tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7234030501282870402024-03-13T19:16:46.138-05:00Shadows and LightTherefore we thank Thee for our little light, that is dappled
with shadow.
We thank Thee who hast moved us to building, to finding, to
forming at the ends of our fingers and beams of our eyes.
-T.S. Eliot, O Light InvisibleAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-36331544790299575812018-11-08T18:41:00.000-06:002018-11-08T18:41:13.696-06:00The Stories Of Life Are Far From Over (Jonathan Martin)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o8umSeT7XvI/WwFzG17TUzI/AAAAAAAAAlg/vCLvbuWJKxkeLxeG_Z_2wNNfNRAEILZVQCLcBGAs/s1600/jonathan%2Bmartin.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="182" data-original-width="277" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o8umSeT7XvI/WwFzG17TUzI/AAAAAAAAAlg/vCLvbuWJKxkeLxeG_Z_2wNNfNRAEILZVQCLcBGAs/s1600/jonathan%2Bmartin.jpeg" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>For if there is a God who not only creates but sustains and resurrects, then there can yet be life on the other side of death for all things. Then there is hope, not only for the yearning in you to drive you into union with God, but to be realized in union with those others. If death is not the final word, and chaos produces creation rather than destroys it, then many of the stories of the life you thought were long over are far from over yet.</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Survive-Shipwreck-Help-Already/dp/0310347971">How To Survive A Shipwreck</a> by Jonathan Martin, p 70<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-33890127804994020492018-10-30T21:36:00.004-05:002018-11-06T16:14:10.542-06:00David Bentley Hart’s Inconsistent Triad (3): Theodicy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FR2UmhTaAJE/WwFsfXGlPPI/AAAAAAAAAlY/8dBbXOTVWrovmGDDhL2ESDG5dXYUvf-9wCEwYBhgL/s1600/david%2Bbentley%2Bhart.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="299" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FR2UmhTaAJE/WwFsfXGlPPI/AAAAAAAAAlY/8dBbXOTVWrovmGDDhL2ESDG5dXYUvf-9wCEwYBhgL/s1600/david%2Bbentley%2Bhart.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In my final post on the
inconsistent triad found in David Bentley Hart’s essay <a href="http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/135/86">“God,
Creation, and Evil: The Moral Meaning of creatio ex nihilo”</a>, I’d like to
talk about theodicy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Let me say up front that, I
don’t want to talk about “theodicy” as if it’s a fancy academic issue. The word "issue" makes it seem optional, a subject for discussion within the safe confines of an ivory tower, as if we can choose when and wear to engage with it. But we can only talk about "theodicy" in the context of a suffering and evil that humanity cannot seem to avoid, whether it be self-inflicted or
not. It is not academic or abstract. It’s with that in mind that I hope to proceed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><u>Hart’s
inconsistent triad:</u></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God freely created all things
out of nothingness<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God is the Good itself<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is certain or at least
possible that some rational creatures will endure eternal loss of God<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the <a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2018/06/david-bentley-harts-inconsistent-triad.html">previous post</a>, I
paralleled Hart's triad with Tom Talbott's triad. Here, I'd like to do
the same thing with a well-known triad involving the troubling question of
theodicy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">The theodicy triad in its simplest form:</span></u><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God is omnipotent<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">God is the omnibenevolent<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Evil exists<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The question is, can all 3 of
these propositions be true? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As with Talbott, there are
some distinct parallels between DBH’s triad and the theodicy triad. (Note that Talbott touches on some of the
differences and similarities between his triad and the theodicy triad in his
<a href="http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/McClymond4.pdf">Reply to Michael J. McClymond</a>). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If (as I proposed) Hart's 1st
proposition (God freely creates out of nothingness) is an articulation (or at
least closely related to) the matter of God's creative <i>sovereignty</i>,
then we have a parallel with the first proposition in the theodicy
triad (God is omnipotent).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Hart's 2nd proposition is,
again, closely related to the 2nd proposition found in the theodicy
inconsistent triad. <i>God is the Good itself</i> is, at a bare
minimum, close related to the statement that <i>God is omnibenevolent</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But here’s the thing. Theologians of all stripes and theological
persuasions don't hesitate to pick apart this theodicy triad
in ways that seek to demonstrate that the triad isn't <i>actually</i> inconsistent. They argue that all 3 can be true. If these 3 theodicy propositions can all be
true, and these 3 are closely related in form to Hart's proposed
inconsistent triad, is Hart’s triad not actually inconsistent? Can the same arguments that make the theodicy triad not inconsistent be applied to Hart? If not, what differentiates them? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The forms that these theodicy arguments
take may vary in their level of sophistication and intended audience, but they generally come back to
the same thing: <i>we can only answer the theodicy question in terms of the end, eschatologically</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In other words, God may <i>permit </i>certain evils <i>for a time</i>, but this temporal “permission”
does not necessarily disprove God’s sovereign love and goodness. While temporal evil is tragically real, <i>it is temporal</i>. Evil is not eternal. It is not permanent. Given the reality of suffering and evil, any
talks of its impermanence risks sounding trite and dismissive. As true as that may be, what remains is that <i>only the possible impermanence of evil saves the triad. Only the possibility of the redemption of what evil and suffering have destroyed opens the possibility that the triad is consistent.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now this issue of <i>permissive power</i> may trip up those who possess
a <i>meticulous</i> interpretation of divine sovereignty. In the meticulous view, <i>all</i> things are the outworking of God’s
will. There can be no meaningful
distinction between what God <i>wills</i>
and what God <i>permits</i>. So in this view, there is
no difference between God <i>permitting</i> a child to die of cancer and <i>willing</i> a
child to die of cancer. They are one and the same, and it would be foolishness for humanity to judge God's "goodness" here based on
our finite standards of goodness. There
is some truth to this of course, but the argument ultimately undermines God-talk
and the possibility of faith. Hart,
having no sympathy for the argument, does not mince words:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">But, when any meaningful difference between will and permission has been excluded, and when the transcendent causality of the creator God has been confused with the immanent web of causation that constitutes the world of our experiences, it becomes impossible to imagine that what God wills might not be immediately convertible with what occurs in time; and thus both the authority of Scripture and the justice of God must fall before the inexorable logic of absolute divine sovereignty.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">(The Doors of the Sea, p 90)</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The fact is, while (obviously)
believing his own triad to be inconsistent, Hart also paints the theodicy triad as <i>not</i> inconsistent. All 3 in the theodicy <i>can</i> be true.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">How so?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s the distinction between
the temporal/finite and the eternal. Perhaps some answer can be offered to make sense of history, but the theodicy triad would not fare so well if evil and it's effects were given the last word.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="margin: 0in;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">We can all appreciate, I imagine, the shattering force of Vanya’s terrible question to Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov. If universal harmony and joy could be secured by the torture and murder of a single innocent child, would you accept that price? But let us say that somehow, mysteriously – in, say, Zosima’s sanctity, Alyosha’s kiss, the million-mile march of Vanya’s devil, the callous old women’s onion – an answer is offered that makes the transient torments of history justifiable in the light of God’s everlasting Kingdom. But <b>eternal</b> torments, <b>final</b> dereliction? Here the price is raised beyond any calculus of relative goods, and into the realm of absolute – or infinite – expenditure. And the arithmetic is fairly inflexible.</span></i><br />
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">(God, Creation and Evil, p 12)</span></i></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">There may yet be an answer for
these “</span><i>transient torments of history</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">”. For now, however, no answer has been given.</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">every death of a child, every chance calamity, every act of malice; everything diseased, thwarted, pitiless, purposeless, or cruel; and, until the end of all things, no answer has been given.</span></i><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">(God, Creation and Evil, p 5)</span></i></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I have to confess, I want an
answer. I want reason. Justification. And yet, independent of want I think I want, a “bare choice” remains, one that strikes me as profoundly true:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">As soon as one sheds the burden of the desire for total explanation -as soon as one has come to see the history of suffering as a contingency and an absurdity, in which grace is ever at work but upon which it does not depend, and has come also to see the promised end of all things not as the dialectical residue of a great cosmic and moral process, but as something far more glorious than the pitiable resources of fallen time could ever yield -one is confronted with only this bare choice: either one embraces the mystery of created freedom and accepts that the union of free spiritual creatures with the God of love is a thing so wonderful that the power of creation to enslave itself to death must be permitted by God; or one judges that not even such rational freedom is worth the risk of a cosmic fall and the terrible injustice of the consequences that follow from it. But, then, since there can be no context in which such a judgment can be meaningfully made, no perspective from which a finite Euclidean mind can weigh eschatological glory in the balance against earthly suffering, the rejection of God on these grounds cannot really be a rational decision, but only a moral pathos. </span></i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">(The Doors of the Sea, p 68)</span></i></span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"> <span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">So in the end, the final
consistency of the theodicy triad (all 3 can be true) is contingent upon the </span><i>non-finality</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> of evil, the non-finality of
all that is not well. Hart’s
inconsistent triad simply draws upon the implications of the hope of that
proposition, the hope of the Gospel:</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, he will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes – and there shall be no more death , nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things have passed away, and he that sits upon the throne will say, “Behold, I make all things new.” </span></i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>(The Doors of the Sea, p 104)</i></span></span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-18106027101035588792018-06-20T07:19:00.001-05:002018-10-30T21:37:17.583-05:00David Bentley Hart’s Inconsistent Triad (2): Comparing DBH to Tom Talbott<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FR2UmhTaAJE/WwFsfXGlPPI/AAAAAAAAAlY/8dBbXOTVWrovmGDDhL2ESDG5dXYUvf-9wCEwYBhgL/s1600/david%2Bbentley%2Bhart.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="299" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FR2UmhTaAJE/WwFsfXGlPPI/AAAAAAAAAlY/8dBbXOTVWrovmGDDhL2ESDG5dXYUvf-9wCEwYBhgL/s1600/david%2Bbentley%2Bhart.jpeg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In my <a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2018/06/david-bentley-harts-inconsistent-triad-1.html">previous post,</a> I identified an inconsistent triad in
the essay <a href="http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/135/86">“God,Creation, and Evil: The Moral Meaning of creatio ex nihilo” by David Bentley Hart</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>Here is Hart’s inconsistent triad:</u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ol>
<li><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">God freely created all things out of nothingness</span></i></li>
<li><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">God is the Good itself</span></i></li>
<li><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is certain or at least possible that some rational
creatures will endure eternal loss of God</span></i></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The work of Thomas Talbott, author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Inescapable-Love-God-Second/dp/1625646909/">The Inescapable Love of God</a>, can also be viewed through and summarized by an inconsistent
triad. I’ve written about Talbott's inconsistent triad <a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_7.html">here</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Here is (a form of) Talbott’s inconsistent triad:</span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="color: #333333;">All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.</i><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"> </span></span></li>
<li><i style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires.</span></i></li>
<li><i style="color: #333333;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some humans will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever. </span></i></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Or to put it more succinctly:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ol>
<li><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">God wants to "save" everyone.</span></i></li>
<li><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">God has the ability to "save" all that he wants to "save".</span></i></li>
<li><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some will be forever separated from God, the nature of that separation notwithstanding (eternal conscious torment, annihilation, etc.)</span></i></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The parallels between Hart's and Talbott's inconsistent triads are striking. <i>Most</i> striking to me, however, is how the (sometimes subtle) <i>differences </i>in phrasing enrich and elucidate the meanings of the first two propositions in
each triad.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Hart’s 1<sup>st</sup> proposition (that God freely created
out of nothingness) corresponds with Talbott’s 2<sup>nd</sup> proposition (that
God can save all that he wants to save).
It clarifies a connection between the free creative act of God and the
nature and substance of God’s “sovereignty”. Neither of the triads argues for or against <i>specific ways</i> that God <i>exercises</i> this sovereignty, but the connection does cement the idea that creatio ex nihilo demonstrates that there is no created thing that exceeds God's creative act. It connects beginning and end. God is not simply sovereign overlord, God is Creator. And not Creator meaning a sovereign overlord who has the functional power to make stuff from nothing, but Creator as the one who "calls us forth" and whose calling is grounded in an eternal <i>telos </i>that's never separable from the eternal nature of God. In the words of Hart:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>In the end of all things is their beginning, and only form the perspective of the end can one know what they are, why they have been made, and who the God is who called them forth from nothingness. And in Gregory's thought, with an integrity found only also in Origen and Maximus, protology and eschatology are a single science, a single revelation disclosed in the God-man. </i></span><i>(God, Creation and Evil, p 16)</i></blockquote>
</div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Hart’s 2<sup>nd</sup> proposition (that God is
the Good itself) corresponds with Talbott’s 1<sup>st</sup> proposition (that
God wants to save everyone). It cements the connection
between goodness and love, not just love as a general ideal of goodness, but as the particularity of willing the final good of the creation that God brought forth from nothing. For many people the connection between love and goodness is perfectly obvious and goes almost without saying. But for those who think that God's essential "goodness" need not entail a final love of all humanity, this one's for you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So while these two inconsistent triads are worded differently, particularly the first 2 propositions, they could be combined to form a common argument: that goodness-as-love combined with sovereignty-as-creation-from-nothing means that the 3rd proposition, that some rational creatures will endure eternal loss of God, must be false.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Are DB Hart's and Talbott's inconsistent triads two ways of making the same argument?</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In my next post, I'd like to look at DBH's triad in the context of theodicy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><a href="https://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2018/10/david-bentley-harts-inconsistent-triad.html">continued</a></i></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-75422198347058083982018-06-13T11:37:00.002-05:002018-10-30T21:34:05.561-05:00David Bentley Hart’s Inconsistent Triad (1)<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FR2UmhTaAJE/WwFsfXGlPPI/AAAAAAAAAlU/d82XM7VpMGktoyUPhZSQ0olsDDdOolDjgCLcBGAs/s1600/david%2Bbentley%2Bhart.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="168" data-original-width="299" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FR2UmhTaAJE/WwFsfXGlPPI/AAAAAAAAAlU/d82XM7VpMGktoyUPhZSQ0olsDDdOolDjgCLcBGAs/s1600/david%2Bbentley%2Bhart.jpeg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It’d be hard to overstate how important the essay <a href="http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/135/86">“God,Creation, and Evil: The Moral Meaning of creatio ex nihilo” by David Bentley Hart</a> has been for me. I’ve read it maybe
10 times and each time it yields some new insight that, having seen it, I can’t
unsee it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Just recently I noticed something at the end of the essay that
I hadn’t noticed before: an inconsistent triad.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">While the essay itself is a fairly grueling (though highly
rewarding) read for us non-academics, the triad <i>itself</i> is quite accessible. Not only that, but in my reading the entirety of the essay is
an exercise in sober semantic precision in support of the argument present in
this sentence:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>We are presented by what has become the majority tradition
with three fundamental claims, any two of which might be true simultaneously,
but never all three: that God freely created all things out of nothingness;
that God is the Good itself, and that it is certain or at least possible that
some rational creatures will endure eternal loss of God. (p 16)</i></span></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><u>To visually break up the three claims:</u></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<ol>
<li>God freely created all things out of nothingness</li>
<li>God is the Good itself</li>
<li>It is certain or at least possible that some rational
creatures will endure eternal loss of God</li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So the inconsistent triad is both a helpful lens through which
to read the essay and the end to which the various arguments aim and find a simple and powerful expression.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Is Hart’s analysis sound?
That any two of these statements can be true but never all three? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That’s the big question, of course. <b>What do you think?</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the next post I’d like to compare Hart’s
inconsistent triad to that of another well-known and influential Christian
universalist – Thomas Talbott.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2018/06/david-bentley-harts-inconsistent-triad.html">continued</a></i></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-12135033081972869292018-05-09T14:29:00.002-05:002018-05-20T08:35:41.364-05:00Love of Neighbor as Hermeneutical Key<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6Fj5wR4SodE/WvLoI3vihsI/AAAAAAAAAlA/bBv1lSYLanQuxfFnvuzFEntslQctwxougCLcBGAs/s1600/law%2Band%2Bprophets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="263" data-original-width="350" height="150" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6Fj5wR4SodE/WvLoI3vihsI/AAAAAAAAAlA/bBv1lSYLanQuxfFnvuzFEntslQctwxougCLcBGAs/s200/law%2Band%2Bprophets.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Therefore, all such things as you wish men might do to you, so do to them as well; <b>for this is the Law and the prophets</b>.</i><br />
-Matthew 7:12 (DB Hart, emphasis mine)<br />
<br />
I don't mean to be a stickler.... but here's where a guy, per divine ordinance, gets stoned for picking up sticks on the sabbath:<br />
<br />
<i>Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones and he died."</i><br />
-Numbers 15:35-36 (NKJV)<br />
<br />
Here’s where Paul affirms the love of neighbor hermeneutic:<br />
<i>For the whole Law is summed up in a single utterance to wit: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."</i><br />
-Galatians 5:14 (DB Hart)<br />
<br />
Here's a blessing being pronounced upon infanticide:<br />
<br />
<i>How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against the rock!</i><br />
<i>-Psalm 137:9 (NET)</i><br />
<br />
Back and forth we go. So my question is.....really? <i>Do unto others</i> <b><i>is</i></b> the Law and the prophets? Am I reading the same Law and prophets?<br />
<br />
I mean, I could understand if he said, "While the ultimate goal of the Law and prophets is to form a moral world in which people are loving others as themselves (as instituted through sacrificial and ceremonial laws, etc) much of the Law and prophets prescribe what happens in the event that you don't." Or more crudely, "the Law and prophets are about loving your neighbor as yourself. And if you don't, we will kill you."<br />
<br />
That is a much different that saying that "do unto others" <i>is</i> the Law and the prophets. Doing unto others as they would do unto you <i>unless they do something wrong or are in some way unworthy</i> would be a pretty big asterisk.<br />
<br />
I realize that there are ways to spin all of this, to salvage Jesus's words in the <i>historical-critical</i> sense (not an allegorical sense) of the text and make them perfectly compatible with the Golden Rule. I happen to think that this is where things have the potential to get really, really dangerous. The rationalizations. The twisting of language to <i>sound</i> pious.<br />
<br />
<i>"To tolerate sin is not loving at all."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"God is loving, but He is also holy."</i><br />
<br />
<i>"We don't get to choose what 'good' is."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"Sin is very serious."</i><br />
<br />
These include some truth. They just don't resolve the issue at hand. It's difficult to equivocate around doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. <i>Stoning a person is not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you</i>. Not in any meaningful sense. Any moral imperative is lost in pure equivocation.<br />
<br />
So I don't see these resolving the issue at hand for several reasons, not the least of which is the immediately prior verses in the Gospel of Matthew:<br />
<br />
<i>Or is it not the case that no man among you, if his son should ask for a loaf of bread, would give him a stone? Or, if he should also ask for a fish, would give him a serpent? If you, therefore, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in the heavens give good things to those who ask him.</i><br />
-Matthew 7:9-11 (DB Hart)<br />
<br />
Jesus doesn't present some inaccessible understanding of "doing unto others as you wish them to do unto you." It is as plain as a man giving a gift to his son. At least for Jesus, a so-called "total depravity" has not snuffed out the ability to recognize a "good gift." He appeals <i>precisely</i> to this recognition.<br />
<i><br /></i>
So I'm back to my original questions:<br />
<br />
Really? This <i>is</i> the Law and the prophets?<br />
<br />
My tone is not to be misinterpreted here. It's not one of cynicism (well, not <i>only</i> cynicism!) but of wonder.<br />
<br />
<i>What is Jesus's hermeneutic? How does he interpret? How can 'I' as individual and 'we' as a collective learn <b>this</b> hermeneutic in a deep and formative way?</i><br />
<br />
Two main points then:<br />
<br />
One, whatever theories exist as to the nature of the Biblical texts, they need to be fully informed by this vision of Law and prophet as <i>love your neighbor as yourself.</i> And not in a twisted and inaccessible way, but in a way that does justice to the simple kindness of a parent giving a gift to child.<br />
<br />
And two, I don't think it's possible to understand Jesus without wrestling with his hermeneutic. To Jesus, each iota and serif is only truly 'fulfilled' when viewed through the lens of the law of love. Any other 'fulfillment' is to miss the point.<br />
<br />
<i>Do not think that I came to destroy the Law and the prophets; I came not to destroy but to fulfill. For, amen, I tell you, until heaven and earth shall pass away, not a single iota or single serif must vanish from the Law, until all things come to pass.</i><br />
-Matthew 5:17 (DB Hart)<br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
When all things come to pass, when humanity is roused from sleep and caught up in the life of God, this fulfillment will be manifest precisely as love of neighbor, and love without mixture.<br />
<br />
<i>Love does not work evil against the neighbor; hence love is the full totality of the Law. This moreover, knowing the time: Now is the hour for you to be roused from sleep, for our salvation is nearer now than when we came to faith."</i><br />
-Romans 13:10-11 (DB Hart)<br />
<br />
May <i>this</i> 'fulfilling' invade the present.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-73953654529611000562018-01-20T11:46:00.001-06:002018-01-20T11:46:45.972-06:00What kind of blessedness is it that luxuriates in revenge? (Jurgen Moltmann)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6WD3qn6cE_E/WmN_e3k7AoI/AAAAAAAAAkw/lHUoeq2FMYIqHSR3w5CFLFMnsqcdN9MeACLcBGAs/s1600/swords%2Bto%2Bploughshares.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="259" data-original-width="194" height="200" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6WD3qn6cE_E/WmN_e3k7AoI/AAAAAAAAAkw/lHUoeq2FMYIqHSR3w5CFLFMnsqcdN9MeACLcBGAs/s200/swords%2Bto%2Bploughshares.jpeg" width="149" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>There are certainly many other movements, and much fervent zeal for the liberation of the masses. It certainly sounds more realistic for people in darkness to dream of God's day of vengeance, finding satisfaction in the hope that at the Last Judgment all the godless enemies who oppress us here will be cast into hellfire. But what kind of blessedness is it that luxuriates in revenge and needs the groans of the damned as background to its own joy? To us a child is born, not an embittered old man. God in a child, not as hangman. That is why he prayed on his cross: "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." It sounded more heroic when, forty years ago, in 1934, Hitler's columns marched through Tubingen, singing with fanatical zeal: "One day, the day of revenge. One day, and we shall be free." It was a zeal that led to Auschwitz and Stalingrad...</i><br />
<br />
-Jurgen Moltmann, The Power of the Powerless (taken from <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Watch-Light-Readings-Advent-Christmas/dp/087486917X">Watch for the Light</a>)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-33261464922251150622017-12-14T16:15:00.003-06:002017-12-14T16:15:28.984-06:00Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought - Thomas Talbott (5): Restricting the Scope of God's Love<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u>The Inconsistent Triad</u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9z3VNFP2H8o/Vzp5lwkesVI/AAAAAAAAAVI/mzh0CH9Pn30AfFA4zYv1-QfC5OPZx1-7wCLcB/s1600/Inconsistent-Triad-Illustration-MH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9z3VNFP2H8o/Vzp5lwkesVI/AAAAAAAAAVI/mzh0CH9Pn30AfFA4zYv1-QfC5OPZx1-7wCLcB/s400/Inconsistent-Triad-Illustration-MH.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>These posts relate to the article <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/">"Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought" by Dr. Thomas Talbott</a> as published in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. </i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>This essay strikes an excellent balance between being concise and being thorough in laying out the arguments and viewpoints of various Christian schools of eschatological thought without resorting to caricatures. His project is careful to present each of these viewpoints at their strongest, for only then can productive dialogue occur.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought.html">Return to Part 1</a></i><br />
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/12/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought.html">Back to Part 4</a></i><br />
<br />
<i>**********</i><br />
<i><br /></i>Let's now look at how Talbott addresses the Augustinian notion of God's "restricted love".<br />
<br />
The Augustinian reasons as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>God's saving grace is irresistible in the end, and yet everlasting torment in hell will nonetheless be the terrible fate of some; therefore, God does not love all created persons equally and his (electing) love is thus limited in its scope.</i></blockquote>
In the end, it's fairly simple. Grace is "irresistible" (proposition 2), yet everlasting separation is true (proposition 3). Therefore, it must be the case that God does not love all people equally <i>in the sense that God wills their salvation</i>.<br />
<br />
If a person is not saved it is because God doesn't want them to be saved. His electing love, being irresistible, cannot and must not extend to them. Period.<br />
<br />
For some people this salvation equation is sheer theological fact. "Mysterious" as to the reasons for God's "free" choice to save some and not others, but <i>not mysterious in it's sheer necessity</i>. On the other hand, for those who either (1) come from a tradition that doesn't hold to the Augustinian version of "irresistible" grace or (2)come from a tradition that <i>does </i>view salvation through the lens of the Augustinian version of "irresistible" grace <i>but didn't realize the necessity of this limited scope of God's salvific will,</i> this is a scandalous assertion. Shocking. For some, heretical.<br />
<br />
The assertion naturally leads to some important theological questions like:<br />
<br />
<i>What?? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>God doesn't want all people to be "saved"? </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>How and where do we see such an idea defended philosophically? Biblically? Theologically?</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>What about those parts of scripture that would seem to indicate that God does indeed want all to be "saved"?</i><br />
<br />
1 Timothy 2:4 is one example of an isolated verse commonly used to affirm God's desire to save all people without exception:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (NRSV)</i></blockquote>
For a person who <i>needs</i> to restrict the scope of God's (electing) love and sees this verse as holding some sort of authority, this verse is a problem. What can be done? But here is how Augustine explains it :<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"the word concerning concerning God, 'who will have all men to be saved,' does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will...but by 'all men' we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided...For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only-begotten Son our Lord." (Enchiridion) </i></blockquote>
So for Augustine, "all" <i>must</i> merely mean "all kinds" or "some" individuals from "every group". This is the <i>necessary</i> exegetical move. God simply <i>cannot</i> be said to will the salvation of <i>all</i> people (as defined in proposition 1) and maintain any Augustinian theological coherence as defined by the acceptance of propositions 2 & 3. So any Bible verse that <i>seems </i>to say otherwise ("all" as meaning literally "all people") cannot <i>really </i>be doing so. It must be shoved off to the side or dismantled.<br />
<br />
The logic of it is not difficult to see. Simple. <br />
<br />
Now some proponents of the Augustinian view of "limited election"argue, quite simply, that God does not love the non-elect <i>at all</i>. Others, like the contemporary philosopher Paul Helm don't argue that God doesn't "love" all people or that "love" is not of God's very essence. Instead, Helm seems to dismantle the connection between God's love and God's salvific will. Helm argues that God's loving nature or God's loving actions towards human beings do <i>not</i> necessitate that God's <i>redemptive</i> love extends equally to all people. The argument goes, <i>just as there are differences within the created order (male/female, etc), there can be differentiations with respect to God's redemptive purposes. </i>Essentially, God being love in God's essence and being loving towards God's creation does not mean that this love is necessarily and finally <i>redemptive</i> in nature<i>.</i><br />
<br />
Helm does not here seek to throw out the language of "love" but rather to rework it's semantic content to fit into an Augustinian framework by:<br />
<ol>
<li>creating a special category of "love" called "redemptive love" and arguing that the former does not necessarily entail the latter</li>
<li>viewing divine love on a sort of sliding scale, the minimum level of which may be called "love" but doesn't include the will to save</li>
</ol>
Jeff Jordan takes a similar approach. He argues that God's love need not be <i>maximally extended</i> for it to be love. He finds the idea of "equal love" to be an impossibility because love is not defined by <i>uniformity</i>. In other words, divine love need not be salvific in it's aims for it to be divine "love".<br />
<br />
----------<br />
<br />
A lot of foundational things to work through here. Personally, I'd prefer to see the language of "love" thrown out all together than see it's semantic content be reduced to a rubble of Augustinian equivocation. Preference aside, the implications of going down this path are, I think, stunning and disastrous.<br />
<br />
For me, the questions that arise out of this section are:<br />
<ol>
<li><b>When does "all" mean "all"?</b></li>
<li><b>What is the connection between who God is and what God does?</b></li>
<li><b>We may very well be dealing with definitions of "love" that are are semantically different. So what do we mean by the word "love"? </b></li>
<li><b>Does God being "loving" entail that God wills the ultimate good of the object(s) of his love? Or can "love" will something less (and far worse) that the ultimate good of the beloved and still be called "love"?</b></li>
<li><b>What are the protological (in-the-beginning) implications of a limited love?</b></li>
</ol>
<br />
<i>continued</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-61360766565095557922017-12-12T13:35:00.003-06:002018-05-20T07:29:19.647-05:00Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought - Thomas Talbott (4): Postulating a Final and Irreversible Division within the Human Race<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oj4UY4wkssc/Vzc0xssYq9I/AAAAAAAAATQ/rmupiuW9UpI5hMTNfuxGgkZmg2hQI0-OQCLcB/s1600/heaven%2Band%2Bhell%2Bescalator.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="273" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oj4UY4wkssc/Vzc0xssYq9I/AAAAAAAAATQ/rmupiuW9UpI5hMTNfuxGgkZmg2hQI0-OQCLcB/s320/heaven%2Band%2Bhell%2Bescalator.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>These posts relate to the article <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/">"Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought" by Dr. Thomas Talbott</a> as published in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. </i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>This essay strikes an excellent balance between being concise and being thorough in laying out the arguments and viewpoints of various Christian schools of eschatological thought without resorting to caricatures. His project is careful to present each of these viewpoints at their strongest, for only then can productive dialogue occur.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_30.html">Back to part 3</a></i><br />
<br />
<i>**********</i><br />
<i><br /></i>You may notice that proposition (3) is fairly unspecific:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Some humans will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever. </i></blockquote>
This is by design. It could mean a lot of different things.<br />
<ul>
<li>Hell as a realm where the wicked receive retribution in the form of everlasting torment.</li>
<li> A place of "spiritual torment" experienced as despair and anger, etc.</li>
<li>Annihilation (cease to exist).</li>
<li>A self-created hell sustained by rejecting God (the "doors locked on the inside" per C.S. Lewis)</li>
<li>A realm in which God will try to make people as "comfortable" as possible.</li>
<li>The experience of God's love as wrath.</li>
<li>Etc.</li>
</ul>
<div>
Any of these viewpoints accept (3) as true. All represent a form of a final and irrevocable division in humanity - a division between those who are reconciled to God and those who are not. No doubt there could be more.<br />
<br />
But let us put aside the nature or experience of this "separation" or "non-reconciliation" for the moment and instead ask the following question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If there is to be such a final and irreversible division within the human race, just what accounts for it?</i></blockquote>
Recall Talbott's Inconsistent Triad:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nXGhwDkGhag/VzESpi4MqPI/AAAAAAAAATA/FoHXA1LtMyY3JE5yQv0fi0PH70e6fRWXACLcB/s1600/Inconsistent-Triad-Illustration-MH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nXGhwDkGhag/VzESpi4MqPI/AAAAAAAAATA/FoHXA1LtMyY3JE5yQv0fi0PH70e6fRWXACLcB/s400/Inconsistent-Triad-Illustration-MH.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There are two <i>very</i> different explanations for this final division.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>For Augustinians, the explanation lies in the mystery of God's freedom to extend his love and mercy to a limited elect and to withhold it from the rest of humanity.</i> </blockquote>
For the Augustinian, God owes humanity nothing and is perfectly free to give grace to whom he chooses and withhold it from whom he chooses. Talbott references Calvin's interpretation of Romans 9. Jacob is taken into grace. Esau is hated. And this outside of ANYTHING that either of these two individuals had done, good or bad. God, in his sovereignty, does not want to save Esau. Period. (We'll come back to this view of God's "freedom" later on).<br />
<br />
In contrast to the Augustinian view, we have (what Talbott calls) the Arminian view.</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>According to the Arminians, the explanation lies in our human free choices. Thanks to God's grace, </i>we<i> ultimately determine our own destiny in heaven or hell.</i></blockquote>
</div>
Arminians hold that God offers his grace to all, but that people freely reject it thus securing their separation. God would save all and is not willing that any should perish, but the effectiveness of grace requires a certain "acceptance". God can't just "override free-will", which would be "unloving".<br />
<br />
Given the staunch disagreement as to the reasons for this "final and irreversible division", it shouldn't be surprising that each side critiques the framework, intelligibility, and implications of the other.<br />
<br />
<i>Arminians</i> portray the Augustinian view as inherently unjust, even monstrous. They point towards the scripture verses that posit God's universal salvific will and love.<br />
<br />
<i>Augustinians</i> critique the Arminian explanation as contradicting St. Paul's clear teaching that salvation is wholly a matter of grace. Even an "acceptance" of grace constitutes a sort of earning. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If the ultimate difference between the saved and the lost lies in their superior free choices that the saved have made during their earthly lives, then why shouldn't they take credit for this difference or even boast about it? Why shouldn't they say: "Well, at least I'm not as bad as those miserable people in hell who were so stupid as to have freely rejected the grace that God offers to all." </i></blockquote>
Nor could a sovereign God fail to reconcile the chosen objects of his love. Such a defeat is inconceivable. <br />
<br />
While the theology and terminology contained in these two very different approaches requires elaboration, both are compelling.<br />
<br />
<b><i>As such, a universalist would agree with their critiques of one other, arguing that the problem lies in their prior and largely unquestioned commitment to the acceptance of proposition (3).</i></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/12/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_14.html">continued</a></i><br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-37640245567190585442017-11-30T16:33:00.001-06:002017-11-30T16:37:11.062-06:00Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought - Thomas Talbott (3): Three Primary Eschatological Views & The Inconsistent Triad (One More Time)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NswEAdZ2M14/Vyq6-HhSNaI/AAAAAAAAASs/sDXkggrxDqoUy15L1E-D5v_8U7zt8KeHQCLcB/s1600/inconsistent%2Btriad.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NswEAdZ2M14/Vyq6-HhSNaI/AAAAAAAAASs/sDXkggrxDqoUy15L1E-D5v_8U7zt8KeHQCLcB/s1600/inconsistent%2Btriad.jpeg" /></a></div>
<i>These posts relate to the article <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/">"Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought" by Dr. Thomas Talbott</a> as published in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. </i><br />
<i><br /></i><i>This essay strikes an excellent balance between being concise and being thorough in laying out the arguments and viewpoints of various Christian schools of eschatological thought without resorting to caricatures. His project is careful to present each of these viewpoints at their strongest, for only then can productive dialogue occur.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_7.html">Back to part 2</a></i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>**********</i><br />
<br />
Before looking at each of the three primary eschatological views in greater detail, let’s look once more at the Inconsistent Triad with the aid of a diagram:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QItVxa6-JY0/Vyqy0SS1QHI/AAAAAAAAASY/3nznxLh6P9siPM7wjKMdiAyIyBZ7vQagQCLcB/s1600/Inconsistent-Triad-Illustration-MH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QItVxa6-JY0/Vyqy0SS1QHI/AAAAAAAAASY/3nznxLh6P9siPM7wjKMdiAyIyBZ7vQagQCLcB/s400/Inconsistent-Triad-Illustration-MH.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<i style="font-family: inherit;"><u>A few notes:</u></i><br />
<br />
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The
3 primary eschatological views are placed on the length of the triangle
that connects the two points (the propositions) that each view accepts.
The 3rd point represents the proposition that is rejected.</i><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The
proposition labels (Sovereignty, Unconditional Love, Everlasting
Separation) are obviously not without ambiguity, and each of the 3 primary
eschatological views may argue that their “rejection” of the label is
either inaccurate or subject to clarification. The meaning of these
terms is, of course, very much a part of the essay. In any case, I
think that these 1-2 word descriptions are helpful.</i><o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><i><span style="font-family: inherit;">When
considering the word “separation” in proposition 3, bear in mind Talbott’s
definition of salvation as reconciliation, or “even a kind of union”.
“Separation” need not be geographical, but is rather a “disunion” or
“estrangement”.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
**********<br />
Talbott summarizes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Augustinians (named after St. Augustine of Hippo) believe strongly in both the sovereignty of God’s will (proposition 2) and the reality of an everlasting separation from God (proposition 3), they finally reject the idea that God’s unconditional (or electing) love extends to all humans equally (proposition 1)."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The Arminians (named after Jacob Arminius for his opposition to the Augustinian understanding of limited election) believe in both God’s equal love for all (proposition 1) and the reality of an everlasting separation from God (proposition 3), they finally reject the idea that God’s desire to win over all will by fully satisfied (proposition 2)."</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Christian universalists believe in both God’s equal love for all (proposition 1) and the ultimate triumph of his loving will (proposition 2), they finally reject altogether the idea of an everlasting separation from God (proposition 3)."</i></blockquote>
**********<br />
<br />
Consider, once again, just how different these 3 views are.<br />
<br />
Talbott concludes the <u>Three Primary Eschatological Views</u> section with a penetrating question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>“Which system of theology best preserves the praiseworthy character and the glory of the divine nature?”</b></i></blockquote>
Does this question make you squirm a little bit? Does it make you uneasy?<br />
<br />
Given the possible variety of things that might constitute "praiseworthy character", perhaps you find it hopelessly subjective. You may be tempted to argue that a particular view is objectively "right" thereby dismissing the questions of "praiseworthy character" and "glory" as subjective and twisted by "modern sentimentality". Or perhaps you sense a certain tension between divine attributes (like justice and mercy). Or perhaps you view God's "goodness" and man's "goodness" as completely different.<br />
<br />
Despite these (or a great many other) protests, it is a paradigm shaping question. It requires humility. And yet we must ask and answer as best we know how. We have moved to precarious territory if we argue that the truth does not "preserve the praiseworthy character of God" or conflate goodness with sheer power. Always keep this question in mind as we move forward, because it is the deeper question to which all the philosophical language and precision points. We shall see how the various eschatological views address the question as we proceed.<br />
<br />
We'll now move into the meat of the essay.<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-43202558877197844282017-11-21T15:57:00.000-06:002018-09-24T15:23:39.610-05:00“God isn’t here yet. Why can’t I see him?” (A 4 year old asks)<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IDKMalaj3cs/VxWfpcCH1QI/AAAAAAAAARM/RLE5aIi8P9cGibR-qICAes3JlfsNqJ0egCPcBGAYYCw/s1600/child%2Bafraid.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="276" height="132" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IDKMalaj3cs/VxWfpcCH1QI/AAAAAAAAARM/RLE5aIi8P9cGibR-qICAes3JlfsNqJ0egCPcBGAYYCw/s200/child%2Bafraid.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>“God isn’t here
yet. Why can’t I see him?”</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My 4 year old daughter uttered these words a few nights ago.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
She lacks the vocabulary to describe it in these terms, but it was the first time I've heard her speak of God's perceived absence in a way that was inextricably linked with anxiety.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The days and nights leading up to Halloween provided new and
imaginative ways for her to be scared.
TV shows (especially the kids shows), commercials, decorations, store
displays – all of it seeped into her mind.
It’s made our bedtime routine a little tricky….and quite long. She’s scared, and it can take her awhile to
settle down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Her primary nemesis is “Birthday Man”. Birthday Man has sharp teeth and he eats your
birthday cake. He comes at night. Possibly from her closet. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I mean, it’s cute in a way.
This is about the scariest thing that her 4 year old mind can come up
with. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The thing is, this genuinely terrifies her. Forget about the birthday cake part. Think of a man with sharp teeth who shows up
at night, emerging from your closet. I
can see why it scares her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So bedtime has been a little rough. We check her closet. We’ve said prayers with her and for her. We make fun of birthday man, arguing that he
can’t have teeth because all of that cake would have rotted them and they’d
fall out (we get to plug the benefits of brushing your teeth here). We’ve convinced her that her blanket makes
her invisible which seems to have worked the best. She crawls deep underneath her blanket, just
a few inches of her face exposed. Just
enough to breathe. Again, somewhat
cute. But imagine being so scared that
you wanted to be invisible. I can
relate. It makes me sad that she’s
experiencing this fear.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
She wants the fear to go away before my wife or I leave the
room. God is supposed to be nice. God is supposed to always be watching and
protecting. When we leave God should
stay with her.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“God isn’t here
yet. Why can’t I see him?”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Where is God? Why can't I see him? Are you seeing something that I'm not? Is something wrong with <i>me</i>?<br />
<br />
I wonder if any of those questions darted around in her mind.<br />
<br />
All I said was, “I don’t know”.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was really hoping that, as a parent, I would have good
answers for questions like these. Answers that would be age-appropriate but also honest and true. Answers that would grow and expand as she grew. But I
didn’t. And I don’t. A few days to process this hasn’t made much
of a difference.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve tried to think through it theologically, but basically
everything that I think up seems like a way to explain away her dilemma. Answers seems empty. It’d basically be: Don’t expect God to be
here or to “see him’ in any way that resembles what <i>you</i> mean by the words “see him”.
It becomes a game of words. Redefine them until you can use them.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sometimes the best “answers” just cloak our pain and
disappointment. I want to be
truthful. I don’t want her faith-world to be a
fiction, a house of cards.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“God isn’t here
yet. Why can’t I see him?”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
She’s asking about God’s absence. I must speak to her. I must start somewhere.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How do you answer this question for a 4 year old? (Or for a 37 year old for that matter)?!<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-3334791914098753502017-11-10T22:14:00.003-06:002017-11-10T22:25:07.025-06:00Trumpism and the Friend-Enemy Distinction<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-weqtOPRnLdo/WgYybfe-oaI/AAAAAAAAAkY/NrgoqcqZO_45YHY_tQUeyalljya0CJDIwCLcBGAs/s1600/friend%2Benemy.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="154" data-original-width="327" height="150" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-weqtOPRnLdo/WgYybfe-oaI/AAAAAAAAAkY/NrgoqcqZO_45YHY_tQUeyalljya0CJDIwCLcBGAs/s320/friend%2Benemy.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
So I read this insightful article by Mark S. Weiner – <a href="https://niskanencenter.org/blog/climate-change-denial-historical-consciousness-trumpism-lessons-carl-schmitt/">Climate
Change Denial as the Historical Consciousness of Trumpism: Lessons From Carl
Schmitt</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sure, I was interested in the particular systematic and/or
philosophical reasons for climate change denial within Trumpism. More than that though, I was interested
in hearing his take on “historical consciousness” and Trump. To what is the administration referring with
the tagline “Make America Great Again”? To what historical moment and/or narrative do they point?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Early in the article, the author argues for an awareness of the
philosophy and ideologies undergirding Trumpism. Buried beneath an avalanche of Tweets, he
argues, is a set of philosophical convictions that must be acknowledged and understood. To do nothing more than ridicule Trumpism is
“mistaken and self-defeating” and “a signal of our own intellectual weakness.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Truth be told, I don’t get this “substance below the
surface” sentiment from Trump. I don't think there's anything there. But I do
get it from, say, Steve Bannon. He’s a
dangerously smart guy. Listen to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/podcasts/the-daily/steve-bannon-interview.html?_r=0">this
interview on The Daily</a>. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But back to the article.
I got to this part:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
According to Schmitt, a political community arises when its
members coalesce around some aspect of their common existence. On this basis, <b><i>they
distinguish between their “friends” and “enemies,” the latter of whom they are
ultimately prepared to fight and kill to defend their way of life</i></b>.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>A political community, that is, is created through an animating sense
of common identity and existential threat</i></b>—indeed, that’s how “the
political” as a fundamental sphere of human value comes into being, and how it
provides the cultural foundation of sovereignty and the state for a community
of equals. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Schmitt believes that this pugilistic view of politics rings
true as a conceptual matter, but <b><i>he also regards drawing the friend-enemy
distinction as a quasi-theological duty and part of what it means to be fully
human</i></b>. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>Without the friend-enemy distinction, he argues, political life would
vanish, and without it something essential to humanity would vanish, too—human
existence would be reduced to mere private hedonism</i></b>. This gives
Schmittianism, like the Bannon-affiliated elements of Trumpism, a family
affinity to traditionalism in Russia—a link highlighted by Bannon’s discussion
of the traditionalist underpinnings of Eurasianism in his 2014 remarks to a
gathering of the Human Dignity Institute. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
One could equally express the Schmittian worldview in more
theologically positive terms, as I’ve discussed elsewhere, as a <b><i>politics
based on love</i></b>. For Schmitt, the political is founded on the essential
mutual regard of community members for what <b><i>they share beneath their
surface-level differences</i></b>. That recognition justifies the state’s
demand that citizens be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in its name,
and for Schmitt it forms the philosophical precondition of law itself. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(bold italics mine)</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s goes like this.
A political community requires a common identity to exist, something
that it’s members share beneath their surface-level differences. Absolutely fundamental to this identity is
the friend-enemy distinction. To lose this distinction is to lose something essential to human existence. In what way? The friend-enemy distinction and the conflict that inevitably follows is necessary both to create the construct of “sovereignty” and to avoid private hedonism. Conflict is woven into the very fabric of existence. There must be an in-group and there must be an out-group. This is in no small part because the friend-enemy distinction provides
an “other” by which and to which the community can point to an existential threat. This existential threat, this shared fear, provides no small portion of the purposes for which the community exists. The existential
threat strengthens the belonging.
Without the friend-enemy distinction, something essential to humanity
would vanish. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
This is very useful lens through which to view Trumpism.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We see the campaigning on hatred and fear of the
immigrant and the Muslim. It explains
the twitter tirades, the stunning amount of blatant lies, the minimization of the state department, and the
policy-of-withdrawal. The only possible “peace”
in such a worldview is an absence of immediate military conflict that comes through endless preparation for war, a
peace brokered by highly militarized nations equipped to wipe each other out
hundreds of times over. Aspects of what
is referred to as “globalism” threaten the entire meaning making apparatus, not
just for tangible economic reasons but because we have no “other” to provide
the existential threat, the shared fear, that promises to unify. Because if
we are truly all in this together, the ultimacy and necessity of the friend-enemy distinction is a
lie. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The identity of a group comes primarily from “us” not being
“them”. Whoever they are.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s at this point that I realized that this is not <i>just </i>a Trumpism thing. This is a human thing. Trumpism may assume a particular way of
defining the enemy – nationally (which is inevitably cultural/racial) - but it’s become apparent to me that human
society revolves around the need for an enemy to serve as a scapegoat. Uniting around a shared victim brings "peace". The thought of Rene Girard (filtered through others) has illuminated this for me.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The friend-enemy distinction leads to and is reinforced by
contempt for the enemy.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
This is not a new thing. Again, Girard illuminates the scapegoat mechanism present and revealed in the Gospels.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We see that the hatred of Jesus temporarily dissolves the
animosity between Pilate and Herod:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and
mocked him. Then, dressing him in
elegant clothes, Herod sent him back to Pilate.
That very day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other, for prior
to this they had been enemies.<br />--Luke 23-11-12</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or for a less appropriate, more contemporary, and more comical take, <a href="https://jaymohr.bandcamp.com/track/similar-hates">here is Jay Mohr on “similar hates”.</a><br />
<br />
I'm increasingly recognizing that Trumpism can't be so easily dismissed just because of the actions & character of the man who heads it. Trumpism is certainly a cult of personality but it is also more. That's why it's dangerous. It plays to the worst in us.<br />
<br />
More than anything, it makes me want to explore the ways in which my Christian faith and the Gospel of Jesus counters and critiques this narrative and might visibly offer an alternative to the existential threat narrative that characterizes the friend-enemy framework so prevalent in our time.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-55593657931870265152017-11-07T22:23:00.003-06:002017-11-30T16:33:54.395-06:00Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought - Thomas Talbott (2): Three Primary Eschatological Views & The Inconsistent Triad<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hLIqMfymcxY/VygetjfGv-I/AAAAAAAAAR4/ISs9VUiRnYoj0Rc2sMSSXssC-u5ekH0MgCLcB/s1600/three%2Bviews%2Bpic.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hLIqMfymcxY/VygetjfGv-I/AAAAAAAAAR4/ISs9VUiRnYoj0Rc2sMSSXssC-u5ekH0MgCLcB/s1600/three%2Bviews%2Bpic.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>These posts relate to the article <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/">"Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought" by Dr. Thomas Talbott</a> as published in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>This essay strikes an excellent balance between being concise and being thorough in laying out the arguments and viewpoints of various Christian schools of eschatological thought without resorting to caricatures. His project is careful to present each of these viewpoints at their strongest, for only then can productive dialogue occur.</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<i><b><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought.html">Back to Part 1</a></b></i><br />
<br />
**********<br />
<br />
We need a bit more background before we can move into the substance of the three primary eschatological viewpoints.<br />
<br />
It's worth mentioning at this point, I think, this this essay is concerned with heaven/hell as eschatological finalities, not <i>merely </i>as <i>metaphors</i> for present existence.<br />
<br />
Some may find such a clarification to be needless, it being so obvious as to go unsaid. We hear "eschatological" as meaning "future". And of course we are dealing with heaven and hell as future realities. Of course it's about the afterlife. What else would it mean?<br />
<br />
Others may be opposed to this characterization. There is much scholarship to suggest that references to "judgment" and "hell" (rather "gehenna" or "sheol/hades" since the word "hell" is a translation) or that too much focus on "heaven" is somehow fundamentally opposed to a very earthy resurrection, and posits an escape from the world rather than existence in a restored one. The argument goes, then, that heaven/hell entirely miss the point of how these terms would have originally functioned, and that the eschatological component should (at the very least) be minimized. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to aspects of this, <i>the truth is that in no way do such views eliminate the question of eschatological finality all together. It is not either/or.</i><br />
<br />
Think of it this way. There are roughly 8 billion people on the planet today. Estimates are that there have been 107 billion people who've lived throughout human history. That means that 99 billion people have lived and died. From a Christian perspective then, the terminology of heaven/hell is not being used simply to refer to the demythologized experience of those alive on planet earth at this current moment in time, but also to all those people who have come and gone before us. <br />
<br />
The eschatological question does not ignore the present. But neither is it only about the present moment.<br />
<br />
<i>It is a cosmic question, one that transcends space and time.</i><br />
<br />
Bottom line, if you prefer different terms to heaven and hell, then by all means use them. If you don't care much for the scholarly historical-critical side of things, don't sweat it. The important issue is not the precise terminology that is used (as we shall see).<br />
<br />
Now about this word "salvation". When we talk about "salvation" then, we're talking about something ontological, something that relates to the nature of what it is to be human.<br />
<br />
Talbott states that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The Christian interpretation of this human condition thus postulates an initial estrangement from God, and the Christian religion then offers a prescription for how we can be saved from such estrangement."</i></blockquote>
And also that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"the highest possible good for created persons (true blessedness, if you will) requires that they enter into a proper relationship (or even a kind of union) with their Creator."</i></blockquote>
Essential to the connotation of "salvation" is that of <i>divine estrangement </i>and the experience that <i>something is not right</i>. Something is less than complete. We live our lives "in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and misperception". We "repeatedly misconstrue our own interests and pursue them in misguided ways." We are both perpetrators and victims of our own and others choices, but are also subject to "such non-moral evils as natural disasters, sickness, and especially physical death itself."<br />
<br />
Something is wrong. If there is disagreement on this point there is very little need to read any further other than to satisfy an intellectual curiosity about a supposed "Christian" solution to a problem that doesn't exist, a human condition that is really no "condition" at all. <br />
<br />
However we conceive of this salvation - as a place, an experience, a state of mind, here or there, then or now - <i>we are here focused on how various Christian thinkers across the centuries have addressed the issue of the extent to which this salvation will be experienced by human beings as a finality. </i><br />
<br />
But leave aside those <i>particulars</i> of the nature of "salvation", "heaven" and "hell" for a moment. Let's organize the ways of thinking about this against the backdrop of 3 inconsistent propositions.<br />
<br />
**********<br />
<br />
Here Talbott introduces the Inconsistent Triad - 3 statements that cannot all be true:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(1) All humans are equal objects of God's unconditional love in the sense that God, being no respecter of persons, sincerely wills or desires to reconcile each one of them to himself and thus to prepare each one of them for the bliss of union with him.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(2) Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires. </i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>(3) Some humans will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever. </i></blockquote>
Or to make things more succinct:<br />
<br />
(1) God wants to "save" everyone.<br />
<br />
(2) God has the ability to "save" all that he wants to "save".<br />
<br />
(3) Some will be forever separated from God, the nature of that separation notwithstanding (eternal conscious torment, annihilation, etc.)<br />
<br />
Thus we are then left with <u>three primary eschatological views</u>. Talbott labels these as (1)Augustinian, (2)Arminian and (3)Universalist. We could, of course, label these three primary views differently and/or place other traditions under these headers.<br />
<br />
<u>Generally speaking:</u><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
<b><u>Augustinians</u></b> accept (2) & (3), but reject (1). Augustinians believe that God could save everyone, but doesn't want to do so.<br />
<b><u>Arminians</u></b> accept (1) & (3), but reject (2). Arminians believe that God wants to save everyone but doesn't have the power to do so.<br />
<b><u>Universalists</u></b> accept (1) & (2), but reject (3). Believers in universal reconciliation believe that God has the power to save everyone and also wants to do so.<br />
<br />
To put it into a single sentence, God is either able to able to save all but doesn't want to, wants to but can't, or is both able to and wants to.<br />
<br />
As we shall see, it really is that simple. Complex arguments appear more simple against the backdrop of the Inconsistent Triad.<br />
<br />
We'll dig into the Inconsistent Triad more in the next post. It's a very important piece in understanding the method and flow of the essay.<br />
<br />
<b>In the meantime, consider the triad and the implications of the three views. </b><b>Are the three statements truly incompatible? </b><b>Which are you intimately familiar with? Have you thought about heaven/hell within this framework? </b><br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_30.html">continue to part 3</a></i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-38023554434785306142017-11-05T16:04:00.002-06:002017-11-07T22:24:45.069-06:00Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought - Thomas Talbott (1): Introduction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-u90CPMCMCtw/VyFwpYrP-GI/AAAAAAAAARo/mWEgf8EhXg0a9VU0d7smLVKeNKVFqWE0QCLcB/s1600/philosophy.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-u90CPMCMCtw/VyFwpYrP-GI/AAAAAAAAARo/mWEgf8EhXg0a9VU0d7smLVKeNKVFqWE0QCLcB/s1600/philosophy.jpeg" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>
<i>These posts relate to the article <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/">"Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought" by Dr. Thomas Talbott</a> as published in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>This essay strikes an excellent balance between being concise and being thorough in laying out the arguments and viewpoints of various Christian schools of eschatological thought without resorting to caricatures. His project is careful to present each of these viewpoints at their strongest, for only then can productive dialogue occur.</i><br />
<br />
**********<br />
<br />
First off, a few things that worth mentioning before getting into the meat of the essay itself.<br />
<br />
This is an entry in The Stanford Encyclopedia of <u><b>Philosophy.</b></u><br />
<br />
That's right. Philosophy.<br />
<br />
To some degree, be prepared to read philosophy and to think philosophically. You don't need to be a PhD to read it (PhD = doctor of philosophy by the way). But while lucid and concise, it is not a particularly fast or easy read. This essay as characterized by careful and precise logic, an inconsistent triad, a "rejection hypothesis", a theoretical person characterized as a rather impersonal "sinner S", etc.<br />
<br />
So if you have some religiously conditioned aversion to philosophy (it being the presumptuous and self-glorifying "wisdom of men") you'll have to (at the very least) lay that aside. The fact is that, whether knowingly or unknowingly, any type of theological thinking involves philosophy. Every thinking person is engaging philosophy at some level. This includes me and you. To think otherwise is simply naive. <br />
<br />
But make no mistake about it, this essay is thoroughly grounded in the Christian tradition and engages with many of the most influential thinkers in the history of Christian thought, both modern and ancient. C.S. Lewis, Augustine, Calvin, Arminius, Jonathan Edwards, Anselm, George MacDonald, Jerry Walls, William Lane Craig - they're all here, along with a host of contemporary philosophers of various theological persuasions. The goal is to represent the various streams of thought at their strongest and/or most commonly held forms, not to find silly straw-man arguments to dismantle. The eastern branch of the Christian tradition is largely absent, however, which is unfortunate.<br />
<br />
With it's philosophical tone and focus, the intent and form are not the same as one written for a biblical or theological journal. You won't find extensive biblical references or a wide array of unexplained proof texts. You won't find discussions about "biblical inerrancy" or arguments over the precise nature of the authority of the sacred texts of Christianity. You won't find much discussion on church tradition or authority.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Given that the essay occurs in the context of the Christian thought, it was a little surprising that you find very little mention of Christ throughout the essay. There is very little mention of incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. There is no atonement theology here. No argument over the mechanics of precisely <i>how</i> salvation "works".<br />
<br />
How can this be?!<br />
<br />
Truth be told, I'm not scandalized by it. Not in the least. As this is an essay in a philosophical journal, it is concerned primarily with the particular ways that different traditions conceive of heaven and hell. "Fair enough", you may say, "but are philosophy and theology in competition with one another?" <br />
<br />
Indeed, in the end I don't think that they are.<br />
<br />
But while I think that any talk of a Christian doctrine of heaven/hell must include the person of Jesus Christ and the narrative of incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection (rather than individual proof texts that are used as "data"), it's not quite so easy as that. The indisputable fact is that the variety of issues inherent in the eschatological thinking that is the subject of this essay can't be dismissed by hand-waving and appeals to various authorities or tradition or even to Christ Himself, <i>because the various Christian eschatological views ALL do this in various ways</i>. The elucidation of <i>that</i> truth has been, for me, eye opening.<br />
<br />
In a paragraph that pretty well summarizes the essay, Talbott says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"When we turn to the theological and philosophical literature in the Christian tradition, we encounter, as we would in any of the other great religious traditions as well, a bewildering variety of different (and often inconsistent) theological views. The views about hell in particular include very different conceptions of divine love, divine justice, and divine grace, very different ideas about free will and its role (if any) in determining a person's ultimate destiny, very different understandings of moral evil and the purpose of punishment, and very different views about the nature of moral responsibility and the possibility of inherited guilt."</i></blockquote>
While I'd expect that anyone reading an essay on "Heaven and Hell in Christian Thought" may have some idea of the issues at hand and the variety of views that exist, the depth and profundity of these differences can be a bit shocking. It was and is for me. In a sense, you may even come to think that people aren't simply arguing abstract theology, but that they're talking about "different Gods" in terms of the one God's purposes, nature, salvific will, etc. <br />
<br />
Any way you see it, Talbott's project is to take this variety and to carefully and precisely distill it. Strip it down into it's simplest form, and from there we might more closely understand and examine the issues at hand, and how we might better understand the way that the these issues affect the way that we see the nature of the Christian Gospel, and the human condition. The fruit of the project isn't as abstract as the moniker of "philosophy" might lead a person to believe. It is <i>intensely</i> practical and immanent to those of who are inclined to this topic - the very types that are willing to read this essay.<br />
<br />
As I'll write about in the next post, Talbott does this by breaking down this <i>"bewildering variety of different (and often inconsistent views) theological views"</i> into Three Primary Eschatological Views. Talbott also introduces his Inconsistent Triad in this upcoming section, an immensely helpful way (and one to which I often return) to characterize these three primary views.<br />
<a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_7.html"><br /></a>
<i><a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/11/heaven-and-hell-in-christian-thought_7.html">continue to part 2</a></i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-21370419797105430712017-10-25T20:58:00.000-05:002017-10-25T20:58:18.407-05:00"Pure Religion" is Messy<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YAV3LKNtF74/WfE_Bs3btJI/AAAAAAAAAj4/JHeFPDA5dnIriOva3Gu1-ZrelHo1HWhgwCLcBGAs/s1600/messiness.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YAV3LKNtF74/WfE_Bs3btJI/AAAAAAAAAj4/JHeFPDA5dnIriOva3Gu1-ZrelHo1HWhgwCLcBGAs/s1600/messiness.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is
this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
himself unspotted from the world.” James
1:27 KJV</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So what does it mean to be “unspotted from the world”?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the one hand, we read that pure religion is to visit the
fatherless and widows. That seems rather
straight forward. It means to look after
the most vulnerable. It is not an
instruction to “care” from a great distance and with the best of intentions. It is not an invitation to join a cause. It is to <i>visit</i>
the fatherless and widows. And not to
visit them in their neatness and tidiness.
It isn’t to behold their purity and loveliness. It isn’t so that they can do something for
me. It is to visit them <i>in their affliction.<u><o:p></o:p></u></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Pure religion is to
enter into the messiness.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t believe that the 2<sup>nd</sup> part (the part about
staying “unspotted”) is contrary to the 1<sup>st</sup> part (visiting the most
vulnerable). They are one and the same
thing. So I can’t read this and think
that keeping myself unspotted from the world is the same thing as keeping my
distance from that which is messy. The unspotted
are those who visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction. This is the pure religion of the Kingdom of
God that is not of this “world”. Or to
flip things around, the “spotted” are those who <i>don’t </i>visit the afflicted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The righteous Pharisee keeps himself “unspotted from the world” <i>according
to the ways of the world</i>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Two men went up to the
temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself
like this: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: extortionists,
unrighteous people, adulterers – or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week: I give a tenth of
everything I get. (Luke 18: 10-12 NET)<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is holiness-as-separateness. <br />
<br />
The Pharisee is spotted.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But Jesus is God with us.
His holiness is not like that. His
is a holiness that draws him <i>into</i> the
mess, not away from it. Jesus is the pure religion that is unspotted from the world.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The holiness of “the world” is the type of holiness that
draws one away from the mess and the pain.
The holiness of Jesus, the holiness that characterizes “true religion”,
draws him into the mess and the pain.
His holiness is not diminished.
Rather, in his self-giving love, it is made manifest. It is enhanced.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
True, we are not Jesus. So this is not to minimize the complexity of life or our own
fragility. This is not a naive or arrogant self-righteousness that sees itself as the pure gift to all that is less. In the
waiting-for-all-to-be-set-right, that end that we long for but do not know, to follow Jesus is to follow him into the fray. It is to get a little messy. Or at least a recognition ultimate well-being is not tied to the avoidance of messiness. Not
only because this law of love that is the holiness of Jesus that is the
holiness of God beckons us, but because of the metaphysical truth that “no man
is an island”. Fates are intertwined. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because I’m not separate from some abstract messiness that is “out there”. Not really.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Our destiny, mine and yours, is the eternal Kingdom of God. In the faith of this Kingdom lies a "pure religion" that is not of this world.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-84374948596950541582017-10-19T16:32:00.002-05:002017-10-19T16:32:35.222-05:00Paradox or Contradiction? Which is which?<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PNUYnNImfCE/WekYEAh8YkI/AAAAAAAAAjo/6TXfvN4lhRMS8mraOoo1AqSFPkx7quXwACLcBGAs/s1600/paradox.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="191" data-original-width="264" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PNUYnNImfCE/WekYEAh8YkI/AAAAAAAAAjo/6TXfvN4lhRMS8mraOoo1AqSFPkx7quXwACLcBGAs/s1600/paradox.jpg" /></span></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Contradiction. Paradox.</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">I see these two terms a lot, usually in arguments over the legitimacy
of some controversial conclusion. Despite
the evidence, an apparent logical consistency, or appearances to the contrary, something is asserted to be true. When it is
pointed out that the evidence does not support that conclusion, supporters of
the conclusion will generally call the equation a “paradox” while detractors
will call it a “contradiction”. And the conversation can go no further. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It got me thinking, how DO we actually define these words? How do we determine whether something is a
paradox or a contradiction?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Paradox:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently
sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems
senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or
absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-a statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless
be true: <i>the paradox that standing is
more tiring that walking</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Contradiction:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a
situation that are opposed to one another<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-a difference in two or more statements, ideas, stories,
etc. that makes it impossible for both or all of them to be true<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-someone or something with qualities or features that seem
to conflict with one another <<i>a loving
father as well as a ruthless killer, the gangster is a living contradiction</i>><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">-a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other
<<i>a round square is a contradiction in
terms</i>><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This doesn’t clear it up at all. It just highlights the whole dilemma all over again. Both “paradox” and “contradiction” acknowledge
that a given conclusion doesn’t make sense in light of the evidence. A paradox says it is true. A contradiction says it isn’t. The word choice, then, is based on the
preference of the speaker. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So when is a conclusion wrong, and when is it right and it’s
our own harmonization of the evidence that is lacking? Forget the purely mathematical for a moment.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Take the example of “a loving father as well as a ruthless
killer, the gangster is a living contradiction”. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A person might argue that this is a paradox, not a
contradiction. Both personas <i>exist</i> – the loving father and the ruthless
killer. That they seem contradictory
does not seem to negate the sheer fact of their existence. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A contradictory take on this individual would assert that
one of these personas is not true. For example,
if the gangster is truly a loving father then he must not <i>really</i> be ruthless killer.
What do we mean by “ruthless” and “loving” after all? These are not binary terms, and the thought
experiment is thus based on categorical errors.<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So who’s to say?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">My point is this. <i>We
often don’t know how or why we come to the conclusions that we come to. Very often we find ourselves believing things
and we aren’t sure exactly how or why we came to believe them</i>. That isn’t to say that there isn’t a
deliberative process, or that we are fully irrational. It’s to say that there’s a lot that happens
in our depths, below the levels of conscious choice. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That's not to say that a we let any old thing go under the banner of "paradox". It's just to say that we’re not just mathematical models running on as-yet undetermined
computer code.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We are blurry and, despite the importance and appeal of "choice", maybe
we are not determined by our own sheer will power and rationality. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Our complexity demands humility. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We ourselves are walking contradictions. Or paradoxes.
Which is it again?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-45651541158958597302017-10-11T23:14:00.002-05:002017-10-12T15:09:29.338-05:00The Single Disposition of God: Some Thoughts on Derek Rishmawy's Review of Brian Zahnd's "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God"<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sJKmIVEJimo/Wd7lIgb3CsI/AAAAAAAAAjY/7vp-bwPnKOEuQd3eYn0n4t0WU5sYrn9iQCLcBGAs/s1600/sinners%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bhands%2Bof%2Ba%2Bloving%2Bgod.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sJKmIVEJimo/Wd7lIgb3CsI/AAAAAAAAAjY/7vp-bwPnKOEuQd3eYn0n4t0WU5sYrn9iQCLcBGAs/s200/sinners%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bhands%2Bof%2Ba%2Bloving%2Bgod.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Derek Rishmawy recently posted <a href="https://derekzrishmawy.com/2017/08/21/sinners-in-the-hands-of-a-loving-god-by-brian-zahnd-long-review/">a long (in his own words, stupidly long) review</a> of Brian Zahnd’s recently released <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MXNSXE7/">Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God.</a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
I think everybody who cares about the issues germane to Zahnd’s book should read Rishmawy's review. The review is wide-ranging, direct, and articulate. There’s a lot of food for thought. Much to agree with. But there is much that I disagree with and a lot that struck me as presumptive, condescending, and is itself a gross caricature.<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Rishmawy gets to the meat of his critique right off the bat
by addressing (what he labels as) a false dichotomy:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“God is wrath? Or God is love?” This dichotomy printed in bold on the back
drives the argument of Brian Zahnd’s new book, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving
God.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">True, Zahnd probably didn’t do himself any favors in the "dichotomy" area with that wording on the back cover. <b><u>(*** Correction, Brian did not write what's on the back cover....which makes more sense</u></b>). The thing is, I’m familiar enough with
Zahnd’s work to know that his argument re: wrath is nuanced. <i>That’s
why there’s a book</i>. As presented on
the back cover, the “dichotomy” surrounding the usage of the word “wrath” has
to do with the <i>particular</i> vision of
divine wrath that’s exemplified by the infamous spider-dangling-over-the-fire
analogy taken from Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It is <i>that</i>
definition that provides the dichotomy. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But regardless of the context or my own background
knowledge, it should be readily apparent that Zahnd is <i>not</i> operating from a place of wrath-as-dichotomy…once wrath is
properly defined. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The evidence of this?
Three things in particular:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">First, the back cover of the book itself poses this
question: <i>Is seeing God primarily as
wrathful towards sinners true or biblical?</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We have that word <i>primarily</i>. It’s an important word. What is being asked or alluded to with that
word <i>primarily</i>? Does God have parts? Is God just a bigger and better version of
humanity, subject to warring passions?
Do justice and mercy war with one another in the eternal mind of
God? I wrote about some of this last
year when the hypothetical question of God being “primarily angry” was posed in
my church. <a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2016/05/is-god-primarily-angry-1.html">The 1st post in that series is here</a>. Of particular
relevance might be the <a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2016/06/is-god-primarily-angry-3-trinity.html">3rd post in the series which looks at protology and impassability</a> (my own disclaimer of ignorance as to “defining”
Trinity is <a href="http://shadowsandlight1.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-meaning-of-trinity-for-communal.html">here</a>). Rishmawy has similar
thoughts – God does not change and is not comprised of competing or
contradictory “parts”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Secondly, Zahnd provides a definition of wrath early on in
the book. His vision of divine wrath is clearly not that wrath is not
a thing, but that it has been wrongly understood.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">But here I need to
make something very clear: that God’s wrath is a biblical metaphor does not
make the consequences of sin any less real or painful. The revelation that God’s single disposition
toward sinners remains one of unconditional love does not mean we are exempt
from the consequences of going against the grain of love. When we live against the grain of love we
suffer the shards of self-inflicted suffering.
This is the “wrath of God”. (p 18)</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Third, Rishmawy himself spends ample time talking about
Zahnd’s distinction between “passive wrath” and “active wrath”. I thought Rishmawy had some great stuff to
say in that section. Lots to think
about. The thing is, you can’t really
pile on Zahnd by saying that the wrath <i>dichotomy</i>
“drives the argument” when the review itself spends a substantial amount of time critiquing Zahnd's definition of wrath,<i> a definition
that intentionally seeks to eliminate the dichotomy</i>. Can’t have it both ways.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ultimately, Rishmawy doesn’t believe there’s truly a wrath dichotomy. Zahnd doesn’t believe there’s
a dichotomy. And I don’t believe there’s
a dichotomy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">So where is the disagreement? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Well, in many ways it’s a matter of semantics. What do we <i>mean</i> by these words “wrath” and “love”? What is “justice”? How do they relate to one another? <i>That</i>
is where the differences lie. And those differences are significant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Ultimately, Rishmawy’s review isn’t as much a “review” of
the book as it is a defense of retributive wrath as occasioned by Zahnd's book. Retributive wrath is very, very
important to Rishmawy, and to lose that understanding of wrath is to lose
everything – it is to censor and ignore the Bible, it is to misrepresent Jesus,
it is to distort the Gospel, it is to portray God as indifferent to evil, and it is to
lose the faith. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>It’s very, very
important here to note that a retributive understanding of wrath does not
automatically make one a sadist</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">No doubt that there are various visions of divine wrath –
those eschatological visions in which the saved delight in the misery and
everlasting conscious torment of the damned – that are so twisted as to be
thoroughly incompatible with the Gospel.<i>
<b>Full stop</b></i>. Delight in the misery
of another is not a virtue but a defect, and does not reflect the perfection of
God. But while such extreme examples are
far from being fringe and are important to acknowledge, a substantive
discussion demands that we not linger on them for too long. It is possible to proceed in good faith while
leaving important discussions about the variety of ways that our understanding of divine
wrath and “justice” influence our world for another time. So let’s do that as best we can.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Zahnd’s book covers a variety of interconnected topics – the
Bible, atonement, hell, etc. I’m not
going to dive into any of those issues specifically. They are important, for sure. Here, I simply want to state how I
see the love/wrath relationship differing between the two lines of thinking
exemplified by Zahnd and Rishmawy and to examine them in the
light of “justice”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To do that, however, we need a basic shared definition of
love. This should be achievable because
the differences between Zahnd and Rishmawy lie more in the nature of <i>wrath</i> and the <i>relationship</i> between wrath and love than in the definition of
love. So for these purposes, lets define
love as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">To love is to will the
good of the other – to be devoted to, patiently work towards, and encourage the
flourishing of the other. It is to give
one’s best to the other, being rooted in a deep affection. It is to live with the loveliness, beauty,
and worth of the other in view, always and forever.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This definition isn’t imposed on God from without, Hallmark
card kitsch projected onto God because I happen to think God should be
“nice”. No. Is this a comprehensive definition? Of course not. Full of analogy and anthropomorphisms? Probably.
(I mean, what does it really mean for an eternal God to be
“patient”?) Is the definition overly simplified? Sure.
But is it sufficient to identify the difference in the love/wrath
relationship between these two approaches?
Hopefully.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Now, how does Rishmawy connect love and wrath?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">Let me put it this
way: Is God love? Yes. Is true love righteous? Well, yes.
Is it not righteous to promote good and oppose evil? To stand against evil? To even hate evil? Yes. I
mean, that’s what Paul tells us to do (Rom. 12:9). So if God is the sort of love that is
righteous love, will his love not include a white-hot opposition to evil? Yes.
Well, there you go. The love that
God is involves God’s inherent, innate opposition to, hatred of, and will to
oppose sin because the love that is the life of the Triune God is a love which
is righteous.”</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To Rishmawy, a God without retribution is a God of passive
indifference. It is a God who lacks
justice and righteousness. Righteousness is synonymous
with retribution because “<i>white-hot
opposition</i>” is conceived only in terms of retribution. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This deserves careful consideration. This is where the differences between
restorative justice and retributive justice become quite apparent.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Notice Rishmawy's list of crimes and criminals. Slavery. ISIS. Oppression of the poor by the rich. Militarism. Etc. It is a sobering list and it could be much, much longer. Such things warrant God's "wrath". We hope for God's "judgment" on such things. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But did you notice what is missing from this retributive version of justice?</span></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The restoration of the victim</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Having provided their witness to evil, the victims themselves play no further part in the definition or fulfillment of justice. So long as the sinner is punished, “justice” as "white-hot opposition" has been accomplished. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>While retributive justice is focused on the punishment of the offender, restorative justice is first and foremost focused on the victim. Within a framework of retributive justice, the focus is on offenders getting what they deserve. Within a framework of restorative justice, the focus is on putting right what has gone wrong. (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Little-Restorative-Justice-Books-Peacebuilding/dp/1561483761">The Little Book of Restorative Justice</a>)</i></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Back to Rishmawy's quote. Let's look at his by way of two contrasting citations from Mark Driscoll and George MacDonald.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Compare Mark Driscoll from his infamous “Got Hates You”
sermon:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“Some of you, God
hates you. Some of you, God is sick of
you. God is frustrated with you. God is wearied by you. God has suffered long enough with you. He doesn’t think you’re cute. He doesn’t think it’s funny. He doesn’t think your excuse is
meritous. He doesn’t care if you compare
yourself to someone worse than you, He hates them too. God hates, right now, personally, objectively
hates some of you.”</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><a href="http://www.online-literature.com/george-macdonald/unspoken-sermons/2/">To George MacDonald</a>:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“For love loves unto
purity. Love has ever in view the absolute loveliness of that which it beholds.
Where loveliness is incomplete, and love cannot love its fill of loving, it
spends itself to make more lovely, that it may love more; it strives for
perfection, even that itself may be perfected--not in itself, but in the
object. As it was love that first created humanity, so even human love, in
proportion to its divinity, will go on creating the beautiful for its own
outpouring. There is nothing eternal but that which loves and can be loved, and
love is ever climbing towards the consummation when such shall be the universe,
imperishable, divine.”</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“He is against sin: in
so far as, and while, they and sin are one, he is against them--against their
desires, their aims, their fears, and their hopes; and thus he is altogether
and always for them.”</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For Driscoll (as with Jonathan Edwards), “God hates you” is rationalized and justified by God’s
love. That is, God is vindicated as
“righteous” in his hate because he is a God of love. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For MacDonald, God’s opposition is likewise grounded in
love. God’s being “against you” is,
paradoxically, God for you. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Do you see the difference?
Each of these represents a “white-hot” divine righteousness, but they
differ in <i>fundamental </i>ways. </span><br />
<br />
What does the "white-hot righteousness" of God look like, and what is it's ultimate purpose? <b>This</b> is the form of the "wrath" dichotomy that needs to be addressed. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Let’s go back to that definition of love. If a person were to stop doing the things
that constitute “love” – stop encouraging the flourishing of the other, lose
patience, give up, only see the failures of the other, etc. – we wouldn’t
continue to call it love. We wouldn’t
say that it’s a “different kind of love”.
We wouldn’t say that love, if it is to be a truly righteous love,
requires that a person effectively stop loving another should the situation
call for it. This is abstract nonsense. No,
we’d just say that the person no longer loved the former beloved.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While we must be careful to protect the analogous nature of
language when it comes to describing the being of God, we cannot allow language
to become equivocal.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As John Stuart Mill said:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“To say that God’s
goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying,
with a slight change of phraseology that God may possibly not be good?”</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Or in the words of David Bentley Hart:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“When we use words
like “good”, “just”, “love” to name God, not as if they are mysteriously
greater in meaning than when predicated of creatures, but instead as if they
bear transparently opposite meanings, then we are saying nothing. And, again, the contagion of this equivocity
consumes theology entirely.”</span></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We cannot allow the word "love" to become so equivocal. Rishmawy and Zahnd would certainly agree on this.<br />
<br />
Where they differ, I think, can be best summed up in the following sentence from Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>The revelation that God's single disposition toward sinners remains one of unconditional love does not mean we are exempt from the consequences of going against the grain of love." (18)</i></span></blockquote>
It's a point that Zahnd brings up again and again. An axiom. <b>God's single disposition.</b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></span>
The entirety of what I've attempted to say is wrapped up in those three words.<br />
<br />
Human sin does not thwart God's single disposition of unconditional love, for God is perfectly free. Words like "justice" and "wrath" simply cannot be understood apart from that <i>single disposition</i>. For a Calvinist like Rishmawy (who I assume holds to something akin to double predestination, or who at least believes that the damned are damned, in the end, because God simply does not will their salvation) <i>this</i> particular singular disposition is incoherent. Perhaps he understands a singular disposition in terms of "God willing his own glory" or something similar. Those are word games and dark theological necessities to which I reply:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">"The glory of God is man fully alive." -Irenaeous</span></i></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">God's wrath can only be understood in light of God's single disposition. And through all ages, God's singular disposition cannot be extracted from God's glory as man fully alive.</span><br />
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-56529315940330558172017-10-02T22:41:00.000-05:002017-10-03T12:25:04.273-05:00When 'Law and Order' is Intended to Create Mass Incarceration<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uTT2L-asDN0/WdMDu91ne9I/AAAAAAAAAjI/K16RckePMAwFRh6piLgpqWDIvmXtPslXgCLcBGAs/s1600/black%2Bcodes.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uTT2L-asDN0/WdMDu91ne9I/AAAAAAAAAjI/K16RckePMAwFRh6piLgpqWDIvmXtPslXgCLcBGAs/s1600/black%2Bcodes.jpeg" /></a></div>
<br />
Today I started reading <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0067NCQVU/">The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.</a><br />
<br />
I'm not sure what to say about it quite yet. Her erudition is impressive. The way that she comprehends the American narrative against the backdrop of white supremacy and the racial caste system are....well...that's just it. I feel like I've been slapped in the face. There's a dark history that undergirds civilization. Not just "civilization" in the abstract. Not some people far away. It's embedded in the history in which my own story has emerged. It's in the American narrative.<br />
<br />
I can't unsee that. You can't really go back after reading this book. And I'm only in chapter 1.<br />
<br />
I mean, I generally knew how slavery came about, it's economic foundations, what Jim Crow laws were, what Reconstruction was, the 13th and 14th amendments, etc. But I didn't <i>really</i> know. I still don't, but I know more now than I did 2 hours ago.<br />
<br />
I'm sort of reeling right now, and just wanted to jot down some thoughts while they're fresh in my mind.<br />
<br />
Particularly important is this passage on page 31:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. constitution had abolished slavery, but allowed one major exception: slavery remained appropriate as punishment for a crime."</i></blockquote>
This statement is given flesh and blood in light of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)">Black Codes</a> written into Southern law in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.<br />
<br />
I'd never heard of them before. Think of them as a precursor to Jim Crow. Basically, the South wanted to keep slavery but they couldn't outright have slavery - <i>not in the same form anyways</i>. So the South sought to establish a system that resembled slavery through the passage of certain laws called the Black Codes.<br />
<br />
Closely related to (or perhaps a particular form of) these black codes were "convict laws". While Alexander notes that convict laws were "rarely seen as part of the black codes, that is a mistake."<br />
<br />
Convict laws were put in place to handle "convicted black law breakers."<br />
<br />
Who were these law breakers?<br />
<br />
After the war ended and slaves were granted their freedom, many simply walked away from their plantations. Having nowhere meaningful to go and no means to get there, some simply roamed the highways. Fears of an insurrection dominated the Southern imagination, not to mention that local economies would collapse without that slave labor.<br />
<br />
Never mind all that. What laws did they break?<br />
<br />
Here's where it gets really crazy.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Nine Southern states adopted vagrancy laws - which essentially made it a criminal offense not to work and were applied selectively to blacks - and eight of those states enacted convict laws allowing for the hiring-out of county prisoners to planation owners and private companies. Prisoners were forced to work for little or no pay. One vagrancy act specifically provided that "all free negroes and mulattoes over the age of eighteen" must have written proof of a job at the beginning of every year. Those found with no lawful employment were deemed vagrants and convicted." (p 27)</i></blockquote>
Basically, if these freed slaves weren't working (I wonder where they could get jobs), they were deemed criminals. Create laws, and then convict the law breakers. What right has the federal government to intrude upon the sovereignty of the State to set constitutionally consistent laws that were good for their citizens (that's sarcasm)? <u><i>Law and order</i></u>. In any case, these former slaves were prosecuted and locked up - mass incarceration style. Local plantations came to agreements to put these "criminals" to good social use. The result? The "criminals" ended up back on plantations, working for little or no pay, paying off their "debt to society".<br />
<br />
It's staggering to me.<br />
<br />
"Law and order" led to mass incarceration which was the means by which newly gained civil rights were denied and white Southern control was maintained.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-91526049154142329962017-09-19T16:40:00.000-05:002017-09-19T16:40:10.866-05:00God-Talk Underneath the Firmament<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s3hcPUwrAxs/WcGNN2PooLI/AAAAAAAAAi4/CqBtN-v62pgjKd4roh3BfjA-mKHSspgHgCLcBGAs/s1600/ancient%2Bcosmology.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="239" data-original-width="211" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s3hcPUwrAxs/WcGNN2PooLI/AAAAAAAAAi4/CqBtN-v62pgjKd4roh3BfjA-mKHSspgHgCLcBGAs/s200/ancient%2Bcosmology.jpg" width="176" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t doubt that the ancients believed in a
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament">firmament</a>, a solid dome that covered a flat earth.. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To the ancients, the stars were either attached to this firmament or were
holes in which the light of heaven could poke through. The Genesis flood was the result of the temporary but
determined removal of the firmament – a withdrawal of this solid fixture that separated the
primordial waters of chaos and made space for the brooding spirit of God to
create.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And on and on.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again, the ancients clearly believed in a firmament. I don’t think that people who now say that
the ancients believed that there was a firmament above are slandering them. They aren’t making it up. They aren’t taking something literally that
was intended by the ancients to be taken as metaphor.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The firmament is referenced in the Bible and elsewhere. It is assumed. Ancient God-talk assumes it. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s the thing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is no firmament.
It doesn’t exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the Bible says it does. The ancients believed that. I'm not making that up.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There used to be a part of me that really thought that modern scholarship was being sort of
presumptive. Like, we really don’t know
what they believed. Our modern
scientific categories didn’t really exist then.
We’re separated by time and culture, and we can’t say for sure what was
happening in the brains of the ancients.
Perhaps it was all meant to be poetic.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But no, I don’t think that anymore. They believed in a firmament. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And there isn’t one.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If I had come across that fact 10 or even 5 years go, it
might have really shaken me. The term is new for me, but my default
religious upbringing was <a href="http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/science-and-the-bible-concordism-part-1">concordist</a>. That is, the Bible could be read in such a way that it was
scientifically accurate. It had to be or else it would all crumble. Not in a
revisionist sense, but in a historical critical sense in which the original
writers (whoever they were) couldn’t have believed in a firmament. In that view, the Bible can’t really
reference a firmament. Not really.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But they did.
Clearly. And they were absolutely 100% wrong about that.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A few years ago this would been hugely problematic to me. This would have been something to either ignore or explain away. It could only destroy faith. But now, I find this refreshing and
liberating. It plays a positive role in the life of faith. God-talk can only take place
in the context of language. And language
is cultural. We must use the language that
we have, and our words can only be used in reference to reality as we perceive
it. But we don’t perceive rightly. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We don’t perceive rightly.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
But we can still speak of God, and I don’t think God is mad
about that. <o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-3941107521478142632017-08-24T11:50:00.001-05:002017-08-24T11:50:16.695-05:00Middle Knowledge, Transworld Damnation, and the Parable of the Prodigal Son<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8HgP7KVif0/WZ8DU4rKMWI/AAAAAAAAAio/x4iYO0B7sjw1y95iZn6nz21wdDOU4sFfACLcBGAs/s1600/middle%2Bknowledge.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="211" data-original-width="239" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N8HgP7KVif0/WZ8DU4rKMWI/AAAAAAAAAio/x4iYO0B7sjw1y95iZn6nz21wdDOU4sFfACLcBGAs/s1600/middle%2Bknowledge.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008AVNFQM/">2nd Edition of Robin Parry’s The Evangelical Universalist</a> includes several new appendices, one of which addresses the issue
of so-called “middle knowledge” as argued by William Lane Craig exhaustively
(but not exclusively) in <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/no-other-name-a-middle-knowledge-perspective">“No Other Name”: A Middle Knowledge Perspective on theExclusivity of Salvation Through Christ. </a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
At its root, middle knowledge is an attempt to reconcile the
issues of 1)divine omniscience and foreknowledge, 2)the love of God, and
3)human freedom. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
None of these, of course, have self-evident meanings. They all require significant clarification
and nuance, a project which Parry seeks to undertake in his book and which
Craig seeks to elucidate in his own work.
I am under no illusion that I could improve upon either project or that
I have anything to add to the logic of Parry’s arguments. My intent here isn’t to pick apart Craig’s
Molinist logic, but simply to acknowledge it’s ramifications. I’d like to take a closer look at two
particular aspects of middle knowledge: 1) Transworld damnation and 2) a
utilitarian eschatological perspective in which the bliss of the blessed is
weighed against the misery of the damned.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
**********<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First of all, what do I mean by the two particular aspects
of middle knowledge that I identified earlier – transworld damnation and a
utilitarian eschatological ethic?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Craig’s argument for transworld damnation is presented as
point #9 in Parry’s appendix:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>God has actualized a
world containing an optimal balance between the saved and the unsaved, and
those who are unsaved suffer from transworld damnation.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What exactly is transworld damnation?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Middle knowledge is closely tied to the idea of ‘possible
worlds’, which is basically a grappling with the implications of both human
freedom and divine providence. To be
frank, I have little sympathy for the hypothesizing that goes into the idea of
“possible worlds’. From a <i>practical</i> standpoint, however, it’s hard
<i>not</i> to grapple with the impact of
time and place upon who we are and who we become. Who has not considered the possibility that
they might be a different person if they had been born to different parents, or
in a different time or place, or if this or that had or had not happened?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Relevant to the matter at hand we might ask “Why did I
accept Christ while another did not?”
Leave aside the evangelical idea of “accepting Jesus” if you find it
distracting or unhelpful (as I do) and substitute something else. You might ask, why did I “join the
church”? Whatever the form of the
question and whatever the associated answer, that answer will be inseparable
from the people and events in our own history.
Who would we be without these particular people and circumstances? We cannot know.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What if things had been different? What if I had been born to a pagan moon
worshipping family 3,000 years ago? And
that boy had been born in my place?
Assuming the possibility of final perdition as Craig does, how might our
eschatological destinies be different?
We cannot know.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Within the theory of middle knowledge and possible worlds,
God knows. That’s not because God
overrides our brains and makes his chosen people think certain thoughts or
perform certain actions that qualify as “saving faith. The omniscient, omnipotent, and
omnibenevolent God calls and woos in a providential way that leads to a free choice. Essentially, God knows what we’ll need to
freely choose to “accept him” and providentially chooses to create the world in
which that happens. Again, I find the
language of “acceptance” and “choosing a world” to be problematic, but set that
aside as best you can.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The big question is, in a best possible world, why would God
provide the things that one person needs to be “saved” but not provide them to
another? Are there some possible worlds
in which I am saved and other possible worlds in which I am not? Did God choose to actualize a possible world
in which I am saved but my daughter is not, but he could have chosen a world in
which we were both “saved”? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why? How is that the
best possible world, or in the language of the appendix the “optimal” world?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It seems quite cruel.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Cruelty aside, the assumptions of middle knowledge lead to
the following conclusion: if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent
and desires the salvation of every single human being, then God chooses to
actualize the best possible world. So
either (1)the optimal world is one in which some people are saved while others
are not but may have been had things been providentially different, or (2)there
are people who would not “choose to be saved” in <i>any</i> world that God could create.
All possible worlds lead to damnation – <i>transworld damnation</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
**********<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Related to ‘transworld damnation’ is a utilitarian view of
salvation in which the bliss of the saved is measured against the misery of the
damned.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How so?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Craig asks:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“Is it not at least
possible that such a world is less preferable to God than a world in which
great multitudes come to experience His salvation and a few are damned because
they freely reject Christ?”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, is it not possible that we err in assuming
that the misery of the damned cancels out the joy of the saved either in part
or in full? Perhaps 10 saved and 10 lost
is less acceptable to God than 50 saved and 500 lost. Perhaps the price of the salvation of 1 is
worth the transworld damnation of 100.
Or 1,000. Who are <i>we</i> to
say?! How we could measure such
things? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The thing is, Craig’s hypothetical scenario of “a few” being
damned does not represent his actual position.
He unambiguously states that <i>“if
we take Scripture seriously, we must admit that the vast majority of persons in
the world are condemned and will be lost forever.”</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Since the actualized world = the optimal world, he states
that the “cost” of transworld damnation must be worth it. He states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="background: white; color: #1a1a1a;">“It is possible that the terrible price
of filling heaven is also filling hell and that in any other possible world
which was feasible for God the balance between saved and lost was worse. It is
possible that had God actualized a world in which there are less persons in
hell, there would also have been less persons in heaven. It is possible that in
order to achieve this much blessedness, God was forced to accept this much
loss.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t know whether the above quote represents a
hypothetical <i>possibility</i> or if the
language of “possibility” is designed to obscure what is truly meant to
function as a theodicy of hell. I
believe that his thinking necessitates the latter (though Craig explicitly
states otherwise), but in the end it doesn’t really matter. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Staying within Craig’s framework, I think it safe to say
that the above statement is and must be true of the <i>optimal world</i>. Of the
infinite number of worlds that God could have actualized, the optimal world is
the one in which <i>the vast majority of
persons are condemned and lost forever</i>.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By what sort of measurement is <i>this</i> sort of world the <i>optimal</i>
world? We may not know the math, but
it’s a purely utilitarian formula in which Optimal World = Bliss(Saved) –
Misery (Damned). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Regardless of whether this optimal world is conceived of by
ration or in absolute terms of saved and lost, is God a utilitarian who counts
units of pleasure? Or a mathematician
solving equations? A mad scientist
unconcerned with the leftover remnant of his experiment?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
**********<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So take those two ideas – transworld damnation and
utilitarian salvation – and just ponder them in the context of <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NRSV">the parable ofthe prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32.</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Look at <a href="http://www.rembrandtpainting.net/rembrandt's_prodigal_son.html">Rembrandt’s painting of the scene</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ask yourself the following questions: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Is transworld
damnation compatible with this scene?<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>Is the heart of the
father in the parable compatible with a God of transworld damnation?<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>What qualifiers do you
have to add to the parable make it compatible?<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>After adding those
qualifiers, what is really left?</i> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The son is always a son.
A lost son perhaps. A dead son
who comes alive. But always a son. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>How can God actualize
a world compatible with transworld damnation?
How can God weigh the salvation of the son against the son's damnation in
an "optimal world"?<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t dismiss the philosophical questions or frameworks
that define middle knowledge (or any theological perspective for that matter). To be honest, I don’t think we can. Reason is not the enemy of faith. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
But if the grammar of Christian faith is to have any
substantive meaning at all, transworld damnation cannot be true. <o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-167719318451175422017-08-21T14:05:00.001-05:002017-08-21T14:05:41.848-05:00The Creator God is the One Who Raises the Dead (Jurgen Moltmann)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oI5VKVFSxOw/WUwy_ab3qQI/AAAAAAAAAh8/0pxwrzB8KVgfQZ1uJYxcaaOA74DybKz2ACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/for%2Btoday%2527s%2Bworld.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="102" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oI5VKVFSxOw/WUwy_ab3qQI/AAAAAAAAAh8/0pxwrzB8KVgfQZ1uJYxcaaOA74DybKz2ACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/for%2Btoday%2527s%2Bworld.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It isn't enough to say that the Creator God is the one who
fashions matter, the reason that there is something rather than nothing. This is significant, but it is not
enough. "Creation" is more than the act
of giving dead stuff it’s dead stuff-ness, to author a lifeless cosmos.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>What is this God like?
</i><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For Moltmann, the God who is Creator is inseparable from the
God who raises the dead:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i>“The God who raises the dead is the same God who as creator
calls into being the things that are not; and the God who called the world into
existence out of nothing is the God who raises the dead. Beginning and end, creation and resurrection,
belong together and must not be separated from one another; for the
glorification of creation through the raising of the dead is creation’s
perfecting, and creation is aligned towards the resurrection of the dead.”<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001DIXDD4/">-Jesus Christ for Today’s World</a></i><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-69379317757689467992017-08-16T12:47:00.002-05:002017-08-17T09:24:18.314-05:00First Hand Accounts of Charlottesville<div class="MsoNormal">
Given the ambiguity and lack of specificity of the “many sides” argument of Trump, I thought I’d put
gather together some reports on what happened according to people who were
actually there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here are a few:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror">Charlottesville: Race and Terror</a> A documentary style video that, among other things, follows and interviews a group of heavily armed neo-nazis. This is a MUST WATCH.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/08/12/charlottesville-crash-protesters-video-orig-vstop-dlewis.cnn">Video of the car attack by James Alex Fields</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2017/08/15/charlottesville-clergy-first-hand-account/">Charlottesville: a first-hand account of racist violence</a> Written by an elder in the United Methodist Church.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://publicorthodoxy.org/2017/08/15/two-blocks-from-the-culture-war/">Two Blocks From the Culture War</a> Written by William J Antholis, a former government official.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/opinion/university-virginia-uva-protests-charlottesville.html">What U.Va. Students Saw in Charlottesville</a> Eyewitness testimonies from 7 UVA students. And a <a href="https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1819783638036584&id=176999952314969&_rdr">corresponding video</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/as-told-to/a-witness-to-terrorism-in-charlottesville">A Witness to Terrorism in Charlottesville</a>. The account of Kristin Adolfson written by Charles Bethea.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/blakemontgomery/heres-what-really-happened-in-charlottesville?utm_term=.vyN92yMpj#.buBVeOxlK">Here’s What Really Happened In Charlottesville</a> A length account from Blake Montgomery</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/right-left-trump-charlottesville.html?">Right and Left React to Trump’s Latest Charlottesville Comments Blaming ‘Both Sides’</a> A variety of viewpoints. Are "both sides" to blame?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-protests-unite-the-right.html?smid=tw-share">A Far-Right Gathering Bursts Into Brawls</a>. Written by Hawes Spencer. Some good pictures.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://qz.com/1053220/charlottesville-attack-how-the-violence-unfolded-through-the-eyes-of-the-alt-right/">The complete story of what happened in Charlottesville, according to the alt-right</a> From the perspective of several people on the alt-right.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/08/what_the_alt_left_was_actually_doing_in_charlottesville.html">Yes, What About the “Alt-Left”?</a> Eye witness testimonies of counterprotestor interactions with antifa.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40915573">Some pictures on BBC</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-2611892502504409432017-08-12T08:35:00.003-05:002017-08-13T13:04:40.169-05:00Pilate's Great Truth?<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--TejVwNcAYQ/WY8DdRW3VdI/AAAAAAAAAiY/hwp8JHKZSlQKTQ9pbA4sgmSdeup-Lr0XgCLcBGAs/s1600/pilate.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="259" data-original-width="194" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--TejVwNcAYQ/WY8DdRW3VdI/AAAAAAAAAiY/hwp8JHKZSlQKTQ9pbA4sgmSdeup-Lr0XgCLcBGAs/s200/pilate.jpeg" width="149" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>“What is truth?”</i>
Pilate asks the prisoner Jesus according to John 18:38.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">This nihilistic question often appears in attacks against
relativism and post-modernism. It’s quite
useful for many Christian apologetics groups.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus is not about some
abstract idea of “truth”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Fast forward a bit in the story to John 19:10.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Pilate asks, <i>“Don’t
you know I have the authority to release you, and to crucify you?”</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If a person hears this question, recognizes Pilate’s appeal
to epistemological truth (“don’t you <i>know</i>”)
and concludes that the big idea behind this conversation is that his purported
relativism has been contradicted by his own words, they’ve missed the point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Pilate believes in truth.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">He just doesn’t think it matters. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the end, the fundamental truth is death and the power to
kill. Specifically, the truth is that Pilate
has the power to either kill Jesus or set him free. And that’s all that matters. This is the truth that Pilate announces to
Jesus. It is the truth of the power to
kill. What is “truth” in comparison to
the sheer fact of Pilate’s power to kill or set free? Whatever the “truth” is, it pales in comparison
to Pilate’s power to crucify. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What is “truth” in comparison to the “fire and fury” of sheer
military force, ancient or modern?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Right?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Jesus does not debate Pilate’s ability to crucify him. He acknowledges it. He responds in John 19:11 with this:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">“You would have no
authority over me at all, unless it was given to you from above.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">He has authority. But there is another "authority" too.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">“From above”. What is
that?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Is Jesus alluding to the truth that Pilate is right about
the <i>nature</i> of power, but that he
possesses a power that is ultimately just bigger and better than Pilate’s? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">No, I don’t think so.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In John 18:36 Jesus says, “My kingdom is not from this
world. If my kingdom were from this
world, my servants would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the
Jewish authorities. But as it is, my
kingdom is not from here.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">That’s what servants do according to the tenets of power in <i>this</i> world. They fight.
It is the way of things. But his
kingdom is not of <i>this</i> world, so truth
is not subservient to or synonymous with the power to kill. No, the truth that Jesus alludes to is found
in relation to this power “from above”.
And <i>this</i> power does not fight
to keep Jesus from being handed over.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s quite pious sounding.
And it’s absolutely scandalous. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s not of this world.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What is <i>this</i>
power, <i>this</i> truth?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">You can say “the power of God”, sure. But what does that mean? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It is the power that <i>raises</i>
Jesus from the dead. It is the power
that <i>forgives</i> from the cross and
speaks “<i>Shalom”</i> upon his resurrection. It is the eternal power that stems from the
truth of<i> life</i> over death. It’s a power that confounds, overcomes, and
finally envelops the power of Pilate. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It’s not that Pilate’s power isn’t real. Look around the world. All the death, loss, and tragedy. It is real.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But it’s not the last word.
It is not the power of the world only bigger. God is not Pilate but with more firepower.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Christ, the Word and power of God, is the beginning and the
end. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-82871384790282799362017-08-05T07:55:00.003-05:002017-08-05T07:55:56.705-05:00Russia and the Syrian Refugee Crisis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWICWwskBQ0/WYXAMSjkUiI/AAAAAAAAAiI/e-_QRpQAxjohi1txiCuHPU-hT8701y6UQCLcBGAs/s1600/syrian%2Brefugees.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="149" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KWICWwskBQ0/WYXAMSjkUiI/AAAAAAAAAiI/e-_QRpQAxjohi1txiCuHPU-hT8701y6UQCLcBGAs/s200/syrian%2Brefugees.jpeg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
Twice in the past few weeks, I’ve read commentary implying that Vladimir Putin orchestrated the Syrian refugee crisis as a means of destroying western Europe.<br />
<br />
The 1st instance was in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01N4M1BQY/">On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder:</a> <br />
<br />
<i>“In early 2016, Russia manufactured a moment of fake terror in Germany. While bombing Syrian civilians and thus driving Muslim refugees to Europe, Russia exploited a family drama to instruct Germans that Muslims were rapists of children. The aim, again, seems to have been to destabilize a democratic system and promote the parties of the extreme right.” </i>(p 108)<br />
<br />
And the 2nd was in the essay <a href="https://islamandliberty.com/the-seven-trends-behind-the-global-rise-of-populism-611149fd3980">The Seven Trends behind the Global Rise of Populism by Iyad El-Baghdadi</a>:<br />
<br />
<i> “Opportunistic players such as Russia found the perfect conflict to exploit to destroy the “liberal world order” – cynically and skillfully using it to erode international norms in the name of “fighting terrorism”. Putin couldn’t throw missiles at Europe – so he threw waves of Syrian refugees at them.” </i>(7. The unravelling of the Middle-East)<br />
<br />
The 1st instance caught my attention, but it was more tangential than direct. Though it is alluded to, “orchestrated” might be too strong a word. I moved on. The 2nd instance, however, forced me to sit up and really take notice. Can’t ignore it twice.<br />
<br />
<i>Orchestrating</i> a refugee crisis. That’s a strong claim that requires evidence. Sifting through that evidence requires time and attention, a refusal to be drawn into the unending cycle of “breaking news”, a desire to hear competing points of view, and a willingness to go beyond quick “gotcha” talking points.<br />
<br />
I’m not talking Think Tank level analysis here, but is it possible for a novice such as myself to separate fact and fiction? Could some basic reading and thinking bring even a modest amount of clarity? Or are there just too many opinions from too many experts? Too many “alternative facts”? Too little time.<br />
<br />
Let me tell you, after going through this exercise I have great respect for the press. It is not easy to sift through mountains of facts and to make sense of ambiguity and contradiction in an age when millions of people can fact check your work instantly. On and off, it took me weeks to write all of this....and it's likely that nobody will ever read it. Imagine doing this on a daily deadline in front of the critical eye of millions! Particularly with the rapid pace at which the news cycle moves, the whole thing is exhausting.<br />
<br />
**********<br />
<br />
Given Putin’s support of the Assad regime, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for Western voices to “blame Putin” for the Syrian refugee crisis.<br />
<br />
“Blame Putin” could be understood only in the most general sense, as in “Putin shares the blame”. Inflammatory perhaps, but nothing overly shocking.<br />
<br />
The two citations above, however, imply something different than mere guilt by association. Something immensely more malevolent. They imply, more or less 1)the intentional creation of a refugee crisis that was 2) orchestrated under the guise of or in conjunction with fighting ISIS and was 3) intended to weaken or destroy western democracy in Europe and throughout the world.<br />
<br />
Perhaps I’m naïve, but I found this to be a stunning claim. A refugee crisis as the unwelcome collateral damage of geopolitical conflict is one thing, unspeakably tragic as it is. But the creation of a refugee crisis <i>as the means </i>of fighting a geopolitical war? It’s so dark and twisted, so inhumane, that it almost defies belief.<br />
<br />
Is there any evidence to support such a claim? What would that evidence look like? Is such a claim unambiguous and irrefutable, or is it only supported via a complex web of conspiracy theory laden circumstantial evidence?<br />
<br />
The relevant factors as I saw them:<br />
<br />
(1) Targeting of Civilians<br />
<br />
It seems to me that any proof must go well beyond the well documented Russian support for the Assad regime. Proof of “weaponizing refugees” must first be proven by Russian actions towards civilian populations. So that’s the first question.<br />
<br />
Take <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12180073/Nato-chief-Vladimir-Putin-weaponising-refugee-crisis-to-break-Europe.html">this article in The Telegraph from March 2, 2016</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
General Breedlove, Nato’s military commander in Europe at the time, said this back in 2016:<br />
<br />
<i>“Together, Russia and the Assad regime are deliberately weaponising migration in an attempt to overwhelm European structures and break European resolve.”</i><br />
<br />
What evidence supports this assertion?<br />
<br />
<i>“Barrel bombs are designed to terrorize, get people out of their homes, get them on the road and make them someone else's problem. These indiscriminate weapons used by both Bashar al-Assad, and the non-precision use of weapons by the Russian forces, I can’t find any other reason for them other than to cause refugees to be on the move and make them someone else’s problem.”</i><br />
<br />
So the evidence is the use of weapons in an indiscriminate way, a way that is best explained as an attempt to create migration.<br />
<br />
Or take Senator John McCain’s comments per <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/barack-obama-urges-vladimir-putin-to-cease-bombing-moderate-rebels-in-syria-a6874531.html">this article from The Independent</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>“He [Mr. Putin] wants to exacerbate the refugee crisis and use it as a weapon to divide the transatlantic alliance and undermine the European project.”</i><br />
<br />
As above, the evidence lies with a Russian air campaign that target civilians:<br />
<br />
<i>-The intensified air campaign follows accusations from Senator John McCain, chairman of the US Senate armed services committee, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was intentionally stoking the refugee crisis in order to undermine the European project.</i><br />
<br />
Numerous examples could be given of different authorities making this same assertion using the same evidence. Russia, of course, denies targeting civilian populations or stoking the refugee crisis in any way. Whatever air force they employ, as the story goes, is targeted solely at rebels hostile to the Assad regime.<br />
<br />
Have civilian populations been intentionally targeted or not? Are rebels hiding amongst these populations or not?<br />
<br />
(2) Failed Cease-Fire<br />
<br />
There is also the matter of the failed Turkey and Russia brokered Aleppo cease fire in October of 2016. The cease fire was designed to allow humanitarian aid in and to let civilians out. The rebels, however, never accepted the cease fire. Fighting never really stopped, and air strikes recommenced on the 3rd day of the cease fire. As far as it relates to the refugee crisis, Russia and the Syrian government said that the Rebels wouldn’t let civilians leave Aleppo. The Rebels asserted that the civilians tried to leave, but shelling by government military forces caused their retreat back into rebel occupied territory.<br />
<br />
What to make of this?<br />
<br />
If Russia wanted to exacerbate the refugee crisis, why wouldn’t they let the civilians out of Aleppo? Perhaps Russian and Syrian forces did shell the civilians because they feared that rebels were attempting to escape with the civilians. Or perhaps the rebels truly wouldn’t let them leave…because they wanted civilians as human shields or for another reason. A number of narratives can be strewn together that, absent the facts, can make sense of any position. Bottom line, it’s complex. The facts are hard to know.<br />
<br />
(3) Putin’s Criticism of Europe’s handling of the Migrant Crisis<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether Putin intended the migrant crisis, has he weaponized it? Has he used it to attack and subvert European democracy?<br />
<br />
Take the following example of a case in Austria; the raping of a 10 year old Serbian boy at the hands of a 20 year old Iraqi migrant. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3900748/A-society-t-defend-children-no-tomorrow-Putin-condemns-Europe-s-handling-migrants-says-child-rape-Austria-shows-dilution-national-values.html">This is a horrible story.</a> The migrant claimed that the rape was an emergency because he hadn't had sex in 4 months. He was ultimately set free because the courts couldn't prove that migrant realized that the boy was saying no. The attacker remained in custody awaiting a second trial. I don't know all the details. Here, I want to try to focus exclusively on Putin’s decision to wade into European migrant policies on this particular point.<br />
<br />
<i>“In a European country, a child is raped by a migrant, and the courts release him.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“It doesn’t fit into my head what on earth they’re thinking over there.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“I can’t even explain the rationale – is it a sense of guilt before the migrants? What’s going on? It’s not clear.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“A society that cannot defend its children has no future.”</i><br />
<br />
This same article included some comments by Konstanti Romodanovsky, head of Russia’s Federal Migration Service.<br />
<br />
<i>“The European Commission left it up to individual nations to decide how they want to treat asylum seekers – despite the fact that polices and capabilities of member states are very different.”</i><br />
<br />
The common thread? Using these sort of incidents as a means to argue that European unity creates unsolvable problems of sovereignty and thus puts individual nations at risk. He argues that unity is weakness. What is “strength” in these contexts? Are “alliances” on paper only, but when shit really hits the fan it’s dog eat dog, the strong against the weak? “Why the façade!?”…argues Putin. “Let me point out the inherent problems of your “generosity” towards immigrants….a generosity that is fake and nobody really wants, mind you,” he argues.<br />
<br />
This is the great challenge.<br />
<br />
It’s curious though. Putin places great emphasis on the nationalism and the sovereignty of the nation state. More specifically, he is concerned with his nation state. So we should therefore assume that his comments here can be best understood against that backdrop – they are intended to benefit him. That is, the sovereignty and safety of European nations is of little concern to him. These comments are to benefit Russia and, ultimately, himself. The only questions are how and why?<br />
<br />
(4) The Effect of the Migrant Crisis<br />
<br />
To put it mildly, the refugee crisis has "<a href="ttps://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/02/putin-weaponizing-migrant-crisis-to-hurt-europe.html">put strains on the regions resources and political unity.</a>"<br />
<br />
If the intent was to destabilize Europe and it's unity, it appears to be working. Working towards what end?<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>"Instead, it continues to view the United States and NATO as a threat to its own security. Since the beginning of 2014, President Putin has sought to undermine the rules-based system of European security and attempted to maximize his power on the world stage," he (General Breedlove) said.</i></span></span><br />
<br />
Spotlighting the effects doesn't prove that the cause (the refugee crisis) was intended, but it's worth noticing that the obvious effects have not appeared to <i>dissuade</i> Putin (or Assad) from changing course. Quite the opposite. As outlined above, the crisis has provided the occasion for Putin to verbally attack Europe and to publicly question it's foundations.<br />
<br />
This doesn't prove intent, but it's effects and the words and actions that followed suggest complicity.<br />
<br />
**********<br />
<br />
If there is a “smoking gun” I didn’t find it. There is no leaked Russian memo entitled “On the Creation of a Refugee Crisis Towards the Destruction of the European Project.” Much of what I found is circumstantial and therefore requires a level of analysis that only those who make their living in these sorts of things are prepared to provide. <br />
<br />
As I wrap this up, one more angle to consider. One more quote from <a href="https://islamandliberty.com/the-seven-trends-behind-the-global-rise-of-populism-611149fd3980">The Seven Trends behind the Global Rise of Populism</a>:<br />
<br />
<i>“Perhaps more things are being put on bureaucratic auto-pilot not because of a plan but because of the lack of a plan. Maybe the “elites” are also winging it.”</i><br />
<br />
The <i>lack of a plan</i>. Maybe everyone is just winging it.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-71173383768219518372017-07-23T10:17:00.001-05:002017-07-23T10:17:34.025-05:00Creatio ex Nihilo and The Cosmic Christ (Jurgen Moltmann)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oI5VKVFSxOw/WUwy_ab3qQI/AAAAAAAAAh8/0pxwrzB8KVgfQZ1uJYxcaaOA74DybKz2ACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/for%2Btoday%2527s%2Bworld.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="102" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oI5VKVFSxOw/WUwy_ab3qQI/AAAAAAAAAh8/0pxwrzB8KVgfQZ1uJYxcaaOA74DybKz2ACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/for%2Btoday%2527s%2Bworld.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Ever since reading <a href="http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/135/86">God, Creation, and Evil: The Moral Meaning of creatio ex nihilo by David Bentley Hart</a>, the theological idea of creation ex nihilo has become an important one for me. Subsequent readings, along with a few other essays (<a href="https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/theodicy-hell-and-david-b-hart/">Theodicy, Hell, and David B Hart by Brian Moore</a> being a notable one) have cemented it as foundational and formative. The eschatological themes of heaven, hell and the destiny of creation, the connection between protology (beginnings) and eschatology (ends), the moral themes of theodicy and suffering, and the ultimate question of 'Who is God?' are all intimately germane to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. <br />
<br />
For me, this doctrine (as implication of the Gospel) provides reason for hope and the occasion for faith.<br />
<br />
I came across the same themes recently in the work of Jurgen Moltmann. Moltmann, however, doesn't explicitly use the language of creation "ex nihilo". Not here anyways. For Moltmann, this line of thought falls within his theological expositions on "The Cosmic Christ".<br />
<br />
The connection is amazing. When we are talking about the <i>meaning</i> of Creation ex nihilo, we are talking about the cosmic Christ, the Alpha and the Omega.<br />
<br />
Both of the citations below are taken from Chapter 6 (section 3) of <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001DIXDD4/">Jesus Christ for Today's World </a></i>by Moltmann. The chapter is entitled 'The Cosmic Christ'. Have a look:<br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>If all things are created by one God, then a transcendent unity precedes their diversity and their historicity. It is not a matter of many worlds belonging to many gods or powers. This is the one creation of the one God. If all things are created by the one God through his Wisdom/Logos, and if they are held together in that, then an immanent unity in which they all exist together underlies their diversity in space and time. Their unity is not the outcome of some subsequent process, emerging from their relationships and the warp and weft into which they are bound. Everything has its genesis in a fundamental underlying unity, which is called God's Wisdom, Spirit or Word. The fellowship of all created beings goes ahead of their differentiations and the specific forms given to them, and this is consequently the foundation underlying their diversity. If God withdraws this foundation, everything disintegrates and becomes a nothingness. If God lends it fresh force, the various forms are renewed (Ps. 104.29f.).</i><br />
<i>--(Kindle Locations 996-998).</i><br />
<br />
<br />
<i>The Hebrew word roach is often translated Spirit, as it is here; but a better translation is 'wind' or 'breath'. The Hebrew word 'rahaph' is generally rendered 'hover' or 'brood'. But according to Deut. 32.11 and Jer. 23.9 it really means vibrating, quivering, moving and exciting. If this is correct, then we shouldn't just think of the image of a fluttering or brooding dove. We should think of the fundamental resonances of music out of which sounds and rhythms emerge. So in thinking about 'creation through the Word', we shouldn't think primarily in metaphors of command and obedience. A better image is the song of creation. The word names, differentiates and appraises. But the breath is the same in all the words, and binds the words together. So the Creator differentiates his creatures through his creative Word and joins them through his Spirit, who is the sustainer of all his words. In the quickening breath and through the form-giving word, the Creator sings out his creatures in the sounds and rhythms in which he has his joy and his good pleasure.</i><br />
<i>--(Kindle Locations 1004-1010).</i>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-723403050128287040.post-91478490590789004622017-06-23T07:29:00.000-05:002017-07-06T07:20:30.962-05:00What is the 'Kingdom of God'? (Jurgen Moltmann)<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oI5VKVFSxOw/WUwy_ab3qQI/AAAAAAAAAh4/3jOCwqIzW2oX28aZIjCxl6GkZr6fNKOpACLcBGAs/s1600/for%2Btoday%2527s%2Bworld.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="158" data-original-width="102" height="200" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oI5VKVFSxOw/WUwy_ab3qQI/AAAAAAAAAh4/3jOCwqIzW2oX28aZIjCxl6GkZr6fNKOpACLcBGAs/s200/for%2Btoday%2527s%2Bworld.jpg" width="129" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">In the summings-up of Jesus’ message we are also told again
and again: “The kingdom of God is at hand – repent.” But what does the word ‘repent’ really mean
according to these parables?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">A sheep has gone astray and is found and <i>the finder</i> is
delighted that his search has not been in vain.
The lost coin could do nothing about either its loss or its finding: the
joy is solely and entirely the woman’s.
The lost son, finally, was not merely ‘lost and found; he had actually
been ‘dead and was alive again’. So if
we look at these parables, what is the kingdom of God? It is nothing other than God’s joy at finding
again the beings he created who have been lost.
And what is the ‘repentance’ which the sinner has to ‘perform’? It is nothing other than the being-found, and
the return home from exile and estrangement, the coming-alive again, and the
joining in God’s joy. We are
experiencing God’s kingdom when something like this happens to us, something
where we flower and put out fresh growth like the flowers and trees in the
spring, and come alive again, because we sense the great in exhaustible loves
from which all life proceeds. When we
experience God’s exhilaration in his joy over us, and our own vitality
reawakens, the kingdom of God cease to be some remote and alien rule; it is the
very source and fountain of life. Then
the kingdom of God is <i>the wide space</i> in which we can unfold and develop,
because it is a place without any restrictions.
Once we experience God’s kingdom like this, we discover afresh the
wealth of our potentialities for living.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Jurgen Moltmann, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B001DIXDD4/">Jesus Christ For Today’s World</a></span><o:p></o:p></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09580180263675687023noreply@blogger.com0