that the subjectivists attempt at grounding values of altruism in reason and instinct – which both fail. If values are rational or grounded in rationality than they are so obvious that they don’t demand proof. They are self-evident objective truths. Lewis urges, “If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all.” Certain ‘oughts’ are just as self evident. An ‘is’ can’t produce an ‘ought’ – but that doesn’t mean re-derive the ‘ought’ out of man’s self-preservation or master his own destiny because he has the freedom to. The derivation of any transcendent human ‘ought’ simple by necessity or it allows for easy confusion of the source and consequential ethical action.

Furthermore, Lewis grasps the subjectivism of the existentialism at its roots: they start with objectivism and use it in order to attack it. If they really started with objectivism they wouldn’t get anywhere. He throws out justice to reach his goals of preserving his own species. Tao (Lewis’ term for objectivism) is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. No other new system of value can exist. Lewis states it graphically,

"The rebellion of new ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed themselves. The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary color, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in."

Additionally he writes, “Outside of the Tao there is no grounds for criticizing either the Tao or anything else.” Also, “If you (the subjectivist) persist in that kind of trial you will destroy all values, and so destroy the bases of your own criticism as well as the thing criticized.” They say (this quote is Lewis referring to their thoughts) “Let us decide for ourselves what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such. Having mastered our environment, let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny.” To this Lewis rightly says, “This is the rejection of the concept of value altogether.” Thus, man is delivered from value keepers and other destiny controlling powers. There is nothing hidden anymore. The existentialists have revealed all unsaid notions of human salvation of humans. For by baptizing ourselves in our purified subjectivism, the subjectivists claim that man can finally attain ‘progress.’

Lewis adamantly expresses that it is painfully obvious that man’s real conquest is ultimately to control all of itself and everything not itself. Man’s power is increasing in specific localized collections. This is power possessed and exercised by some men over other men with nature as the instrument.

On that note, he expresses that each generation limits the power of the next generation and that new generation rebels against the former. The new is weaker than the former – because the former can say that “though we have put wonderful machines in their hands we have pre-ordained how they are to use them.” Man wants to rule man in every way, particularly the descendent generations. Lewis warns, “But the man moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all prosterity in what shape they please.” Here, Lewis prophecies the consequences of our god-human tendencies, progressive generational curses, and radical all consuming imperial nature. We fit into the concoctions of the previous generation and lack understanding how to break free because we have the same evil tendencies.

As the existentialist articulated best, the power to choose the destiny of himself will result in power to choose the destiny of anyone else. In that, he cautions, “They know how to produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce…For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. Human nature has been conquered – and, of course, has conquered…” Man will finally conquer himself by re-making the species whatever he wants.

These natural processes and tools which created them, will in turn conquer recreated man. It’s not that their men will be bad men, they will not be men at all. They became conditioning animals to condition others. They are not even now men without chests as they eventually become ‘not man’ to redefine man – to make us all into their image. But we don’t want this image that they will make for us. Their reasons and motives for duty to preserve the species won’t cut it. Lewis nails it here: “Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void. There subjects aren’t men at all: they are artifacts. Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.”

Thus, the re-making of man, the destiny of man, is the destruction of man. Man’s conquest at its final moment will turn to become his abolition.

Lewis concludes that the reality is that Nature rules the ‘Conditioners’ and all humanity. Nature wins. “Man’s conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature’s conquest of Man.” Additionally, “If the eugenics are sufficient enough there will be no second revolt, but all snug beneath the conditioners, and the conditioners beneath her (Nature), till the moon falls or the sun grows cold.” We reduce our world, each other, animals, phenomena to mere nature in order to conquer it. The language we use dehumanizes people. Man’s conquest of himself is the Conditioners making raw human material out of souls.

As we conquer nature, Lewis stresses, we bring that aspect of Nature into a bigger set - redefining it so nature actually increases all around us. This is the price we pay – we give it power. He says, “We thought we were beating her back when she was luring us on. What looked to us like hands held up in surrender was really the opening of arms to enfold us forever.” It’s the magician giving his soul to get power. They give up their souls to get power give up our souls. Our humanism tries to have it both ways, “to lay down our human prerogative and yet at the same time retain it.” It is all going to a world of post-humanity.

The ancients taught how to conform the soul to reality, through knowledge, self discipline, and virtue. Magic & Science teaches how to conform reality to the wish of the soul through techniques and experience. To this Lewis notes, “Analytical understanding…kill what it sees and only sees by killing.” The one step that is fatal in all of the steps toward this is reducing the Tao to explain it away. This will explain away even explanation itself. He finalizes,

"You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see."

C.S. Lewis has taken on the powerful force of humanism, subjectivism, and existentialism. He understands the moral intensity of such a philosophy to the common man. He has expressed a striking refutation to it. But let’s prone deeper, what would be the end result of these views? What does they look like hashed out in say bioethics?

Implications of Humanism
The atheist and the theist would both agree that Nietzsche’s nihilism was right. That when objective moral values are diminished or withdrawn from society, God is dead and it is the end of Christianity. If there is no God, are our moral values objective? No.

But Objective moral values do exist (this is the second premise for the moral argument for the existence of God). Even western post-modern college students, although more relativistic than their professors, will admit to this very quickly when pushed. Many have thought that most philosophy professors are relativists, but in fact the opposite is true. Surveys have shown that philosophy departments around the country are filled with mostly objectivists Ph.D.’s.

Shallowly, the moral subjectivism that people loudly profess is inconsistent with certain aspects of their lifestyle, where objectivism must be utilized. Moreover, the humanism that is of our fallen nature is not expressed at all in our communities or day to day experiences like moral subjectivism is. Additionally, many sociologists or Christian thinkers express that we are living in a post-modern culture. However, I would contend that postmodernism may just be a convenient overarching term as it seems our culture is still eating up and digesting expressions of humanism, subjectivism, and existentialism.

So we our left with our honest thinkers like Ortega, Jaspers, Sartre, who express what would come out of every fallen human honestly describing our condition and cure. Taking these views to their absurdity, recent thinkers such as Peter Singer, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and others, accept and express the result wherever it takes them.

Peter Singer thinks that we can kill newborns up to 30 days. He is brutally consistent in his subjectivist approach and conclusions. Singer’s utilitarianism says that we need to kill the valueless to give strength to the broader value population. For him, there is no difference between newborn and fetus. Personhood is capacity of pleasure and pain because we are self-conscious beings - animals have this too. His contention is all about having an immediate right to pleasure or pain. This is the impulse that Lewis foresaw.

Singer wants to get rid of God but will have nothing to appeal to for grounding his moral claims and right to life claims. Additionally, you can’t use utilitarianism to get to utilitarianism as a view on ethics. It just doesn’t work.

Moreover, Steven Pinker thinks that the substance view of human nature and identity through change is stupid, useless, and needs to be replaced. It ought to be based on consent and personal autonomy. He argues that because scientific materialism is correct, personal freedom and autonomy can do the work of bioethics.

But this is not a neutral worldview when Pinker gets on us for having a metaphysical commitment. How does he ground his metaphysical basis? He doesn’t.

Richard Dawkins says that “We are machines for propagating DNA….It is every living object’s sole reason for being.”[xxx] The subjectivist Dawkins even offers 10 commandments for moral living.

Although claiming objective morality is out of the limits of rationality, he offers us 10 objective moral truths to hold to. Not a wise alternative if he is trying to be consistent.

Conclusion
So, humanism, subjectivism, and existentialism are the revealed articulate expressions of our inheritance to filter through – handed down from past generations to our current one. We received man as being without boundaries, with knowledge that is violently dangerous, and power without morality. Our inheritance is set up for more slavery to our dreams of manifest destiny and now imperialists of the future man; all haunting us now – even without our recognition.

In that, these culturally pervasive intellectual barricades, combined with scientific advances, deliver a platter of never ending self-deceptive freedom - enabling an addiction of imperialist gluttony. We as Christians partake as well by either misunderstanding, ignorance, or participation. But as Guinness warned, we can even use these very underlying philosophical systems of rubbish to resist.

Much more can be said on the failures of subjectivism, existentialism, and humanism. This is by no means a full treatment of such topics. However, the intent was to show that the depths of the human struggle to become God is in us today. Even when we truly have made moral progress in most if not all cultures, our human condition will not quit. However civilized we think we are now has no bearing on the extent and intensity of our core depravity. Our technology is advanced beyond our moral maturity, but we can never expect to be creatures of pure moral responsibility. When we consider our history, our constant failures to exhibit premier moral behavior concerning the value of human nature become obvious.

While we have seemingly noble technological advances in bio-engineering, they all point to the engineering of life that the human condition has long thirsted for. But now ours is the generation that contains power to modify the next without boundary.

We will always become that which we carnally want to be, however, such becoming is not morally pure. Why? Because our intentions to conquer, colonize, and exploit for our own greatness, is embedded in the fabric of the substance that we have chosen to become.
It is not that we can ‘choose our destiny without exception to accommodate ourselves,’ but we cannot choose a destiny that frees us from that exact slavery.

Without the immunity, the human condition remains inept to glorify anything other than itself. This has and will always been our anguish.

Where is the cure? Could it be that objectivism is not the cure but also points to the original purest state of what we were? Is it possible to drink of a fountain of life that restores the body and soul to its initial state of true freedom?

If such a remedy exists, and such a state of existence was and is still possible, our goal must be to recover the path. Mankind’s most diligent thinking, white-knuckled answers, and self-prescribed placebos have only re-engineered our own slavery.

Recommendations & Inspiration to the Only Cure – the Christian cure
Such a remedy does exist! This is the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is efficient and effective to cure all our fallenness. It restores us to become more of a person with pure intentions, motives, and thoughts. Where we have squandered our history in trying to create and procreate a world without disease, decay, and death, Jesus redeems all that was lost back to himself. The power of such a gospel and the beauty of this Jesus is that he is the ultimate embodiment of freedom and destiny – for only he has the ‘genetic’ makeup (so to speak) of a being whose destiny is an expression of his freedom. Whereas our ‘genetic’ makeup has become one of slavery to a system of death and destruction – proven imperfect freedom only reigns.

Ours can be like his though, where we choose to embrace the original manifestation of his image, the pseudo-clones that we are. When he made us, he fashioned us with his fingerprints. The concept that like beings create like things, is not only true, it is us. Except that we grasped ourselves to tight from the very beginning. Thus, choosing our own destiny in the garden – and still choosing it – not the one he designed for us.

Whereas, Christianity offers human dignity by means of one simple human nature derived from the God who created us. We are the image of God with inherent dignity, value, and worth. Additionally, our human nature is one to be cherished but transformed. If we cannot be transformed into his image, our result will be the struggle to become God, rather than to be like him.

Christians need to show ourselves revealing God’s destiny for humans by actually fulfilling ours. We must not accept a status quo life of consumerism and pleasure seeking. Our hearts were made too dependent on his. Why walk down the same path that human history puts us on and be reduced to narcissistic beasts. Is it possible to reorient ourselves to choosing our own predestined destiny? We must find our destiny that God has created us to fulfill and reject all other human notions.

Scripture teaches that we are predestined and called to conform to the image of him.

Romans 8:29 & 30 says,
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:4, 5, & 11 teach,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will…In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

It is clear, not just in these verses but throughout Scripture (Jn 15:16, Jer. 1:5, Ps. 139, etc), that God has a purpose for our lives. This purpose is based in his goodness and pleasure. By accepting ourselves as we are made to be, as we were created to be, as we were pre-destined to be, only then can we appreciate fullness of this life in the here and now.

When we let go of our destiny, we can grasp his (Mt 10:39, Mt 16:25). Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10) This will bring God the most glory and will satisfy ourselves forever and with perfect peace. It is our optimum mode of being, it is our truest advancement, and it is our only pure form of progress.

Our offspring can still be born with what are now thought of as deficiencies; but in God’s eyes – and hopefully ours as well – we will understand the words destiny and imperfection.

End Notes
[i] “Don’t turn Against Science, Blair Warns Protesters,” London Daily Telegraph, November 18, 2000. This was provided by Scott Klusendorf in his Advanced Pro-Life Apologetics notes. See www.prolifetraining.com / & www.caseforlife.com.

[iii] Most of the time, the parents of the leftover embryos do not know that there are any leftover embryos. Clinics will keep the embryos for 5 years and then will throw them out. (One embryo was once adopted after being frozen for several years and that embryo is now a 13 year old boy.) So for the parents that do know, the clinic will try to push the parents to make a decision to release the embryo for stem cell research or release the embryo for adoption. But, this kills the embryo when we take the cells and implant them in another person with bad cells.
[iv] This aids in the replacement and anti-rejection of organs should they become deficient. All cloning is reproductive in the sense that the embryo is reproduced. The problem is that embryos don’t come from stem cells, they have them and have to be killed to get the stem cells.
[v] http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/what/future.html; “Our research in Human Genetics will harness the power of our improving sequencing and genotyping infrastructure in order to gain a better understanding of the diversity of the human species and how this diversity influences our health and disease.”
[vi] http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration#science & http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
[vii] Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism,” (Lecture, Club Maintenant, St. Paris, France, October 29, 1945).
[viii] http://plato.stanford.edu/
[ix] Os Guinness, source unknown.
[x] Psalm 36:9
[xi] “To address these concerns, the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data was adopted unanimously and by acclamation at UNESCO's 32nd General Conference on 16 October 2003. This Declaration and the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights are the only international points of reference in the field of bioethics.” http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/ethics-of-science-and-technology/bioethics/human-genetic-data/
[xii] http://www.onelife.com/ethics/eugenics.html
[xiii] ibid
[xiv] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jaspers/
[xv] Jose Ortega, Man Has No Nature, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York, NY: Meridian Publishing Company/Plume Penguin Books, 2004), 155.
[xvi] Ibid, page 152-157.
[xvii] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/jaspers/
[xviii] Ibid, pg 168.
[xix] Ibid, pg 168.
[xx] Karl Jaspers, On My Philosophy, trans. Walter Kaufman (New York, NY: Meridian Publishing Company/Plume Penguin Books, 2004), 171.
[xxi] Ibid, pg 168.
[xxii] Ibid, pg 158-185.
[xxiii] Ibid, pg 231-232.
[xxiv] Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism,” (Lecture, Club Maintenant, St. Paris, France, October 29, 1945).
[xxv] Existential themes such as anguish, abandonment, and despair are defined by Sartre with notions of purpose, optimism, and action. When we consider the responsibility we can’t escape from, we are in anguish. Man is in anguish with responsibility like military leaders are when they send soldiers to war to die. Abandonment is the fact that man alone bears all responsibility for his life and that we ourselves define and decide our being. Despair is the limit of ourselves and actions to our wills; to act without hope & as Descartes said, “Conquer yourself rather than the world.” Despair does not mean quietism but acting on commitment, this does not need hope. He is against quietism. There really is no reality but action.
[xxvi] Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is Humanism,” (Lecture, Club Maintenant, St. Paris, France, October 29, 1945).
[xxvii] Moreover, Sartre’s followers may not take up his work and carry it because they are free to decide what man is to be. A man is and only exists as he does, not how he hopes. At the end of a man’s life is not what he wished or hoped to be, it is what he actually made of himself that counts. A man is only what he realizes himself to be in reality by his actions.
[xxviii] The Dutch philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), often called the Father of Modern Existentialism, said out right that “Truth is subjectivity.”
[xxix] C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man,” (Lecture, Kings College, University of Durham, Durham, Britain, February 24-26, 1943).
[xxx] Richard Dawkins, The Ultraviolent Garden, Lecture 4 of 7, Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1992)

Chile Earthquake Disaster Response Trip

2010-03-29T11:45:00.000-07:00

“O Wow! This is unreal!!!” – me, the entire time I was there...

Regions surrounding Concepcion Chile were hit hard by the 8.8 quake (2^nd largest in recorded history) at 3:00am on February 27^th 2010. Minutes after the quake, tsunamis reaching as high as 30 meters soon followed despite the good-will assurances of police officers in beach town calling for people to remain in their homes. Portions of entire towns were catastrophically swept away leaving only the concrete slabs of houses behind. Thousands of structures across Chile were damaged or collapsed. Overall 500 people were killed with many more, including pastors, still missing.

The day after the quake, my plans with Engineering Ministries International to go to Haiti were now redirected to Chile. Surprisingly, it was the broken but resilient people of Chile that showed me once again how God can work through our cracks and damages to reveal his purposes.

Structural Engineering

I traveled with EMI’s disaster response team to provide water filters and structural assessment assistance to those in need. Our main mission was to determine whether or not buildings and houses could be reoccupied by evaluating their post-‘terramotto’ (earthquake) structural integrity. During the 10 days we were there, we provided 51 structural assessments of churches, schools, jails, hospitals, and historic buildings. We found many to be re-inhabitable after a structural retrofit, some to be immediately inhabitable without retrofit, and few needing to be completely demolished. We worked with pastors, government officials from the Chilean ministry of infrastructure, and local contractors.

As a structural engineer, I was fascinated by the quake and the damage. There is really nothing like being there and seeing the damage. The pictures just do not do a disaster zone justice. The trip provided me with a remarkable opportunity to see just how the earthquake forces rip through a structure that does not have the proper structural engineering and appropriate construction. In California, designing buildings to resist these seismic forces is complicated and advanced. In Chile, the codes and technology is similar to California but often construction begins and ends without the structural engineering or permitting that their code requires. Some have said, that although corruption may be slim in Chile compared to the rest of the world, there is a bit of a smell of construction inspection bribery when evaluating some of these buildings. To be honest, I think that may be the case in some rare instances there. But, most instances the lack of required structural engineering or poor construction practices is due to the fact that the nation is still developing and does not have it all together just yet in terms of accountability, planning department organization, and a system wide ‘old way of doing things’ mentality.

Overall, for all the buildings, the structural failures we observed were due to the following:

- No structural engineering

- Using unreinforced masonry as a shear wall

- Inadequate stirrup reinforcing around column bases

- No vibration of the concrete during placement

- Using smooth rebar instead of deformed rebar

- Using smooth river rocks instead of crushed granite rock

- Poor water to cement ratio in concrete mix

- Poor mixing of concrete prior to placement

- Inadequate foundations

- Inadequate bearing soil or sub surface soil type

- Soil settlement due to lack of compaction or a high water table

- Inadequate roof truss/rafter to wall connection

- Inadequate diaphragm to shear wall connection

- Etc.

While the Chilean seismic code and research is advanced, the lack of oversight and accountability in stopping a building from being built, even a church, was detrimental. Unfortunately, a lot of the churches we visited did not have adequate, if any, structural engineering or had failures due to the inadequate construction practices mentioned above. Despite being structures that house God’s people once a week, God seemed to show no favor in keeping poorly engineered and constructed church buildings free from damage.

Personal Observations

Although much damage was done to the structures, there was much resolve in terms of the patriotism of the Chilean people. We saw hundreds of Chilean flags attached to people’s cars and homes- most often seen draped from window sills in damaged homes or mounted on sticks anchored in rubble. The rally cry here is "Fuerza, Chile!" & "Be strong, Chile!"

Seeing the diverse economy of an emerging 2^nd world nation equally fascinated me. Some highlights of this polar diversity include:

- On many occasions we could spot a horse pulling a man on a cart across a freeway bridge with a large supermarket in the background.

- In Talcuhuano, a town hit hard by the Tsunami, the smell of dead sea life, moved buildings, houses upside down in the streets, and the lack of water left people abandoned, while the next city had little damages and carried on as if the earthquake never came, life as normal.

- One building may have suffered much damage, while the building next door remained virtually unscathed.

- Some towns are still out of water, some towns are watering there parks all day and night.

- Some areas had an abundance of food, some had no food or no transportation to food.

- In downtown Concepcion (largest city in the region), a new mall which matches our fanciest and most exotic mall in the USA was packed with people like it was Christmas, while down the street at the church funeral people mourned the loss of their loved ones.

As we entered certain cities, we were met by a massive cross without Jesus on it. For a historically Catholic country, this was surprising.

After finishing our work we had a few hours left to be tourists in Santiago. Santiago is hard to describe but if one thinks of a European version of New York and Los Angeles combined, that may help. We only were able to travel to the top of a big hill that overlooks the city. At the top of the hill is a beautifully carved statue of Mary. The statue must be 10m high and is daunting! Almost hidden in the garden below there is a small poorly carved statue of Jesus dying on the cross with 2 statues of disciples nearby. The paint on Jesus and his onlookers was wearing. Some portions of Jesus and his friends had bird droppings on them. Although, I noticed this sort of idolatry in Italy, it remains a disheartening thought: the woman who gave birth to Jesus is elevated to majestic levels, while Jesus is a forgotten garden gnome.

Some stories that touched my heart

We brought our tent because we heard the aftershocks were still occurring, but we wound up not using it as we found a great structure to sleep in. We stayed on the 3^rd floor of a concrete shear wall church office building that we assessed as ‘green’ (clear to reoccupy without retrofit) earlier in the day. The pastor of the church, who just prior to the terramotto suffered a brain-shattering life-altering stroke slept on the 1^st floor (his actual home collapsed all around him during the terramotto). Although the pastors, condition on the 1^st floor was extremely sad, this building was quite interesting to experience. It rocked and rolled in every aftershock. Surprisingly, we felt 2 aftershocks each night, with the 2^nd stronger than the 1^st each time…Strange…The pastor’s wife helped us get in and out of the building each morning and night as much as she could while she helped her bed-ridden husband in their new 1^st floor classroom home…That blessed our hearts tremendously. We spoke of his condition to every pastor that we met across Chile and they all somehow knew about it.

We went back to 1 church on 3 different days to perform the assessment. Each time we couldn’t get in. On the 3^rd attempt we got word that the pastor has been missing since the terramotto. But the church continued to meet outside of the main building even without their pastor.

Upon arriving in Constitucion, a port city severely damaged. My trip leader wrote this, “Walking around the shoreline was a surreal experience. Totally bare plots of land had makeshift posts sticking up, labeling property that used to have houses, yards, roads, automobiles, and people. Now it was dirt. There is a low island right offshore. 200 people were said to have camped there the night of the earthquake. It was the last weekend of the summer, and tourists had come from out of town to spend some time on the ocean and watch the fireworks. In the morgue the night after, there were 35 bodies that no one could identify because they were visitors from out of town. Many are still on the missing persons list.” Some of the people on the island that survived said that they were somehow able to climb up the trees to hang on during the attack of the waves in the pitch darkness.

The pastor of the church in Constitucion, Edison Lagos, took us in for the night after giving us a tour of the tsunami zone. He put us up in his 5 year old daughter bedroom next to her dolls while he and the family slept on the floor downstairs. His neighborhood was high enough over Constitucion that the tsunami didn’t affect them. Over dinner he shared with us some thoughts after 2 weeks of ministering to his local hurting community.

"I praise God that He continues to take care of us. It's been God who's given us the strength to raise our arms. Without Him, we wouldn't have the strength... The Gospel isn't easy. Two things the Lord says: that we are crucified with Him and that we will live forever... God says, 'I am coming, but I'm coming to a Church that is spotless--free of pride. If I do this, it's because I want people to know that I am coming soon.' ... I [have labored hard] to preach the true Gospel--not just a light gospel, a gospel about being happy and content." - Pastor Edison Lagos in Constitucion, 15 March, 2009

Two weeks after that terrible night, like all the other pastors we visited, Edison is busy counseling, giving food, and providing clothes to their church members who lost their loved ones, there houses, and are living in temporary camps.

We heard story after story of people’s reactions during and after the quake. There are too many to share here. However, it is clear that God’s purposes remain powerful in Chile and God’s power remains purposeful there.

Overall, the trip was a powerful experience. I felt the power of the earth like I have never felt in California, saw the damage done to many buildings (especially churches) by the power of the earthquake, but experienced the power of God moving in and through the church – His people rather than His buildings.

Unto the King,

Jeremy David Livermore, P.E.

…

Ps. I don’t speak Spanish, but here is a small article published in a local newspaper called Yungayino:

“Yungay, una visita de profesionales norteamericanos se realizó el pasado 18 de marzo a nuestra comuna, quienes están recorriendo varios lugares de la zona acompañados por personal del Seremi de Vivienda de Concepción, para evaluar en terreno los daños ocasionados por el terremoto que afecto a nuestro País el pasado 27 de febrero. La vista se concentro en la Escuela Fernando Baquedano cuya instalación sufrió severos daños, para continuar en la Parroquia de San Miguel, finalmente se inspecciono la cárcel donde se pudo apreciar varias murallas con daños. Esta visita estuvo acompañado por el Jefe de Obras de la Municipalidad Jack Marchant, quién manifestó al Portal sobre la inspección y recomendaciones que realizaron los especialistas norteamericanos quienes emitirán un informe, el cuál será fundamental para las decisiones que se tomaran con respecto al futuro de las instalaciones visitadas.

On Anthropological Fear - Our Forgotten Existential Condition

2010-03-13T23:45:00.000-08:00

“Bent creatures are full of fears.” – C.S. Lewis Out of the Silent Planet

“For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and discipline.” – 2 Timothy 1:7

Introduction

Could it be that our biggest problem is and has always been not knowing what our most important problem is?

Ever tried to fix a car without knowing where the problem is or that there was a problem at all? Often times, the misdiagnoses or a lack of one altogether, leads to further damage of a vehicles in an already impaired condition. Perhaps you have experienced this when getting the mind-boggling bill from the mechanic shop.

I once drove a Jeep Wrangler around for 3 years. . It was incredibly fun to drive but not fun to keep fixing. Little did I know that my misdiagnoses of a battery problem would lead to the engine catastrophe!

One weekend I performed some amateur mechanic upgrades to the entire electrical system of the vehicle. What I didn’t realize at the time was how aged the battery mount & straps had become. The main support for the car battery, already torn and weakening, did not receive the same treatment that I gave the electrical system. The structural support of the energy of the vehicle had not been reinforced, rebuilt, or replaced. I continued to drive like a mad man with a jeep without knowing that the battery became loose and the stems were now touching all of the new stereo wires, which I harnessed to the jeeps main engine power. After a few minutes of smelling burning wire rubber, I pulled over. I opened the hood to find the entire fuse box, wire harness, and many other combustible parts to be on fire!

There I was, helplessly watching my sweet baby jeep burn away to oblivion. The fire department showed up later to put the dying flames out. What a disappointment! It was my fault! All from missing the point! All this from simply looking over a necessary condition to the vehicles electrical system. What was also needed was a new battery mount and straps to re-secure the batteries.
The lack of the structural security of the system led to catastrophic failure of the entire vehicle. The energy meant to be transferred elsewhere somehow - during the bumpy drive - connected to combustible parts destroying the engine and thus keeping the vehicle from being operational.
Security itself was never a part of the diagnoses and therefore not a part of the restoration.
Similarly, when contemplating humankind, the story is the same. The structural system of our condition has been overlooked, misdiagnosed, and left forgotten. Now, umpteen-thousand years after Adam, the bumpy drive is yielding results unthinkable during the diagnoses: the human race in catastrophic absurdity.

Only after wrongly insulting the field of sociology over the last 10 years, has it become clear that most if not all people pretend to be professional sociologists, including myself. Educated and especially non-educated types tend to make up theories about this issue, that cause, and this resulting effect regarding our friends, family, and world. But us layman sociologists have perhaps at times done a better job as ‘voices crying out in the wilderness’ than the Politicians, Sociologists, and Economists. Overall, while mankind have laid done thousands of years of our socioeconomic theories, our political overtures, and our mega-doctrines of man from the East to the West, we have forgotten the most important part of the human condition, fear.

That said – there is no side stepping, this article makes no apologies; for while deliberating on the ‘existential’ condition of man, the powerful portrait of structural fear has rendered itself ridiculously vivid. While wearing the hat of sociologist, philosopher, and theologian simultaneously, this is an attempt to show how fear has been forgotten when considering man’s condition. Perhaps by re-diagnosing ourselves we can stop wasting our time with placebo exterior upgrades to our soul’s facade, when it needs a structural retrofit.

Much like the structural mount & straps secured the batter of my car, fearlessness, was the structural system that once empowered Adam and Eve to be secure in the manifest presence of Almighty God. That is, their security, the structural system of the soul was sound. This God given security enabled fearless existence. Security was the structural system of the entire system of the soul which failed in Adam and Eve’s fall. A building would cease to be a building without the structural system (beam, columns, foundations, etc.), so man ceases to be man without security. Which when security is lost, fear becomes our state of structureless existence, and our very essence is in shambles.

But for some reason this structural system of fearless existence, true security, is not thought to need rebuilding in humankind. Fear has secretly eaten up entire inward and outward lives. Fear drives mankind to a form of false reasoning that pales in comparison to that which God endowed. Fear, then, is the most important and still missing element of man’s condition which must be examined now more than ever to avoid catastrophic failure of the entire purpose of humanity.

In this article, the following questions are addressed:

1) Does fear exist in man?
2) What is the nature of fear in man?
3) How does fear manifest itself?
4) What is the consequence of our fear?
5) Is there anything that can be done?
To the 1st question we shall now turn.

Does fear exist in man?

Max Lucado is a very popular Christian author. He prolifically writes a chapter a day for the beloved & booming Evangelical genre of Christian Inspiration books. As much as these books are not intellectual masterpieces, they are spiritually and devotionally stimulating. The soul may be revived again and again by Lucado’s work and his genre. Thus they are priceless aids to the faith much like hymnals were to our ancesters. His recent book Fearless, describes for us the following internal fears that many humans face, perhaps worldwide:

1) Fear of not mattering
2) Fear of disappointing God
3) Fear of running out
4) Fear of not protecting my kids
5) Fear of overwhelming challenges
6) Fear of worst-case scenarios
7) Fear of violence
8) Fear of the coming winter
9) Fear of life’s final moments
10) Fear of what’s next
11) Fear that God is not real
12) Fear of global calamity
13) Fear of God getting out of my box

Lucado is very insightful here. He accurately describes the fears that plagues us. Perhaps we have conquered one fear on this list but are now plagued by another. Or several at one time. Without knowing, we often make decisions concerning practical matters and lifestyle manners by the guiding voice of fear in our subconscious. Due to this, our daily lives may be ordered in such a way that we redefine conservatism and cautiousness. Some of these subconscious fears even drive our overall life plans, emotions, finances, lifestyles, and worldview.

Max Lucado says that our deepest fear is failing God.

Dr. Calvin Ray Evans says that our biggest fear is unfounded fear. It is the internal fears based in unreality that the devil perpetuates and feeds.

Dr. John Piper says that the biggest fear of the evangelical Christians is being labeled. Whether its being called “politically incorrect”, “mindless followers of charismatic preachers”, or “radicals”, Piper says that this fear prevents us the most and is exactly what the enemy keeps us at home watching TV instead of being radicals.

Surely if these sorts of fears inhibit regenerate believers, they most likely also inhibit the unregenerate.

It is no wonder why. The current state of the world could be categorized as the technological age, media age, i-age. But our advances in technology and the securities of yesteryear have only caused perplexity when we consider all the following untamable powers hunting us all.

Apparently, global warming is the pinnacle threat of our current moment in history. Even the globally adopted International Building Code has been revised to require architects and engineers to design facilities and improve existing ones based principles of sustainability. This is a good thing actually but it is just the beginning of a new wave of laws that will mandate reduced energy consumption. As evident in the funny superbowl commercial, green police will eventually enforce a new global law that mandates public policy based on global energy consumption & supply. This is not a laughing manner but a mere prediction of the regulations that will change how we live. All in the name of global warming fear.

Threats of terrorism, not to mention nuclear and chemical war, is at an all time high at every corner of the world.

Wars, genocide, famines, earthquakes, floods, disease, malnutrition, starvation, are at an all time high.

The fallen economy only reveals the frailty and instability of our money. But our most trusted asset isn’t money, it’s the ground we live on. We need our very earth that we walk on to be stable and secure. But the earth itself is so unstable that in certain regions that at any moment, an entire country can be in shambles. The death-toll and damage in Haiti and Chile alone is eye-opening but many do not know that just earthquakes in the last century have killed at least 2 million people worldwide.

The world itself, our very planet we live on cannot be trusted. Our journey on this planet constantly spinning around the sun is marked by forces. One happens to be purely physical whereby a centrifugal force of our planetary rotation is resisted only by the force of gravity. Without which we are all looking for something to cling to lest we are thrown off the surface into the oblivion of space.
Not to mention the harsher, unlivable climates billions of us face daily, wrought with death traps, hooks, and snares caused by our blessed “mother nature.” Catastrophic hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, are becoming more frequent. Few would disagree with the notion that our planet is in peril, not just due to global warming (pending the evidence, etc.), but due to sheer naturalistic forces that we can do almost nothing about.

On top of all of that, may we mention the all time highs in perversity, abuse, dysfunction, depression, and ignorance our technologically sound & ethically advanced population endures daily. The global fears are only further exacerbated by our own interpersonal ‘relationship’ threats. Perhaps this is a point to expound upon another time, but again, not too many would argue that our interpersonal and family interactions are free from failure & neglect.

The human being is in peril due to naturalistic forces and the challenges brought upon us all by the imperfect human condition. There is no doubt that the last century or two can compete for the gold medal of the worst century in history. Never have we been closer to ultimate catastrophe on so many fronts. If there was any time to experience an eye opening diagnoses & prognosis of the human race it is now.

It is clear that fear exists globally and is manifested thoroughly as our world is full of internal and external threats that challenge our inward and collective security.

So to answer our 1st question: Yes. Fear exists in man.

But what exactly do we mean when we say “exists in?” Is it merely a temporal state of anxiety and worry that can be remedied with Max Lucado books? Or is it something structural to the unregenerate soul? Or both?

Before we move forward to answer this question (What is the nature of fear in man?) and our next questions (How does fear manifest itself? & What is the consequence of our fear?), let us dig deeper in understanding the notion of ‘anthropological’ or perhaps ‘existential’ fear, let us consider first some preliminary items for clarity. Then we will be fit for a syntopical analysis into this forgotten state of man’s condition.

Preliminary Considerations

Within the vast field of apologetics, we ultimately would like to show that Christianity ought to be appropriated for each and every individual. Or, at best show why people ought to become Christians and at the least show how one’s current worldview, evidence, philosophy, etc is in need of improvement. In doing so, we need to be able to represent the need for a personal Savior. What the rich man held on to, Jesus demanded to be forfeited. Correspondingly, what we don’t think we need, we won’t require a sacrifice for. If humankind continues to direct himself with humanism (basically, the study of humankind’s progress by means of human effort), there will never be a need for a Savior because time and human ingenuity will allegedly yield progress. But if humankind recognizes frailty, instability, and impairing weaknesses in the inherited human condition, Christianity’s answer shines. Thus, the need for appropriate anthropology in apologetics.

Anthropology, within Systematic Theology, is the study of what man (humankind – see below) is with regard to his existence and state of being. It covers topics such as creation, the primitive holy state, human will, probation, and original sin. These subtopics are extremely deep and profound fields of study to which the most brilliant Christian theologians of the last 2 millennia have written volumes on. Human will alone kept Augustine busy for at least 3 decades when responding to Palagius and his followers. To be realistic, each subtopic may not deserve a lifetime of study but surely each deserves chapter after chapter for concepts to be explained and terms defined appropriately. The reader, than ought to consult very thoroughly a systematic theology text for a more appropriate background in these deeper subtopics.

Of the finest systematic theologians of the past 2 centuries, W.G.T Shedd (1820-1894) ranks possibly in the top 5. He is extremely long winded but thorough, philosophical yet devotional, and above all extremely knowledgeable. He defines Anthropology this way, “Anthropology comprises only what man is and becomes under the ordinary arrangements of the Creator: what he is by creation and what he makes himself by self-determination.”[1] This is a great definition and it sheds (no pun intended) light on our specific study.

Interestingly, some systematicians refer to Anthropology as “the doctrine of man.” Moreover, some would not include Hamartiology (the doctrine of sin) within anthropology as Shedd does. In this article, Hamartiology is included within Anthropology. However, our focus is to only investigate fear in man with respect to his fallen state of being – this is a subtopic to the subtopic of the fallen existential state within the broader umbrella of Anthropology.

Lastly, Shedd follows Augustine’s theology of the anthropological state of Adam before and after the fall (posse non mori and posse non peccare; non posse non mori and non posse non peccare). A view to which the author of this article also subscribes. Here, Shedd does not include Soteriology as that follows logically and historically from Christology. Keeping with Shedd, this article will follow the same categorizing. That is, we will only consider the remedy of man’s existential fearful condition after we can consider the condition first.

Concerning fear, Shedd states that “physical death as a mortal principle befell Adam immediately…The description of the consequences of apostasy discloses mental characteristics that belong to spiritual death, namely, terror and shame before God.”[2]

When considering fear, one usually thinks of a temporarily afraid state of existence. Such as hearing bear noises while camping in the woods, hearing the bear creep up on the camp site, running from the tent while being chased by the bear, etc. Or some Christians perhaps reference to the ancient Biblical proverb “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge…”[3]

Mirriam-Webster’s dictionary provides us with the following: “1a: an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger; 1b (1): an instance of this emotion (2): a state marked by this emotion; 2: anxious concern : solicitude; 3: profound reverence and awe especially toward God; 4: reason for alarm : danger.” This article refers to definition 1.b.2.
Lucado defines the center of fear as “a perceived loss of control.”[4]

Fear can be thought of as the structural system of the entire system that failed in Adam and Eve. Fear is that state of structureless existence due to the absence of real and true safety and security. More or less, this article refers to fear as a condition of the human being in a pre-regenerate existential state of being for every individual human that has ever existed except Jesus. Again, the deeper notion of fear that is being conveyed in this article could be understood to be a global anthropological (existential) state of being.

Rather than repeat what has already been recently written, perhaps it would be more beneficial to refer the reader to previous articles written by this author on topics such courage, hope, existentialism, meaning, wonder to have more of a background in the word existentialism. Existentialism is such a broad and diverse topic in and of itself, pages would be necessary to define it, express it, and clarify it. In short, I have offered that already to give context to this existential fear of man such that fear as anthropological state of being could be more appropriately understood.
Lastly by way of disclaimer, for our purposes here, “man” is considered a term to refer to all of humanity; all entities within the category of humankind; men and women; homo sapiens. That is, man is that which is made in the image of God and is a bi-gender species, unlike angels, male and female as it is written in Genesis 1:27.

We are now looking to answer the following questions:

2) What is the nature of fear in man?
3) How does fear manifest itself?
4) What is the consequence of our fear?

Let us now consider a few pertinent pieces of modern literature written during 1850 to 1950 as this important 100 years of Western history produced great works of literature on the post-Enlightenment nature of man and the anti-philosophy of existentialism. We will examine & analyze a range of views from varying significant figures of the time to help us answer our next few questions. The following important and influential author’s relevant works contribute greatly to our study: C.S. Lewis’ Out of the Silent Planet – (Space Trilogy Book 1), Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821-1881) Notes from Underground (1864), Friedrich Nietzsche: some selected works, and C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra (Space Trilogy Book 2).

1. C.S. Lewis characters in Out of the Silent Planet espouse that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning the Annihilation of the Human Race
2. Fyodor Dostoevsky character in Notes from Underground espouses that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning the Attainment, Free Will, & Aliveness.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche in some selected works holds that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning the Individualism
4. C.S. Lewis characters in Perelandra espouses that the nature and manifestation of man’s anthropological fear is concerning The Original Image & The Lack of Provision

Now, the unfolding of our syntopical discussion. Let us begin.

Syntopical Discussion

Anthropological Fear: Annihilation of the Human Race

Among the many books by the brilliant thinker and author C.S. Lewis, the space trilogy is a must read. The fictional account of Dr. Ransom’s journey to other planets is ridiculously fascinating. Most are very familiar with Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia series but miss out on being intrigued for life at the gripping detail and energizing richness in his portraits of Mars and Venus. But more importantly Lewis miraculously conveys truths deeper than anything analogized in The Chronicles of Narnia. Truths that punch the reader in the face with style, brilliance, and honesty. These deeper notions of reality are not limited to Perelandra (Venus) and Malcandra (Mars) but are our own. In that, Lewis adjusts the reader to life on another planet while still championing universals and objective reality.

On the other hand, the powers that be there are unlike the forces of earth, in that the planets are ruled by the Oyarsa of the planet. The Oyarsa are spiritual beings in which “light is instead of blood for them.” (page 118)[5] Although they are made of light, Oyarsa and Eldil are more real and visible to the un-“bent” eye than humans. Let us, listen in on the unprecedented but delayed meeting between Dr. Ransom and the Oyarsa Malecandra on Mars.

“What are you so afraid of, Ransom of Thulcandra?” it said.

“Of you, Oyarsa, because you are unlike me and I cannot see you.”

“Those are not great reasons,” said the voice. “You are also unlike me, and though I see you, I see you very faintly. But do not think we are utterly unlike. We are both copies of Maledil.”…

“Many thousands of thousands of years before this, when nothing yet lived on your world, the cold death was coming on my (planet). Then I was in deep trouble, not chiefly for the death of my (people) – Malelidil (God) does not make them long-livers – but for the things which the lord of your world, who was not yet bound, put into their minds. He would have made them as your people are now – wise enough to see the death of their kind approaching but not wise enough to endure it…but one thing we left behind on the planet: fear. And with fear, murder and rebellion. The weakest of my people do not fear death. It is the Bent One, the lord of your world, who wastes your lives and befouls them with flying from what you know will overtake you in the end. If you were subjects of Maledil (God) you would have peace.”

This brilliant exchange describes perfectly our fear not just in light of Ransom’s being in the presence of greatness, but the part of the core nature of Ransom and that of all of unregenerate humanity: fear. The Oyarsa points it out with accuracy and precision. Isn’t it incredible that Lewis would depict our condition this way – incredible because it is true. Poignantly, human fear is pervasive; peace and security are lacking. And the deepest type of fear is that of oblivion. That our entire human race, from the first human to the last, is obliterated from the history of the cosmos. The Annihilation, death with no afterlife, Lewis advocates, is our fear. At the end of the duration of human existence, nothing results. This end of our race, or end of our existence, is the inevitable conclusion we fight against rather than the fear of it.

Let us now turn to another anthropological fear.

Anthropological Fear: Attainment, Free Will, & Aliveness

“I invented adventures for myself and made up a life, so as at least to live in some way.” – Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821-1881) Notes from Underground (1864)

The themes and tones of the famous Russian fiction writer Fyodor Dostoevsky’s were echoed through the next century of existentialist writers. He wrote to combat the enlightenment project and rationalism that had stricken Europe and Russia with a profound strained protest. He emphasized individuality against the traditional Greek, Christian, and 18th century secular dogmas of original sin, the good and the beautiful, scientism, humanism, and rationalism. Should man be forced to live under such a fine tuned rubric of logic and such technological advantages?

No, says Dostoevsky’s underground man who believes in a form of individuality & free will. For scientism, humanism, and rationalism twisted individuality & free will in the contrived schemes of man for colonial advantages. Ironically thought, the free will is foolish in itself and therefore it’s better than reason! He explains,

“Here I for instance, quite naturally want to live, in order to satisfy all my capacities for life and not simply my capacity for reasoning, that is, not simply one twentieth of my capacity for life…Reason only knows what it has succeeded in learning…and human nature acts as a whole…consciously or unconsciously, and, even if it goes wrong, it lives.”

For Dostoevsky’s character, if science can explain every choice, man will stop desiring and will cease to be human! That is, the implication of scientism is that life is calculated and the future known. But it would seem that the will is prior to reason when we consider the faculties of the soul. Free will is better than a mind drowning by science and rationalism. Free will leads to personality which leads to individuality. For science and rationalism lead to no advantage whatsoever – although humanity teaches it as the true teacher of man. The very notion of the lack of free will is absurd! Free will must by necessity be original and triumphant because this is true life which is a better life even with heart-wrenching, back-breaking, mind-boggling blunders.

All and every man that has ever been is immoral. History is not rational for any human. In a perfect world of bliss and prosperity, man will still stink it up. He will still try to change it all with his own fatal fantasy because man needs to prove to himself that he is alive and he is not controlled. As everyone knows that being controlled is as good as death itself. Thus, man sins continually within his engineered control to avoid the very death that he has already thrust himself into. The underground man assures that “he will contrive destruction and chaos, will contrive sufferings of all sorts, only to gain his point!”

Man’s whole work, goal, and all of human drive is to prove that he is alive and not dead.
A later existentialist author, Albert Camus put it this way, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.”

Man maintains an innate drive to engineer but never finally attain and embrace. He is creative & predestined to engineer and build new roads to wherever - doesn’t matter where - just keep engineering. But civilizations come and go. Because man may attain the object he is building and as such destroys it only to start all over again.

“But man is a frivolous and incongruous creature, and perhaps, like a chess player, loves the process of the game, not the end of it. And who knows (there is no saying with certainty), perhaps the only goal on earth to which mankind is striving lies in this incessant process of attaining, in other words, in life itself, and not in the thing to be attained, which must always be expressed as a formula, as positive as twice two makes four, and such positiveness is not life, gentlemen, but the beginning of death.”

Thus, due to man’s fear of finding, engineering and development despair in destruction eventually. He says, “man has always been afraid of this mathematical certainty, he traverses oceans, sacrifices his life in the quest, but to succeed, really to find it, he dreads.” Man explores through science but dreads what he would find…thus, he loves attaining but fears attainment.

Why? Because there may in actuality be nothing left to attain…. “He feels that when he has found it there will be nothing for him to look for…Once you have mathematical certainty there is nothing left to do or understand.”

Idleness…the lack of aliveness. This is the fear of man.

Let us now turn to another anthropological fear.

Anthropological Fear: Individualism

Nietzsche influence upon the existential movement - as well as various other cultural thought patterns and social movements - cannot be understated. But rather than be considered an existentialist, he is more of a pre-thinker or father to the movement. What Aristotle is to Thomism, Nietzsche is to Existentialism. Nietzsche is famous for his style, prose, and incredible existential synopsis of how his present European Enlightened culture would inevitably lead to a society that “killed” God. He has often been misunderstood in light of the his famous quote, “God’s too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”[6] Many preachers and social reformers have misjudged and misinterpreted Nietzsche upon this quote as it fits within a broader story of a man who wakes up early one morning to scream in the town square that he seeks God. Upon getting laughed at and mocked he cries all the more. “Whither is God?...We have killed him – you and I…Who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves?”[7] The man in the story was a mere prophet – to which Nietzsche was trying to be for Europe – A mere messenger rather than the advocate of the “advent of Nihilism.”

For Nietzsche, Nihilism is the necessary implication of Europe’s values. It was the skepticism, relativism, and despair of truth caused by Kant’s moral philosophy - where society ends up with subjectivism as their guide as there is no way to decide between truth and appearances of truth. In that, the grounding of truth becomes uncertain and as a result, Kant’s views render life futile and meaningless. Thus, says Nietzsche, “Nihilism is the radical rejection of value, meaning, and desirability.”[8] It is the conclusion that all of the universe and the happenings wherein lack meaning. So Nihilism is the meaninglessness or nothingness of human existence – that which skepticism birthed.

Additional dangers of Kant’s view could lead to isolation, solitude, and loneliness for the philosopher and people. But it could lead to individualism. This is the goal of Nietzsche. To rise against the institutions, governments, society, and religion. But people fear this independence – according to Nietzsche – so they stick to convention and tradition. This is the comfortable life that Nietzsche despises. Nietzsche wants us to have “a firm grasp of the over-all picture of life and existence” that allows for the image of all life.[9] This is what constitutes a great philosophy as understood in the lines of Schopenhauer. Then, from this overarching worldview, learn the meaning of your own life. For striving for individual achievement, riches, honor, and degrees doesn’t raise the individual out of worthlessness of his existence or improve society. It merely maintains convention, tradition, and the status quo. So rather than encounter a great philosophy and “receive meaning” that can change the individual and thus his society, people remain subdued by their fear of independence and individualism. People move in herds and are slaves to society too are afraid to break out of the pack. They just follow what is expected of them by their peers.

Nietzsche’s remedy was a call to heroism, where the “uber”-man can “live dangerously” in his great individualism.[10] Where one stands up with dialiectical courage to die fighting for victory rather than living in cowardice. Dialectical courage – a ‘dialectical’ ability that operates in passionate tension. Man must act in courage. If man does exercise this, it is actually meaningless - but man ought to do it anyway. Because the only thing you have left is individuality. This also will be one that is meaningless and runs against reason because it is all futile and meaningless. Thus we need courage to be the individual uberman. So man must act against fate – against the blind impersonal forces of nature - and live by his own will and create his own meaning. The Nietzsche hero is kind of an anti-hero of society – it goes against conventional culture.[11]

Thus, Nietzsche’s characterizes society as people who ride along the convention for fear of their peers, fear of being oneself, and fear of standing up to the industrial machine.
Let us now turn to yet another anthropological fear.

Anthropological Fear: The Original Image & The Lack of Provision

In Perelandra, Lewis further elaborates on the existential condition of fear in man. The protagonist Dr. Ransom finds himself on Perelandra (Venus) which has 1 fixed land and the rest of the lands are floating on the water in such a way that they follow the contours of the waves. That is, the floating lands could be thought of as thin plastic sheets that surf the water but never are sunk. When Ransom tasted the delicious fruit of the floating lands he was incredibly satisfied – to the point where he never felt it necessary to eat more than the original amount provided….to choose the new good fruit over an old would render the old not good. But to be satisfied with the old and not need the new was to perpetuate the good indefinitely. There is not a need on Perelandra to take the fruit given today and try to store it for tomorrow. Nor is there a need to eat more than was necessary, even though it was possible to be a gluten.

In a similar day-to-day motif, the King described his and the Queen’s desire to maintain the living on the floating lands rather than on the 1 fixed land. He says,

“And why should I desire the Fixed except to make sure – to be able on one day to command where I should be the next and what should happen to me? It was to reject the wave-to draw my hands out of Maleldil’s, to say to Him, ‘Not thus, but thus’ – to put in our own power what times should roll towards us…as if you gathered fruits together to-day for to-morrow’s eating instead of taking what came. That would have been cold love and feeble trust. And out of it how could we ever have climbed back into love and trust again.”

Here the King of Venus (like our Adam) explains that the waves and the fruits are daily norms that do not need regulating or rationing. He later says to Ransom, “Always one must throw oneself into the wave.” (page 210)

It seems that fear of tomorrow is the struggle that humans have had since Adam’s sin. In Perelandra, there was not an original sin and thus the purity and innocence of the King and Queen allowed them to live by Maleldil’s hand of daily provision. In our world, that is just not the case. In their world, there is no fear but perfect fiery love: “Pure, spiritual, intellectual love shot from their faces like barbed lightning. It was so unlike the love we experience that its expression could easily be mistaken for ferocity.”

The King was unfallen, untarnished, and unchanged. Lewis describes his face as the artistic brilliance of God’s self-portraiture. “It was that face which no man can say he does not know.” This is the designed and detailed image of every man. The image that we all once had and it embraced us with dignity and honor. It is this image that man has tried to swallow with engineering, philosophy, science, and time. Our original image is our self made enemy to which we all will by destiny encounter. It is this image that man fears.

Having discussed these notions of fear. Let us analyze & conclude on the state of man’s condition and his overall existence.

Analysis

Could we concur that what is discussed here is in fact appropriate when describing our unregenerate human race? These seem to be very reasonable and accurate descriptions of the forgotten element to our condition.

Let us summarize the aforementioned for clarity:

i. Annihilation of the Human Race
ii. Attainment, Free Will, Aliveness
iii. Individualism
iv. The Original Image & The Lack of Provision

It seems obvious that all of these characterizations of the phenomena are accurate. Common sense and everyday experience indicate that these characterizations are very reasonable indeed. As noted before, our world is in peril and our inner state of peace and security are constantly missing.
Regarding Lewis’s notion of anthropological fear: As we approach the end of our world as we know it, which will come as the Bible predicts, which will continue to be avoided by the non-Christians, will we continue to live in fear and try to stop it? Or will we embrace the facts – our time is almost up and we have lived frantically trying to avoid the inevitable conclusion.

As Lewis wrote, we are “wise enough to see the death of their kind approaching but not wise enough to endure it” so we waste our lives and befoul them with “flying from what you know will overtake you in the end. If you were subjects of Maledil you would have peace.” The human condition without God is bleak and grim. It is one of tragic fear. All who accept this notion know that annihilation results in meaninglessness. That not just one life is meaningless, but the entire existence of any conscious life is meaningless.

We happened to be creatures that are wise enough to know that death is all around us and is a certain future for every life. Now we understand that with global warming and with nuclear energy we can destroy ourselves faster than the forces of mother nature. But, Lewis shouts out, we aren’t that smart after all because we do everything to avoid the inevitable eschatological comings. Including ignoring the state of fear in us that is doing the screaming- a weakness that leads to one worthless pursuit and self-misdiagnoses further exacerbating the human condition inaugurating utter catastrophe.

Arrogantly, we strive ahead instead of embrace our future. Why? Because we know that after death there is either nothing or badness. And we have an overcoming spirit. Don’t we? We as humans are resilient creatures, resolute with hope…but could our green trends and techniques keep us alive forever? Could the US Green Building Council think of great ideas that will prolong the conclusion. Why not let global warming destroy us all. What is wrong with annihilation?

Annihilation is feared. Why? After the initial pain during the dying process. There is nothing. One ceases to exist. So if there is no experience, why do non-regenerate humans fear it?

Because man has a hard time understanding purpose in the here and now if there is no overarching purpose to man’s existence. Thus, the existential philosophers emerged to deliver the message to mankind that we can have a purpose in purposelessness and meaning in meaninglessness. Their idea, stemming from author’s like Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, is based on a categorical philosophical mistake: that the world is in fact from nowhere special and is heading nowhere special.

Regarding Dostoevsky’s notion of anthropological fear: While Dostoevsky is inspirational to read, his notion seems imbalanced. His emphasis is on purifying the free will of man from the contraptions and pull of the world. Yes man can be an engineer, scientist, and philosopher, but is it the best career for man? Yes there is a world to explore, expoit, and conquer, but is that what is honorable for man? Where then is the drive coming from when what is natural seems to be the embracing of the wild self.

Samuel C. Florman in The Existential Pleasures of Engineering remarks,

“If most people are fooled into desiring things they do not really desire, tricked into thinking they are free when they are really enslaved, mesmerized into feeling happy when true happiness forever eludes them, then clearly we are in a sorry state” …But we are beginning to realize that for mankind there will never be a time to rest at the top of the mountain. There will be no arcadian age. There will always be burdens, new problems, new failures, new beginnings. And the (alleged) glory of man is to respond to his harsh fate with zest and ever-renewed effort.”

This is the truly the goal of the humanists and existentialists. To live a life of conquering fear by virture of development, human effort, and self-will. This has always been the answer by humans for the human condition since the tower of Babel. However, as history has shown, the forces of the human condition and the forces of nature, have not been harnessed, resisted, or changed.
Regarding Nietzsche’s notion of anthropological fear: Individualism. Nietzsche placed the root of Nihilism in interpretation of Christian morality and Christian truth. The end of Christianity was by this interpretation. Christian developments in intellectual history and the clutch of Christianity on culture, was being replaced. Truth “is nauseated by falseness” and “‘God is the truth’ is turns to ‘All is false.’”[12] The negative influences of religion, conventions, customs, are against the individual who wants to be free and advance to human greatness.

Even Nietzsche knew that his views were being misinterpreted at his time and tried to refute the misinterpretations. In his Ecce Homo he tried to clear up the “uber”-man word. But to know avail as later Hitler took Nietzsche’s works and distributed them to the Nazi’s. Scholars debate as to whether Hitler interpreted Nietzsche correctly. It is clear, that Nietzsche completely mischaracterizes Jesus, Christianity, and Christian morality. However, our point here is merely just to emphasize Nietzsche’s characterization of society as people who ride along the convention for fear of individualism: fear of their peers, fear of being oneself, and fear of standing up to the industrial machine.

Regarding Lewis’ notion of anthropological fear in Perelandra: To reclaim our original image, is that a worse goal for the human race? Or ought we to stick with humanism and engineer our existence into eternity? Would it not be best to renovate the within to yield the without rather than forcing function on a form. Surely ‘form follows function’ and that very architectural principle has shaped the development of great infrastructure and architecture in many civilizations. Contrarily, the soul is that which must be restored to its original likeness, a predetermined form which yields function. That is, our soul’s very form, set apart before the creation of the world in God’s original master planned and carefully architected universe, produces a functional life as He ordered it.

But what is more astounding is that our form was made like His form. Our personhood like His. This is the fearful thing…that once we see our true selves…the face of the man we cannot say we don’t know…we see unseen glory…the truest eternal form that time, nature, and utility has not altered…yet we fear. Fear the becoming of ourselves becoming ourselves... Fear the being and not the doing. Fear the form and not the function. Fear the longing for reality. Fear the destined meeting that fate cannot negotiate. Fear the man. Fear the humanity.

To summarize, the overarching anthem here is that we fear facing our anthropological fears in addition to our temporary fears. Of course FDR said “The only thing to fear is fear itself.” But what does that mean when considering the aforementioned? Is it that simple or easy?

Fear is the forgotten and defining element of not who we are but what we are. Due to Adam’s fall, man has become creatures of anthropological fear. It is his entire existential state of being. Worse, fear is in fact the most deceiving anthropological element of our entire human existence. As a result, the nature, manifestation, and consequence of it is mind-boggling to our history.

Implications

To our last question we shall now turn.

4) Is there anything that can be done?

Yes. There is hope to regain the life lost due to fear.

It starts with learning more about fear.

Fear is illogical. It corrupts logic. It does not yield fruitful thoughts or thinking. It is obvious that to love God with all our minds when we are worried about “what tomorrow holds” is impossible. And how illogical can we be when we trust our own hand over God’s. In general, what is illogical is not of God, for Satan is the father of all lies and most often times is the author of confusion.

Moreover, confusion itself causes fear whereas fear itself fosters confusion while trying to avoid it. It is no wonder that we use words like “so-and-so” acted out of fear when they committed this crime or performed an unthinkable act. The racing brain mulls over past & future images, dreams, desires, etc. without considering consequences. The frantic desperate person is actually circling in unreality to find reality while striving to enforce reality on the unreal. Fear thrusts down the human brain into the slippery slope of nothingness. It propels the creation of a fantasy that is normalized culturally but regulated by anthropological brokenness.

Specifically, apologetics is impossible with fear. Fear cannot yield objective results. Apologetics requires objective thinking to shield from cultural influences from without and to filter heretical or inconsistent tendencies from within. So the need for fearlessness in our thinking cannot be understated. Otherwise, we will easily make fear driven arguments and follow erroneous conclusions.

But interestingly, fear cannot be defeated without logic and reality articulated. A mind left to fight fear without fresh and clear thinking is like someone punching the air in the dark. Not even knowing where the opponent is. Ironically, fear comes from deception and fear continues deception until it has defeated the victim.

Fear then will always win when fighting a person unable to articulate truthful thoughts, discern reality, or choose an alternative future.

This is evident and obvious in our nightmares. Often times while sleeping, we find ourselves stuck in some ungodly situation and our only means of escape is waking up. The problem is that our dreams are describing to us a believable reality by painting a picture of a plausible scenario. So, we negotiate our way through our own subconscious processing (usually coming from unprocessed emotions) until we awake. Some of us who have these dreams often learn to force the wake up during the dream or even change the dream based on a cognitive direct choice.

In some of my own mild dreams I have learned to wake myself up by cognitively choosing to recognize that the reality in front of me is not in fact how it has to be. That is, the subconscious processing is not necessary to current actual reality or a plausible future reality. If I can realize this in the dream (which is not always the case), I can choose an alternative ending or at the least wake up in a frantic rage of wrestling with the blankets. The waking up part may only occur when I am able to open my mouth and say an actual word. By speaking out a forced word in the middle of a dream, I can stop sleeping.

Either way, when awake or when in control of the dream, fear is not able to haunt me like a demon. Thus, the ability to understand reality, truth, and whether a future scenario is necessary is the crucial to fighting fear.

Now again, the dream may be pointing to unprocessed emotions that needs to be dealt with. But it is better to deal with emotional pains and past trauma awake – when we are on the better battleground to think clearly and articulate – than in the deep unchartered waters of our subconscious. Being able to speak out emotions with friends and/or a counselor is crucial for fighting fear. we cannot fight wordless darkness. We must as humans pull back the curtains and bring light to our the darkness we are fighting. The noises in a silent house in the middle of the night maybe the same noises that occur in the silent house in the middle of the day but it’s just not as scary when we can see things.

This is exactly what the devil wants to do to us. He is the author of lies and uses his skills to deceive unbelievers and believers alike by not working against their direct cognitive abilities in day lit paths, but he comes in the dark places - along side our own weak fearful anthropological state of being and agrees with what we already are anxious about. He then ushers us down a darkening street with illogical semi-plausible street signs, tempting feel better philosophies of night walkers, and temporary satisfactions of the alley dumpster. Before we know it, we subconsciously have given over our major life decisions to an enemy we never knew was counseling us. Many of us have been left helpless and defeated in life due to the attacks of satanic influences on our anthropological fears. We have never truly fought the opponent who defeated us.

Furthermore, fear is also like anger, in that it awakens us to a deeper pain. It is not a sin to be fearful of something, but it can lead to sinful living when mismanaged. Lucado states “When fear shapes our lives, safety becomes our god. When safety becomes our god, we worship the risk-free life…the worship of safety emasculates greatness.” He elaborates further, “The fear-filled cannot love deeply. Love is risky…The fear filled cannot dream wildly.” It is truly a devastating thing to live a life full of fears as incapacitates us from our destiny.

Along these lines, back in Ancient Greece, Plato once wrote, “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.” – Plato

Recommendations

Without security found in God alone, we are structureless. Thus, fear becomes our structural system of survival. Much like a child shuts down to enter an out of touch imaginary world in a case of child abuse to protect himself from further harm, so the adult attaches a new system of security to cope with future harm. Systems of careers, children, finances, etc. The cycle of missing the point continues. We tend towards wasting our time, lives, and entire history.

Concerning our tendencies, Shedd enlightens, “The mere possibility of death for Adam was not the same as a tendency to death.” But because we inherited Adam’s nature after the fall, we do tend toward death, physically and spiritually. The negative tendencies we have we fear because we know their fruition is inevitable. The positive tendencies that we don’t have we fear because we know their attainment is marked with self-struggle. Unregenerate people fear the negative things that we all tend towards, like death and future pain. On the other hand, the unregenerate fear the positive things we don’t all tend towards like, integrity and objective truth. The unregenerate is stuck.

Get saved. The unregenerate must become regenerate. To face our anthropological state of fear we must only face ourselves in God’s light. Then, in peering in on our state of utter dreadfulness, we will be compelled cry out to Jesus who can show us our fearless whole self. 2nd Timothy 1:7 says, “For God gave us not a spirit of fearfulness; but of power and love and discipline.” The fear we inherited from Adam is not of God. God created us whole and fearless. We need a regenerated security system of fearlessness. We need our structural system back. Like a building, we cannot perform the functions that we were designed for without structural system. We must be willing see and reject our sinful fearful selves for God to regenerate our entire being.

We must die to our sinful fearful selves and take on the fearless self that he originally designed for us to have. We must follow Christ’s example in the Garden of Gethsemene. There he chose to tackle the fear that he was born to face. When the timing became right, he turned to face the oncoming opposition. He knew there could be no alternative ending. This future was necessary for him, not because he chose foreordained it before time began, but because he chose it. As Jesus turn to walk toward Judas and his religious thugs, Judas walked towards Jesus with the puckered lips of that every deceiving betrayer. Jesus took on the anxiety, dread, and fear when he turned to the Father in prayer. From that prayer, he went on to grave, fearlessly embracing the persecution, interrogating, beatings, and murdering.

The answer to our anthropological fearful condition is Jesus. He is the fearless champion of our man’s tragic state of being.

God enable those reading this who are not saved to accept your son’s act of fearless obedience so they may embrace their fearless original state of existence.

God stir up the Christian reading this to live fearlessly as he is already able.

Inspiration

Perhaps your anthropological fear has been forgotten or misunderstood. Perhaps you are going through a very fear filled time in life. We must use Scripture to help us begin a journey of an accurate thought life and fearless existence. Scripture is not silent on this. On the contrary, the Bible is full of powerful stories of God honoring Holy Spirit filled boldness, passion, and fearlessness. The book of Psalm is filled with fearless resolve in the midst of the battle and the face of tragedy. Job, despite his devastation and deceiving logic of his friends, turned to God, and overcame despair. Paul teaches us: “Set your mind on things above, not on earthly things.” (Colossians 3:2, NIV) We are taught here to look to God to shed our fearfulness and adopt our fearlessness. Strikingly, while Scripture is actually teaching us to take our fears to God it also teaches us to fear God – the very one bring our fearful state to!

On this note, Max Lucado says “Nothing fosters fear like an ignorance of mercy.” We must adopt his mercy on our lives, however torn and bruised, let us reach for it in the midst of our fear. We must bring our fearful state to the only one we ought to fear. Our fear will then be transformed to courage! From courage, we can have true life and true love.

David shares his heart with us: “The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident….Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD.” (Psalm 27:1-3, 141)

Solomon teaches us: “Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe.” (Proverbs 29:25, NIV) “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.”

John teaches us: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” (1 John 4:13, KJV)

Lastly, Jesus teaches us: “I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! Are not five sparrows sold for two cents? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear; you are more valuable than many sparrows.” (Luke 12:5-8, NASB)
I pray that our only fear would be the fear of the LORD.

Unto the King,
Jeremy David Livermore

[1] W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, page 429
[2] W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, page 542
[3] Proverbs 1:7
[4] Max Lucado, Fearless
[5] Maledil (the being analogous to Jesus, who is the governor of the universe) has ordered that each planet has a governing lord of which it is also the character or god of that planet (think also greek gods).
[6] Friedrich Nietzsche The Gay Science
[7] Friedrich Nietzsche The Gay Science
[8] Friedrich Nietzsche The Will to Power Book 1
[9] Friedrich Nietzsche Schopenhauer as Educator
[10] Friedrich Nietzsche Ecce Homo
[11] R.C. Sproul Lecture: “The Consequence of Ideas”
[12] Friedrich Nietzsche The Will to Power

Augustine’s Philosophical Theology & Neoplatonism

2009-12-12T15:26:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been curious as to how the great intellectual heritage of our faith came about? I often am. Studying how theology developed throughout history is a worthwhile pursuit for any and every Christian. Not to mention, it is incredibly fascinating. Upon the initial leg of a historical journey of the Christian faith, one can quickly notice that theology did not develop in a vacuum. On the contrary, throughout history theologians had to wrestle with the pressing demands of their day. In fact, one might say that theology was and is quite influenced by the powerful forces of culture, authority, war, discrimination, history, egos, and heresy. Let us cut a slice in history and investigate a case study in philosophical influences on theology.

Of the greatest philosophers and theologians of the church, Aurelius Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) is one of the most prominent. His voluminous writing is a testament to the monumental contributions to the development of Christian thought. This 4th century thinker gave all of Christendom a more systematic, articulate, and rigorous philosophical theology that could only be matched by the likes of Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin. But was his thought so orthodox that none of it is without controversy? Had Augustine developed essential Christian doctrines because of the prevailing Greek philosophical influences of the early church period or was his thought was purely based on the teaching of Scripture? Have the doctrines of Augustine left a positive impact in Christendom or should his Neoplatonistic thought be disregarded?

Upon evaluation of the life and writings of Augustine and influential thinkers of his time, we can easily see that Augustine’s philosophical theology of original sin, free will, and the nature of man was heavily influenced by Neo-Platonism. This can be shown by considering the following 3 items: his background & training in Greek philosophy & Neoplatonic thought, his interaction with and evaluation of Platonism & Neoplatonism to Christianity in his own writing, and the parallel between Neo-Platonic philosophy & his philosophical theology.

Preliminary Items

Before these considerations, it is important to understand some important preliminary items. First, at the time of Augustine’s life, the most influential Neoplatonistic thinkers had come and gone, but much of the thoughts of the Neoplatonists were still gaining traction in the intellectual Academies and broader culture. So Augustine’s interaction with their thought was very relevant to his era, but the full fledged impact of Neoplatonist upon the broader culture would not be realized until the Medieval and Reformation eras. This can be seen in the many other Christian thinkers including Boethius, John Scotus Eriugena, and Bonaventure, who could also easily be labeled Neoplatonist Christian thinkers.

Secondly, the terms “Neoplatonism” & “Neoplatonist” were not applied to the thinkers of modified Platonism till last few centuries of our modern era. Thus Augustine simply refers to them as Platonists. These philosophers are Philo of Alexandria (30 BCE – 50 CE), Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (176-242), Plotinus (205-270), Porphyry (234–305 C.E.) disciple of Plotinus, Amelius disciple of Plotinus, Proclus, Iamblichus, and Apuleius.

Lastly, this article will not consider the thoughts of Neoplatonists that lived after Augustine as he would obviously not have been influenced by their views. Additionally, to focus this study to a reasonable volume, it is best to consider select views of only the notable Neoplatonists to which Augustine most plausibly could have been influenced by. Augustine lists these renowned Platonists[1] as “Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Porphyry, who were Greeks and the African Apuleius.”[2] But, this article considers only the possible influences of Plotinus, Porphyry, and correspondingly, Plato.

1st Consideration: Augustine’s background & training includes the reading of Greek philosophy & Neoplatonic thought.

Early in his life, prior to his conversion, Augustine became a follower of the Eastern cult known as the Manicheans. He spent almost 10 years with them learning that powerful forces of good and evil persist throughout time. In their thought one’s soul is pure light in the physical world of darkness, where the soul can be liberated to join the perfect original light. Although not NeoPlatonic, these themes become important in Augustine’s later writings.

Although not an expert, Augustine learned Greek in school and continued to learn it to study the Scriptures.[3] He writes, “But why did I so much hate the Greek, which I studied as a boy? I do not yet fully know…Difficulty, in truth, the difficulty of a foreign tongue, dashed, as it were, with gall all the sweetness of Grecian fable. For not one word of it did I understand, and to make me understand I was urged vehemently with cruel threats and punishments.”[4] Phillip Schaff, editor of a voluminous series of the early church fathers, writes, “Though Augustine never did attain any significant facility in Greek, he did work to improve his ability somewhat after his conversion, for the purpose of biblical studies…his knowledge of Greek literature was mostly derived from Latin translations. With the Greek language, as he himself frankly and modestly confesses, he had, in comparison with Jerome, but a superficial acquaintance.”[5] So although the Greek language was not mastered by Augustine, the respect for it is apparent.

At the age of 17, he was sent to Carthage for his education where he studied philosophy and religion there. He read Cicero’s Hortensius (a work no longer extant), which set him on his quest for higher truth. This knowledge & passion would prove helpful in his future works of philosophical theology. Schaff indicates, “From the writeup at the beginning of Confessions, he had received in the schools of Madaura and Carthage the usual philosophical and rhetorical preparation for the forum, which stood him in good stead also in theology.”[6] He later studied classical law & rhetoric and eventually taught rhetoric in Rome. This alludes to possible training in the dialogue method of Socrates, Plato, or other Greeks.

In 384 in Milan, while being influenced by Ambrose, he encountered many “books of the Platonists.”[7] Michael Mendleson, professor of philosophy at Lehigh University, adds that “the books of the Platonists provided him with a metaphysical framework of extraordinary depth and subtlety, a richly textured tableau upon which the human condition can be plotted…He credits the books of the Platonists with making it possible for him to conceive of a non-physical, spiritual reality”[8] Specifically, the German theologian Johannes Brachtendorf adds, “The Neoplatonists taught Augustine in Milan the metaphysical truths about God, namely that he is immutable, immaterial, highest unity, and highest good.”[9] This is very clear in Augustine’s later books which show an extensive knowledge of philosophy, literature, and theology of Plato and the NeoPlatonists.

From this background we can easily see that from a young age till 30 years old, Augustine’s intellectual growth and development was not Christian (other than the influences of his mother) but actually saturated with variety. This highly suggests a continuous life of diligent and fruitful learning. From the various philosophical worldviews of the ancient age to even cultic religious movements of his own, Augustine eventually championed a powerful Christianity through a broad and deep framework of culturally & internally pressing systems of thought.

2nd Consideration: Augustine interacts and evaluates Platonism & Neoplatonism to Christianity in his on writing.

Augustine indubitably wanted to make a connection between Platonism and Christianity because he knew that besides the flesh and the internal debates within the Catholic Church the wisdom of the world was the most powerful & compelling force to fight against. He was perhaps divinely positioned through those years of rigorous intellectual preparation and internal struggles, ranging from concupiscence to intellectual doubt to cultic following, to discover that he could use their own terms & concepts against them. In his On Christian Doctrines treatise, Augustine writes, “If those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it.”[10] This was one of Augustine’s and other early church fathers’ best doctrines – that truth was a byproduct of God’s general revelation to all of mankind and Christians have even more of a right to use logic, meaning, and truth than any other ancient thinker.[11] He writes, “Let every good and true Christian understand that wherever truth may be found, it belongs to his Master.”[12] This hijacking of classical thought & rhetoric, would prove the brilliance of Augustine and showed the world why Christianity was actually winning it over.
Moreover the relevance of Greek thought to Christian thought was not the only parallel connection Augustine delivered. He actually suggested that Plato could have been influenced by Old Testament Jewish tradition and religion. He went so far as to ponder that Plato could have even read the Pentateuch, as Plato’s conception of how the world began could just have been a strange take on Genesis 1:1 where “the Spirit of God moved over the waters.” Plato mentions the water, air, earth, and fire were mutually united at Creation. The air could have been the Spirit of God in Plato’s thought. Also, Plato understood God as a being who truly “is” - which directly corresponds to the name given to Moses by God in Exodus.[13]

Augustine, though seeing the connections, tried his best to distinguish and completely separate Christianity as a religion from the partial “foolishness” of Greco-Roman schools of thought, politics, and theology – which was also his own point of departure in life. He had to move onward, if nothing else, for the very fact that the Platonists and Plato himself “thought that sacred rites ought to be performed in honor of many gods.”[14] This outraged Augustine. Regarding his departure, Mendelson writes, “It is often helpful to view his thought as presenting a gradual movement away from a Greek intellectualism towards a voluntarism emphasizing the profound ignorance and difficulty of the human condition, as well as the need for divine aid to overcome the ignorance and difficulty.”[15] Additionally, Professor of Religion F.B.A. Asiedu states that “Augustine’s sympathies towards Neoplatonic thought is a fact that hardly needs comment. Against this background, his occasional departures from Neoplatonic thought is a subject that probably needs more comment than it often receives.”[16] Thus, Augustine’s efforts to show the failures of Greco-Roman thought by using Greco-Roman thought would prove to be a worthwhile task which he resolved to complete throughout the remainder of his life.

Augustine sets the stage by showing that Platonic philosophy is the best philosophy of the Greeks. When considering a worthwhile philosophy of the Greeks, he holds in low regard the philosophy of the “fabulous” theology, the civil theology, the Epicureans, and Stoics but gives high esteem to Plato.[17] All others must “give place.”[18]

Augustine shows a vast account of his breadth and depth of knowledge when he begins to teach the reader the 3 branches of Platonic philosophy, rational, moral, and natural. When comparing the philosophy of the Greeks, he says “It is evident that none come clearer to us (Christians) than the Platonists.”[19] Also, he states, “All philosophers, then, who have these thoughts concerning God, whether Platonists, or others, agree with us.”[20] Augustine understands that the Christian thinker may not have read the philosophy of the Greeks, as the Christian is warned in Scripture “beware that no one deceives you through philosophy…according to the elements of this world.”[21] Overall, for Augustine, although somewhat similar, the Christian philosophy is still higher than the Greeks.
In the following we can see how much interaction there is between Platonism and Neoplatonism with Christianity in Augustine.

The City of God – On the Soul

Most of the middle third of The City of God is an evaluation with the thought of Plato and other Neoplatonists. Regarding the soul of man, Augustine compares the platonic and Neoplatonic views and shows that Christianity has the only view offering the soul’s deliverance. He goes to great lengths to explain the philosophy of Plato and his followers even down to the last few chapters of this epic work.

Plato & other NeoPlatonists thought that the soul is an immaterial substance, part of the world of forms, separate from the body which continues to exist after physical death. Souls pre-exist the bodies that house them and exist after they die - as the Platonic soul is eternal. The soul is considered the animating part of the human. This is like an animal soul, but man also has a rational soul with rational faculties.

Augustine clarifies that “Plato said that souls could not exist eternally without bodies.”[22] For Plato, the soul is reincarnated but it may return in a beast rather than a man and a purified soul goes to the Elysian fields and the river Lethe, which is the oblivion of the past. However, it is the wise man’s soul that goes to a star of his choosing to stay till he has forgotten the miseries of life; only then will he seek to be embodied again.[23] In Meno, Plato teaches that the soul always retains the ability to recollect what it once grasped of the forms, when it was disembodied. Additionally, in Republic, Plato elaborates that the lives that we lead are to some extent a punishment or reward for choices we made in a previous existence. The body was the prison house of the soul, evil, and dragged the soul down. The goal was to be released from the body so the soul could go to be with the divine.
Plotinus felt that Plato needed to be interpreted. Expert on Plato and ancient Greek philosophy, Dr. Lloyd Gerson of the University of Toronto said that Plotinus is often called the founder of Neoplatonism and “is one of the most influential philosophers in antiquity after Plato and Aristotle.[24] Plotinus agreed with Plato for the most part but mentioned that the soul could not be spatially extended, since no spatially extended thing could account for the unity of the subject of sense perception.[25] Also, for Plotinus, the good soul returns to the Monad or the One, where “the One is the absolutely simple first principle of all. It is both ‘self-caused’ and the cause of being for everything else in the universe.”[26] In Plotinus, the cause or derivation of the many souls from the One “was understood in terms of atemporal ontological dependence.”[27]

Augustine quotes Porphyry in The City of God often and interacts with a book by Porphyry called De Regressu Animae.[28] Porphyry also thought that souls are reincarnated after death and that the purified soul returns and remains with the Father so that it is not in contact with evil any longer and “shall never return to the miseries of a corruptible body.”[29] Porphyry knew that there was a way that the soul could be delivered from the cycle but no such way has been discovered in any system of philosophy. For him, Christianity didn’t have an answer since all the Christians were being killed off for their views. Also, he denies a bodily resurrection of incorruptible bodies as the soul continues to live eternally in the Father.

Augustine compared these views and presented Christianity as the solution when he says that Christianity “is the religion which possesses the universal way for delivering the soul; for, except by this way, none can be delivered.”[30] He says also, “we (Christians) say that the separation of the soul from the body is to be held as part of man’s punishment. For they suppose that the blessedness of the soul then only is complete, when it is quite denuded of the body, and returns to God a pure and simple naked soul.”[31] Augustine challenges the view that the most blessed souls would be eternally bodiless despite their belief that gods, whose souls are most blessed, are eternally united to their immortal bodies because of the will of the Supreme. This view is illogical for Augustine, as the Greek notion that the blessedness of a human soul merging into the divine is contradictory with a blessed bodied god.

Whereas, Christianity, is similar but more reasonable when considering Adam and the Christian. If Adam didn’t sin he would have inhabited his body for eternity as a reward for his obedience, likewise, the Christians earthly body would be resurrected, changed, and inhabited for eternity.[32] Augustine also said that if Plato and Porphyry were to have collaborated their views together it would resemble the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the saints when he states, “Let Porphyry then say with Plato, they shall return to the body; let Plato say with Porphyry, they shall not return to their old misery: and they will agree that they return to bodies in which they shall suffer no more.” Augustine continues, “For this, I presume, both of them would readily concede, that if the souls of the saints are to be reunited to bodies, it shall be to their own bodies, in which they have endured the miseries of this life.”[33] To this end, Augustine says that Plato and Porphyry, “might possibly have became Christians.”[34]

Confessions – On the Logos

Moreover, in similar ways, Augustine found that the “Principle” which the Neoplatonists were looking for is the person of Jesus Christ.[35] John Rist, Author of Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized puts it this way, “The discovery of the importance of Christ as the only way drove Augustine beyond the Platonic books…while the Neoplatonists might speak the truth about God’s nature, they lack the means of access to it. Neoplatonism is incomplete; its underlying weakness is that it is theoretical, without the power to instigate right action.”[36]

In Confessions, Book 7 Chapter 9 to the end of the book, Augustine compares the doctrine of the NeoPlatonists concerning the Logos with the “much more excellent doctrine of Christianity.” He refutes the NeoPlatonists by showing Scripture after Scripture that Jesus was in fact divine and coeternal with the Father, the same substance. Schaff writes, “Another point of difference which appears in Augustine's review of Platonism above, is found in the Platonist's discarding the idea of the Logos becoming man. This the very genius of their philosophy forbade them to hold, since they looked on matter as impure.”[37] Brachtendorf adds, “For Augustine, the Neoplatonists see the homeland from a distance but do not find the way there, which is Christ.”[38]

Letter to Hermogenianus & Anti-Palagian Writings

Moreover, in Augustine’s Letter to Hermogenianus we can see that there is more interaction with the NeoPlatonists. He writes:

“Instead of confuting them (Platonists/Academicians), which is beyond my power, I have rather imitated them to the best of my ability…But whatever be the value of those treatises [the books against the Academicians], what I most rejoice in is, not that I have vanquished the Academicians, as you express it (using the language rather of friendly partiality than of truth), but that I have broken and cast away from me the odious bonds by which I was kept back from the nourishing breasts of philosophy, through despair of attaining that truth which is the food of the soul.”[39]

And in Augustine’s lengthy Anti-Palagian Writings:

“For it is not as certain Platonists have thought, because every such infant is thus requited in his soul for what it did of its own willfulness previous to the present life, as having possessed previous to its present life, as having possessed previous to its present bodily state a free choice of living either well or ill; since the apostle Paul says most plainly, that before they were born they did neither good nor evil.”[40]

So here we have seen in Augustine the interaction and evaluation of Plato and the Neoplatonists. This gives indication that Augustine understands their view so much so that he works with it, laboriously at times, using it to highlight points of Christian doctrine. Without question there is more interaction with Plato and the Neoplatonists in his Confessions and The City of God than in any of his other works and within those works he interacts with Plato and the Neoplatonists view more than with any other ancient author or view. Brachtendorf concludes,

“It is true, Augustine often reproaches the Neoplatonists, who he held to be the philosophers par excellence, for their hubris, for not acknowledging the incarnation, and therefore for not directing their will unambiguously toward God as the highest good. He does not doubt, however, their metaphysical teaching of God, but rather learns from them about the truth of God and of the world in order to be able to finally overcome Manichaeism.”[41]

It is now the parallels in Augustine’s thought with Neoplatonism that we know shall turn.

3rd Consideration: the parallel between Neo-Platonic philosophy & Augustine’s Philosophical Theology

While showing that some of the thought of Plato and the NeoPlatonists fails or is fulfilled by way of Christianity, Augustine also maintained some of the axioms of Plato and the NeoPlatonists.
Morality, Blessedness, & God

Plato thought that philosophy is directed at obtaining the blessed life. He thought that man is blessed by the enjoyment of the thing he loves – not by just loving. But not just enjoyment of anything, it has to be something worthwhile. Plato discussed the chief good – which is the highest aim to seek in order to be blessed. This highest good would leave nothing further to seek. Nothing else is required if man seeks and finds only this one thing. To seek it for its own sake and not for the sake of something else. This is also called the chief end, or final good. Plato knew that the true and highest good is God – which to him was the unchangeable, the immaterial, the creator who is uncreated, the purest being, the source of the truth, the ultimate rational, the light by which we know, the chief source of the good, and the blessed giver of blessing. For Plato, the final good is to live a life of virtue, “…to become like God, as far as this is possible; and to become like him is to become holy, just, and wise.”[42] This can only be done by knowing and imitating God which will lead to blessedness. To philosophize is to love God. The philosopher will become blessed when he enjoys the God he loves. He who loves God is blessed by the enjoyment of God.

Augustine discusses blessing with the love and want of a thing in his Confessions. But he wrestles with the desire for God as part of the soul’s devotion and design but is impossible without his irresistible grace. In a rather famous quote from the first few words of Confessions, Augustine writes, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.” It is the desires for the things of this world and the temptations of this life that destroy the glory God intended man to have and reflect back to him. He writes, “See, You were within and I was without, and I sought You out there. Unlovely, I rushed heedlessly among the lovely things You have made. You were with me, but I was not with You. These things kept me far from you, even though they were not at all unless they were in You.” Our total depravity keeps us from glorifying God and enjoying him. John Rist adds, “In addition to thinking of God as being itself, the Neoplatonists, following Plato, also thought of him as the Good, since they identify being as the Good…Augustine thinks that in so far as a man is called good, that is because he partakes or shares in the unqualified goodness which is God.”[43] To this end, Augustine says that “no man ought to feel secure in this life. This whole of life is called an ordeal. It’s ordered so that the man who could be made better from having been worse may not also from having been better become worse. Our sole hope, our sole confidence, only assured promise, is your mercy.”[44] So for Augustine, rather than philosophy as in Plato, it is only by God’s grace and mercy that we can consider our God to be blessed. But like Plato, Augustine understands that a creature’s being and blessedness is derived from and fulfilled in “in Thee.”

Original Sin

In Platonism and Neoplatonism, evil and suffering in the world are due to an “estrangement from the absolute as the absolute, that is in the sense of falling apart…this falling apart of the one to multiplicity is the relationship of form to matter…returning to the One is a turning away from matter, as it is a turning away from multiplicity.”[45] For the Platonists, sin is a turning away from the true being of reality. We can easily see this parallel in Augustine, but let us turn to examine Plotinus first.

Plotinus deliberates in the Enneads how matter, evil, and the soul are related. Because souls are originally derived from form and the Good, they were essentially good. Moreover, according to Plotinus, evil is the absence or negation of good in the human soul. He argues that matter is the substratum that has no accidental “Quality” and is deprived of Form. Gerson says that for Plotinus, “The evil in bodies is the element in them that is not dominated by form…Matter is what accounts for the diminished reality of the sensible world, for all natural things are composed of forms in matter.”[46] For Plotinus matter is not in and of itself evil and is not the source of the evil of the human soul, though the soul’s falling into evil and its vices is due to the soul’s entering into matter. The soul must have matter for human existence and that entails a weakening of the soul. He states it this way, “not all the faculties of its being retain free play, for Matter hinders their manifestation; it encroaches upon the Soul’s territory and, as it were, crushed the Soul back; and it turns to evil all that it has stolen until the Soul finds strength to advance again. Thus, the cause, at once, of the weakness of Soul and of all its evil is matter.”[47] So for Plotinus, there is even a further corruption of the soul after entering into matter where “we become evil to the extent of our participation in it, where fallen from all our resemblance to the Divine, we lie in gloom and mud.”[48]

Plotinus concludes that vice or virtue in the soul is measured by the divergence that the soul is aligned with goodness and God. If one could aspire towards God, he can have lesser evil and engage in more good. He writes, “this demands only that the Soul dwell alone enshrined within that place of its choice, never lapsing towards the lower.”[49]

This must have affected Augustine’s view on the origin of evil, as his language is so similar and even builds structure according to such a NeoPlatonic hierarchy of greater and lesser beings. While Augustine does not condemn the body or matter to a lower substratum, he does participate in the categorization of reality in terms of hierarchy. In Confessions Book 7 Chapter 3, Augustine advocates that created matter formlessly existing independent of God is actually good. In this we can see that Augustine “breaks through the essentialism of antique metaphysics, which always thought being from essential.”[50]

Mendelson further explains, “His Neo-Platonic framework commits him to the view that the physical/sensible realm is an arena of temptation and moral danger, one wherein the human soul needs to be wary about becoming too attached to lower goods.”[51] This is seen in Augustine’s Confessions: “And I inquired what iniquity was, and ascertained it not to be a substance, but a perversion of the will, bent aside from Thee, O God, the Supreme Substance, towards these lower things, and casting out its bowels, and swelling outwardly.”[52] In Augustine, the concept of sin represents an estrangement and bending of the derived being, man, from the source being, God. Rist writes that “although Augustine follows the Stoics and Neoplatonists in distinguishing moral evils from others, he insists that the others are really evils…that the fallen world had indeed become a place of suffering.”[53] Due to the Adam’s sin, real suffering entered the world. This was a departure from the divine will for Creation in Augustine.

Augustine’s doctrine of sin begins with the fall of man. Augustine thought that if Adam did not sin, he would not have had to suffer any punishment of sin including death.[54] Thus, a sinless Adam, for Augustine, would have been immortal. Also, because God created Adam upright and uncorrupt, Adam and his offspring could have remained sinless. But because sin entered the world, through Adam, body and soul both die, where the death of the soul is the eternal 2nd death when God forsakes the soul as the body forsakes the soul in the 1st death. Since our souls were alive in Adam, we could not be born sinless but in sin and we also then deserve both deaths.

Overall, a complete balanced analysis of Augustine’s theology of sin would include his use of Pauline theology and the Old Testament – especially the Creation and the Fall. Sin is most assuredly thought in Augustine as a transgression of the Law. However the point here is that the notion of sin consists of a misalignment or disinclination of the will in Augustine. From Adam’s state of free perfection to a state of necessary imperfection, Augustine expresses Plotinus’ entering of evil of the soul. So as we have seen, he encompasses the Pauline doctrine, the Old Testament transgression and especially Neoplatonism. Mendelson adds, “The problem of evil received a rather different treatment in the non-Hellenic religious and scriptural traditions than in the Greek tradition, a contrast that was not completely lost on Augustine as he increased his familiarity with the former.”[55]

Free Will & The Nature of Man

Plato wrote that “all men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman.”[56] Man’s being, for Plato, is derived from God, the source of being, but man is a “being in search of meaning.”[57] Men ought to choose the good to be blessed and participate in the Good. This would inevitably bring meaning. A being acts, behaves, or becomes in accordance with its true nature.
Much could be written on Augustine’s view of free will as he wrote extensively on this topic in the Anti-Palagian Writings. However, the purpose here is to understand the parallel in Augustinian thought to NeoPlatonic thought. Freedom of the will, for Augustine is radically free because it has nothing prior to it. The will is not coerced. When people sin, they exercise their will freely, that is, independent & autonomous from outside coercion. Augustine teaches the absence of completely “free” choice. That is, we do have free choice but it is governed by and limited to what we are by nature. God changes the free will of man by way of renewal of the nature. So that of his own free choice he chooses good and virtue. It is God’s irresistible grace that establishes such a freedom of the will toward the good. The more grace, the more the sanctification.[58]

This could be considered a type of NeoPlatonic ethics where man’s habits form character and he acts in accordance with his character. He only wants what his renewed will seeks habitually – that is his volition directs him towards the good because he is in a habit of doing that. Thus his nature freely chooses that which is good because he has become by nature a good man. Here again we see the parallel between Augustinian thought and Neoplatonic thought.

Conclusion

Thus, by examining Augustine’s background & training in Greek philosophy & Neoplatonic thought, his interaction with and evaluation of Platonism & Neoplatonism to Christianity in his own writing, and the parallel between Neo-Platonic philosophy & his philosophical theology, it is easy to conclude that his philosophical theology of original sin, free will, and the nature of man was influenced by Neoplatonism.

Augustine’s Neoplatonic influenced thoughts must not be disregarded as tainted or secular as most of his thought still aligns with Paul. In fact, in Paul was perhaps the greatest influence on Augustine to the point where Paul is the ultimate guide in comparison to anecdotal Neoplatonists. This can be easily seen in all of his writings and he himself would have thrown out a Neoplatonistic view if he thought it was detrimental to orthodox theology.

Overall, history has shown that the philosophical principles of Neoplatonism were not detrimental to Augustine positive impact upon the church. Augustine’s views on time, God’s relationship to time, God’s foreknowledge, God’s providence, predestination, and election (although not discussed here, these were influenced by the Neoplatonic themes and the doctrine of God’s immutability) greatly affected the thought of middle age thinkers such as John Dun Scotus, Boethius, William of Ockham and Molina.[59] Without Augustine paving the way and introducing his theology to history, these thinkers may not have produced the scholarly works they did.

Additionally, Augustine’s thought led to the development of the theology of the Reformed thinkers including John Calvin, who was heavily influenced by Augustine’s theology of total depravity and irresistible grace. Other reformers held high Augustine’s soteriological position on God’s direct revelation to mankind and the powerful psychological notion of the individual self. These themes would later captivate Protestantism and evangelical Christianity.

Thus, the implications of the doctrines of Augustine have left an overwhelmingly positive impact on the church - this cannot be understated. As seen in Confessions, the utterly desperate and devoted heart of Augustine after God’s truth and grace would set the tone of Western Christian worship and piety. This favorite quote from Confessions expresses his grateful and changed heart. I hope it encourages you to have a soft heart towards God’s gracious touch on your life.

“Belatedly I loved you, O Beauty so ancient and so new. See, You were within and I was without, and I sought You out there. Unlovely, I rushed heedlessly among the lovely things You have made. You were with me, but I was not with You. These things kept me far from you, even though they were not at all unless they were in You. You called and cried aloud, and forced open my deafness. You gleamed and shone, and chased away my blindness. You breathed fragrant odors and I drew in my breath, and now I pant for You. I tasted, and now I hunger and thirst. You touched me, and I burned for Your peace.”

[1] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 8, Chapter 13; Platonists preferred this name over the Academics because of their love for their master teacher Plato.
[2] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God
[3] Phillip Schaff, Nicene & Port Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 1. New York, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886, see page 336.
[4] Aurelius Augustine, Confessions
[5] Phillip Schaff, Nicene & Port Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 1. New York, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886, see page 336.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Aurelius Augustine, Confessions, Book 7, Chapter 9, or Book 8, Chapter 2.
[8] Michael Mendelson, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2000. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#2 (accessed November 12, 2009). – Confessions, Book 4, Chapter 15
[9] Johannes Brachtendorf, "Orthodoxy without Augustine," Ars Disputandi 6 (2006).
[10] Aurelius Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 60 & 61
[11] Paul wrote of this same general revelation in his writings, namely Romans chapter 1. Justin Martyr also wrote that “all truth is God’s.” Augustine primarily thought that the world as God made it was intellectual, thought, and desire –that God provides all knowledge to you- God is the necessary prerequisite to all knowledge- and secondarily sense driven. Augustine didn’t reject the senses, but just placed the senses secondary to that knowledge which God provides you.
[12] Aurelius Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 28.
[13] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 8, Chapter 11.
[14] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 8, Chapter 13.
[15] Michael Mendelson, “Augustine” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#2 (accessed November 12, 2009).
[16] F.B.A. Asiedu, "Augustine’s Christian–Platonist Account of Goodness: A Reconsideration." Heythrop Journal 43, no. 3 (July 2002): 328-343.
[17] Fabulous was a term that referred to the theatre.
[18] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 8, Chapter 5.
[19] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 8, Chapter 5.
[20] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 8, Chapter 10.
[21] Paul, Colossians 2:8
[22] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 22, Chapter 27.
[23] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 13, Chapter 19.
[24] Lloyd Gerson, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 5, 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/#1 (accessed November 23, 2009).
[25] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 10, Chapter 30.
[26] Lloyd Gerson, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 5, 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/#1 (accessed November 23, 2009).
[27] Ibid.
[28] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 10, Chapter 30.
[29] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 22, Chapter 27.
[30] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 10, Chapter 32.
[31] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 13, Chapter 16.
[32] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 13, Chapter 17.
[33] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 22, Chapter 27.
[34] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 22, Chapter 28.
[35] Aurelius Augustine, The City of God, Book 22, Chapter 27.
[36] John M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3.
[37] Phillip Schaff, Nicene & Port Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 1. New York, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886, see page 336.
[38] Johannes Brachtendorf, “Orthodoxy without Augustine,” Ars Disputandi, No. 6 (2006).
[39] Aurelius Augustine, Letter to Hermogenianus
[40] Aurelius Augustine, Anti-Palagian Writings, Book 2, Chapter 36.
[41] Johannes Brachtendorf, “Orthodoxy without Augustine,” Ars Disputandi 6 (2006).
[42] Plato
[43] John M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3.
[44] Aurelius Augustine, Confessions.
[45] Maarten Wisse, "Was Augustine a Barthian?," Ars Disputandi, Volume 7, (2007).
[46] Lloyd Gerson, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 5, 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/#1 (accessed November 23, 2009).
[47] Plotinus, Enneads, Treatise 1, Section 11.
[48] Plotinus, Enneads, Treatise 1, Section 10.
[49] Plotinus, Enneads,, Treatise 1, Section 12.
[50] Johannes Brachtendorf, “Orthodoxy without Augustine,” Ars Disputandi, No. 6 (2006).
[51] Michael Mendelson, “Augustine” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#2 (accessed November 12, 2009). - Confessions Book 4, Chapter 15.
[52] Aurelius Augustine, Confessions, Book 7, Chapter 16.
[53] John M. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 261.
[54] Iraneous first developed the doctrine in 185 AD in his book against heresies to Valentinus the Gnostic.
[55] Michael Mendelson, “Augustine” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2000. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#2 (accessed November 12, 2009).
[56] Plato
[57] Plato
[58] Allan Gomes, "Talbot Theological Seminary, Historical Theology Class Lecture." La Mirada, October 2004.
[59] If God cannot change and exists in a-temporal static time, than his knowledge of future contingent propositions is constant and is unaffected by the state of affairs which obtain in this world. Since God is “beyond time” he sees the entire world happening in the eternal “now.” God’s providence guides the world towards his goals which the elect contribute.

Bibliography
Asiedu, F.B.A. "Augustine’s Christian–Platonist Account of Goodness: A Reconsideration." Heythrop Journal 43, no. 3 (July 2002): 328-343.
Augustine. A Treatise on the Grace of Christ and On Original Sin.
Augustine, Aurelius. Confessions.
—. De Libero Arbitrio.
—. Letter to Hermogenianus.
—. On Christian Doctrines.
—. The City of God.
Brachtendorf, Johannes. "Orthodoxy without Augustine." Ars Disputandi 6 (2006).
Gerson, Lloyd. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 5, 2008. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/#1 (accessed November 23, 2009).
Gomes, Allan. "Talbot Theological Seminary, Historical Theology Class Lecture." La Mirada, October 2004.
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of Christianity: Volume 1. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1975.
Mendelson, Michael. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2000. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#2 (accessed November 12, 2009).
Plotinus. Enneads.
Rae, J.P. Moreland & Scott. Body & Soul. 2005.
Rist, John M. Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Schaff, Phillip. Nicene & Port Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 1. New York, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.
—. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Phillip Schaff. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1902.
Tillich, Paul. "The History of Christian Thought by Paul Tillich, Lecture 17-20." New York City: Union Theological Seminary, 1953.
Wisse, Maarten. "Was Augustine a Barthian?" Ars Disputandi Volume 7 (2007).

On Meaning & Life

2009-09-28T23:16:00.000-07:00

In recent years the concept of meaning has taken center stage. In 2002, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Southern California, wrote a book that propelled him to instant fame. The Purpose Driven Life was an overnight success across Christian and non-Christian communities worldwide. In the past 7 years, the book has sold over 30 million copies. I had a vacation once in a remote village in the Bahamas. There I stumbled upon a 19th century colonial church’s yard sign reading “40 Days of Purpose for January & February”. Even there, in a remote tourist destination, the book flourished and the local body of believers took to the corresponding program of the book. Why? What was the reason for the book’s success? How did it become the best selling non-fiction book of the past century?

My answer: Deep within, even beyond purpose (but interconnected to purpose – as we will see) the question of meaning dwells. People need to know that life is meaningful. And not just life in general, but their lives are meaningful. People need to know that the mundane & grinding activities of life are not useless & trivial pursuits.

If I may be honest with you, I am in the same boat. With all the life moments that seem meaningless, I need to know that meaning exists. For if the contrary is true, life would truly be absurd and nothing at all would matter in the end.

What would a life without meaning actually be like? Why would one live without a reason to? Those that do not experience meaning, either directly or indirectly, may find themselves in a meaningless existence and depression develops.

For many people in modern day America depression is common. Many millions experience depression in the form of mental illness, but most of our depressed people experience what psychologists would term “general anxiety.” Clients report that their unwillingness to work at a job, cook for their family, go to school, do chores around the house, etc., is due to the fact that they have lost the meaning in it. That they find no reason to do this or that and the “I am supposed to do it” reason just increases their depression…Clearly, for those in this state, this is not a good reason and truly points to the fact that no meaning exists in the activity.
Meaning is so vital to each and every life. We all must find meaning in life and embrace it. We all need to know our reason for being.

Have you ever wondered whether life is meaningful or meaningless?

While this is an ancient question, the answers still may not be obvious to everyone today. So what about you? When asked directly whether life is meaningful or meaningless, could you give an answer? Or how would you answer this question “Is my life meaningful?”
If it’s a quick answer but not a good answer, you may want to read on. If it’s good answer but it takes some time to explain it, you may want to read on. If you have no answer, you may need to read on.

For in this article, I will attempt to answer the questions “Is life meaningful or meaningless” and “If life is meaningful or meaningless, what would the result be?” I contend that life is meaningful and as a result, we can fulfill our destiny by actualizing our specific meaning if we choose to. This I will show by uncovering the nature of meaning through investigating the primary and secondary questions of life that we all ask ourselves. Also, I will investigate pertinent books of modern literature and the Bible to determine the competing alternative answers to the above questions and which answer is the most reasonable, attractive, and compelling.

But before we tackle these mega questions and answers, let us first consider some major life questions & the nature of meaning to help us understand the parameters of this issue and how the issue of meaning is applicable to our overall life.

Initial Framework: Life & the Nature of Meaning

The Meaning Questions of Life

Out of all the deep life questions and tough decisions that one could wrestle with throughout one’s life, the question of meaning takes center stage. Consider the following questions:

Who should I marry?

Where should I live?

Where should I go to college?

What do I want my retirement to look like?

How many kids should I have?

How much money to spend on this or that?

Well you may say, “but what about the people experiencing extreme poverty, war, genocide, rape? They would not ask these sorts of questions? They are just thinking about how to survive. I agree. So, the life question then becomes: How do I survive? This is just an obvious essential question – to which we shall now come to.

This above list of questions could be considered practical questions. Practical questions are those that are latent with meaning. That is, the practical questions are derived from meaning, not the other way around.

But the practical questions above could be more easily answered if one has answered the overarching and more essential questions of life. Here are some more essential meaning questions of life:

Where did I come from?

Why am I here?

Where am I going?

What is my purpose?

Was I made for something?

What should I do with myself?

Do I have particular talents or gifts?

Where the former set of questions spoke of actions, the latter set speak of direction. Where the former set referred to preference, the latter refer to value. Where the former imply interest, the latter imply aboutness. The former set, then, are the secondary questions, the latter are the primary questions. If one can answer the latter set, one can more easily answer the former set.

In either case, each practical and essential question infers meaning in 3 ways: direction, value, and aboutness.

First, they are questions of our lives and are not in & of themselves obviously related to meaning but they postulate a visible tangible action based on a hidden intangible direction. These questions steer our life one direction or another. Meaning is driving the question to get to a solution in a life situation. (I.e., the meaning is the horse that pulls the cart of the questions; the questions are not the horse that pulls the meaning.) A solution may be good or bad. The answers may make or break us.

Second, they are questions of value not desire. Desire is based on preference which changes as often as the tide. But value is like the root from which a plant sprouts, takes shape, and produces more life. For human beings, this deepest value is meaning. Meaning is the core value of a seed, i.e. what the plant becomes is according to its nature, according to that which it was meant to be. Its being has to do with meaning. A man’s being has to do with the root of meaning from which he comes. The questions grow from and are an indicator of this root.

Third, rather than interest, these are questions of aboutness. We all have a quality that philosophers call “aboutness”. Our lives, every one of us, is about something. There is no one born who is not about at least one thing. Aboutness is an essential “property” of the human soul. It is what sets us apart from animals. What your aboutness is, differs from the next persons. One man’s aboutness is another man’s disinterest. As we shall see, it is the aboutness that sheds light on the meaning of one’s life.

Overall and more importantly, if one understands his meaning to life, one can then understand his direction, value, and aboutness. Or vice versa, if one discovers one’s direction, value, and aboutness, one can discover one’s meaning in life. Each primary meaning question and answer yield fruit that connect the tree to the root, the energy to the generator, the life to the liver.

The Nature of Meaning

Let us now consider the meaning of meaning or the nature of meaning.

Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary (unabridged) states that meaning is “that which is intended to be, or in fact is, conveyed, denoted, signified, or understood by acts or language; the sense, signification, or import of words; significance; force. Sense, understanding, knowledge.”

Helpful, perhaps?…If not, try on another’s definition:

Dictionary.com defines meaning this way: 1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. 2. the end, purpose, or significance of something.

Sounds good? In an attempt to clarify further, I will offer some of my own understanding of the nature of meaning:

Epistemologically: Meaning establishes truth, grounds knowledge, and designs existence.

Metaphysically: Meaning is a form of an object’s function, duration, and even essence. Meaning’s object is an object. Meaning is reality in a moment or an indefinite amount of time. Meaning can be willed and accepted.

Causally: Meaning follows words, fluctuates in words, and contextualizes words. Meaning brightens, defines, and realizes a quality. Meaning correctly adjusts the subject to the object. Meaning is proactive rather than reactive. Meaning is empowering and liberating. Meaning is not neutral, but divisive, decisive, and demanding. Meaning creates and destroys, surrounds and protects, but cannot be destroyed.

Ethically or Aesthetically: Meaning is healthy, life giving, and bountiful. Meaning corresponds to hope and at times hopelessness, whereas meaninglessness corresponds only to hopelessness.

Let us move forward with that. Now that we have some hard definitions of meaning in mind, let us attempt to understand meaning in by some influential authors. In our review of these authors we will also attempt to determine their conclusions as to whether life is meaningful or not?

Syntopical Discussion: Is Life Meaningful or Meaningless? What is the result?

To help us answer our questions “Is life meaningful or meaningless?” and “If life is meaningful or meaningless, what would the result be?” let us consult others who have written widely on such topics. As expected, when examining great authors of modern and ancient literature, answers to these questions range dramatically across the spectrum as follows:

Life is not meaningful and everything is meaningless;
Life is not meaningful but freedom can be found;
Life appears meaningless, but meaning exists only in appropriate contexts such as loving relationships;
Life is meaningful for those who choose to create meaning;
Life is meaningful (with or without God) because meaning just exists.
Life is meaningful because God exists and ordained life to show His meaning.
Life is meaningful because God exists and has created meaning for us.

These views seem to represent many of the views I have encountered in my study. Other views could exist but would fall somewhere within those breakpoints of the spectrum. While it would be difficult to address all of these views, I will attempt to examine what I think are the most important: 2, 3, 5 & 6.

Let us consider a few pertinent pieces of modern literature written during the existentialist movement & the Bible. We will examine & analyze the views of the following authors with their respective works which contribute to our discussion of our questions: Albert Camus’ view in The Stranger, Thornton Wilder’s view in The Bridge of San Luis Rey, Victor Frankl’s view in Man’s Search for Meaning, Solomon’s view in Ecclesiastes, & the views of others authors of the Bible.
Albert Camus would say that life is not meaningful rather it is meaningless, thus there is no reason for my existence which gives more freedom.

Thornton Wilder has a different take on it: Life appears meaningless, but meaning exists in the appropriate love of relationships. But Wilder’s character, Brother Junipero, has even a different take on it: Life is meaningful because God ordained it that way to show His meaning.

Victor Frankl: Life is meaningful and one can choose to embrace his responsibility to live with meaning.

Solomon: Without God, life is meaningless.

Bible: Life is meaningful because God exists and has created meaning for us to fulfill.

Albert Camus in The Stranger

The Stranger is a book written by the existentialist atheist, novelist, and playwright, Albert Camus. The protagonist, Meursault, is at the dawn of his execution for murder. He is battling ideas with a jail chaplain who comes to discuss salvation with him.

“Nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why. So did he. Throughout the whole absurd life I’d lived, a dark wind had been rising toward me from somewhere deep in my future, across years that were still to come, and as it passed, this wind leveled whatever was offered to me at the time…What did other people’s deaths or a mother’s love matter to me; what did his God or the lives people choose or the fate they think they elect matter to me when we’re all elected by the same fate, me and billions of privileged people like him who also called themselves my brothers? Couldn’t he see, couldn’t he see that? Everybody was privileged…The others would all be condemned, too.”

Finally, for the first time, at the end of the book, Meursault displays emotion, erupts with aggression even, when pressed that God and the Christian worldview is more certain than life and death – than his being alive at the moment and his coming death in the next moment. Outraged he attacks the chaplain because God would also bring a concept of hope for the condemned. But hope could not change his outcome; hope could only bring more restlessness.

Although chance and will seem to be real, the only reality we know with certainty is that fate always wins. By the decisions we make, we seem to be the deciders of our destiny; however death is inevitable to all. Life continues for others after we die, but the machine of life is indifferent to the affairs of humans; the “imperturbable march of events”, leads to an end for all eventually. Therefore, our decisions don’t change the certain future; so nothing matters.

But this was not a despairing moment for Meursault, because at this point he was able to realize and embrace freedom. That early morning, before the sun rose, he emerged from his dark cell of inanimate stones a victor. Here he embraces hopelessness and indifference: “And I felt ready to live again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with the signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.” For Meursault, life is better & more attractive to live in light of that existential thought. There is more freedom to live without false hope or illusory meaning.

So for Camus (through the character Mersault): Life is not meaningful and this gives more freedom.

Thornton Wilder in The Bridge of San Luis Rey

Thornton Wilder wrote an excellent classic fiction novel that is apologetically relevant to the concept of meaning. The wildly acclaimed novel was one of Wilder’s first works which quickly launched him into worldwide fame. The honor & accolades he attained was well deserved as the he brilliantly described colonized Peru in the 18th century. You can’t help believing that he was there living and observing the people and events of the account first hand. (Apparently, this book was made into a film in 2004 starring Robert Di Niro and Kathy Bates. I have not seen it as of the time of this writing.)

The plot is basically that a lofty rope bridge spanning over a gorge collapsed and 5 people died. This so bewildered and troubled the people of Lima that they never forgot it.

Why those 5 on that particular day? What pattern or commonality seen in those 5 lives that could make sense and show some sort of meaning for such a meaningless tragedy? As Wilder puts it, “Some say that we shall never know and that to the gods we are like flies that the boys kill on a summer day, and some say, on the contrary, that the very sparrows do not lose a feather that has not been brushed away by the finger of God.” For Wilder, regardless of divine intention being ill or good, it is “either we live by accident and die by accident, or we live by plan and die by plan.”

But, it so happened that a Franciscan monk, Brother Junipero, coincidentally was there to witness the catastrophe. He ventured to discover the meaning behind why the bridge which “seemed to be among the things that last forever…should break.” He set out to prove that God intended these 5 to go at that time and place according to God’s plan and demonstration of wisdom. That pain was inserted for their own good. This event would prove to converts God’s divine providence and direction as 5 lives were bound by 1 fate; that these 5 were “a perfect whole.” He had always wanted to show that theology is pertinent just as the other “exact sciences” so that man could know with certainty God’s meaning for life’s circumstances. For Junipero, “people were always looking for good sound proofs; doubt springs eternal in the human breast, even in countries where the Inquisition can read your very thoughts in your eyes.”

Junipero’s research led him to the conclusion that the good of the 5 were taken early to Heaven and the wicked were visited with destruction. In the collapse of the bridge, pride and wealth were exposed as sin and the virtue of humility was crowned. It appears that the meaning of the bridges collapse was connected to the exemplification of the unhealthy love as a preliminary form of perfect love in some of the characters. Thus, due to divine intention to end misery and honor the honorable based on this pattern found in the victims, the bridge collapsed.

However, this is not proven or provable. But, the view of Brother Junipero remained the same: Life is meaningful because God ordained it that way to show His meaning. Life without meaning is as meaningless as a bridge without a gorge. The bridge existed for the gorge and the ultimate purpose of the bridge’s collapse only becomes apparent in light of their lives and God’s intervention. Junipero was later burned at the stake as a heretic for this conclusion.

But the author Wilder draws his own conclusions. Correlation does not imply causation. But more importantly, divine intention as a conclusion from such induction ought not to be even considered more than speculation. So what was the meaning for the bridge’s collapse?
Wilder concurs that there was a central pattern in the lives of the victims, it was the central passion of love. The characters were shown to experience the longings and shortcomings of their imperfect and unhealthy love for others. He elaborates:

“…[they] had never realized any love save love as passion. Such love, though it expends itself in generosity and thoughtfulness, though it give birth to visions and great poetry, remains among the sharpest expressions of self-interest…Even memory is not necessary for love. There is a land of the living and a land of the dead and the bridge is love, the only survival, the only meaning.”

These lives had exterior circumstances that thwarted any purer love within, such that selfishness emerged stronger. Love was essential to their lives, but their love was uncontrolled and dangerous. Their love, Wilder gathers, is what they were remembered for and meant for. It gave their life meaning.

Other commentators on the book elaborate on Wilder this way: “Those who remain alive as well as those who die on the bridge suffer through the preliminary stages of love until they reach an enlightenment that brings the full knowledge and reward of love…We can never be assured of Divine Intention in every movement on earth, but the bridge of love that connects one another gives dignity and purpose to the lowliest of lives.”

With that said, we can conclude this coincidence of their love was not the reason for the bridges collapse. The bridges collapse seemed to show some divine connection but in reality no connection existed. So for Wilder, the cause of the collapse is unknown, however, the result of the collapse was 2 fold: that brother Junipero’s solution led to his death by the religious authority and that meaning becomes apparent and exists in appropriate loving relationships.

Victor Frankl in Man’s Search for Meaning

About 70 years ago a prominent Jewish psychiatrist, Victor Frankl, was imprisoned in Auschwitz, Germany. He endured the mental, emotional, and physical suffering of the concentration camp during the peak of the Holocaust and WWII. As he watched countless comrades and loved ones tortured, gassed, and humiliated like swine, he sought to understand the meaning of it all. His international groundbreaking book on logotherapy describes the disgustingly hellish conditions he survived through and his revolutionary psychological framework of meaning that developed out of it. The book is titled “Man’s Search for Meaning.”

In his book, Frankl develops the main points of his “logotherapy” from the observations he made in the camp. When “inmates” were about to suffer, he observed their attitude. He writes

“If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death…The way in which a man accepts his fate and all the suffering it entails…gives him ample opportunity to add deeper meaning to his life. It may remain brave, undignified and unselfish. In the bitter fight for self preservation he may forget his human dignity and become no more than an animal…And this decides whether he is worthy of his sufferings or not.”

Frankl goes on to describe how fellow inmates needed a future reason to live for. Someone or something outside of themselves to make it through the suffering for. It could have been a career, like speech pathology, or a daughter or son. Whatever it was, it was their “future goal.” He quotes Nietzsche who says “He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.” For those who could not find this future goal, he writes, “life for such people became meaningless.”

To try to explain or express Frankl’s words would be an injustice as he is so direct in his own teaching. So I will provide some quotes to simply show off his take on our meaning:

“They must not lose hope but should keep their courage in the certainty that the hopelessness of our struggle did not detract from its dignity and its meaning.”

“We were not hoping for happiness-it was not that which gave us courage and gave meaning to our suffering, our sacrifices and our dying. For us, the meaning of life embraced the wider cycles of life and death, of suffering and of dying.”

“Logotherapy focuses rather on the future, that is to say, on the meanings to be fulfilled by the patient in his future.”

“Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual.”

“When the impossibility of replacing a person is realized, it allows the responsibility which a man has for his existence and its continuance to appear in all its magnitudes. A man who becomes conscious of the responsibility he bears toward a human being who affectionately waits for him, or to an unfinished work, will never be able to throw away his life.”

“According to logotherapy, we can discover this meaning in life in 3 different ways, 1) by creating a work or doing a deed; 2) by experiencing something or encountering someone; 3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering.”

“Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond by being responsible.”

“We had to learn ourselves and furthermore, we had to teach the despairing men, that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We need to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life-daily and hourly…”

What does “life expect from us?” In these passages, he is clear that there is a future purpose to which we are called to live for. Frankl urged his fellow inmates to live on in spite of the inhumane and grotesque treatment. Frankl is calling his readers to realize the existential vacuum, distress, and despair and fulfill a meaning, closing the “gap between what one is and what one should become.”

Why? Because person is needed in this world to do the thing and be the person that only they could do and be. Each and every one of us can fulfill the role only given to us. No one can live in my shoes and be the brother, friend, son, father, writer, thinker, creator, artist, player, evangelist, engineer, etc. Only I can do that and be that. No one can take my place. If I don’t do and be, it won’t get done and relationships would be left wanting.

So for Victor Frankl, life is meaningful and one can choose to embrace his responsibility to live with meaning.

Solomon in Ecclesiastes

Ecclesiastes 1 is a powerful piece of ancient writing. It was scribed around 1000 B.C. by King Solomon of Israel. Known in his time, for his wisdom and favor from the Lord of Israel, Solomon governed Israel into its golden age. After many years of building, peace, and prosperity, Solomon penned 3 canonical books of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.
Let us take a peak at Ecclesiastes chapter 1 to see just how this ancient mind arrived at his view.

“The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. What profit hath man of all his labor wherein he laboreth under the sun? One generation goeth, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it turneth about continually in its course, and the wind returneth again to its circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place whither the rivers go, thither they go again. All things are full of weariness; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun…I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind. That which is crooked cannot be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered. I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in Jerusalem; yea, my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also was a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow…Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought, and on the labor that I had labored to do; and, behold, all was vanity and a striving after wind, and there was no profit under the sun.”

In this passage Solomon is pretty aware that things aren’t as great as they seem. After living life with so much fame, fortune, education, blessing, and favorable relationships, Solomon laments here that its all vanity, meaningless, and worthless. To help explain Solomon, St. Augustine (a great theologian in church history) used this analogy: It is like God is the sun and when we run away from him we run into our own shadow. This is the perspective of Solomon, as he is not looking at things in the light of God. Thus, he sees things in darkness and concludes life is meaningless.

There have been many times where I have felt like Solomon. I have had to really search God out in my moments of meaninglessness – many times, I might add, to no avail. But answers in the hear and now are often times hard to come by, especially in times of immense emotional pain and sorrow. Perhaps the vanity of the pain is the worse part about the time going through it. But God is not scared of pain like we are. As C.S. Lewis ensures in The Problem of Pain, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” This is for sure. Pain is the ultimate wake up call. The questions are always, to what or to whom caused this and to where or to whom do we look for answers?

For Solomon, only bad answers can be found without God. For without God, every activity, pursuit, achievement, gain, advancement, and all of life is meaningless.

Bible

Throughout the Bible, the teaching is clear, that life is meaningful because God exists and has created a divine way for each life to embrace the meaning He gave. We are designed and created for a purpose. Even in what seems to be meaninglessness, there is meaning – which may never be discovered or may not be discovered till a later time. God created meaning. This world is full of meaning because God exists. There is meaning to my existence.

Let us examine briefly some passages that teach this.

“For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.” (Psalm 139:13-16)

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10)

“Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit.” (John 15:16)

Rick Warren would sum up the Bible’s view on life this way Purpose #1: You Were Planned for God's Pleasure (Worship); Purpose #2: You Were Formed for God's Family (Fellowship); Purpose #3: You Were Created to Become Like Christ (Discipleship); Purpose #4: You Were Shaped for Serving God (Ministry); Purpose #5: You Were Made for a Mission (Mission).
Thus, for the other authors of the Bible, life is meaningful because God exists and has created a meaning for us to fulfill.

Evaluation & Implication:

Lets repeat for clarity the alternative views:

Life is not meaningful rather it is meaningless, thus there is no reason for my existence which gives more freedom.
Life appears meaningless, but meaning exists in the appropriate love of relationships. But Wilder’s character, Brother Junipero, has even a different take on it: Life is meaningful because God ordained it that way to show His meaning.
Life is meaningful and one can choose to embrace his responsibility to live with meaning.
Without God, life is meaningless.
Life is meaningful because God exists and has created meaning for us to fulfill.

From these points of view it is possible to gather the following results:

If life is meaningful, there is a reason for my existence.
If life is meaningless, there is no reason for my existence.
If meaning can be created in life, there is a reason for my existence.
If meaning cannot be created in life, there is no reason for my existence.

Which implication is the most difficult to embrace? Which implication is the most absurd?

Obviously, the conclusion that “there is no reason for my existence” is absurd. Who can live like that and function in reality? There is no practical way one could live life with the conclusion that there is no reason for my existence. If you would disagree, I would respectfully dare you to try to live like there is no reason for your existence. Surely, this would quickly lead to depression or chaos.

Let’s think just how troublesome meaningless sounds. C.S. Lewis provides an enlightening example of chess in The Problem of Pain. Lewis describes a game with one player playing by the rules and another making them up as he goes. Every change of turn only breeds more randomness and chaos. Well, meaningless is like we are playing in the game of life but there are no rules. So, chaos is our sole reality and there is no way to win the game.

And if I considered meaninglessness, I could easily think of the endless sea of needy humanity in developing countries, there is a temptation to think that all the efforts of NGO’s, non-profits, ministries, and churches amount to just a drop in the ocean. After looking at all of the horrible needs of this world, it would be only human to think “What can we do? How can we make a difference in a world of such massive and brutal injustice?”(Gary Haugen, Good News About Injustice) And in the end I could empathize with Solomon when he said that all was meaningless. Such a hopeless view.

So how mankind finds a sense of meaning in meaninglessness is amazing and bizarre. Let’s continue to consider the existential view at its best before moving on: Camus says elsewhere, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.” Mankind is ultimately negotiating his way through a complicated history towards a meaningful existence. Man wants more than the bare earth and sky. He wants to explore. So man tends to get creative and build. Societies, cultures, infrastructure, and development begins. Man is in control of his own fate. Man creates meaning for his being. But out of this nothingness and lostness, man creates something and goes somewhere. Existential hope emerges. There can be courage to live another day.

But I am not so sure that this struggle and progress is that fulfilling in and of itself. Rather it seems struggle and progress with a purpose would be preferable.

While the humanistic existential view is somewhat attractive, at its best, the issue comes down to this: who is the source of meaning? Man or God? For as Nancy Pearcy writes in Total Truth, “Every system of thought begins with some ultimate principle. If it does not begin with God, it will begin with some dimension of creation – the material, the spiritual, the biological, the empirical or whatever.” What we “find” as the source of meaning, determines how we view our meaning.

The Christian view contends that God, not man, is the source of the meaning, general and specific. God is the creator of general objective meaning, that is, the universal meaning. Also, God is the creator of specific meaning for each and every one of our lives.

The Christian view is preferable and makes the most sense when one considers the nature of the universal concept of meaning. I would refer the reader back to that section and contemplate meaning in light of man creating it. Perhaps you could see, as I have, the impossibility not in creating just specific meaning in a setting or culture or about a thing, but in creating the universal concept of meaning itself – the very concept, entity, notion of meaning itself. It seems only God could be the source of such a thing. This leads to the following lines of thought in the Christian view:

Man searches for meaning because he is a purpose driven creature.
Nothing exists on earth that can ultimately fulfill his search for meaning.
But man has not found the answer and continues to search and this points to a deeper meaning.
There exists something outside of space, time, and other creatures that can satisfy the deepest search of meaning.
That something is God.

In other words, the universal concept of meaning is grounded in God, and from there all meaning is rooted. That is, God is the source of all general meaning from which all specific meaning flows.

With this in mind, let us consider and compare Frankl’s view with the Biblical one. Frankl and the Bible both contend that there is a meaning to be fulfilled by each and every one of us, specific meaning. This is such an enlightening and hopeful view that highly encourages me. My efforts or lack thereof, my love or lack thereof, my passion or lack thereof, affect this world in positive or negative ways. What I do and who I am counts in this world. The decisions I make matter. The principles and priorities I have matter. Every day I am on a mission to do the things and become the person only I can be to the world.

Also, Frankl and the Bible agree in terms of the sufferings we endure in this life. There is a future purpose of our lives and all of time that we can all choose to embrace. This future experience will make sense of our meaningless sufferings in the here and now. For the Christian the suffering is permitted by God for the building and sharpening of our faith and character so that we can enter the afterlife bringing the most glory to God possible. God and His people, including ourselves, will marvel at the work He has done in our lives, showing off His endless grace and mercy toward us. For Frankl, life itself is the creator of meaning, rather than God.

That is, meaning just exists in this world and we ourselves actualize our own specific meaning.
Frankl has a lot right and almost hit the nail on the head, except that his view that life is the source of the specific meaning of a life is incoherent and too abstract. How could life be the source of meaning? It would have to be pre-existing. Could life itself be the pre-existing source? Well if one deems this possible, I would recommend that he would encounter Aristotle. As this would lead to an infinite regress which ought to be rejected in light of Aristotle’s First Cause principle that every effect must have a cause. Thus, life as the source of meaning ought to be rejected. Unless, “life” itself was in fact an all-powerful, un-beginning, First Cause deity.

Alternatively, the Bible shows that God is the source of meaning. Man was created by God to fulfill a specific purpose and destiny he designed us and only us for. Now this is not to say that man cannot fulfill a different purpose and destiny. Man can choose any life path he wants. However, God created and designed us to do and be specific things and people. In the end, each and every one of us can contribute to His general purpose and plan for the entire Universe by choosing His specific purpose and plan for our lives.

Additionally, the Bible teaches that man is made in the image of God thus we can be creative with God. He can participate in the redeeming all of Creation back to God with the specific artistic talent, ingenuity, and care that He has instilled within us. We can design and create beautiful, purposeful, and meaningful things, places, and events just as He does. This includes past pains. Life can be restored to its original beauty, purpose, and meaning with God. It’s never too late with God, for “He has made everything beautiful in its time, He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” (Solomon in Ecclesiastes)

So, like Frankl, the biblical authors agree - that there is a meaning for each and every one of us to actualize - but the only difference is in Frankl’s view the source of meaning is mistakenly placed.

Conclusion

Overall, it seems clear from our investigations into the nature of meaning and the pertinent books of modern literature and the Bible that the most reasonable, attractive, and compelling view to hold is that life is meaningful and as a result, we can fulfill our destiny by actualizing our specific meaning if we choose to. Whereas the alternative worldviews advocate a lesser form of meaning or no meaning at all. Therefore, they are less reasonable, attractive, and compelling. So we are left with a very rational result: that there is reason for my existence. This implication, can easily be reached just by acknowledging that God exists.

Furthermore, life is so much more meaningful because God exists than in any other view. God’s being is the truest source of being to which we were made in the image of and from. For His existence is the pre-existing source of all existence. So, our meaning is derived from our being which is derived from His purest form. As Solomon later says, “To the man who pleases Him, God gives wisdom, knowledge, and happiness.”

In light of this, the Christian worldview seems the most favorable view to adopt because it makes sense of all of reality as a whole - bringing the most meaning to everything – including our nature. It seems to provide for our nature to align with the true nature of being as uncovered above. Based on that, the Christian worldview corresponds to the most meaningful existence one can have.

Recommendation & Inspiration

God has created you for a purpose and wants to fill your life with great joy in pursuing what he has designed you to do. So I invite you to lay your life down for His will, throw yourself into the divine destiny He has for you, and become the being He designed and created you to be.

Life may feel very meaningless right now for many Christians and non-Christians. Perhaps you the reader are in a place of meaninglessness and don’t have any sense of direction, value, and aboutness. Maybe you are experiencing chaos and absurdity. My word for you echoes that of Brennan Manning in his heart touching book Abba’s Child, “With infinite patience He (will illuminate) the meaning of life and refreshed the weariness of (your) defeated days.”
May I invite you to refresh yourself in the spring of purpose. Jesus said “I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly.” (John 10:10) First, by encountering our Creator himself we can begin to fulfill our purpose. Augustine sums it up well when he said that “you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” That would be the place to start. The second step I would offer is to adopt the famous Westminster Catechism (1647) which states that the chief end of man is “to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” I doubt you can go wrong with these steps.

With this passage in Ephesians 1:4-12 I leave you to actualize your meaning:

“Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him, in love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.”

Identity, Archeology, and Israel

2009-06-23T22:25:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it is somehow paradoxically true that anthropology comes before theology and theology comes before anthropology. That is, knowing ourselves comes before we can know God while knowing God comes before we can know ourselves. Perhaps this dilemma just recognizes that the 2 go hand in hand. The build and feed off of each other. My journey as a man seems to be marked with moments of knowing myself as a human being with human desires, emotions, weaknesses, etc and this helps me to know God a little bit better. My journey as a Christian seems to be marked with moments of knowing God by understanding his identity, power, emotions, etc and this helps me to know myself a little bit better. If man is made in the image of God, this makes sense. Overall, knowing myself and knowing God help me know God and know myself better…This sounds basic but how does one know God and oneself at all?

This is quite the epistemological question. But a simple place to begin is to appropriately understand the past.

Consider this notion: "If you don’t know where you came from, it is harder to know the reason for being where you are." …Is this true for your life? Consider getting to know your family. Have you had talks with your grandparents or parents about why they moved to a certain region where you grew up? What brought them there? Why did you grow up the way you did? Why were you raised in this church or parish or whatever? I recently had a long talk with my Father about these very points. It was very enlightening to me to learn that due to his frustration working as a warehouse forklift fetcher (a person who rides on the forks of the lift up and down to fetch boxes) in college, he decided to change majors from English to Accounting and move further from Los Angeles to raise a family. This ensured a better paying job upon graduation and safeguarded against a crappy job relapse. My Father’s history is what led us to the city, local neighborhood, church, and lifestyle 1 hour’s drive east of Los Angeles. I would have never known why I lived where I lived if I never knew where I came from.

Or if you like: "If you don’t know where you came from, it’s harder to know why you live the way you live." For example, a friend of mine, who loves licorice and can eat it by the 1 lb package, recently traveled to Arizona to visit her Father who was vacationing there. During her road trip there, she stopped to buy one of her token 1 lb licorice packages to consume as her breakfast on the journey. For her entire life she has had very little contact and interaction with her Father. Upon arrival at the vacation home she noticed that he had the same 1 lb package of licorice sitting on the coffee table – half consumed. She came to understand that this knack or instinct, as well as other likes and dislikes, mannerisms, and of course physical features, resembled her Fathers. Although living distant from her Father, the very source of her life in a genetic sense, she lived her life with similar characteristics of him. She would have never known why she lives the way she lives if she never knew where she came from.

In many ways, shapes, and forms, by knowing where we come from we can know why we are where we are and why we live the way we live.

In the case of my trip to Israel, this was the case in a most reorienting way. One can go to Israel and see the churches built over the sites of Jesus’ miracles and understand why we are where we are (spiritually speaking) and why we (as Christians) live the way we live. There is so much archeological and historical evidence that supports what the Biblical writers wrote. On my trip, for instance, it was easy for my faith to be built and strengthened when perusing around in the church of the Holy Sepulcher, cruising around Meggido where Josiah was slain by pharaoh Neco, and peering into the grottos of Nazareth. My Christian walk is tied to actual historical events and places.

At the same time, on the same trip, I actually felt disconnected from my Christian origins and I could not understand a bit how people could derive such Christianity and Catholicism - throughout the years of Christendom - from such an ancient culture. Christian life was hard then. But it was also simpler. But our modern churches, worship services, congregational dynamics, programs, non-profits, retreats, dress attire, monks, nuns, buildings, etc. are so complex. What a vast contrast. I can’t help to think that the modern Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches are missing the point in a very scary way. So, this disconnection – comparing a lifestyle of western Christianity with that which I learned had existed during the early church era – was disenchanting.

Overall, these 2 sides of the same coin describe my experience in Israel – bittersweet. I was able to get to know myself and God better as I was reoriented to the past. The present looks differently in the correcting light of the past. Not strange but just…different.
Additionally, the present nation of Israel is quite correcting.

Israel Today

Israel is such an interesting place in that, the place that gave birth to Christianity shows no upfront obvious indication of Christianity today. Out of a nation of 7 million, there are only 200,000 Christians in Israel today, where 50% are orthodox and 50% are catholic. There are virtually no Protestant believers. Except for the via delorosa, with almost hidden roman numerals on some walls in the "old city" Jerusalem, there are no signs indicating that this is where Jesus did this or that. Except for the tour buses and hard to find historical churches, the entire country seems virtually clueless to the places & life of Jesus.

I found myself thinking, "The Holy Land"? Really? Is that what this place is? What is Holy about this Land?" In my point of view there is nothing Holy about the land. But there is something indescribably raw about this place on planet earth called Israel. Tensions in the streets of Jerusalem are completely obvious. The preaching over the loud speaker at the nearby mosque can be heard by everyone within the few adjacent blocks - including the orthodox Jews as they get on and off city buses. Of course no one can miss these Jews, as their attire is striking. From the strange looks from young Arab teens as I cross the street to the passing of several casually armed chatty 18 year old girl soldiers, I can quickly see that these people are not only unique to me, but unequally passionate.

Passionate.

Passion is what describes the Israelis or Jewish people. Passion is what describes the Arab Muslim Isreali citizens and the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza. Passion is what described the first Apostles and the enraged crusaders!

Passion for what? Passion for God and passion for the land. The land of Palestine is the battle ground for God. It is the birthplace of the world’s monotheistic religions. So, the heirs of the land, sons and daughters of Abraham, all want it for themselves.

Why? This goes back to the original paradox of anthropology and theology mentioned above. The God of Abraham is the ultimate origin of why this place is the way it is and why the people live the way they live. All branches stem from him. The Ishmael lineage, the Isaac lineage, and the adopted-in Christian lineage all stem from Abraham’s God. To be the people of God - to get in touch with their history, to live there, to thrive there - is the ultimate way to capture their true destiny. By physically being there, where it all started and their history erupted, they can very easily embrace their history. This enables them to know their true identity and know their God. Have you ever been back to the place you grew up years later? The sights, sounds, and smells trigger the memory and one can almost go back in time, reliving an event. Many times emotions erupt again as if the painful or joyful event was happening at present. Thus, the passion.

Furthermore, the people of the land must defend the attacker to contend for the place that is God’s and thus maintain their inherent identity. The fighting, wars, occupations, and all invasions make sense in light of this.

As a result, the people of the land resemble their God. Passionate. I like how C.S. Lewis put it, "'Safe?' said Mr. Beaver...'Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.'" (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis). Our God is passionately good. Our God is not safe – He wants His ways by any means. Even and especially pain. "For He wounds but He also binds up…He injures but His hands also heal." (Job 5:17-18). We Christians often forget that the God we serve is a passionate, vengeful, and just God. We have a tendency of "nicing" the Old Testament with clever theories to reconcile a wayward conversation with a non-believer. He is unpredictably real and raw. The people of the land of Israel are unpredictably real and raw. They have been through a lot. But they resemble the real and raw God they came from. How well do I resemble the real and raw God I came from?

On the other hand, an unquestionable Christian resemblance, which is not quickly noticed to the naked eye, appears in Israel upon a deeper look. In order to find my connection in Israel - in order to find the source for the reason why I live how I live - I had to consider why God is not limited to a location on this planet. Because of Jesus, the floodgates of all of humanity - Jew, Muslim, Gentile, and Infidel - can know God anywhere on the planet. This is true across the pages of New Testament. Although I have no claim to the land or any passion for it as my inheritance, I have a passion infused by the Holy Spirit. Because of my adoption I am "joint heirs" (Romans 8:17) to a royal destiny and identity. Thus I am related to the Jew…(but not so much the Muslim). Thus, by embracing my heritage, I invigorate my passion and defend against the attacker of Christianity to contend for the place that is God’s – spiritually and intellectually.
Overall, Israel is intense to say the least.

At this point we will take a turn and move a different direction. No report on a trip to Israel would be adequate if it did not contain accounts of the archeological finds that validate the reality of the Jews that live there and Christians abroad.

Some Interesting apologetical items:

Byzantine church Mosaics

In the 4th century, after the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine to Christianity, Helena, Constantine’s Mother, went to Israel to discover the sites that were important to the Christian faith. She designated holy places and venerated many particular sites where a significant New Testament miracle was performed, including where Jesus was born, died, and resurrected.

At many of these places, Helena ordered a church to be built. These Byzantine churches were usually small, perhaps the size of a modern house. On the floor a beautiful tile mosaic was usually laid depicting fish or something of historical relevance to the Christian site. Throughout the centuries of invasions, wars, and earthquakes, the original church was destroyed. But the ornate Byzantine mosaics still exist beneath the later crusader floor mosaic or later modern era mosaic which repeated the same design. Additionally, some churches were rebuilt in such a way that the new mosaic floor connected to the original Byzantine mosaic, interwoven to produce the same design. The only difference one could tell between the Byzantine mosaic and the later mosaic is the Byzantine mosaic is faded.

It was really amazing to be standing on the same floor that early Christians and church fathers stood on. You know that saying "Being there is everything", well it was true in this case. At many moments, with the help of our good tour guide, I felt like I traveled back in time and could picture what it was attend a church service at that ancient Byzantine basilica. These moments were not just limited to the Byzantine church ruins. I found that I could easily imagine what it would have been walk in Caesarea, Capernaum, Nazareth, Skythopolis, and Meggido. It is hard to describe but going back in time is somewhat close.

Continuing Archeological Finds:

During our trip, President Obama was visiting with the King of Saudi Arabia and making a speech in Cairo, Egypt. So we picked up some local magazines and newspapers to catch the local response to the Obama visit. While learning about the different political extremist views of the West Bank PLO, Gaza leadership, and Israeli left, we stumbled upon some articles of recent archeological discoveries in Israel. By the look of it, these were common entries in the local news. On any given day, there could be news of a different amazing artifacts dug up around Israel.

I knew Archeology has always been a major point of national pride for the modern nation. But I came to understand that there were significant continual efforts being made by the Israeli government, through many benefactors and the Hebrew University, to reclaim the history of Israel through archeology. In the last several years, there have been increased efforts and funding for more digs in regions and settlements in the West Bank recently annexed by the Israeli army. Last century, scholars in Israel and around the world have been mesmerized by monumental discoveries such as the dead sea scrolls and the walls of Jericho. Scholars are hoping that the discoveries of last century will pale in comparison to those of this century.

Some not so recent discovered archeological finds that we saw, such as the tunnels under the ancient Canaanite city of Jebus (Jerusalem), ancient high walls in Jericho, horse stables in Meggido, inscriptions of Pontius Pilate in Casearea, grottos in Nazareth, and many others, are still continual reminders to Israel and the world that the Christian faith is built on solid epistemically verifiable foundations. These and other frequent gem finds provide evidence that the description of places in the historical records of the Bible are in fact accurate. They show that the words on the pages of Scripture cannot be categorized in a myth genre. Rather these finds give readers and scholars alike continual confidence that the Bible represents historical literature that maps out historical places that actually existed in a space time reality. If the places existed, it is also highly likely that the people and events described in those places were real.

Compare the history written in the Old & New Testament to the book of Mormon. While reading Joseph Smith’s famous work last year, I was thoroughly convinced that this book, if not historically accurate, represents the greatest lie in the history of mankind. It would be infinitely more slimier in fictitious deception than the Da Vinci code, even more disgusting than any the modern suicide cults, because it is the life altering constitution of millions of good people. It is the Bible beyond the Bible of the called "Christian" Mormons. This ever growing population of brainwashed souls has been led astray by a book that speaks in a historical genre but is entirely fiction. Not one archeological find has ever been unearthed. Not one city wall, inscription in stone, temple, church, mosaic, painting, hand tool, pot, coin; nothing, nothing, nothing at all has been found that relates in any way shape or form to the places, peoples, and history described in the book of Mormon.

Thus, it is easy to conclude that if no archeological discovery has been made, the places described in the book of Mormon did not exist. If the places that people walked on and the places where events occurred did not exist, than the people and events described in the book of Mormon did not exist and were never real. It is absolutely sickening to read the book of Mormon, because it is clear that its sole purpose was to provide a believable history, written in the same genre as the historical books of the Old Testament, in order to deceive people away from true Christianity.

After reading the Old Testament for the last 20 years and knowing that there is archeological evidence that show the places written of do in fact exist, I can rest assured that my belief system is not founded on a myth or lie. Until an archeological discovery is made contradictory to Scripture, which there have not been any valid ones that I know of, I will continue to read the Old and New Testament as historically reliable documents.

My personal experience & observations to take away

In light of all of the above, I have 2 new points of growth in my own Christian walk.

First, acknowledging and learning archeology is very important.

Archeology is such an important component to our Christian apologetics. I hope that myself and other apologists dive into the realm of archeological discoveries and perhaps even participate in some digs. Roger, a fellow tourist in our group and graduate from Yale Divinity school, mentioned to me that archeological finds are a big part of the historical curriculum at Yale. Apparently most students from his Master program are required to participate in digs every summer to meet the degree requirements. I found that to be fascinating. While I would hate to be out digging in the Israeli desert all summer, it would definitely drive home the fact that an amazing and powerful history really did take place there. The dirt is waiting to give up more and more facts, it is waiting for us to learn more about our Christian heritage. So many keys of our past have been unlocked by digging in the ground. Thank God for archeology.

Secondly, learning the fascinating current and post-Christ history of the Jewish people is very important.

On this trip, I was definitely enlightened to new avenues of thought in Old Testament apologetics for my own personal Christian walk. Let me say this for the new Christian, because the word of God is alive, the reader of the Bible can be pierced to the core at the many hundreds of different types of foreshadows of Jesus that the Old Testament makes. Hopefully you know what I am talking about. If not, I beg you to begin to read the Bible.
But not only the Protestant Old Testament. What about the OT Apocrypha? Although this mainly concerns the history of the Jews, it is important for every Christian to know where the original branch has headed since Nehemiah. Why? Well in what little time I was there, I have found that as I learned to see the world and history from a Jewish perspective, I have been strengthened.

I hope that I continue to learn the history of the Israeli people by reading Josephus and the Old Testament Apocrypha. In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus gives a parallel account of much of what is written in the OT, through the inter-testament period. Judas Maccabeus, a leader of the Jewish people around 300 B.C., was such an important figure, but I know nothing about him. This is partly due to the fact that the OT Apocrypha is non-canonical, so Protestant Bibles do not read the Apocryphal books. But it is also due to the fact that the pastor of my church growing up preached that there were no books written between the time of Nehemiah and Christ, thus the silent years. This was obviously not true as the Apocrypha as well as other books were written during that time.

This essentially is just getting to know myself in a different way by getting to know my Israeli half-siblings more. Interestingly, the same friend I mentioned above with the Dad/licorice encounter, had a similar encounter with her half sister that she had never met. One day, upon learning from her grandmother that she had a half sister, she quickly got in contact with her. When the half-sisters met, it was love at first site. They were both around 20 years old and were ecstatic to experience almost a mirrored image of themselves. From cheeks, to eyes, to hands, to motions, to concerns, to passions, to the way they laugh, etc. The 2 were made similarly and had definitely come from a similar source. The 2 quickly became close friends. Throughout the last several years they have realized so much truth about themselves in getting to know each other.
In the same way, I hope I can meet and get to know today’s Jewish people – the Christian’s half-siblings. Because by getting to know our family, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, and parents, and siblings we will see our lives in a different light. A light that makes sense of why we live the way we live.

So, I hope to seek out some American Jews and get to know them on a personal level. Although most Jews are completely in the dark about the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, they are still the first children of God. They are, in a sense, our older estranged brothers and sisters. Perhaps we can teach them something new about Jesus and they can teach us something new about our Father.

"And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches , be grafted into their own olive tree?....

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen."(Romans 11:23-24, 33-36)

Unto the King,

Jeremy David Livermore, P.E.

Some additional items for the curious reader

Quick fun facts on modern Israel:

· The population of Israel is about 7 million. 6 million Jews and 1 million Arab Israelis. 90% of the Arab Israelis are Muslim.
· Water is the #1 problem in Israel. I found this hard to believe, not because of the how dry the climate is, but because there seems to be constant warfare, suicide bombers, and lurking enemies of the jews all around waiting to attack.
· $6.50 for a gallon of gas.
· 2% per year population increase. The average number of children per family is 3.
· School is 6 days per week.
· 90% of the water used is recycled/reclaimed water.
· The landscape, terrain, and climate is similar to central and southern California with deserts, irrigable valleys, and rolling hills.
· There is a great variety of fruits and vegetables, which are all produced from the Israeli farms. The Israelis enjoy salad and fruit with every meal. Perhaps it is still the land flowing with milk and honey.
· McDonalds and KFC are in all the major Israeli cities.
· The via Delarosa is now home to an Arab street market of vendors, clothing stores, butchers, and general markets.
Highlights of the trip:
· Because of the thick accent, little brother didn’t understand a word that the tour guide said. Ok well other than perhaps 1%, I found myself translating.
· Before we began our tour each day, we ate as much as we could pound into our stomachs. The mass quantities of Jewish dishes were pleasing to the body and soul. Although, strange and weird at times, the food satisfied.
· You can buy 2000 year old ancient Roman coins in most souvenir shops and sometimes street vendors.
· Apparently, from the history, tradition, and the massive Cathedrals built, Jesus grew up in a grotto in Nazareth and was born in a cave in Jerusalem…the reader can research this more and make up his or her own mind.

The breakdown of the sites toured:

- Jaffa – where Simon the Tanner lived.
- Caesarea – where Pontius Pilate lived most of the time he was procurator.
- Meggido – where about 20 cities were built on top of each other. Many, many, many wars were fought over this city including the battle between King Josiah and Pharaoh Necho.
- Yardenit – This is Hebrew for Jordan. The Jordan is the place that Jesus was baptized. There is some sort of touristy building on the south side of the sea of Galilee where tourists and pilgrims can be baptized. There are changing rooms, ticket counters, a series of concrete steps down into the river, and of course a gift shop. There are plenty of extremely large catfish that swim up to the baptismal entrance. On the walls of the baptismal compound the scripture of
- Sea of Galilee – The sea of Galilee is so peaceful. It is now a vacation resort area where people jet ski and ride water boats. It has a very calm and relaxing atmosphere with campgrounds and hotels galore in Tiberius which is a major city right on the lake. You would never have noticed the churches & historical places if you weren’t taken there by the tour guide. It looks like any other lake with hills surrounding it. Jesus cast many demons out, preached, and performed many miracles here, but you would never know it by the looks of things.
- Capernaum – where Jesus tought at the synagogue and stayed at Peter’s house.
- Caesarea Phillippi – where Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and declared that upon this rock He will build His church. A temple to Caesar was built there next to the temple to the god pan, which was a roman deity.
- Golan Heights – an Israeli hideout fort on a hilltop with a panaromic view. Mount Hermon (+6000ft above sea level) and the Syrian border just is within view.
- Mount of Beatitudes – where Jesus gave the sermon on the mount.
- Beit Saida/Tabgha – where Jesus multiplied the fish and loaves of bread.
- Nazareth – where Jesus grew up. Currently, 35% of the population is Christian. This is 4 times more than any other city in Israel. It is a major metropolitan Israeli city. Interestingly, this birth city of Christ sits on a hill across the valley from the place where the famous last battle of Armegeddon is to be fought. It is a very busy city with lots of people. There is no sign of Jesus, no indication that he was here except for the big church built over the grottos where Jesus grew up. Over these grottos, early Christian basilicas were built. Presently, a monumental catholic church spans over the uncovered grottos.
- Cana – where Jesus performed his first miracle, turning water to wine.
- Valley of Hetin – in June of 1187, Solodin won a famous battle beating the crusaders. Crusaders were then forced out of the area to the coast.
- Beit She’an – an incredible Roman city, Skythopolis, was built here. Many telling ruins compel a reorienting of ones perspective on the impressiveness of the Roman empire. The city was destroyed in the great earthquake of the 8th century. The great Roman city was unearthed by archeologist last century. The the great Roman columns lay in the middle of streets and houses. Indicating the
- Dead Sea – the lowest point on earth (-1200 ft below sea level). When swimming, you float on the water. It is impossible to drown but there are lifeguards.
- Masada – where the last remnant of the Jewish zealots maintained a stand against the Roman army which crushed Jerusalem in AD 70. The stand was later
- Qumran Caves – where they found the famous dead sea scrolls.
- Jerusalem – you know the one.
- Eilat – where we rested and wake boarded at a beach resort town near the border of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

On N.T. Wright's Suprised by Hope

2009-05-25T21:45:00.000-07:00

Isn’t the future fun to think about? I guess it depends on whether or not one is an optimist or pessimist. I have often wondered about whether or not our world will become like those pictured in the latest summer blockbusters of Terminator: Salvation, Star Trek, and even the latest X-men flick, Wolverine. Even more appealing than these though is the 1989 Back to the Future part 2 movie, which featured Marty McFly cruising around on his oh-so-sweet hover-board. I still wonder when our skaters will turn in their boards for ones without wheels.

What about the movie Left Behind with Kirk Cameron? Eschatological truth? Fiction? Is it close to what is pictured in Revelation and 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17? Or way off of the true teaching of Scripture? (off topic question - Is Kirk Cameron a good actor or bad?) After watching these latest films, my attention is captured only because the future is coming inevitably and that means I need to prepare for it. Suppose these films show the reality of our future, suppose they don’t. But the deeper questions are: what does happen in the future and what does that mean for us today? I am convinced that the future according to Christianity – and not just the future on this current earth, but the entire cosmological future – sheds a very bright light on our present reality and gives hope for us today.

Isn’t it true that our future affects our present life just as much - if not more - than our past does? , Christian or non-Christian, it seems that our future is in fact very influential on our present life. In countless ways my past has made me into the man I am today. Childhood in lower class suburbia, being raised in a small mission-minded church, and spending my teenage years on the sports field all the while trying to cope with a dysfunctional family, have definitely influenced who I am, how I live, and my overall worldview. (Meaning that my past experiences and past cultural influences, shape my thought life while not always overpowering my ability to know objective reality.) But more interestingly (at the moment at least), my future seems to influence who I am, how I live, and my overall worldview as well. This is because what I believe about my future is crucial to the perspective on life today.

For example, if I know that I will die tomorrow of a terminal illness, I will try to take advantage of every last moment I have and go hang gliding, cliff jumping, and take over the world – all in my last day. If however, I know that in 10 years I will become the next Secretary General of the United Nations, I will try to prepare for such a role by getting the higher education required and taking internships specializing in geopolitical socioeconomic governing.

Likewise, if I know the future that awaits me after death, I can better judge which course of action to take with my life before I die. Suppose I am a materialist and annihilation is what awaits us all at death. Well in that case, than not much in this life matters in the long run and I can do as I please because I will not be accountable for my good or bad actions. But suppose I am a Mormon or Jihadist. My life and actions definitely count towards which planet I am a god on or how many virgins I will receive.

So, at the least, there is an often overlooked but intriguingly strong point to make about our future - that what we believe about our future influences our now. So what does Christianity have to say this present world and about the future? Many things. Perhaps in another piece I will engage the many eschatological views (amillennial, premillinnial, postmillennial, pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib), the final judgment, Israel’s place during the end times, etc. But what I would like to focus on is the Christian theology that pertains to the final resurrection of the dead. Because what we believe about the future resurrection affects us in the present more than any thing else.

N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope

For help discussing this topic I turn to the Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright, who is one of the world’s top biblical scholars. He has taught at Oxford, Cambridge, and McGill and has authored many important works on the resurrection of Jesus as well as other important New Testament themes (I highly recommend his The Resurrection of the Son of God). In his latest book Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright compels believers to reorient themselves in thought and life towards the eschatological final resurrection of believers and renewed creation in light of the historical transphysical bodily resurrection of Jesus. The characteristic style of Wright is definitely evident in this popular layperson level work. Here are some of the attractive and endearing features of Wright’s brilliance: sentences that seem to never end, contrasts that knock out pop-culture clichés replacing them with reluctantly forgotten insights, and consuming generalizations that summarize the state of all reality, Christianity, and Biblical themes.

Wright masterfully begins with an enlightening truth that the pop-culture understanding of heaven and the afterlife is not biblical. Nor is it what the early church believed. But, most of us have inherited a deep dichotomy of heaven and earth – leaving no room for the new heaven and new earth. “What matters” says Wright, “is eschatological duality (the present age and the age to come), not ontological dualism (an evil earth and a good heaven).” The hope of the early church at the soon coming end of age, Wright argues, was the final resurrection of all believers.

Along those lines, Wright furthers the point. The early church had no belief in an ethereal heavenly realm where disembodied souls hang out on clouds with God forever and ever as influenced by platonic thought. Instead, for the early church, “paradise is, rather, the blissful garden where God’s people rest prior to the resurrection.” This is the immediate life after death.

But there remains a “life after life after death,” says Wright. Which will be “a new bodily existence in a newly remade world.” In fact, the “spiritual body” of 1 Corinthians 15:44 is a mistranslation. Paul is speaking of transformed bodies, a transphysical body is one “whose material, created from the old material, will have new properties.” It’s not a difference between physical and non-physical bodies, but a difference between corruptible physicality and incorruptible physicality. Our bodies will become more real than our present bodies are (borrowing from C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce).

In the first chapter of part 3, he digs into the concept of salvation by seeing salvation in light of the future recreation/redemption of all creation instead of the Gnostic Western church’s view that salvation is just rescuing individual people from death and the bad physical world. This currently pervasive view is not at all what the Bible teaches. His perspective is that Christianity is not to lead people to heaven but to bring God’s kingdom to the earth through the rescuing and stewarding efforts of the Church and Israel. God will then complete his presently partial reigning not just over his creation but in it, by still using his awkward and rebellious chosen people.

In regards to the new creation, Wright sums it up this way: “What I am proposing is that the new Testament image of the future hope of the whole cosmos, grounded in the resurrection of Jesus, gives as coherent a picture as we need…of the future that is promised to the whole world, a future in which …decay and death will be done away with and a new creation born, to which the present one will stand as mother to child.” Then heaven and earth will be joined as in marriage. So it’s not about how we just follow Jesus into heaven but it’s about Jesus coming back to complete His rule on earth. For Wright, the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is a mistranslation of the word parousia. The rapture is not the living saved souls coming to meet Jesus, rather it is the coming parousia – the royal presence of a King – in this case Jesus. This passage needs to be examined in light of other New Testament passages.

Wright continues to say that the purpose of Jesus’ kingdom inaugeration is so “they could enjoy, already in the present, that renewal of creation which is God’s ultimate purpose.” Furthermore, Jesus’ Resurrection was actually the birthing of a new world. The creating Logos of John 1:3 has begun his new creation at the Resurrection. Now we are co-redeemers, participating with God in renewing earth and all of heaven throughout eternity. To this end we can begin to invest now and begin to bring hope to our world because our works will last to the new creation. “the surprising future hope held out to us in Jesus Christ leads directly…to a vision of the present hope that is the basis of all Christian mission.”

Some items to think about found in Wright

After reading Wright, I can say that most of the time I agree with him – especially in terms of the renewed body and the renewed heaven and earth for our new bodies to create/redeem with God in. But honestly the following few points were items to, perhaps, just brush over:

The no-rapture theology
Major generalizations and perspective on salvation
Some rather lacking kingdom living examples

Regarding the no-rapture, the mistranslation argument he gave on pages 127-136 is stretching. For 10 pages Wright discusses different ways in which the word parousia is used in the New Testament as it is in 1 Thessalonians 4:15: “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” This is the word for Christ’s “coming.” But he says very little about the next 2 verses: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

Wright mentions a passage written by Moses and another by Daniel which infer that the meeting of Jesus in the clouds is to usher Jesus back to earth, rather than “stay up in the air somewhere.” This is the fit arrival for the King of the Universe who is coming to reclaim, redeem, and judge His kingdom. But this view doesn’t align with any of the traditional amillennialist, postmillennialist, or premillennialist views. These all confirm the rapture at the end or just before the end of the millennium.

Is Wright right? Did the early church not have the rapture theology that we have? Should we stick with the majority of evangelical Christians and keep our Kirk Cameron movies? Based on the argument Wright presented, the jury is still out for me on the rapture versus no-rapture.

Another controversial point in Surprised by Hope, has to do with major generalizations and salvation. I find that Wright’s understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism, which existed during the time of Christ, is such a heavy and influential notion for him that it can yield inappropriate hermeneutical misjudgments. He seems to use 2nd Temple Judaism coupled with the theology of the new heaven and new earth as an overarching guide to his study that other basic readings of Scripture are overlooked. This may be a false perception or too strong of an anti-embellishing critique, but it really is hard to dismiss when reading Wright. I am afraid that some core doctrines that the church has worked hard to develop and maintain could be at risk of being minimized.

This is exemplified in such embellishing generalizations about the entire purpose of something or the entire meaning of the New Testament. At these points, I must slow down and ask, “Really? Are you sure you want to say that?” In terms of salvation, he makes such statements like:

“One of the greatest problems of the Western Church, ever since the Reformation at least, is that it hasn’t really known what the gospels were there for.”
“Salvation, then, is not going to heaven but being raised to life in God’s new heaven and new earth.”
“As long as we see salvation in terms of going to heaven when we die, the main work of the church is bound to be seen in terms of saving souls for that future. But when we see salvation, as the New Testament sees it, in terms of God’s promised new heaven and new earth and of our promised resurrection to share in that new…reality…then the main work of the church here and now demands to be rethought…”

He suggests that the Churches’ – not just evangelicals but the entire Western Churches’ – traditional view is wrong. What about the regeneration of the soul, being born again, forgiveness of sins, imputation of Christ’s righteousness, divine election, direct access to God, relationship with a personal Creator, the beginning of the sanctification towards Christ-likeness, remission of sins, being more than a conqueror and alive with Christ, indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, etc? Where are these other key aspects of salvation which have been taught in our systematic theology courses since the Reformation?

There is one other weakness in the book. There is a lack of the power of the Holy Spirit, manifested in signs, wonders, and miracles, when Wright discusses kingdom living in light of knowing that the kingdom is here in a “now and not yet” form. The examples Wright uses are somewhat lacking in equivalent thrust of the powerful points he is making.

Strengths

Besides the minor weaknesses, some whopping generalizations that create dissonance against the sound teachings of the Reformation, and all of the eschatological issues I am unsure on, as I mentioned above, Wright does the Christian community a great service in writing this book. He reminds us that the inaugurated kingdom of the newly proclaimed Jesus in Acts, was brought to a climax when Paul travels to meet the current king and god of the world, Caesar. Although Acts does not go as far to say this, it clearly indicates that the spread of the message of the Resurrected Jesus meant that Caesar’s throne was being challenged and the grass roots movement of those in defiance of the king of this world has begun. Right down the street from Caesar’s palace, Paul was preaching the “kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). Wright puts it this way, “the kingdoms of the world are now claimed as the kingdoms of Israel’s God.” It may have taken 300 years or so, but at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, the kingdom of King Jesus had taken shape and was moving.

Moreover, Wright reminds us that we all need to remember that the church is victorious in the end. We are on the winning side!! The work of the Holy Spirit to usher in the full sovereign rule of God is in the process of becoming complete. How often has this been put aside in our church sermons, Easter and Christmas services, worship songs, and daily devotions! Jesus is the King now as Paul preached and as John gave us the future – Jesus will assert himself as King of the earth. John seems to be screaming this out from the Island of Patmos when he writes my favorite passage Revelation 19:11-16, “And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and pure. And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God, the Almighty. And he hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written, KINGS OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

Wow. Let Hope Rise!

Not only does the church come out as the vindicated group at the end of this age, but the Lord will avenge her adversaries! Then also, the hope of Israel is also met in the return of the King. Then the whole world is consumed by his glory as “the waters cover the sea.” Then true presence and being is revealed to the potential beings. This is Wright’s most forceful thrust – that the inaugurated already but not yet kingdom, to which we live and move and have our being, will become complete and actualized.

Behold the coming King. “Behold, I make all things new.” (Rev 21:5)

This teaching can’t be taken lightly because it changes everything on how we live today. For instance, I am a huge Lakers fan and love to watch the Lakers all season, especially the playoffs. If I have recorded a major Lakers playoff game and someone that doesn’t know I am anticipating watching it tells me that the Lakers won, I watch the game with exciting anticipation and a victorious spirit due to the soon coming victory – even in the midst of a back in forth contest. The spells in the game when we were losing, I can get over quicker, because I already know what the future holds – we win. The injustices that were caused by the referees when a foul wasn’t called, I can be get over quicker, because I already know what the future holds – we win.

(There is a common notion in sports, that was definitely true when I played, “The battle wounds hurts less if we win and hurts more if we lose.” In the case of the Lakers, we win very often, so my frustration in watching and the teams battle wounds during many games is often relieved!)

But more importantly, I watch the game knowing that the dumb mistakes, fouls, and injuries my own team commits during the game, will all be made right in the end. That all of the internal issues of the team, the competitive nature of the players to maybe overact at their teammates mistakes, to overdo it to impress the coach, all of these will be made smooth in the end. Even a players challenges to individual self-confidence and ability to play within himself, will all be affirmed and confirmed in the end.

Knowing that we win in the end changes the whole dynamic of watching the game go by. My frustrating reactions are turned into “that’s o.k., because I already know what the future holds – we win.”

Application

Overall, for the most part, I agree with Wright’s finding hope in the resurrection and reinvigorating the doctrines of the Christian Hope. In fact this book has strengthened and renewed my hope in this present life. My pessimism is weakened. Optimism grows as I read Wright, as he so eloquently put it, “Hope is what you get when you suddenly realize that a different worldview is possible, a worldview in which the rich, the powerful, and the unscrupulous do not after all have the last word.”

Wright so eloquently summed it all up saying, “Life after death, it seems, can be a serious distraction not only from the ultimate life after life after death, but also from life before death.” Basically, I do not just need to prepare for a life after death, but I need to prepare for life after life after death, the new heaven and earth conjoined together. This gives such a new perspective on my actions in the here and now. My present work for the kingdom, however insignificant, however much like a drop in the ocean it seems, matters in the winning and eternal kingdom of the true King. My hope for my own life is that what we do in this life matters into God’s future. It’s all “building for God’s kingdom.” This is also an answer to Solomon’s meanderings in Ecclesiastes, that what I “do for the Lord is not in vain. You are not oiling the wheels of a machine that’s about to roll over a cliff. You are not planting roses in a garden that is about to be dug up for a building site. You are accomplishing something that will become in due course part of God’s new world.”

How refreshing! How enlightening! The candles of all of history are overtaken by the light of the sun of Jesus’ resurrection and our future one. The future resurrection matters incomprehensibly; thus everything in this life matters in preparation for such a bright future.

In closing, there is nothing that gives me more hope for the future than Rev 21:5 & 6: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more; neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain, any more: the first things are passed away. And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true. And he said unto me, They are come to pass. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.”

Even so, come, Lord Jesus! Come.

Unto the King.

On Courage, Existential Philosophy, and the Audacity of Truth

2009-02-15T01:02:00.000-08:00

“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” – Thomas Paine, The Crisis

What the deist Thomas Paine wrote better describes the measure of Biblical courage– the ability to advance what one reasonably knows is true when doubt weighs heavy and there is seemingly only hopelessness to embrace. To have this courage is essential to a mature Christian faith. It takes courage-to-be a Christian thinker while the world moves in and out of philosophical belief systems. Courage is necessary to face the onslaught of non-Christian worldviews and philosophies that pop-up again and again in everyday conversations. Moreover, because philosophy changes culture like nothing else can, I believe that the courage-to-be Christian in spite of the philosophical pluralism that abounds today is necessary for cultural change.

Just realizing that we live in a post-modern Western world is too shallow of an analyses. The truth is that there is a plethora of worldviews from strong philosophical systems of ages ago still to grapple with in the public square today. That is, Obama is half-black and president. But this does not mean we are in a post-racial world where racism is triumphed because a half-black man is the highest public office. No racism still abounds today. Likewise, Western societies are still negotiating with existential anxiety, lostness, and dread. We may not be living in such a post-existential world just yet. Among the many philosophical systems that abound today, it seems that there is a lurking existentialism that persists, virtually shadowed by other worldviews. Taken down to the individual level, the existential worldview for a non-believer seems to be the crux of the matter for a person to live for Jesus. After much truth is conveyed in an appropriate apologetic fashion, he/she typically contends “Even if Jesus is not a fairytale, what will he do for me? I already have sufficient reasons for my existence in this world!”

Additionally, one of the ultimate tasks of apologetics is to help remove the intellectual barriers and road blocks that a person has which keeps them from coming face to face with Jesus. At the heart of apologetics is Jesus. Once the struggles of doubt, competing worldviews, and falsities are removed, the soul has nowhere to hide. Light encounters darkness. A decision must be made. Apologetical truth and diplomacy can do nothing efficient at this point because this is where the pure and unadulterated gospel (good news) is timely and poignant. This is the point of conversion or rejection. The soul needs at this moment courage to face the truth of his existential lostness. It is at this moment a person can introspectively turn towards Jesus for healing & the satisfying meaning for his existence or continue to subjectively search for his existential meaning elsewhere.

This persistent existential search is comfortable for the rejecting soul and makes sense when one considers the humanistic backdrop of mankind’s history without God. People from the tower of Babel till now subjectively and objectively acknowledge that life apart from an ultimate higher purpose tends towards abstraction and hedonism. So where does that lead one to? – anxiety, despair, loneliness, dread, fear, and hopelessness. So man must have an alternate meaning to live for, a reason for being that is Godless but necessarily courageous. So man tends to get creative and build. Societies, infrastructure, and development begin. Man is in control of his own fate. Man creates meaning for his being.

About the middle of the last century, the existentialist movement of Western philosophy was flourishing. Thinkers such as Nietzsche, Jon Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and others courageously led the dreadful charge into the realms of death, nothingness, and absurdity. Man’s existence was wrought with tragedy, purposelessness, and hopelessness because man is alone in the universe and there is nothing else like him in it. But out of this nothingness and lostness, man creates something and goes somewhere. Existential hope emerges. There can be courage to live another day. Perhaps, in another blog more existentialist points of view can be developed.

While some of this train of thought eventually morphed and declined away into other philosophical genres during the latter part of the century, much remains at the heart of our current cultural milieu. Now, interestingly, the writings of Paul Tillich, a notable theologian during the 1950’s who responded to the governing voices of humanist existential thinkers, influenced President Obama. Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, is undergirded by the courage-to-be that Tillich resolutely declares is necessary for hopelessness. Hope without courage is unsavory and useless.

But more importantly, and I think Obama knows this, hope without truth is dangerous. Although it can lead to powerful optimism, when tried repeatedly, it will fatigue. Hope needs substance beyond the subject – a transcendent reality in which hope is grounded.

For the soul who rejects Jesus after truths are provided, it is clear that truth is more audacious than Obama’s audacious hope. In response to this existential rejection, Francis Schaeffer contended that “Man cannot make his own universe and then live in it.” There is a house bigger and better than the fort in the backyard. The audacious truth is: a habited un-lonely mansion awaits us post-death.

Overall, in terms of academic philosophy, existentialism has been tried and found wanting. Most of academia does not interact with it. But how existentialism was so and is still so courageously embraced (sometimes unknowingly) by many average persons and great thinkers alike fascinates me. And this is the point – even secular thinkers displayed great courage to think well and advance their humanist thought, even if that thought has to do with hope in spite of nothingness and creating one’s own existential meaning in the universe.

Unfortunately, Christian courage-to-be and think cogently about Christianity is what I find sadly missing from most Western Christians. As so many Christian young people lose their faith due to questions that seem to have no answers, I stagger in disbelief and shake my head in frustration.

Moreover, the pervasive decline in general intellectualism by many adult believers is just as surprising. Christians struggle to have any courage-to-be smart in a world pluralized with strange existentialist meanings & worldviews. This is a heartbreaking reality of our present church. Why do most Christians not even know what apologetics is? And where is the Christian courage to advance our hope? For the most part, courage just is appallingly lacking in many Christians. Courage to share one’s faith with a non-believer, courage to face one’s family of origin issues with a professional counselor, or courage to learn some apologetic type truth and exercise those brain muscles is at best dormant in many believers.

But the Bible is full of heroes who lived lives with courage. There were many heroes like Moses, David, Gideon, Daniel, Nehemiah, & Paul who experienced and exhibited the power and the boldness of the Holy Spirit. But more importantly, they were not just action heroes, they were people of fortitude and being. They were heroes “who, contrary to hope, in hope believed.” (Romans 4:18) These heroes had what Paul Tillich called the “courage-to-be.” This is a type of courage that is rooted in a reasoned filled faith which allowed them to look into the face of the anxiety and despair to find God’s purpose. It came from “being” in-spite of “non-being” –living in spite of death. The courage I am advocating is that which attacks on offense in spite of life’s failures and fears.

I’m reminded of playing quarterback in high school. Because my team was small in numbers, I had to play both offense and defense. Also, because my school had a small student body, in both numbers and size, my offensive line could only amount to an average 5’-5” tall 200 lb each. So needless to say, due to the onslaught of the defense, I scrambled and was sacked often. It forced me to learn the hard way how to have poise in the pocket and see down field to complete a pass when several hungry linebackers wanted to eat a quarterback sandwich. This is the kind of courage-to-be that Tillich is talking about. It’s the ability to look the world of despair straight in the eye and in spite of it, still be.

When thinking about the dread, despair, and loneliness that Sarte, Camus, and others wrote of, the competitiveness in me is fired up. If they can find a way to achieve meaning and hope, we ought to be able to do it and do it better. It is the Christian who has a better hope in the midst of hopelessness and has a better courage in the midst of fear, dread, and anxiety. “Where O death where is your victory?” Where O death where is your sting?” (1 Cor 15:55 & Hosea 13:14)

The striking, blinding, and deafening hope of a Christian is that Jesus is the hero of existentialism. He accounted for the anxiety, fear, and despair of the abyss. “He is not a refuge from reality, but a way into its depths.” (Brennan Manning, Abba’s Child) “Death has been swallowed up in Victory?” (1 Cor 15:54) Jesus did as it was prophesied, “He will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces.” (Isaiah 25:8) Deep in the heart of man’s lostness and loneliness, Jesus appears.

The courage we need to face the demands of our intellectual drought & the dread of our own existential journey is not elated passion or desperate clinging to Jesus during a trial or tribulation. It’s not the highs that come from an intense worship song or a spiritual retreat. This courage is the existential aliveness, awakening, and awareness of the present risenness of Jesus. Courage that is grounded in His presence and His rock solid systematic theological belief system of truths continually built - plateau over plateau by the illuminating power of the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, in terms of our need for rediscovering Christian intellectualism, it is not dull or passive. The insightful Brennan Manning states that “In this decade of much empty religious talk and proliferating Bible studies, idle intellectual curiosity, and pretensions of importance, intelligence without courage is bankrupt. The truth of faith has little value when it is not also the life of the heart.” This truth really needs a courageous heart. This is the intelligence that pursues truth for one’s own meaning sake, which is a worthy task, as Jesus says, “The truth shall set you free.”

Lastly, Christians must be thinkers who stand firm with courage emerging from the inside out. Francis Schaeffer further responded to this cultural drama saying “If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong – including man’s inhumanity to man.” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 16:13 “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.” These are strong words, but we can do it Paul, maybe one day as you did, when you literally did face death for your beliefs. We can have the courage to “fight the good fight” and “contend for the faith” even in spite of fear, anxiety, and despair.

By remaining true to Truth and advancing with such courage, the better Hope will last unto death.

World’s “Darwin Day” & Possible Responses

2009-01-05T20:08:00.000-08:00

This February, the world will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species and the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Charles Darwin. Deemed as Darwin Day and administered by Institute of Humanist Studies, the day will be filled with all sorts of fun activities, such as lectures, conferences, and plain old birthday parties in various areas worldwide (see www.darwinday.org or www.humanists.org). Media agencies & major pop-culture websites will cover the organizations efforts to celebrate the occasion and most of their audience will acknowledge the headline and reflect, “Oh yes, thank God for Darwin,” then carry on with life as normal.

This will be a very welcome celebration for most people around the world, except Christians. So what ought the Christian to do on Darwin Day? Here are some possible responses:

1) Hire a Christian computer programmer to hack into the Darwin Day website to destroy the event.

2) Send hate mail to the Institute of Humanist Studies and condemn them in the name of Jesus Christ for celebrating a theory that contributed to the apostasy of Europe and the atheism of the world.

3) Post fliers around the neighborhood and send out mass emails launching a global campaign to convert the great great grandchildren of Charles Darwin to the Christian faith.

4) While few are gathered around the cooler at the office, single out the token office atheist to start an awkward intellectual debate showing Darwinism is defunct.

5) Use the day as an occasion to learn about Darwinism, the Origin of Species, theories of Micro & Macro evolution, Biological processes of natural election, and research performed in the ID movement to raise awareness and discuss the compatibility with Science and Christianity with families, friends, coworkers, etc on appropriate occasions.

6) Organize an international Intelligent Design Day to raise awareness of the results of scientific research in the fields of biochemistry and astrophysics that point to design.

While Christians can be appalled at how the gatekeepers of scientific knowledge in the ivory towers of academia attempt & succeed in holding minds hostage to this “atheistic” view, obviously, the last 2 responses seem more like the Christian thing to do. This year, let’s just start with 5.

Before we disagree with those who “know” Darwinism is a “fact” of the universe, we ought to figure out why we disagree. Do we have a wrongful bias to Darwin and theories of evolution? Can I really learn the truth about Macro & Micro evolution, natural selection, the big bang theories, the age of the universe theories, what the Bible has to say about evolution or astrophysics, etc. We all could use a little academic honesty and confess that we are not the experts on everything. Let me help start a mutation of our worldview by introducing 4 basics views on relationship between science and religion.

#1) Conflict View

This is the most common perception of our day. It’s the battle between Scientific Materialism and Biblical Literalism. Each sees themselves as THE path to true knowledge, at the expense of religion (subjective) or science (conspiracy to prove atheism). It’s one or the other. Media likes the conflict and is biased to the side of science.

#2) Independence View

This view shows a separation but not war between human discovery and revealed truth. That is, science is limited to the natural realms; to the objective, public, & repeatable data. Whereas, religion is limited to the spiritual realms; to order, beauty, & inner-life experiences.

#3) Dialogue View

This view is the historical one: Christianity had a strong influence in establishing the right worldview for science. Methodologies are not distinct. Scientist have faith & theologians have reason (scientist must trust their instruments; theologians must think critically). Both sides rely on personal judgment and authority.

#4) Integration View

This view develops a unified worldview where God’s action in Nature is plausible. In this view one must be very aware of naturalistic presuppositions and limitations. It’s Scientific Apologetics where one can use scientific data to argue for the existence of God.

Without going into the reasons, the 4th view is what I recommend. Perhaps you can research for yourself which view is best to hold. You see, there are many things to learn and we can prepare intellectually to use the celebration to our advantage.

Overall, we need to reclaim the intellectual influence in the western world that we lost. We have to take on the giant – science. God’s perspective should be our perspective here. As a result we can be ambassadors not soldiers; winning friends and influencing people. We tend to want to preach at them and score points, winning the battle – but losing the war.

Hopefully, at the end of Darwin Day, the best of these views on science and religion will survive: survival of the fittest.

On Wonder, Children, and This Crazy World

2009-01-02T19:55:00.000-08:00

For me and for many people around the world, 2008 was a “wonderful” year. I do not mean wonderful in the common sense of the word. I mean it has been full of wonder – curiosity about how and why the world is as it is but not the way it ought to be.

This type of wonder is innocent.

“Wonder about this world” is what my undergraduate philosophy professor said he was “trying to cultivate in us”. I think he really did, for me at least. He would repeat this many times and call us “dear students.” That was his way of helping us realize how silly we were and how amazing this world is. I went on to learn that wonder is the primary starting line and for any philosopher to develop a philosophy on this world and life. It is also his/her motivation, an “itch”, if you will. Albert Einstein took it a bit further when he put it this way, “He who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.”

So what makes a good wonderer? Parents would answer, “Children!” The greatest philosophers of all are the constant innocent wonderers, the children. The imagination of a child is fascinating! Children always questioning and always learning. They grow and learn and grow and learn and hopefully, become the person they are designed to be.

As a child growing up in southern California, U.S.A, there was plenty to wonder about. Being a curious passenger in my parent’s car, I would have my biggest wonder moments. Driving down the freeways approaching a massive freeway interchange network of bridges, I always would wonder how that concrete bridge can span over 200 feet from one column to the other resisting all of the gravity, wind, and earthquake forces. The “how” has always fascinated me.

Speaking of children, Jesus offers insight in this scenario: “…came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, ‘Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’”…Jesus replied, “unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3-4) This is a big statement and is often overlooked by the western church. It is a radical teaching about being extremely opposite than what we have a tendency to be. To view this world differently than we do as grown ups.

What is it about this sense of being childlike that Jesus calls us to? Why is it so important? Why did the disciples ask to be the greatest in the kingdom when Jesus was constantly surrounding himself with the poor, the outcast, the “others” of society? The observance of His compassion for our world’s brokenness could not have gone unnoticed by the disciples. Right?

Before I try to figure the answer to those questions out, I need to interject my awkward identification with the disciples. In 2008, I wondered about how there are extreme polar opposites for most of everything in this world. Most often I wonder about how this world could be the way it is…and not cave in on itself. It seems so crazy! Then I get confused as to why it doesn’t cave in on itself. For starters, I wonder about…

· How could vast wealth and incredible poverty exist directly across the same street in Los Angeles?

· How could one country in Africa experience tremendous affluence do to its middle eastern ties while another country next door suffers under the relentless curse of hunger and starvation?

· How could a man could commit suicide after dressing up in a Santa outfit on Christmas and burn a house full of people, including his former wife, in a civilized upscale suburban neighborhood of a 1st world country?

· How could mental illness ravish and destroy families yet the church has done almost nothing to reach out, let alone acknowledge the condition?

· How could it take over 225 years to elect a black president in the U.S.A.?

· How “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

· How could Obama raise so much money during his campaign?

· How could the U.S.A. invade Iraq on such pretenses?

· Etc.

Perhaps this type of wonder is shallow or just ill-informed.

Personally speaking,

· How it is easier for an “outcast” of society to accept another “outcast” than it is for me to just listen to a man or woman in need talk for an hour.

· How can I covet even bigger house despite going to Africa twice in 2008 and seeing that most people can’t afford food let alone a house with even a tin roof.

· How can I quickly be judgmental to the unfortunate and still not be content with what I have – or not even acknowledge that is all God’s stuff anyway.

· How could God love me like a Father loves a child despite my ugly pride.

· How can I forget almost about everything the Lord has taught me – no matter how powerful or impactful.

· Etc.

This type of wonder seems to just be deeply rooted in my brokenness.

But these are some realistic wonders I have had. Honest, but true. I need to sit with the disciples and hear Jesus’ rebuke as I have stared in the face of each hardship listed above and hardened quickly after being so innocently curious.

For the most part, the disciples were adults acting out of their broken, tainted, unyielded, sinful, unregenerate, selfish selves. Like me, they confused the way things ought to be with the way things are. As adults, our souls are worn, dirty, and distorted by life and religion. It’s the grabbing, lusting, arrogant tendency of the sinful soul who takes ownership of a confused pharisaical theology - expecting “perfection” out of the incorrigibly imperfect. Personally, it amazes me how much I can confuse religion and spirituality for honor and sacrifice. This behavior is not from the original or even regenerate type of dependent person that Jesus designed.

Jesus got to the reality of the ordeal quickly when he said to the disciples that becoming a child is best thing you can do. Just acknowledge my utter brokenness, accept that extremely judgmental side of you, and convert to childhood. Have faith like a child. Think about life, love, and the why’s and how’s of this world like a child. Be a recipient of everything, including the Kingdom of God (per Jesus)! Do not expect this world to be as you want. Learn to be free - but not independent – like a child. How hard is that to do though! How humbling!

First, where do I start? I think that innocently wondering about life, love, and why’s and how’s is a good place to start the process of becoming childlike. Here we are soft in this world all over again. It’s a good place to be – as we can learn to “do” just that - remain be-ing childlike with regard to wonder.

Taking on the position of the child will not only allow us to really wonder about this world and ourselves, but it will enable us to be open to the reality He created us to live with. We will enjoy the world more without holding it hostage to our model. We will free up people and this world. And we will see Him better as Paul states in Romans 1:20, “God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”

Overall, if wondering right, we will live from the inside out. From the true self before the filters, glasses, and worldviews are sucked on to us. Only by humbling of ourselves to be child-like can we be free to give love without condemning and free to sacrifice without religion. Free to be a broken person in a world full of broken people - accepting our broken selves and accepting all other broken people. Even accepting the world’s implosion without having an anxiety attack!

Concerning this world and our ridiculousness, Augustine sums it up this way, “No man ought to feel secure in this life. This whole of life is called an ordeal. It’s ordered so that the man who could be made better from having been worse may not also from having been better become worse. Our sole hope, our sole confidence, only assured promise, is your mercy.” (Confessions)

How this world needs Jesus.

How I need Jesus.

Jeremy David Livermore

The Unknown - Dolphins, Demons, and Halloween

2008-10-26T19:53:00.000-07:00

Every year around Halloween I tend to notice massive spider webs covering people’s bushes, pumpkins, candy, and people telling ghost stories. Actually, I have heard some great stories told by very credible witnesses (people who fit the court’s criteria of being credible) that speak of the strangeness and scarin ess of the unseen world. I am thinking of 3 short examples: 1) A missionary to an Indian reservation had a witch doctor spin around in his front yard performing a ritualistic dance and chanting. He then suddenly turned into a deer and ran away. 2) A theology professor and a church member went to a house to cast out demons that were attacking a family who had recently began playing with an Ouija board. While everything was calm the Dad suddenly bent over backwards (as one would bend forwards) and began screaming that they were attacking him. He popped up and the professor put his hand on the man to pray and as he touched the Dad, the professor could not speak and complete darkness came on his eyes. His voice was shut down until he thought the phrase “In Jesus Christ name be gone.” Immediately the chaos ceased and the demons never came back. 3) A village in Africa had revival stirring as many were coming to believe in Jesus. One night several demons manifested in the form of fireballs and destroyed several homes with their fire…..Strange. Weird. Unknown.

When I consider these stories, I need to take a step back to realize how important are these stories and what do we do with them? Out of the many voids in the church today, or better, opportunities in the church today, I see the gaping ones being the a) The lack of emphasis on thinking, b) the lack of training and practice of evangelism, and c) the lack of engaging with the unknown. The most troubling of these 3 is the latter. The unknowns I am thinking of here are the Holy Spirit, the supernatural/spiritual reality, spiritual warfare, and the demonic or occult – all that the western mind and culture have not bothered to engage with much.

Here we have a few relatively unknown phenomena when considering the sum of church knowledge and practice over say the last several decades in the western church. These unknowns are those that most, if not all, evangelical churches seem to at best mention here and there in a sermon or teach about in a Sunday school class. Now, granted, I understand that some churches may be engaged with these unknowns more than others. But why is it that most of the church, a regenerating entity consisting of regenerate spirit souls seems to week after week, year after year, shield, ignore, or forget these “unknowns?”

I remember visiting many types, styles, and brands of church services over the past 10 years from Australia to Africa to Italy. The most striking feature I noticed was that in western, secular and church, communities alike there is a consistency in missing the non-physical, non-practical supernatural realms of existence. The result of which is a church that lacks belief in the power of the Holy Spirit and spiritual warfare with angels battling demons to help us poor human souls. In actuality these beliefs are dormant in the church and secular communities, which in this sense consistently merge into the day to day, here and now, and practical living.

But occasionally a Halloween springs upon us and we see costumes or we rent a scary movie and are quickly reminded of the unknown realm of something or another that has “badness” written all over it. Our “bad” shields go up and we stop engaging with the “bad” because the “bad” is unknown and foreign to us.

I liken this unknown bad realm to me swimming in the ocean here in southern California. From time to time I enjoy myself being moved about by the waves up and down here and there. Obviously, I expect a certain level of movement and momentum in an unknown direction. So I float about. Until all of the sudden a flock of big black monster demon dolphins swim by in the waves and scare me to death. It’s scary how fast they move. Thoughts of them pulling me down, drowning me, or eating me alive come to mind instantly. I immediately flounder hastily off to the shore to avoid any contact. There I was engaged with the bigness and power of the great Pacific Ocean (at least in standing water) until the “Homeland Security Unknown Level” quickly increased to the yellow “scared of the unknown” and then the red “beyond my control.”

However, the bad dolphins…ok let’s say good dolphins, and let’s say bad demons…the bad demons are not to remain in the “I’m scared of the unknown” category far too long. Why? Because that presupposition is unfounded on Scripture. Paul prepares us troops for battle in fighting the principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:10-12). Peter and James also talk about resisting the devil (1 Peter 5:8; James 4:7). Just like we are called to be knowledgeable and engage with the ministry of the Holy Spirit (praying for the sick to be healed, miraculous intervention in impossible circumstances, the conviction of hearts of the lost, the prophetic, speaking guided words of wisdom, tongues – depending on your Pentecostalism, etc.) so are we called to be knowledgeable and engaged with the bad (praying against the attacks and temptations of Satan, exorcising demons, speaking the name of Jesus Christ in the midst of darkness and depression, etc.) as regenerate souls combating the evil forces of the demonic kingdom with the light from the kingdom of heaven.

Perhaps it is not that we are “scared of the unknown” but it is that it is “beyond our control” because we lack knowledge of it…….Here we would agree with Sir Francis Bacon when he said that “knowledge is power.” Conversely, what we do not have knowledge of we cannot have power over. This is the point. Unknown things do not become known unless there is learning. Without learning about the unknown demonic realms we will have no power to resist it in temptation, no power to attack it and rescue people from it, and where the attacks are coming from will remain unknown.

Furthermore, we don’t want to engage with that which we cannot control. The unknown cannot be controlled. The Holy Spirit cannot be controlled. Thus, the Holy Spirit and His power usually moves about only in church services and lives where control is given up to him. I guess there is more to say on that some other time. Overall, when considering the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of demons and Satan, we seem powerless...

Now…This is the first step towards freedom and healing in recovery programs. My admission of powerlessness.

So where do I begin to even consider having power in this unknown realm? How can I start praying against the demons that continue to attack us and fight our angels? Well, there is much to say here, but more importantly one needs to learn for oneself how to fight by praying, seeking scripture, and seeking out believers (I recommend believers in other countries) who have had experiences fighting back. But I will say this, perspective in learning about spiritual realms is priority. Indisputably, the “bad” is not to be engaged with on an entertainment fun Ouija board level. C.S. Lewis advised, “There are 2 equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” (Screwtape Letters) For starters, I recommend Lewis’ Screwtape Letters - a book of fictitious letters written by a head demon to a lower demon in the ranks on how to oppress a particular human he is been assigned to.

While Halloween may seem silly, most just dress up pretending to be the Hamburgler, or an Amish Jew, or Arnold, further diluting the great traditions and real meaning behind our beloved Halloween holiday. Seriously, at its core Halloween represents the very dark “badness” that wants to destroy the church. This Halloween, as the demonic covers itself in cuteness, the church can easily forget the spiritual warfare that exists. We can forget how we can have dominion over it if we just learn how to. If we just have the courage to learn how to…

Didn’t FDR say it so well when he spoke of the unknown, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” I guess it’s time that I learn about dolphins.

Jeremy David Livermore, P.E.
Staff Apologist
Apologetics.com

Seeking Wrongly or Finding Rightly

2007-05-27T23:35:00.006-07:00

The “bad” belief that modernism prescribes:
In his book More Ready Than You Realize, Brian McLaren describes a boxing in of God by the modernists & foundationalists who “filter and revise...the image of God.”[1] McLaren views the premodern notion of God as inferior to the modern, and the modern inferior to the postmodern. The modern conception limits and contains God who is far greater than what the scientific and logical analysis that modernism can provide. A better understanding of God is one that can stretch the imagination and “inspire it to new heights” where “our concept of God is expanding, deepening, and growing more glorious.”[2] We can develop this understanding by engaging with postmodern unbelievers about their conceptions of God as Peter experienced with Cornelius.
But, according to McLaren, a postmodern understanding is not just big step forward from modernism, it is a radical shift of worldview. This releases any God seeker to encounter a “wild and alive” God as seen in Jesus rather than an “out of the box” God understood through “wordy, windy, systematic explanations” of modern preachers and theologians. The theological and philosophical arguments laid out in the modern era to prove God are a “downright wicked, waste of time” because they perform science experiments on the beautiful life-changing substance of God and his word. This foundationalism, building a full-proof system of understanding reality on rational and truthful propositions, pushed aside beauty and goodness in exchange for truth and nothing but the truth. Overall, McLaren argues that beliefs are much more complex and dynamic than what modern foundationalism prescribes. Beliefs develop not so neatly and simply, they are more like webs that are being “plucked or stretched or even broken…and people are always seeking to mend tears and bolster sags and cover holes.”[3]
Unfortunately, because the only available version of Christianity is a modern one, McLaren resolves that we may have to conform to a religion that claims it embodies truth, goodness, and beauty, but the just opposite is conveyed by its modern subscribers. A seeker needs to see goodness and beauty in a relationship and accept truths of the faith as that relationship develops, rather than being forced to swallow heavy doctrine or just believe four laws and say a statement that guarantees with full certainty that one is saved. That is why, for McLaren, “belonging must precede believing.”[4]
The good belief that modernism discovered:
McLaren, a leader of the emerging church movement, attacks, misrepresents, and condemns modernism and foundationalism on false premises. Not only does he begin with pure ignorance of the content and nature of the work of the scholastics, moderns, and rationalists, but expresses to know the understanding of God in the minds of modern believers. He states, “Modern Christianity has (inadvertently, I think) tended to reduce God to a being containable by human concepts, propositions, or logic.”[5] This is not an accurate representation, summary, or historical analysis of anything the written or thought in the modern era. Works produced then (and now still) are truly the opposite and what McLaren himself seems to be advocating, an seeking-type understanding of God. Thinkers wrote out lengthy systematic accounts of theology and philosophy in an attempt to discover God and his nature. That is, the “Enlightenment project,” as McLaren phrases it, truly allowed some thinkers to mentally reach out into the supernatural and try to touch the supernatural nature of God as a worship type of experience. This was the spiritual seeking of some brilliant and pious minds. If McLaren faults them for their logical and rational journey to God, he would be contradicting his entire post-modern scheme. To the others who set out to prove God and satisfy their “dynamic” thoughts is the scope of the philosopher, theologian, and, yes, the postmodern. The entire purpose of any spiritual-religious experience, modern or postmodern, is to seek and find, not seek and get lost.
This seeking is not just built on rationalism, although some thinkers then were pure rationalists. The worldview of a modern thinker was developed by encountering the goodness, beauty, and truth of God himself, rather than from a well-meaning parishioner that they built a relationship with. It is important to note that while one could be rightly praised for seeking sincerely, it is ridiculous to praise those who sincerely seek not God and blindly seek that which is not the object of their own seeking. Modernism seems to allow the more open and free spiritual journey, one that is purely divine in direction and not vulnerable to the misinterpretations of many other similar seekers. This is a far cry from a “domesticated God who is owned by Christianity.”[6] On the contrary, modernism allows for compelling testimonies of how one seeks to find God, and maybe with use of his mental faculties, succeeds.
[1] McLaren, Brian. More Ready Than You Realize. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan) 2005, page 53.
[2] Ibid, page 53.
[3] Ibid, page 130.
[4] Ibid, page 85.
[5] Ibid, page 145. The parentheses are entirely his words - he thinks this result of Modernism was inadvertent.
[6] Ibid, page 145.

Post-Modernity and the Fall of the “Modern Church”

2007-05-27T23:35:00.005-07:00

The argument for the existence of the emerging church
According to Gibbs & Bolger, the current church structure and institution formed and developed into what it is now during the birth of the modern era and the Reformation. The style, principles, and practices of the modern Reformation church shaped primarily in response to modernism, the invention of the printing press, and exclusion of Catholic dogma of the Reformation churches. The church, at that time, sought to reject tradition in favor of accepting the word of God alone and faith for salvation alone (sola scriptura & sola fide) as means for becoming independent from Ecclesiastic tyranny. This protest (hence Protestantism) was never meant to be permanent, or at least shouldn’t have, but rather a reaction and revolution to exclusive righteousness and sacredness.
But the church adopted linear, rational, absolutist thinking that modernism prescribed to the church theologians. As a result, the both the Protestant and Catholic church, propelled by modernity, marginalized the sacred and the secular. Thus, in that time, the church and society both began to think dualistically, in that, each separated the “natural and supernatural, the public facts versus private values, body versus mind and spirit, faith versus reason.”[1]
This formed the church as we know it now, with just few minor secondary changes, such as the genre of the song being sung or the charismatic homiletics of the pastor. Our church today then, is at least 400 years old in its delivery of the message and the imitation of Jesus. Today’s culture is “postmodern” rather than modern, and “postmodern culture questions the legitimacy of these dualisms.” Gibbs and Bolger state that as “modernity began to crumble, the modern church shared its fate…and the church found itself defending its modern ethos.” The emerging church is necessary then to keep the church alive and fulfill the desires of postmodern culture “for holistic spirituality.”[2]
Response to Gibbs & Bolger
By making sweeping generalizations that are radically false, Gibbs and Bolger fallaciously construct the story of a stubborn irrelevant church whose middle age filter of reality leads to suicide. The emerging church is the hero that answers the culture’s crying call. But somehow, the church is secular and the culture is spiritual. This assessment should be completely rejected in light of sociological/historical facts, logic, and truth.
Precluding the modern era, at the least, cultures such as Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian, observed clear dualism of the aforementioned and a complete picture of universals and absolutes. This is an obvious truth, to which rejected would be in defiance of all the literature produced from Socrates up to the modern era! But on page 66, Gibbs and Bolger instead state, “Spirituality as a separate domain was unknown. With the birth of modernity in the West, the tie between religion and the rest of life was broken…Modernity was about the birth of secular space.” This is clearly false and the attempt to define the church as a variable in modernism’s formula is shows a lack of education on Gibbs and Bolger’s part.
Gibbs and Bolger use worship in chapter 4 to drive their point home, saying that “all of life must be sacred…All can be made holy. All can be given to God in worship. All modern dualisms can be overcome.”[3] This seems to mean that completely evil acts and places can be given to God in worship. But is this the worship that God accepts? John 4:24 prescribes that “his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” Although God will accept the sinner and not the sin, God is proactive in His call to conform to holiness and change occurs as a sinner receives His irresistible grace.
Finally, it is not coherent at all how Gibbs and Bolger make sense when they state that “secular music becomes holy and therefore the rest of their lives becomes holy as well.” But, how do you glorify God with something that may be contrary to His nature and ways? They further state that “a linear or text-based ecclesiology perpetuates secularity in the church and denies the church’s call to live incarnationally.”[4] What call are they referring to? Jesus taught to be in this world but not of this world. Paul did not mean accept sin when he said that he became all things to all men. Presenting to God our lives as we are in our culture specific context need not be falsifying to his nature or contrary to his ways, as the authors allow. This is not to say that God will not accept and redeem ourselves as we are, but he calls us to come out of our darkness and into his light.

[1] Gibbs, Eddie & Bolger. Ryan, Emerging Churches – Creating Christian Community in postmodern cultures. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic Publishing), 2005. Page 67.
[2] Ibid, page 88.
[3] Ibid, page 66.
[4] Ibid, page 71.

Postmodernism meets Christianity: An Investigation on the Imbalance of Experience, Grace, and Truth in Postmodern Christianity

2007-05-27T23:35:00.004-07:00

1) Introduction – Spiritual experiences are sought after by every human
a) In our time and culture, spiritual experiences are more rare
b) As a result, there is a struggle to have spiritual experiences, especially by Christians, in our culture
c) Our culture is postmodern
d) In postmodern cultures there is also a lack of balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences.
e) Experiences, including spiritual, drive and govern postmodern Christianity as they do a postmodern society.
f) Postmodernism and postmodern Christianity lead to a grace-only and experience-only lifestyle and worldview.
i) The postmodern Christian is frustrated with this lack of spiritual experiences and focuses this energy on experiential forms of Christianity.
ii) Because the postmodern Christian does not have an appropriate balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences, he struggles with alternative experiential overcompensating grace-truth ventures, as a substitute for the true spiritual experiences he actually is seeking.
(1) The formation of emerging churches is due to the postmodern Christian’s struggle to have spiritual experiences and his adopting of some form of postmodern Christianity.
g) An experience-only focus or a grace-only focus to Christianity will lead to heretical beliefs.
h) For sound Christianity, there must be a balance between seeking spiritual experiences, seeking grace, and understanding the truth that corresponds to reality.
i) Postmodernism and Postmodern Christianity ought to be rejected because they are unsound systems of thought that disregard knowing objective truth that corresponds with reality.
2) The Postmodern Christians growing frustrations
a) There is a growing frustration among postmodern Christians regarding the truth that modernism champions within the church
i) Modernism has brought on an over-emphasis in truth and dogma so there is a need to overcompensate and tone down truth.
ii) There is little to no room to ask questions or challenge,
(1) especially for the younger believers
(a) Postmodern Christians are mostly 30 and younger
(2) especially for the seeker
(3) especially for the newly saved
iii) Modern thought regarding certainty of truth is completely repulsive because
(1) it segregates those that claim they know
(2) no truth can be known with certainty
iv) there is need to overemphasize the spiritual journey and story because of the overemphasis and falsity on an individual salvation experience of modernism
(1) modernism sees salvation as an event
(2) modernism sees “winning people” to Christ
(3) modernism sees the gospel as simple, essential truths
v) there is a need to overemphasize the wonder and mystery of God because of the strict analysis and confinement of God in modernism’s strict philosophical theology.
(1) modernism sees God as rigid and controlling
(2) the plethora of catechisms, works of systematic theology, doctrines, etc…
vi) All the overemphasis and overcompensating of non-truth oriented views of the postmodern Christian results in an imbalance towards non-truthful beliefs.
b) There is a growing frustration among postmodern Christians regarding the non-graceful attitude that modern Christians possess.
i) There is a need to overcompensate for their misguided brothers’ and sisters’ religious uptight attitude.
(1) more emphasis on the poor and needy
(2) more emphasis on caring for those who seem to be society’s outcast
(3) more emphasis on the community rather than the individual
(4) results in over-emphasis on grace
ii) modernism produced this controlling and conquering attitude in Christians to society and the unbeliever
(1) the postmodern Christian actually is repulsed and has a non-graceful attitude to his brother and sister in Christ and a graceful attitude towards the unbeliever.
(2) Thus, the grace of the postmodern Christian is imbalanced in this direction.
iii) other non-postmodern trends that Modernism in the church has produced
c) There is a growing frustration among postmodern Christians regarding the complete lack of spiritual experiences one has.
i) Modernism drove out this openness of the manifestations and actualization of the spiritual experiences.
ii) Modernism focused on rational proofs.
iii) In the modern era, the Roman Catholic gatekeepers of knowledge were denounced in the reformation.
(1) the rise of Protestantism gave way to the word openly read and preached to laity.
(2) the new availability required structure, corrective theology, debates, and detailed systematic analysis of the truth.
(3) this resulted in an overly developed system and body of knowledge as the ultimate truth.
(4) spirituality took the back seat and did not develop since the Roman Catholic era.
(5) the emphasis on art was discontinued as worship
(6) certain catholic liturgical practices were discontinued
(7) symbolism of the Byzantines and Catholicism was denounced as idolatrous
(8) religion was confined to the mind,
(a) cannot hang rosary or crosses in physical space
(b) cannot express oneself artistically
(c) cannot have an emotional or spiritual posture
(d) cannot have conflicting views that don’t align with the truth.
iv) Modernism in the church has produced
(1) apologetics as a defense
(2) the Christian life as a belief system
(3) excessive focus on the individual
(4) purveyor of religious goods and services
v) Spirituality and awareness of the supernatural and divine were pushed into the privatized non-public state.
vi) Only the charismatics and Pentecostals were opened to it, but branded radicals and extremists by conservatives.
vii) Postmodern Christians hunger for these spiritual experiences but aren’t comfortable with the style and content of charismatics and Pentecostals because they are just modernists at heart with some added weirdness.
3) Values of the postmodern Christian that seem solid and good
a) There is a well-received drive for authenticity and genuine friendship.
i) To actually come broken and as we are to our church community for healing and change is needed in every church, protestant or catholic, evangelical or emerging.
ii) This emphasis is a great start to eliminate fakeness and hypocrisy of every Christians
b) The drive for community rather than individuality
c) The drive for new forms of worshipping God
d) The drive for stories and narratives to enter into our understanding when examining Biblical literature.
e) The 3 core and 6 related practices of Gibbs & Bolger’s analysis may have good and solid intentions to them but not all are to be accepted.
i) Identifying with the life of Jesus (core)
ii) Transforming secular space (core)
iii) Living as community (core)
iv) Welcoming the stranger
v) Serving with generosity
vi) Participating as producers
vii) Created as created being
viii) eading as a body
ix) Taking part in spiritual activities
f) There is a well-needed warning to not use language to control and oppress peoples.
g) There is a well-needed warning to not embrace scientism or reductionism as a worldview as the modern era prescribes.
4) Four approaches to evangelism in western cultures.

a) Power Evangelism
i) This approach is open to supernatural activity taking place to persuade the person to experience God’s divine love and changing of their life through the manifestations of the Holy Spirit as signs and wonders such as:
(1) Physical healing
(2) Mental healing
(3) Emotional healing
(4) Deliverance from enemy oppression
(a) Could be demon possession
(b) Or could be oppression resulting in the forms of the physical, mental, or emotional
(5) “Being Slain in the Spirit”
(6) Prophecy
(a) Words of knowledge
(b) Words of wisdom
(c) Words regarding the past
(d) Words for the future
b) Holy/Life Evangelism
i) This approach involves walking out the Christian faith to reflect the light of God’s love to the world by means of an attractive lifestyle.
(1) This approach tends to be very practical and natural.
(a) Giving food to the homeless
(b) Other acts of kindness
(2) One would not verbally express the gospel message, but rather lives righteously and lives a life that resembles Jesus’ life the most.
c) Straight up Evangelism
i) This approach involves verbally expressing the gospel message.
(1) This tends to be thought of as the biblical approach as we read about the gospel being “preached” and many convert.
(2) Here, one can use apologetics, Scripture, and any other means to reach the unbeliever in a loving and appropriate manner.
(3) This may vary from giant crusades where thousands of people “get saved” or 2 people on a college campus discussing the essential Christian doctrines that lead to salvation.
d) Spiritual story/journey Evangelism
i) This approach involves building a solid relationship with another that is authentic, transparent, and open to being real so that the other can have the spiritual experiences of God along their journey (in their story) without the Christian getting in the way.
(1) Here, one relates to the other person on the same level, treating another as equally valuable, loving and living life out together without any strings attached or ulterior motives (winning their soul).
(2) This approach emphasizes key aspects of Postmodernism and Christian Postmodernism.
(a) Allowing one to be open to interpret God as it seems to make sense to the person.
(b) Not imposing one’s own beliefs on the other.
(c) Not putting up a front of righteousness and being better.
(d) Not hiding behind religion or being fake.
5) Some comparisons of Modernism and Postmodernism
a) Nancy Murphy’s (influential philosopher on Emerging Church Leaders) view
i) Modernism
(1) Fundamentalist/conservative modernism
(a) knowledge: scriptural foundationalism
(b) language: propositionalism
(c) divine action: interventionalism
(d) relationship with science: commensurable
(2) Liberal modernism
(a) Knowledge: experiential foundationalism
(b) Language: expressivism
(c) Divine Action: immanentism
(d) Relationship with science: incommensurable
ii) Postmodern
(1) Knowledge: holistic, nonfoudationalist
(2) Language: much more than referential or expressive; we do things with it and in “ways of life”
(3) Science & Divine Action: not reductionistic, but holistic, causation is top down, not just bottom up; supervenience of higher levels upon lower ones.
b) Tony Jones’s view
i) Modernism vs. Postmodernism
(1) Rational vs. Experiential
(2) Scientific vs. Spiritual
(3) Unanimity vs. Pluralistic
(4) Exclusive vs. Relative
(5) Egocentric vs. Altruistic
(6) Individualistic vs. Communal
(7) Functional vs. Creative
(8) Industrial vs. Environmental
(9) Local vs. Global
(10) Compartmentalized vs. Holistic
(11) Relevant vs. Authentic
c) Scott Smith’s view
i) Modernism: Emphasized confidence in human reason, apart from divine revelation, could know universal truths in all subject matters.
ii) Postmodernism: emphasizes the fallibility of human reason, as well as its biases, and how it is all too often used to oppress people.
iii) Modernism: the inevitability of progress and flourishing for the human.
iv) Postmodernism: the decay and destruction occur when humans are in power and hold the keys to knowledge of the people.
v) Modernism: emphasized the objective truths that can apply to all people in every culture.
vi) Postmodernism: emphasizes pluralism and no imperialistic, oppressive “values” that can impose or disrupt another.
6) Understanding and Assessing Postmodernism
a) Postmodernism is difficult to define
i) Because most of those who are living in it don’t even know what it is
ii) Because even the academic community of scholars and thinkers have varying views of it
iii) Because it rejects the following
(1) Objective universal truths
(2) Objective rationality
(3) Authorial meaning in texts
(4) The existence of stable verbal meanings
(5) Universally valid linguistic definitions
(6) The possibility of accurate definitions
(7) A God’s eye view of things
(8) Non-biased views
(9) Beliefs that are not theory laden
iv) And because postmodernism embraces the following
(1) Religious pluralism: embrace everyone except those who claim exclusivity.
(2) All truth is relative.
(3) Perception is reality
(4) Some neo-Kantian postmodern’s embrace that an external reality exists but claim that we have no way of getting at it, so it is a useless notion, and can be forgot about.
b) Some brief characteristics of Postmodernism
i) It is a historical and chronological notion and is a philosophical ideology
(1) Historically, it is a period of thought following and reacting to modernism
(a) It needs to be mentioned here that certain thoughts of Hume, Descartes, and Kant are better positioned in the postmodern era.
(b) Cultural influences of modernity
(i) the desire to control and conquer
(ii) the age of the machine
(iii) the age of analysis
(iv) quest for certainty and totalizing knowledge
(v) a critical age
(vi) nation-states
(vii) emphasis on the individual
(viii) Protestantism
(ix) widespread consumerism
(2) Chronologically, it began and in some sense replaced modernism
(3) Philosophically, it reinterprets what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge
(a) It represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self, and other notions.
(b) It holds to an anti-realist rejection of the notions metaphysical realism:
(i) the existence of a theory-independent or language independent reality
(ii) there is one way the world really is
(iii) the basic laws of logic apply to reality
1. for the postmodern, logic is a Western construction and are in know way taken to be universally valid laws of reality itself.
c) The “linguistic turn” of the 20th century
i) Before this turn, based on the philosophy of Kant and many others, we were stuck behind our thoughts or impressions and cannot know reality.
ii) Derrida, Kuhn, Foucault, Lyotard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Russell, and others advocated that we are stuck inside of language and cannot know reality.
iii) We cannot escape from its influences to know an objective reality, although it does exist.
(1) Language and the world are “internally related”
(a) There is no thinking in this world that occurs outside of language.
(i) One cannot think without it.
(b) Language actually enters reality and makes reality what it is.
(c) We construct our world by the use of our language
(i) language is autonomous
(ii) the construction of language is a product of human activity
(iii) adoption of grammatical rules is due to convention not due to some-higher level rules
(d) There is a real world but there is no direct experience of it.
(i) No knowledge by direct acquaintance; i.e., no direct simple seeing
(ii) All seeing is interpretative seeing
(iii) The every experience of the things themselves is a matter of interpretation
(2) Language is the grid or filter that stands between us and objective reality.
(3) There is no essence or nature to language. There are just many languages.
(4) We cannot use language to get outside of language.
(5) We cannot use language to define the limits of language.
(a) There is no single fundamental use of language.
(i) Assertive
(ii) Interrogative
(iii) Metaphorical
(iv) Poetic
(b) A word does not have a unique essential meaning that can be derived from logical analysis.
(i) i.e., overlapping, loosely structured similarities in the use of a word compromise its meaning.
d) Meaning and value is primarily a behavioral matter in a linguistically formed community
i) We make our own social world by the use of language.
(1) Each community constructs their world
(a) “Knowledge is a construction of one’s social & linguistic structures, not a justified, truthful representation of reality by one’s mental states”
(b) The knowledge attained by a professional organization, scientists, or research institution is a construction that represents the social & linguistic structures of that group, and do not necessarily apply to any other group.
(2) Our only understanding of the real world is from how we talk about it.
(3) There are as many worlds as there are communities.
ii) Deconstructionism
(1) In a sense first developed by Jacques Derrida
(a) Key to Deconstructionism is that everything is interpretation
(i) Every experience & impression of reality is interpretation
(b) Because we work within language, we cannot escape its pervasive influences to know an objective reality independent of us.
(2) We cannot get at or know the intention of an author when he or she wrote a text
(a) There is know fixed or inherent meaning in any text.
(b) There are no identities
(c) Meanings are subjected to the interpretation of the reader who brings certain things to the text.
(d) Our interpretations reveal more about us than any intended meaning of the author
(i) It reveals our biases, power interests, privileged points of view
(e) This is the “death of the author”
(i) He is in no privileged position to interpret his own work.
(3) We ought to question everything & be skeptical about people’s views
(a) What motivates people is a quest for power.
(b) By deconstructing modern thought we can unmask the modern quest for certainty and truth
(c) Unmasking the will to power and totalizing control
(4) Other attempts at a definition:
(a) Similarly, in the context of religious studies Paul Ricoeur (1983) defined deconstruction as a way of uncovering the questions behind the answers of a text or tradition (Klein 1995).
(b) "[Deconstruction] signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics.
(c) Whenever deconstruction finds a nutshell -- a secure axiom or a pithy maxim -- the very idea is to crack it open and disturb this tranquility.
iii) The rejection of dichotomous thinking
(1) dichotomous thinking occurs when someone divides stuff into 2 groups and then prefers one group over the other
(a) e.g.: real/unreal; good/bad; beautiful/ugly; rational/irrational; right/wrong; virtue/vice; true false
(b) the first member of each group is to be preferred.
(2) divisions and preferences are social constructions and may vary accordingly.
iv) Some implications of postmodernism on the Christian.
(1) Christians who have adopted postmodernism have gathered and formed various diverging communities into what is now known as the emerging church (The postmodern Christian’s Church).
(2) Some key leaders of the emerging church
(a) Tony Jones
(b) Brian McLaren
(c) Dan Kimball
(d) Doug Pagitt
(e) Todd Hunter
(f) Dieter Zander
(g) Barry Taylor
(h) Mark Scandrette
(i) Spencer Burke
(j) Eddie Gibbs
(k) Ryan K. Bolger
(l) Paul Roberts (U.K.)
(3) Some postmodern Christian philosophers
(a) Nancy Murphy
(b) Stanley J. Grenz
(c) John R. Franke
(d) Stanley Hauerwas
(e) Brad Kallenberg
(4) The postmodern Christian’s view
(a) On Compassion
(i) They have developed a concern for the postmodern person.
(ii) They have learned the language
(iii) They have great compassion
(iv) They have a great heart for world missions & cross-cultural ties.
1. Emerging Christians are effective with their use of stories.
(b) On Morality
(i) The moral life is not just making the right decision
(ii) Not or choosing that which produces the most good,
(iii) It is about vision, seeing rightly and thus act appropriately.
(iv) This vision requires stories
1. stories help us to connect with the unknowns of the world
(v) This vision requires learning the ways of a particular community
1. in this case the community is the church
2. learning ways means to perceive the world how that community perceives it, i.e., seeing it through their vision
(c) On Language
(i) In order to see the world, we must learn the language of a particular community.
(ii) One language is just one perspective on the world
(iii) Nobody or no culture has the only true and right perspective
1. Christians have learned the language of the church.
2. Christians have adopted the “story” of the Bible
a. Just as a community describes their world through their language so they can see it, Christians can describe the world with the language of the Bible so that they can see it.
b. Our story should reflect the story of Jesus.
c. It is our community standard.
(iv) “we do not come to know the world by perceiving it (direct acquaintance), but we come to know the world as we learn to use our language.”
(v) “Inside language”
1. Being inside language does not mean that language is a wall between us and the world.
2. It means that the effects of language are so deep, that we cannot experience anything or think about anything without its alterations.
a. We cannot take off our spectacles.
b. We cannot have direct acquaintance knowledge of the world.
c. Everything is an interpretation.
3. We cannot escape from language and its pervasive influences to
a. see reality rightly
b. know reality rightly
c. live rightly
(vi) We “make” our worlds by how we talk. “Language does not represent reality, it constitutes reality.”
1. We use the rules of grammar and certain phrases
2. We say things like
a. Repenting
b. Forgiving
c. Witnessing
3. Using these certain words doesn’t just describe our world but it shapes and makes our worlds.
4. If we aren’t using our language accurately, our community corrects us.
5. My identity is not my soul, but is my story which my character lives out.
(d) On Witnessing
(i) Witnessing is adopting an embodied apologetic
(ii) we can live out the gospel story and show its truth within our community
(iii) we encourage nonbelievers to “come and see” the truth of our story by “trying on” and by learning how Christians talk and live one can see the truth of our faith, to which cannot be seen from the outside.
(iv) Postmodern Christian’s reject the traditional approach because…
1. Traditional evangelical apologetics and witnessing are about proving one’s understanding of reality is the correct one.
2. Giving arguments and approaching witnessing like this presupposes that one has escaped language.
3. Foundationalism is dead.
(v) So, to some postmodern Christians the gospel story is in fact the true one, but we cannot know it or prove it.
(e) On the Christian life
(i) Without being able to know objective reality we can learn to see the world rightly by cultivating the skill of the Christian life.
(ii) the more we learn the language and behavior of the Christian community, the more we can see the truthfulness of the Christian story.
(iii) this is the training within the Christian story
(f) On Salvation
(i) Salvation is not accepting 4 spiritual laws and understanding objective reality regarding religion.
(ii) It is a process of being engrafted into the practices of the Christian community.
(g) On Modernism
(i) For the postmodern Christian, all of this is not relativism
(ii) The charge of relativism is just enlightenment fiction.
(iii) That would presuppose that one can have knowledge of objective reality.
(iv) Which is one claim of one particular “modern era” type of community of the in western world.
(h) On Reality
(i) There is no transcultural intellectual vantage point only interpretative grids, but we can have 3 hooks onto reality…
(ii) we can know that the universe came along without us knowing it or having language about it, but we have to get rid of the need for extending the linguistically formed world we live in to the rest of creation.
(iii) After Jesus returns we can know everything about reality.
(iv) Even though we can never get outside of language, the Holy Spirit can intervene and give us objective truth through the language of our community.
(5) Some views of Brian McLaren
(a) In his book More Ready Than You Realize, Brian McLaren describes a boxing in of God by the modernists & foundationalists who “filter and revise...the image of God.”
(i) McLaren views the premodern notion of God as inferior to the modern, and the modern inferior to the postmodern.
(ii) The modern conception limits and contains God who is far greater than what the scientific and logical analysis that modernism can provide.
(iii) A better understanding of God is one that can stretch the imagination and “inspire it to new heights” where “our concept of God is expanding, deepening, and growing more glorious.”
(iv) We can develop this understanding by engaging with postmodern unbelievers about their conceptions of God as Peter experienced with Cornelius.
(b) But, according to McLaren, a postmodern understanding is not just big step forward from modernism, it is a radical shift of worldview.
(i) This releases any God seeker to encounter a “wild and alive” God as seen in Jesus rather than an “out of the box” God understood through “wordy, windy, systematic explanations” of modern preachers and theologians.
(ii) The theological and philosophical arguments laid out in the modern era to prove God are a “downright wicked, waste of time” because they perform science experiments on the beautiful life-changing substance of God and his word.
(iii) This foundationalism, building a full-proof system of understanding reality on rational and truthful propositions, pushed aside beauty and goodness in exchange for truth and nothing but the truth.
(c) Overall, McLaren argues that beliefs are much more complex and dynamic than what modern foundationalism prescribes.
(i) Beliefs develop not so neatly and simply, they are more like webs that are being “plucked or stretched or even broken…and people are always seeking to mend tears and bolster sags and cover holes.”
(ii) Unfortunately, because the only available version of Christianity is a modern one, McLaren resolves that we may have to conform to a religion that claims it embodies truth, goodness, and beauty, but the just opposite is conveyed by its modern subscribers.
(iii) A seeker needs to see goodness and beauty in a relationship and accept truths of the faith as that relationship develops, rather than being forced to swallow heavy doctrine or just believe four laws and say a statement that guarantees with full certainty that one is saved.
(iv) That is why, for McLaren, “belonging must precede believing.”
(6) Some views of Eddie Gibbs & Ryan K. Bolger
(a) According to Gibbs & Bolger, the current church structure and institution formed and developed into what it is now during the birth of the modern era and the Reformation.
(i) The style, principles, and practices of the modern Reformation church shaped primarily in response to modernism, the invention of the printing press, and exclusion of Catholic dogma of the Reformation churches.
(ii) The church, at that time, sought to reject tradition in favor of accepting the word of God alone and faith for salvation alone (sola scriptura & sola fide) as means for becoming independent from Ecclesiastic tyranny.
(iii) This protest (hence Protestantism) was never meant to be permanent, or at least shouldn’t have, but rather a reaction and revolution to exclusive righteousness and sacredness.
(b) But the church adopted linear, rational, absolutist thinking that modernism prescribed to the church theologians.
(i) As a result, the both the Protestant and Catholic church, propelled by modernity, marginalized the sacred and the secular.
(ii) Thus, in that time, the church and society both began to think dualistically, in that, each separated the “natural and supernatural, the public facts versus private values, body versus mind and spirit, faith versus reason.”
(iii) This formed the church as we know it now, with just few minor secondary changes, such as the genre of the song being sung or the charismatic homiletics of the pastor.
(c) Our church today then, is at least 400 years old in its delivery of the message and the imitation of Jesus.
(i) Today’s culture is “postmodern” rather than modern, and “postmodern culture questions the legitimacy of these dualisms.”
(ii) Gibbs and Bolger state that as “modernity began to crumble, the modern church shared its fate…and the church found itself defending its modern ethos.”
(iii) The emerging church is necessary then to keep the church alive and fulfill the desires of postmodern culture “for holistic spirituality.”
(7) Some other quotes & thoughts from some postmodern Christians
(a) “Propositional truth is out and mysticism is in. People are not necessarily put off by a religion that does not ‘make sense’ – they are more concerned with whether a religion can bring them into contact with God.”
(b) “the beauty of the spirit controlling the text is that it can and indeed have different meanings in different times… and that the Spirit can use our own experiences and viewpoints to enlighten us to the meaning of the Word.”
(c) “Christianity will be true merely because that is how we talk as Christians.”
(d) For the postmodern Christian, “Even though we say that Jesus is the truth, there is still no way in history to prove it as such.”
(e) Foundationalism is against biblical teaching because it prevents faith, rejects the sinfulness of our intelligence, and grasping an infinite God is not only impossible but is dishonorable.
7) Evaluating Postmodernism and Postmodern Christianity
a) The rejection of Foundationalism by postmodernists seems to be mistaken.
i) No philosopher today thinks that we need to have absolute “bombproof certainty” as McLaren and Descartes thought they needed.
ii) Foundationalism is not dead and is not about attaining Cartesian certainty.
iii) Regarding knowledge and skepticism…
(1) We do not need to buy into the skeptics line of reasoning as Descartes did when he developed what we now call foundationalism.
(2) Descartes thought that the base foundation for which all beliefs can be developed must consist of indubitable beliefs. This is called Cartesian Foundationalism.
iv) Many if not most philosophers today are moderate foundationalists.
(1) This implies that there are other forms of foundationalism that are more appealing than Cartesian foundationalism.
v) Moderate Foundationalism ought not to be rejected.
(1) I am entitled to know things even without knowing them 100%. I.e., knowledge does not mean that I could not be mistaken.
(2) The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show why I cant know what I know. Defeating my view than, requires more than asking the question “Is it just possible that I could be mistaken.” I do not need to feel like I have to justify my view nor refute the skeptic.
(3) Full 100% certainty is not necessary for knowledge.
(4) Knowledge is justified true belief.
(a) Person S, knows a proposition, Y, if and only if: Y is true, S believes Y, and Y is justified for S.
(b) Furthermore, 1 & 3 are taken to be both necessary and sufficient conditions for “S knows Y.”
(c) Beliefs can have degrees of justification.
(i) Burden of Persuasion
1. This is the level of proof required for one to justify his claim.
2. P * G = B: Probability * Gravity = Burden of Persuasion
a. Example: Bomb in the cafeteria
b. Low probability * high gravity = maybe we should leave
c. Example: Hell
d. Say…10% to 25% Probability * very high gravity = one may want to commit to investigation.
(ii) The various levels of justification/certainty of a belief can be thought of as following:
1. 0%-10%- Complete skepticism
a. Absolutely unable to believe
2. 10%-25% - Reasonable suspicion
a. Cops can frisk you
3. 25%-50.0% – Probable cause
a. Warrant out for my arrest
4. 50.1%-75% - Preponderance of the Evidence
a. Civil Cases-Means more probable than not
5. 75%-90% - Clear and Convincing Evidence
a. Special Legal Circumstances
6. 90%-99.9% - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
a. Criminal Law Standard
7. 100.0% - Beyond all doubt absolute
a. Absolutely cannot deny, 100% certainty
(iii) Or the various levels of justification/certainty of a belief can be thought of as following:
1. Certain: 6
2. Obvious: 5
3. Evident: 4
4. Beyond reasonable doubt: 3
5. Epistemically in the clear: 2
6. Probable: 1
7. Counterbalanced: 0
a. This means that the evidence for and against the proposition offset each other.
8. Probably false: -1
9. In the clear to disbelieve: -2
10. Reasonable to disbelieve: -3
11. Evidently false: -4
12. Obviously false: -5
13. Certainly false: -6
(iv) I can have a belief regarding something that has negative epistemic status.
1. Even though it is still a belief, unjustified beliefs do not count as knowledge.
(d) Beliefs can be true or false.
(i) A belief is true if it corresponds to reality.
1. The proposition, “The planet earth is more of a spherical shape rather than a square shape.” is true if and only if earth does in fact resemble more of a sphere than a square.
(ii) A belief is false if it does not correspond to reality.
1. The proposition, “The planet earth is more of a square shape rather than a spherical shape.” is false if and only if earth does in fact resemble more of a sphere than a square.
(5) The issue is of access to objective reality.
(a) If we do actually have access to the real world and can know things as they are in themselves, than moderate foundationalism ought not to be rejected.
(b) It seems that we do have direct awareness that the postmodernists reject.
(c) Thus, moderate foundationalism ought not to be rejected.
b) The postmodern view, that because culture defines reality to the individual worldviews are shaped, seems to be a stretch from common sense.
i) Postmodernism teaches culture presses any individual, Christian or not, to align their worldview with the predominant one.
(1) Exposure to media, people, and ideas of the culture will attempt to cause this.
(2) But, how does one, who was developed as a “modern” child, and as an adult verifies and confirms his non-postmodern worldview, survive and thrive when his view differs and never conforms?
(3) Under postmodernism, happiness and flourishing is self-satisfying, which can only be obtained by embracing the predominant understanding of reality.
(4) Without this conformance one will always be swimming upstream, against the flow, denying the self.
(5) Anxiety, depression, and doubt will come to the striving individual until he or she accepts the media, people, and ideas of the culture. That is, until one stops denying the self to please the self.
ii) So according to postmodernism, understanding reality today, like any other day in history, involves perceiving the internal and external through the presuppositions one holds.
(1) One cannot escape the lens he or she uses to perceive.
(2) Thus, the individual can only experience a filtered image and not know reality entirely. “The postmodernists claim we have these presuppositions to start with.
(3) That is, we have no direct contact with reality, because we see reality through something, our language, ethnicity, culture.
(4) Thus, we see the world through glasses, through our presuppositions, through ‘seeing as’ rather than ‘seeing that.’”
(5) This line of thought comes from the rationalist philosophy of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume something that actually developed during the modern era and ought to be rejected.
(6) This worldview is misguided in light of the fact that I have direct awareness of reality and can know it in its entirety.
(7) Common sense realism seems to be far more easy to accept in light of the fact that I can see the object for what it is.
c) Other reasons why postmodernism and postmodern Christianity seem to difficult to adopt.
i) A severe implications of postmodernism is that God exists relative to Christians and does not exist relative to atheists. This is not a very useful position for maintaining or advocating one’s faith.
ii) With only local narratives and without meta-narratives or worldviews Christianity is just as valid a Buddhism, Islamic, or the naturalists perspective as reality.
iii) Postmoderns misinterpret and do not describe Modernism accurately
(1) Some of the views that they say that modernism brought about have been around for centuries before.
(2) Some of the views that modernism brought about do not have the severely damaging implications on our society and our Christian faith that they describe.
(3) Postmoderns do not discuss that the other major philosophical development of the Enlightenment or Modern era project was empiricism.
(a) McLaren characterizes that period as only giving birth to Rationalism.
(i) Rationalism: Knowledge is from reason alone.
1. Modern Rationalists: Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Malebranche, & Pascal
(ii) Empiricism: All knowledge is forthcoming from sense experiences.
1. Modern Empiricists: Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Newton, Berkeley, & Hume
(b) Empiricism is an idea that roots and shapes postmodernism, so even if McLaren and Jones do characterize and define the modern era and its effects appropriately, which they do not do, they ought not be so hasty to throw out modernism, which they do in fact do, because most of the ideology of postmodernism is taken from some key works produced during the modern era, namely the empiricists mentioned above.
(4) There are plenty of other ways in which the issues that postmoderns and postmoderns Christians bring can be resolved without adopting postmodernism.
(5) Overall, postmoderns and postmodern Christians misrepresent the modern era and mis-prescribe the solution.
iv) The energy postmodern Christian uses in struggle to have spiritual experiences can be redirected to the more efficient venture of pursuing wholeness in Christ.
v) Postmodern Christians may have great intentions but intentions and sincerity aren’t enough.
vi) Regarding God
(1) Christians make (construct) God
(2) Christians cannot know God as He is if we are on the inside of language.
(3) Christians construct God by how we talk. We make him into what He is-for us.
(4) This is absurd and turns Christians into idolators because we would be worshipping a god that’s different than the real God.
(5) Or if postmodernism is an actually adopted, this would contradict the “grammer” of our own language, the Bible, and cannot hope to live what the Bible teaches.
8) Rejecting the main points of postmodernism and the main points of Christian postmodernism
a) Rejecting the claim that we cannot know objective reality because of our bias.
i) Postmoderns incorrectly state that Experience affects doctrine & doctrine affects experience.
ii) This is just not true if sound doctrine corresponds with reality. I.e., if one holds to a objective realist view, than one’s private experiences of objective reality would not change or alter reality – Reality simply is what it is.
iii) Psychological objectivity
(1) It is possible to be psychologically objective on issues one is not interested in or hasn’t thought about.
(2) Most people are not psychologically objective on issues they have thought about deeply.
(3) The lack of psychological objectivity does not imply a lack of rationally objectivity.
iv) Rational Objectivity
(1) When one discerns and holds to the good reasons for believing something rather than discerns and holds to a belief based on bad reasons.
v) One’s bias does not eliminate the person’s ability to assess the reasons for something
(1) Postmodernism teaches that bias makes it impossible to have rational objectivity.
(2) According to postmodernism, if one could have objective rationality than every teacher, scientist, and educated person, or anyone that thinks objectively, could not teach on a view that they actually believed in.
(3) Rational objectivity is possible in defending the truth claims of Christianity without having a bias to them.
b) Rejecting the self-refuting philosophy.
i) In a postmodern culture anyone’s version of religion is tolerated except those versions, those worldviews, that do not tolerate another’s or claim to have the absolute objective truth.
(1) But this would imply that under postmodernism, postmodernism would reject itself because it rejects those views that aren’t all inclusive.
(2) While this is obviously a self-refuting contradiction, postmodernism is still the dominant worldview.
(3) Postmodernism makes superiority claims about language, literary texts, a dichotomy of modernism & postmodernism, morality, values.
(4) All of these claims are self-refuting because they claim that there is no objective vantage point and all claims on reality are equally valid.
(5) If two claims regarding the same thing are contradictory both claims cannot be right. One must be wrong. This presupposes that an objective reality actually exists, which some postmoderns do not hold to.
ii) First counter: Postmoderns counter that it is self-refuting as they claim when they say that there is no objective truth, they mean that there is no objective truth where there are no propositions, that propositions are elements of human language which are social constructions.
(1) This response is inadequate because there are certain objective truths that exist independent of an utterance or thought proposition about them.
(2) E.g., mathematical truths
iii) Second counter: the postmodern denies that his view is actually true or rational.
(1) This response is also inadequate because…
(a) They actually do make assertions as true and rational, even if they claim that they do not.
(b) They do not make any alternative notions of rationality or truth.
iv) Third Counter: the postmodern may say he is just writing for how his community has made or constructed their own world.
(1) This response is inadequate because no one outside their world would care about their own little world, unless they are claiming to know something about how the world actually is outside their world. But if that is true, than they are really claiming that they know the truth about reality and got outside their own language barrier. But this would be a contradiction to their own view which advocates that no one has that privileged view.
c) Rejecting their view on that meaning lies in the interpretation of the reader or community rather than the intent of the author.
i) There is a fundamental dependency of our knowledge of proper term use on the first-person perspective, and not that of the social group.
(1) Prior to referring to a specific dog, I am in need of knowing what constitutes a dog. I cannot know if Fito is a dog unless I know what a dog out to look like, sound like, behave like, etc…
(2) If I call the cat the dog, than I am misusing the term dog. I myself must know and can only what a dog is by having access to the dog itself.
ii) In order for language to develop, one must have direct awareness of objective reality.
(1) Social agreements, according to the postmodern, is how language is used. But how do those agreements form in the first place?
(2) Consider a group of individuals that never uttered a word met in the forest for the first time. How would they know how to begin communicate with each other but find common ground in the elements around or what they each have similar experiences with like eating, walking, hunting, etc.
(3) This pre-linguistic state would be a state where they know things apart from language. “This conclusion, therefore, undermines their core assertion that we are inside language and cannot escape to know objective reality.”
iii) This brings us back to an original common sense based first-person perspective as the best solution for understanding meaning.
d) Overall, postmodernism ought to be rejected.
i) While it may rightly warn us against the abuses of power and the need to reject scientism and other modern era worldviews, it primarily advocates doctrines that are completely anti-Christian.
ii) Furthermore, it would not be appropriate to simply remain neutral to postmodernism because postmodernism’s detrimental notions far outweigh its few positive ones. One can embrace certain positive notions of postmodernism, that have been around well before the modern era, without embracing postmodernism.
e) Rejecting postmodern Christianity as understood by Brian McLaren & Tony Jones
i) McLaren, a leader of the emerging church movement, attacks, misrepresents, and condemns modernism and foundationalism on false premises.
(1) Not only does he begin with pure ignorance of the content and nature of the work of the scholastics, moderns, and rationalists, but expresses to know the understanding of God in the minds of modern believers.
(2) He states, “Modern Christianity has (inadvertently, I think) tended to reduce God to a being containable by human concepts, propositions, or logic.”
(3) This is not an accurate representation, summary, or historical analysis of anything the written or thought in the modern era.
(4) Works produced then (and now still) are truly the opposite and what McLaren himself seems to be advocating, an seeking-type understanding of God.
(5) Thinkers wrote out lengthy systematic accounts of theology and philosophy in an attempt to discover God and his nature.
(6) That is, the “Enlightenment project,” as McLaren phrases it, truly allowed some thinkers to mentally reach out into the supernatural and try to touch the supernatural nature of God as a worship type of experience.
(7) This was the spiritual seeking of some brilliant and pious minds.
(a) If McLaren faults them for their logical and rational journey to God, he would be contradicting his entire post-modern scheme.
(8) To the others who set out to prove God and satisfy their “dynamic” thoughts is the scope of the philosopher, theologian, and, yes, the postmodern. The entire purpose of any spiritual-religious experience, modern or postmodern, is to seek and find, not seek and get lost.
ii) This seeking is not just built on rationalism, although some thinkers then were pure rationalists.
(1) The worldview of a modern thinker was developed by encountering the goodness, beauty, and truth of God himself, rather than from a well-meaning parishioner that they built a relationship with.
(2) It is important to note that while one could be rightly praised for seeking sincerely, it is ridiculous to praise those who sincerely seek not God and blindly seek that which is not the object of their own seeking.
(3) Modernism seems to allow the more open and free spiritual journey, one that is purely divine in direction and not vulnerable to the misinterpretations of many other similar seekers.
(4) This is a far cry from a “domesticated God who is owned by Christianity.”
(5) On the contrary, modernism allows for compelling testimonies of how one seeks to find God, and maybe with use of his mental faculties, succeeds.
f) Rejecting postmodern Christianity as understood by Eddie Bolger & Ryan K. Bolger
i) By making sweeping generalizations that are radically false, Gibbs and Bolger fallaciously construct the story of a stubborn irrelevant church whose middle age filter of reality leads to suicide.
(1) The emerging church is the hero that answers the culture’s crying call. But somehow, the church is secular and the culture is spiritual.
(2) This assessment should be completely rejected in light of sociological/historical facts, logic, and truth.
ii) Precluding the modern era, at the least, cultures such as Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian, observed clear dualism of the aforementioned and a complete picture of universals and absolutes.
(1) This is an obvious truth, to which rejected would be in defiance of all the literature produced from Socrates up to the modern era!
(2) But on page 66, Gibbs and Bolger instead state, “Spirituality as a separate domain was unknown. With the birth of modernity in the West, the tie between religion and the rest of life was broken…Modernity was about the birth of secular space.”
(3) This is clearly false and the attempt to define the church as a variable in modernism’s formula is shows a lack of education on Gibbs and Bolger’s part.
iii) Gibbs and Bolger use worship in chapter 4 to drive their point home, saying that “all of life must be sacred…All can be made holy. All can be given to God in worship. All modern dualisms can be overcome.”
(1) This seems to mean that completely evil acts and places can be given to God in worship. But is this the worship that God accepts? John 4:24 prescribes that “his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”
(2) Although God will accept the sinner and not the sin, God is proactive in His call to conform to holiness and change occurs as a sinner receives His irresistible grace.
iv) Finally, it is not coherent at all how Gibbs and Bolger make sense when they state that “secular music becomes holy and therefore the rest of their lives becomes holy as well.”
(1) But, how do you glorify God with something that may be contrary to His nature and ways?
(2) They further state that “a linear or text-based ecclesiology perpetuates secularity in the church and denies the church’s call to live incarnationally.”
(3) What call are they referring to? Jesus taught to be in this world but not of this world.
(4) Paul did not mean accept sin when he said that he became all things to all men.
(5) Presenting to God our lives as we are in our culture specific context need not be falsifying to his nature or contrary to his ways, as the authors allow.
(6) This is not to say that God will not accept and redeem ourselves as we are, but he calls us to come out of our darkness and into his light.
g) Rejecting postmodernism and postmodern Christianity because it holds to an inappropriate balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences.
i) Spiritual experiences are sought after by every human
ii) In our time and culture, spiritual experiences are more rare
iii) As a result, there is a struggle to have spiritual experiences, especially by Christians, in our culture
iv) Our culture is postmodern
v) In postmodern cultures there is also a lack of balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences.
vi) Experiences, including spiritual, drive and govern postmodern Christianity as they do a postmodern society.
vii) Postmodernism and postmodern Christianity lead to a grace-only and experience-only lifestyle and worldview.
(1) The postmodern Christian is frustrated with this lack of spiritual experiences and focuses this energy on experiential forms of Christianity.
(2) Because the postmodern Christian does not have an appropriate balance between grace and truth and spiritual experiences, he struggles with alternative experiential overcompensating grace-truth ventures, as a substitute for the true spiritual experiences he actually is seeking.
(a) The formation of emerging churches is due to the postmodern Christian’s struggle to have spiritual experiences and his adopting of some form of postmodern Christianity.
viii) An experience-only focus or a grace-only focus to Christianity will lead to heretical beliefs.
ix) For sound Christianity, there must be a balance between seeking spiritual experiences, seeking grace, and understanding the truth that corresponds to reality.
x) Postmodernism and Postmodern Christianity ought to be rejected because they are unsound systems of thought that disregard knowing objective truth that corresponds with reality.
9) Recommendations on living in a Postmodernism culture
a) Keep to a transcendent worldview
i) One can see things in light of our worldview, not through our worldview.
ii) As philosopher J.P Moreland notes, “Our worldview is a set of habits that form and shape the way we see the world.
iii) We constantly make a distinction between the foreground and the background.
(1) Our worldview informs us what to pay attention to and not to pay attention to.
(2) Our set of values help us choose what we pay attention to and not.
(3) Our values cause us to notice in the foreground things that which we value.”
iv) Here, one’s worldview is grounded in values, or important objective truths that are beyond the temporal and cultural, transcendent values.
(1) This would presuppose that, one has direct awareness of reality, that is, one has direct experience of the natural and supernatural.
(2) The most secular worldviews, even some religious ones, evolve and adapt as time passes and cultures transition.
(3) However, a transcendent worldview is a belief system that endures through any culture and any time without modification of values only their application.
(4) This transcendent worldview does not prescribe just going with the flow and not struggling with conflicting worldviews.
(5) It allows one to experience the world free from skepticism and trust our senses and reasoning. As such, one can transcend, reach beyond, the fullness of one’s own culture and experience a reality that holds all truth, knowable truth.
b) Keep to a passion for knowing reality
i) The worldview that most accurately corresponds to reality ought to be adopted.
ii) These are “the moral and intellectual duties of any thinking human, first, to believe as many truths as possible before we die, and second, to refuse to believe as many falsehoods as possible before we die.”
iii) One would hope that his beliefs are not just sincere but are actually right and truthful.
iv) Theories of knowledge that traditional orthodox Christianity (not developed during the modern or enlightenment era) teaches are much more attractive and compelling than the postmodern’s theories of knowledge.
(1) Foundationalism
(2) Correspondence theory
(a) Supports the referential use of language
(b) Supports a critical realist theory of perception
(3) Coherence theory
c) Keep to the teaching of Jesus
i) The teachings of Jesus correspond with reality and his life gives flourishing life.
(1) Embracing what Jesus teaches and offers will allow the power of the immaterial supernatural realm to be actualized in the material natural realm. One can truly experience the reality of the transcendent realm, the reality that King Jesus rules.
(2) This realm actually includes the physical and the temporal, but it is not limited and is always being restored unto the order of the King.
(3) All other worldviews consider alternative realities, which fall very short in accessing this transcendent reality and offering what King Jesus offers.
(4) He taught of and made available a reality – the kingdom of heaven, which he governs as King – where true human flourishing occurs and all humans can be truly satisfied.
(5) Here, one can experience the greatest flourishing by living a life, experiencing reality, which resembles the life of the man who flourished the most.

…END

The Supernatural Kingdom: 5 of the most important aspects

2007-05-27T23:35:00.003-07:00

It is clear in the teaching and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth that the most important aspect of the kingdom, both for the Christian church and individual maturation is that it is available to us now (Matthew 3:2). The gospels do not record the details but mention, with broad strokes, the many miracles that occurred all over the countryside and certain cities at the beginning of his ministry (4:23-25). He said that we will even be a part of greater things than the miracles he performed. The power of the kingdom is the only power that drives out demons, heals the sick from disease, blindness, and infirmities. The kingdom of heaven manifested champions the kingdom of darkness, setting lost and captive Christian people free. This same power reaches the person and breaks the bondages of the enemy setting him free to worship without hindrances.
The second most important aspect of the kingdom is that we can become servants of Jesus the King by living under His kingdom’s reign and rule. Many times our lives are caught up in building our own personal kingdoms. Jesus desires that we store up treasures in heaven and that we lose our life for His sake (Matthew 16:25). By living for his kingdom, our service is performed unto the King. This frees us from the pressure to strive for fulfillment in an endlessly decaying world where moth and dust destroy. This gives us freedom to live without anxiety and depression.
The third most important aspect of the kingdom is the true life-changing power that our hearts are changed by. This accessibility is not to be taken lightly because it truly is what the Lord left to us to experience the divine in our lives by way of the Holy Spirit, our Counselor. He counsels us away from destructive mental, emotional, and behavior patterns into life abundantly. Many believers really do not grasp this foundational and vital concept, that we can access supernatural power from the Holy Spirit to thrive, grow, and change in our dysfunction and unhealthy tendencies. We can only change by accepting the grace and truth that is available in his kingdom.
The fourth most important aspect of the kingdom is the power to become more like the most amazing person of all, Jesus. To become like Jesus is the ultimate calling of every Christian. By seeking this calling out, I can secondarily fulfill all other callings. As I conform to his image and likeness, in my intellect, will, and emotions, I experience my false self fading and my true self changing. He embodies perfect love, truth, joy, freedom, etc., there is no other more life-fulfilling journey I can accept than this. His kingdom empowers me to be more like Jesus on my journey.
The fifth most important aspect of the kingdom is that it is backwards to most of our default understandings of reality. Especially in Western cultures, where truth and reason are well-defined and widely accepted, the kingdom of heaven is not well-defined and most often misunderstood. Throughout the gospels, the followers of Jesus often misunderstood his ministry and teaching: the first shall be last - the last shall be first and if one have faith as small as a mustard seed he can move mountains. Jesus is merely pointing out that we live in a world with two realms, material and immaterial. By embracing the strange features of the immaterial spiritual realm of reality we can being to better understand the nature of him and his kingdom.

Theology as an Absolute Science

2007-05-27T23:35:00.002-07:00

Theology is a science similar to geometry rather than geology because the method of investigation is based on the necessary and absolute essence of the object studied. Unlike the relative sciences which deal with the contingent, theology is a science whose object is known through a priori knowledge of certain logically deduced non-empirical truths. That is, the “object” under study is necessary and that which is known of “it” are concepts whose meanings are independent of a posteriori discoveries. Other sciences are “relative” by their very nature because the truths about them are not-necessary and are empirically determined, such that, depending on the quantity and quality of evidences, various conclusions can be drawn. Theology has neither of the following relativistic principles that the relative sciences maintain: experimental discoveries, relative sensual conclusions, and uncertainty of non-sense perceptible data.

A critique of recent criticism on the New Testament Canon Formation

2007-05-27T23:35:00.001-07:00

Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” portrays Constantine as the supposed creator of the canon when he suppressed 80 gospel accounts in favor of the canonical 4. The book’s popularity is not surprising considering the content uproots a complex and confusing issue of the New Testament canonization. It’s common knowledge, that the validity of Christianity is based on God’s revelation to mankind written down in a collection of “inspired” works we call the Bible. This collection is what is of interest, not only in the popular fiction, but in recent scholarly circles of the past 2 decades. In fact, Robert Funk, the leader of the Jesus Seminar, is attempting to redefine the canon saying, “The Bible is a ‘cultural artifact’ and that biblical scholars have the moral responsibility to determine what belongs to the fundamental cultural legacies of Christianity and Judaism.”
This “reforming” of the works of the Bible has actually been subjected to various levels of inquiry throughout Christendom since the works were first read. Consequently, many questions concerning the “inspired works” must now be addressed again by conservative evangelical scholars to maintain intellectual integrity when defending the attacks on the validity of the New Testament. The following questions, once raised during the time of the early church, must be addressed again: Are the right books in the New Testament? What criterion is used in the formation of the canon? Who determines the criteria? Are the selectors/councils inspired? Is the selection process inspired? Answers are available, but not without contention.
Much has been written on the canon and its formation, but most influential and scholarly of recent works, is Bruce Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance.[1] Metzger unfolds the chronological history of the canon formation, addressing the people and events that complicate, drive, and determine the canon. Columbia philosopher Richard Carrier has summarized Metzger’s work and addressed major flaws in the canon formation in his essay “The formation of the New Testament Canon”[2] Consistently, Carrier has the same contentions in each section. I gathered Carrier’s points of criticism and found them to be common to other critic’s who doubt that the present canon is the appropriate collection of inspired works.
In this paper, I contend that the present day New Testament is the accurate & correct collection of inspired works God intended for us to have as His revelation to mankind. To show this, I will argue that the criteria used by the early church in canonizing works was appropriate, and consequently, other works which do not meet the early church criteria should not have been canonized. I will then refute 4 of Carrier’s (as well as others) points criticism of the canon by showing them to be unhistorical, unjustified, and flawed. Thus, concluding, that these ancient and modern attempts at forming an alternative canon are unwarranted.
The Early Church’s Canonization Criteria
The need for written authoritative works to drive the early church became very apparent in the 2nd century. Early Christians were being persecuted and dying for books they were not sure were even considered sacred or holy. The apostles were dying off and the need for testimonial & directive records were increasing. As a result, the greatest need for the early church was not just the emergence of a governing ecclesiastical authority, but the emergence of an authoritative body of written works. The New Testament was necessary and actually inevitable.[3]
Some 2nd century lists were formed on acceptable works to be read in the early churches. Among other writers and leaders, Iraneaus, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of Ignatius, a disciple of John, was the first to actually identify the books of the present New Testament. Metzger says that Iraneaus and other early church fathers, “tend to show that an implicit authority of such writings (not yet canonized works) was sensed before a theory of their authority had been developed.”[4] In addition, New Testament professor and Fuller Seminary director Arthur Patzia points out that, “It is difficult to determine the status of the gospels but many scholars would date the acceptance of the gospels and Pauline epistles as scripture at the turn of the 1st century.”[5] Such that, the extent at which the said canonical works were referenced in various other non-canonical works give us a somewhat adequate understanding of the progression of the emerging recognized written authority. It seems then that the majority of writers and leaders in the early church accepted and recognized a core of works, the 4 canonical gospels and the Pauline epistles, but much controversy remained concerning the many other written works of the period. Confusion resulted and ratification of a final collection would soon be necessary.
The criteria used by the early church can be best presented and defined in the list as shown below[6]:
1. Apostolicity - Authority by apostle or apostolic associate
2. Antiquity – 1st generation Christian leader authorship
3. Authenticity – Historical traditions as to writings’ authorship and authority
4. Ubiquity – Acceptance and use by churches
5. Catholicity – Consonance with known New Testament writings and the churches “rule of faith” in the case of debated writings

Some New Testament Scholars, including former President of the Society for New Testament Study and distinguished professor F.F. Bruce suggest that the criteria only consisted of Apostolicity, Orthodoxy, and Catholicity. Likewise, Metzger uses these 3, and only mentions antiquity and authenticity as an attribute of canonical works but not actual criteria. Here orthodoxy entails that the theology of the works coheres with the beliefs of the early church where catholicity refers to the works proved widely useful for the churches, in that none of the texts contradict another but could have a “wide measure of diversity among them.”[7] On the other hand, the criteria of apostolicity is unique to the others, in that, it entails the works were written by a divinely appointed spokesperson, the apostles or the apostles’ disciples. Because of their experiences with Jesus, the apostles have a unique function in salvation history similar to that of the prophets of the Old Testament, that is both were fundamental sources of revelation. Thus, apostolicity is the only criteria by itself that merits inclusion of a work into the canon.
Interestingly, inspiration is not included in either list, because inspiration can be better thought of as a corollary of canonicity rather than a criteria of it.[8] The early church used the term inspiration when referring to various works, where non-canonical works were considered inspired and the canonical works were both inspired and authoritative – authoritative because of the apostolic witness which they depend. Early Christian writers rarely used the term non-inspired, except when designating heretical works. Thus, inspiration is not a criteria of canonicity and not a unique characteristic of canonical writings.[9]
Once the principles of canonicity developed in the church, the extent of the NT was fixed, that is, the canon was complete when the works were finished, not when they were collected. Certain books were not excluded or included in the canon based on councils or individuals, but excluded themselves from the canon. Famed Scottish theologian William Barclay noted, “It is the simple truth to say that the NT books became canonical because no one could stop them from doing so.”[10] What remains as the canon resulted from a survival of the fittest period that began the history of Christianity. This does not imply that various random sequence of events molded the canon, but rather, various guided funneling factors shaped the debate and the history of canonization. Metzger adds,
“The church recognized, accepted, affirmed, and confirmed the self authenticating quality of certain documents…In fact, whatever judgment we may form of the earliest times, it is certain that those who discerned the limits of the canon had a clear and balanced perception of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”[11]

This recognition sheds light on the often referencing of the canonical books and the widespread usage of certain books in the early church. Therefore, we find that the criteria is not that which determined the canon, but is what enforced it.
To further clarify the canon’s formation, Metzger accurately dichotomizes the canon as either a “collection of authoritative texts” or an “authoritative collection of texts.” The former defines the canon as the collection of certain works that were recognized early by the early church as authoritative works containing the words of Jesus and the testimony of the apostles. This view of the canon affirms that the works possessed intrinsic worth prior to their having been assembled, that their authority is grounded in their nature and source, and that the church recognized their inherent authority. The latter defines the canon as that which resulted because the collecting of the books gave the books authority they did not possess prior to having been assembled, that is, the Church created their authority by collecting them. The protestant position holds to the former view that can also be described as the norma normans (the rule that prescribes) doctrine as opposed to the liberal or deistic norma normata (the rule that is prescribed) doctrine. The latter is obviously the view that Carrier holds, which will be addressed in the following section.
It seems then, that the core set of works, the Pauline epistles and the 4 gospels, were more obviously appropriate for canonization because of their early acceptance as authoritative. The “fringe” works (Acts, 1st & 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd, & 3rd John, Jude, Revelation) were less obvious to the early church, especially in light of the many competing writings of the time. As Metzger concludes, that “the making of the empirical canon required a long period of time and involved a complex historical process that progressed, not in a straight line, but in a zig-zag development.”[12] This lack of order and confusion of the early church concerning canonical works was in fact the shaping process that had to occur, regardless of how messy it seemed. Eventually, the Church succeeded in finding the appropriate works and excluding the others. Carrier’s criticism of Metzger’s view of the canon formation is certainly that this “zig-zag development” is absurd, and is more like a mess that the following 6 points make clear.
1) That certain books were to be considered sacred depending on the leader’s theology, preferences, & political ends rather than objective historical grounds.

In light of certain works of theology written in the 2nd century (Defense of the Christians by Athenagoras of Athens, Against All Heresies and a Demonstration of the Apostolic Teaching by Iraneaus, and Apology by Justin Martyr), early Christians & churches developed and sharpened their canon. Carrier notes that when reading these early influential works, the authors’ character & judgment on moral issues of their day have never been without question, so how can one even begin to accept their theology. Carrier likens this theology of the few to a politician of today quickly influencing the many, shaping public opinion on controversial issues. Carrier goes on to point out that
“the group that decided which texts would be heretical was that which had the most vested interest in such a project: the most powerful leaders of the various churches whose authority was being challenged. It should not be forgotten however that the challengers were also leaders of their own churches.”[13]

In addition, Justin Martyr, a prominent Christian thinker, was “probably influenced by his location (Rome)” in his theology and preferred canon. Justin’s disciple Tatian instructed his Syrian church to read “nothing else” but his Diatessaron[14], Paul, and the Acts. Tatian didn’t include 1st Timothy in his orthodox church because of the leniency on wine, meat, and marriage. Tertullian also attacks 1st Timothy primarily because of women in the ministry. Tertullian is noted the first instance of organized action against authors of new Christian source-texts. Carrier remarks,
“Although such action is necessary for there to be any hope of control over a reliable textual tradition in a milieu of wanton invention and combative propaganda, the fact that it only begins at such a late date is another blow against those who set their hopes on having complete confidence in the present canon…Thus, as we will see more than once, doctrine, not objective concern for history, loomed large behind the charge of falsification--so we are faced with uncertainties all over again.”

Carrier also points out that many works were preferred over others for ridiculous reasons. Iraneaus includes the Hermas (a non-canonical work) as holy Scripture, but rejected Tatian’s Diatessaron because he reasoned that 4 gospels is symbolic in light of the 4 principal winds, 4 directions of the world, 4 living creatures, 4 principal covenants. Also, Cyprian says “superstitiously” there are only 4 gospels, because there are 4 rivers in Paradise and of Paul and John each wrote to seven churches according to "the seven sons in the song of Hannah"[15]
It seems Carrier attacks the character of these influential authors (fallacy argumentum ad hominem), presenting them as a group that are attempting to propagate subjective theology for selfish reasons. There is no case made by Carrier, nor are there historical grounds for justifying the early church leaders’ political gain for voicing opinions. Its true that the theology of the leader, not the struggle for ecclesiastical power or fame in the early church, is what drove acceptance of various works over others. But Carrier presents their views out of context. Carrier attacks their judgment on canonization by referring to their “superstitious” like preferences without revealing their entire theology.
Moreover, I concur that there were some very ridiculous reasons of the early leaders to include and exclude certain work. But Carrier does not counter with reasons for certain works, such as the Hermas or the Diatessaron, inclusion, he merely points out very selective bad reasons for their exclusion. He argues for an irrelevant conclusion (fallacy ignoratio elenchi) of the non-objective grounds for the canonizing works, by never pointing out the content, theology, or relevance of these works and why the rest of the early church rejected them. He combines bad reasons of a few with bad theology of the entire early church (fallacy of unrepresented sample).
2) Authoritative declarations by un-inspired Church leaders were decisive in influencing the population, to reject certain works and keep certain works.

Augustine, one of Christianity’s greatest philosophers, codified Jerome’s criteria, “prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive”[16] Carrier points out several problems with this. Which churches are catholic, are those churches that accept Augustine’s opinion, namely non-dissenting Eastern churches. Further, Augustine begins a circular argument: books that are accepted by the church should be accepted by the church. Finally, he fallaciously appeals to the masses.
Furthermore, Cyril, the Bishop of Jerusalem, authoritatively issued a series of basic theology lectures for indoctrinating the church which included a strict & specific canon (today’s New Testament, except revelation). Also, Athanasius used his authority as the Bishop of Alexandria in his annual edict.[17] In it he declared to the entire church, east and west, which works are to be the Scriptures (today’s New Testament) and non other should be added or taken away. Concerning Augustine, Cyril, and Athanasius determination, Carrier concludes that “this is not an objective methodology by any stretch, and is entirely driven by blind tradition and the demands of authoritarian dogma.”[18]
But Carrier’s assessment of Augustine’s statement is wrong, that is, he does not argue circularly. Instead, he argues that the books accepted by every Catholic church are books that are already considered canonical and should remain canonical and the disputable books, those that aren’t universally accepted, should be rejected. There is no circularity here; the reasoning is that the church at large already accepts these works so they should continue to “prefer” them. Augustine actually is valid in appealing to the masses because the masses are the church, the body the proposed Scripture is meant for that recognized its canonical qualities. Carrier falsely declares that the authoritative dictations is that which defined the canon, this is the tail wagging the dog. The authoritative dictations are the assessments of the widespread acceptance by the church, a criteria (Catholicity) that defined the canon. Thus, Carrier invalidly argues against the reasoning of the authority and incorrectly refers to the acceptance of the masses as “fallacious” to make a case for faulty non-objective criteria in determining the canon. It should be noted again Carrier never addresses the actual content and authorship of the material being included or excluded.

3) Councils voted on and ratified into existence what was to be considered God’s Word.

Carrier states that Cyril’s influence on the Synod of Laodicea is “almost certain,” where leaders declared only canonical works should be read in the church. That the synod just met to confirm that canon which was declared by the authority of Cyril. There was no criteria for the decision nor was there a stated list of works that this included. Augustine effectively forced his opinion on the Church by commanding three synods on canonicity: the Synod of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and another in Carthage in 419 A.D. (M 237-8). The synods conveniently just declared the debatable Hebrews to be from Paul.
This was official at the Trullan synod in 692, when emperor Justinian & eastern bishops met – much confusion. Athanasius & Cyril’s canon were deemed authoritative to the church at large. But they contradicted each other regarding revelation. Trullan codified the 85th canon supposedly from the 4th century attributed to Clement of Rome (non-4th century) as sacred. It included 2 letters of Clement and 8 other books, “which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them.” Widespread confusion resulted in the Eastern churches. Finally, the Council of Florence declared the canon of Augustine final in 1443 A.D. and enforced it as universal at Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
Protestant churches had their own councils and basically declared the same as Trent but not after much of the same debates of 1,000 years prior. Luther’s criteria was everything that agrees with Paul and preaches Christ is a priori true and to be held in the highest esteem, while everything else is to be doubted. He doubted Hebrews and Jude because they contradict the teachings of Paul. But Luther declared that he did not want to remove them from such a venerable collection. Thus, not only dogmatic presupposition, but mere tradition wins the canon - not objective scholarship.
Carrier overall claim here, that certain councils subjectively ratified a canon into existence that otherwise would not have been, is a misrepresentation of history. Certain non-orthodox movements complicated the canonical formation, while still propelling the orthodox to justify their own. It was because of confusion and diversity amongst the churches at different times up to the time of the Reformation, councils met to clarify the canon. The various views challenged the councils to define its boundaries and doctrines and to include or exclude various “fringe” books. Carrier seems to commit the causal fallacy of wrong direction (the direction of cause and effect is reversed), in that, he designates the council as the force that caused the canon, when in fact the Church caused the canon and the councils declared it as such. Concerning the included “fringe” works and the claim that councils created canons, F.F. Bruce states,
“The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon… recognizing their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect.”[19]

One would not expect to see a vote of every parishioner in the land each time the canon was challenged, but rather, that a group of leaders (the church deemed responsible) met to defend the Church’s theology is perfectly reasonable. The issue for Carrier is not that Church required and relied on administration and leadership to form its canon, but that the church actually could have appropriately formed it through an uninspired council.

4) Influential translations of certain works became the popular reading of many churches, thus diffusing other less preferred translations of certain works.

The main translator of consideration here is the influential scholar Jerome. Jerome’s translation (the Latin Vulgate Bible) of certain works were widely accepted as literarily sound and endorsed by Augustine. It was sent to the pope and would become the text of the western Catholic Church. Jerome accepts Hebrews as an authority even though he admits the authorship is uncertain, believed the Epistle of Barnabus should be accepted, but rejected it in light of the criteria, and accepts the book of Jude, but not Enoch, based on this criteria. But if Enoch is non-canonical, then Jude must be out also, because it quotes Enoch. Carrier states that Jerome’s criteria and reasoning “contradicts all objective sense”[20]
Carrier does not offer reasons as to why Jerome’s influential translation being accepted and others being put aside is unreasonable, but merely suggests that this excluding of certain works is non objective because it causes them to be forgotten. Its true that many works have been unfortunately forgotten and completely lost in history, but it is not clear that the criteria that Jerome adhered to “contradicts all objective sense.” Carrier’s assessment of Jerome’s selection is based on what would be reasonable if one was not adhering to the early church’s criteria. Jerome’s omission of Enoch and Barnabus is perfectly reasonable and objective because he judges the works based on an objective criteria, rather than a subjective one.
Moreover, just because the authorship of Hebrews is uncertain, does not warrant its omission. It is widely held that Hebrews is a 1st century work written by an apostle or his associate, which is in fact criteria for canonization. What is not entirely clear is which apostle or associate. Carrier himself admits that it was Jerome’s ideal canon solely because these books had been long held in respect by the churches and that Jerome held to the criteria despite his own preferences.[21]
Conclusion

Carrier continually pushes objective scholarship as a means of canonizing certain works. He strives to maintain no bias in his pursuit of truth, while admitting that he is “emphasizing those facts most relevant to secularists and seekers.”[22] Its seems Carrier’s presuppositions that time cannot lend itself to better a collection is ungrounded and has guided his investigation. That while admiring and complementing certain scholars of the early church, Carrier extracts certain quotes out of their text to his advantage. He gives no room a priori to their “objective” scholarship in theology, administration, or judgment. Carrier’s points criticism of the canon them to be unhistorical, unjustified, and flawed.
Furthermore, Carrier falsely portrays the early church as misguided, divisive, and non-unified that appeals to unsound doctrinal themes and traditions. What Carrier lacks in his assessment is in fact objective historical truth. He fails to understand that the church quickly strengthened its defense against heretical doctrines and gathered a collection of recognized authoritative works. It did take time to acknowledge the recognized collection because of the many varying other works produced. But, by maintaining its objective stance on their sound criteria, eventually the church obtained the appropriate body of works God intended for them to have.
Overall, it seems that the criteria of the early church was effective in capturing the appropriate texts and releasing others. Although criteria may vary today much as it did then, there is still only one criteria that is sound and justified, and thus only one canon. Consequently, the ancient and modern attempts at forming an alternative canon are unwarranted. Therefore its reasonable to conclude that the present day New Testament is the accurate and correct collection of inspired works God intended for us to have as His revelation to mankind.

Works Cited

Blomberg, Craig, Robert Hubbard, William Klein. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004.

Bowman, Robert. Scripture, Authority, Canon, and Criticism. La Mirada: Biola
University CSAP 529 Course Outline, 2005.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988.

Bruce, F.F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. Leicester:
Intervarsity Press, 1959.

Carrier, Richard. “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from

Metzger, Bruce. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and
Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity
Press, 1995.

[1] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[2] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from

[3] Because the goal of the paper is to address criticisms, it is not necessary to rewrite or even summarize the history of the canonization process which Metzger and other historians produce.
[4] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[5] Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995).
[6] Robert Bowman, Scripture, Authority, Canon, and Criticism (Biola University CSAP 529 Course Outline, 2005).
[7] Craig Blomberg, Robert Hubbard, William Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004).
[8] F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1988).
[9] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[10] William Barclay, The Making of the Bible (London: New York Publishing, 1961).
[11] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[12] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[13] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from
[14] The Diatessaron is Tatian’s work of taking the 4 gospels and making 1.
[15] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[16] Augustine, On Christian Doctrines 2.12
[17] Alexandria was the city with experts in astronomy, so the Bishop there issued an annual edict on the holidays.
[18] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from
[19] F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1959).
[20] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from
[21] Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
[22] Richard Carrier, “The Formation of the New Testament Canon”; available from

A review of Calvin's "On Predestination"

2007-05-27T23:35:00.000-07:00

In this portion of the institutes, Calvin discusses predestination. He begins by framing the topic, setting boundaries on what we can know and what is of the secret things of God. If God chooses to withhold the understanding of his mysteries, we should not put ourselves at risk by questioning or being curious to those things. This is a doctrine of grace rather than wrath, because it shows God’s favor based on whom he elects. It is Scripturally based and should not be ignored or mistreated because it is difficult to comprehend.
Predestination is the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. God sees all things in time at once, not past, present, and future. Divine time is static and God has complete foreknowledge of events. Calvin acknowledges the divine choosing of the Israel to be the chosen race, not because they were the greatest people but because they were the least. This exemplifies the salvation of the gentile, which is far greater display of his grace because we are adopted into the divinely ordained chosen family God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation and destruction.
Advocates of foreknowledge argue that the basis of his choosing is not our works but his purposes and that he knows we will choose holiness. Calvin argues from Paul’s works that man has nothing in him that God would evaluate and man is completely indebt to his glory. The believers are the receivers of this special grace. It is known by God through his foreknowledge or prescience is not speculative but active. Jesus said he knows whom he has chosen just like God told Moses he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. Judas is not among the elect, he is a devil. Augustine adds that the grace of God does not find but makes persons fit to be chosen. Some argue, the universality of the promise destroys the distinction of special grace. Calvin asks, why would God call those who would not come? God “illuminates” those who he chose. Many are called few are chosen. Reprobation is founded on the righteous will of God.
Election and effectual calling are founded on the free mercy of God. God’s calling is proved to be free and an infallible pledge of salvation. To obtain certainness of the council of God is absurd, like wanting to “fly above the clouds.” The elect can have certainty of the assurance of their calling and election despite the attacks of Satan. We must not attempt to penetrate to the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom, in order to learn what is decreed with regard to us at the judgment-seat. Jesus Christ is the anchor of our hope and the mirror at which we know our election; Calvin affirms Christ as the ultimate truth and fountain of life for our eternal life. Christ is the protector and guardian of our salvation, the shepherd of our souls. People seem to fall away from Christ, those that are unclear, may in fact not have a certain assurance, there is a holy fear required of the elect. Though many may come to church, one must have professed faith in Christ, for the Lord to accept. Judas held the office of disciple, but was a devil and was not one of the elect. Taking on those who advocate no certainty based on Scripture, Calvin argues for the certainty of the elect by appealing to comprehensive passages.
Calvin tackles the reprobate in the second part of the chapter. God blinds those who may have denied or wait to respond to Him. Some He denies the opportunity. Some ask, “Why would God blind the reprobate?” That God would raise up people to reveal him more and that God’s glory would be proclaimed.

A review of Wesley's "On Christian Perfection"

2007-05-27T23:31:00.003-07:00

In this piece, John Wesley sets out to first show in what sense Christians are not perfect and second, in what sense Christians are perfect. Both experience and Scripture shows that Christians are not perfect in knowledge in the following ways: the simple truths of love, the profound philosophical theologies, the intervention of God with man, the simple facts about the world. We are weak, tempted, and make mistakes; we are not exempt from these things, nor will we be absolutely perfect, but constantly need to grow in grace.
The latter portion of this piece, Wesley deals with the sense that Christians are perfect. Everyone at some point in his life sins, even the “greatest” Jews in the Bible. Man is subject to be a slave to sin and is stuck in a nature that sins despite trying not to. Salvation from sin was not given until Jesus was glorified. The kingdom of God is now set up for the Holy Spirit to begin work in the lives of those who had redemption. Wesley uses seemingly contradictory scriptures to unravel the mystery of Christ’s redemption from sin. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; he is free from evil thoughts and evil tempers. Thus, the Christian is perfect in this sense because Christ forgave us from our sin and cleansed us from all unrighteousness. Finishing the work with his hymn, “Promise of Sanctification,” Wesley cries out for Christ’s mercy and forgiveness over his life to empty him of sin.