digitalinkwell

February 15, 2014

My Lenten Fast

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 2:11 pm

I am fairly a distractible person.  It is rare for me to dedicate my emotional and mental energy to one task for any length of time in one sitting.  This doesn’t need to be  a downside, but I recognize the pitfalls of it.  Distractions can easily worm their way into my thoughts, particularly since I bought an iPad and iPhone.  Digital distraction is now never more than a swipe away.  I have recognized this for some time, along with a growing sense of unease.  So this Lent I have decided to do something about it.

So here are the rules for my electronics and media fast in the season of Lent.

(1) No electronics.  No computer, iPad, iPhone, TV.  This means no games (old fashioned board games still allowed), blogging, Starbucks card app, surfing the net, social media, etc.

Where this does not apply is to telephone, email, calendaring, texting, online banking, etc.: things necessary to life and work.

(2) No media.  No radio, podcasts, You Tube, music, TV, Netflix, movies, or magazines.  Paper books are allowed.

This will leave me alone more often with my thoughts, eliminate distractions, and make more time for focused engagement in relationships.  In stead of electronics and media, I plan to insert prayer.  I don’t know yet what this looks like.  I am researching something even as structured as praying the Divine Office in some form.

Anyone ever done anything like this before?

June 6, 2013

Simple (not easy) instructions

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 12:51 pm

I came across a single verse a few weeks back that has consistently stuck with me.  It is in Deuteronomy, which means immediately my ears perk up, because I know Deuteronomy is Moses’ farewell speech, and anyone’s last words tend to be very important.  And the verse is in a section about true and false gods and prophets.  It is Moses reminding people of who the one true God is and how the people ought then to respond.  He says this:

You shall go after Yahweh your God, and him you shall revere, and his commandment you shall keep, and to his voice you shall listen, and him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast (Dt 13.4).

What I like about this is simply that is it so short and direct.  I think to myself when I read this: “If I just did this, my relationship with God would be significantly different (read: better).”  It is very simple, true, but it ain’t easy.

The verse is divided into six imperatives, each of which I want to treat briefly and separately:

(1) “Go after”: this could also be rendered “follow.”  Following means allowing someone else to take the lead and walking behind them.  This is actually a great encouragement to me because it means I don’t have to blaze a trail and bushwack.  God goes ahead of me and he makes a way.  He takes the hits because he is at the front of the pack and he deals with the obstacles.  Now, following does mean that I have to have a clear sense of where God is going.  This isn’t always easy.  Frequently I know he is ahead of me+, but I don’t know which way he has gone.  The Israelites had the benefit of a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night.  I don’t.  So it is a bit more challenging, but far less challenging than trying to break trail myself.

(2) “Revere”: this could also be rendered “fear”.  Personally I connect with God best when I have a proper perspective on how big God is and my relative importance and finitude.  I love passages like Isaiah 6, where God is pictured as so enormous that the only thing that can fit into the temple is the hem of his robe.  When I have this perspective and know that as much as He loves me, he is king and I am not, it helps me live as I should.

(3) “Keep”: this could also be rendered “guard”.  We keep or guard something that is important to us, that we cherish.  Do we treat his commandments in this way?  Could we say: “the law from your mouth is more precious to me than thousands of pieces of silver and gold”? (Ps 119.72)

(4) “Listen”: this could also be rendered “obey”.  We obey those whom we respect and who we recognize as having authority over us.  And to obey we need to listen, and to listen we need to recognize what we are hearing.  Jesus said his sheep know his voice (Jn 10.27).  To be honest, much like how I don’t always know where God has gone off to, I am not always confident that I know his voice.  But that comes as I spend more time with him, and as I shut up long and eliminate noise from my live long enough to hear it.

(5) “Serve”: Pretty straightforward.  I am reminded of Paul’s exhortation to serve others as if serving the Lord (Eph 6.7).  We own our full allegiance to God, not other deities, but even in that, we serve others as if serving him.  Jesus  reminds us that as we serve those in need, we are truly serving him (Mt 25.40).

(6) “Hold fast”: this could be rendered “cling”.  I regard this as a summary statement for the verse.  All the other five things are in some respect action-oriented items.  There is activity and action in following and listening and serving.  Clearly clinging is an action as well, but I know less than the other verbs what that actually looks like.  Instead, I think of it more as an inner attitude.  To cling to God means to regard everything else as unimportant (or at least less important).  There is a desperation, a “this is my only chance”-ness to the idea of “cling” that speaks to an attitude to fulfills the other imperatives and ultimately makes them truly possible.

April 5, 2013

The Role of the Spirit

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 11:11 am

Every once in a while, as you become more familiar with Scripture, you notice connections and parallels you hadn’t picked up on before.  This has happened with me with Romans 8, which I have been spending a lot of time thinking about as I endeavour to commit it to memory.  There is lots of talk in the chapter about the battle between the flesh and Spirit, but what really struck me in particular about that was how Paul describes what the Spirit does for us.  And in speaking about this, he uses the same phrase (“that very Spirit…”) in two separate places.  The repetition is what first made me notice this.

First, Paul writes: οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον, ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν, Αββα ὁ πατήρ:αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα θεοῦ (For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God) Romans 8.15-16, NRSV.

So Paul talks about the Spirit as one who reminds us that we have been adopted by the heavenly Father, and therefore that very Spirit, by way of discharging that duty, reminds us that we are God’s adopted offspring.  He never ceases to whisper this to us, that we may live in the freedom that comes with being part of God’s family.

Next, Paul writes: Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν: τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἀλλὰ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις (Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedeswith sighs too deep for words) Romans 8.26, NRSV.

So Paul speaks about the Spirit as assisting us, His children, in our weakness, and therefore that very Spirit, by way of discharging that duty, speaks to the Father emotions that words cannot express.  He prays on our behalf so that we need not be worried about how to express ourselves.  Prayers are being offered even when we are unawares or too warn out to find the right words.

The Spirit does both these things for us, as well as many others mentioned in Romans and elsewhere, but these two pieces of his job description jumped out at me due to the repetition.

 

March 27, 2013

The Chain of God’s Action

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 1:59 am

I have been memorizing Romans chapter 8 recently, and this week I got to these words:

28We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son, in order that he may be the firstborn within a large family. 30And those whom he foreknew, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified. 

It’s an interesting logical progression: first comes foreknowledge, then predestination, then calling, then justification, then glorification.  It seems a pretty complete list, other than that we might expect sanctification inserted into the list between justification and glorification, based on what we know of Paul’s theology from elsewhere in Romans as well as other letters.  But these verses more or less offer a insight into the chain of God’s action toward us as he calls and molds us, based on his purposes.

March 13, 2013

The Many Branches of the Church

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 7:32 am

In my experience, many people both inside and outside of churches in North America have an overly simplistic view of Christian denominations and their lineages.  The two main categories I often hear used are “Catholic” and “Protestant.”  According this thinking, there are those who are Catholic, and then everyone else, whom we lump together a Protestants.  But the catch-all label of Protestant both misunderstands the historical record, and doesn’t respect how Christians in various denominations understand their place in the midst of this history.  To my mind, there are actually seven distinct/major branches of Christian faith, none of which can be collapsed into any other.  Let me explain.

First, there was simply the Church.  There really was only one entity that claimed to represent Christ in the world.  Some may not have agreed with official church doctrine, and there were small groups 0f people who were branded heretics, but from an “official” standpoint, there was the one, holy, catholic (read: universal), apostolic church.

Then, in 431, at the third ecumenical church council at Ephesus, there was a significant disagreement among those represented, and some Christians would leave the fold and establish an independent church which still exists today as the Assyrian Church of the East and claims 400,000-500,000 modern-day adherents.

20 years later, the scene was to be repeated.  At the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon (451), there was again enough theological controversy to create another division.  What is now called the Oriental Orthodox Church still exists today in places like Egypt, Eritrea, Armenia, and Ethiopia.

The next division to occur was far larger.  For quite some time, tensions had been simmering between Catholics in Western Europe and Catholics in the East (Eastern Europe, Turkey, Palestine, and parts of the Near East).  Eventually this came to a head in 1054 when the Pope (who was mostly regarded as the spiritual leader in the West) and the Patriarch of Constantinople (the spiritual leader in the East), excommunicated each other.  There were some attempts over the next hundred years to bring reconciliation, but the divide only seemed to widen, leaving the Roman Catholic Church much as we think of it today, and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The next big change came during the Reformation era in Europe (1520s and onward).  The most famous Reformation was the Protestant Reformation: think Martin Luther (Lutheranism), John Calvin (Reformed Church), and John Knox (Presbyterianism).  These men departed from Catholic teaching but still valued the role that the government could play in the church and society, and so they stuck with the idea of a state-sponsored church.  So if the ruler of your certain country was Protestant, so were you, and don’t cry about it.

There were those who liked some of the theological innovations of the Protestant reformers, but didn’t think these went far enough.  In particular, they valued the role of conscience and didn’t want to force their faith on anyone through the conformism of a state church.  They believed churches should communities of people who intentionally and willingly followed Jesus Christ as the Lord of their lives.  As such, they also believed in baptism for those who chose to pursue it and understood that it meant a voluntary surrender to a life of following Christ, whereas in the Catholic and Protestant traditions, baptism was largely practiced on infants.  These people were known as the Anabaptists.  Modern versions of Anabaptism include the Amish, Mennonites, and Brethren in Christ.  They borrowed elements from both Catholicism and Protestantism, mixed with their own theological ideas.

Also around this same time, King Henry of England had a disagreement with the Pope over whether Henry could obtain a divorce from his first wife, Catherine, on the grounds that Henry believed his marriage was cursed (the proof being they could not have a child).  The Pope forbade such a move, so Henry took things into his own hands, declaring himself as the head of the Church in England instead of the Pope.  But really this was the only issue the King had with the Catholic Church.  He was still a staunch defender of Catholic theology and most of its practice.  And throughout the history of Anglicanism it has often resembled Catholicism very closely in belief and practice.  So it is not Catholic, because the Pope doesn’t command leadership, but neither does it share the theological emphases of Protestantism.  And Anglicans themselves don’t see themselves as Catholic or Protestant, so it requires its own category.

Finally, we have what we call Evangelicalism, or sometimes Restorationism, which by far captures the greatest diversity of denominations and movement.  These denominations began separating themselves from the Anglican and Protestant churches in the mid-18th century.  They sought to recapture the enthusiasm, theological purity, and emphasis on personal holiness that had, they believed, been lost between the time of the early church and their own time.  This category includes Baptists, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, Vineyard, and Methodists, among others.  Most “non-denominational” churches also embrace the Evangelical ethos.  A scholar man named David Bebbington, in a highly influential 1989 book called Evangelicalism in Modern Britain, identifies four main criteria of an evangelical church (see below).  All evangelical churches will share these.

(1) Bible — an emphasis on the Bible alone (as opposed to “Tradition”) as the final and authoritative source of all spiritual truth and matters of Christian and Church life.

(2) Cross — an emphasis on the all-sufficient atoning work of Jesus on the cross.

(3) Conversion — an emphasis on the fundamental importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus as one’s Lord and Saviour, and the necessity of having a personal conversion experience.

(4) Activism — an emphasis on expressing the good news of Jesus to others through sharing one’s faith and social action.

So the major branches are (1) Roman Catholicism, (2) Oriental Orthodoxy, (3) the Assyrian Church of the East, (4) the Eastern Orthodox Church, (5) Anglicanism, (6) Protestantism, (7) Anabaptism, and (8) Evangelicalism/Restorationist.  Thinking in terms of these several major categories of Christian faith can help us understand the diversity of perspectives within the universal Church and put the brakes on any simplistic reduction of faith to an unhelpful dichotomy between Catholic and everyone else (i.e. Protestant).

February 26, 2013

The Four Faces of Alienation

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 2:38 pm

All of the examples of sin we read about in the Bible are directly related to the early chapters of Genesis.  Genesis describes the goodness and creativity of God, the character of his creation, and who we are as his creatures.  The Genesis narrative also explains how things went awry.  In those first chapters we see the multi-faceted Sin first rear its ugly head.  And we see the four types of alienation that Adam and Eve experience because of sin: the four dimensions of sin upon which all the records of wrongdoing in the Bible are based, and which up to the present day form the basis of our dysfunction as human beings.  So let’s look at these four types of alienation and how they resonate with us today.

(1) Alienation from self.  Gen 3.7 reads: [After they ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] the eyes of [the man and the woman] were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.  There was something in that primordial act of rebellion that introduced shame into the world.  Shame, while it can serve a useful social function by enforcing norms of behaviour by intrinsic means, ultimately whispers in our ear that that there is something wrong with us.  Adam and Eve no longer felt comfortable in their own skin; they could no longer exist in the way that God had made them to.  So they covered themselves up and became alienated from that part of themselves and the freedom which God had planted in their hearts.  This cycle of shame is familiar to the addict or anyone who struggles with a certain besetting sin.  There is the vow to abstain from said activity, but as soon as the person gives into temptation, the shame comes on and convinces us that we are weak and no good.  There then comes an attempt to hide that part of us, even from ourselves.  Henry Nouwen once wrote: “the biggest trap we can fall into is not fame, power, or wealth, but self-rejection.”

(2) Alienation from God.  Once we struggle with alienation from ourselves, genuine connection with God becomes much more strained, and we drift toward alienation from him.  When God was looking for Adam, Adam hid.  When God finds him and asks why, Adam replies: “I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself” (v. 10).  Somehow Adam’s own inability to look himself in the face sabotages his relationship with God.  Perhaps he assumes that because he is ashamed of himself, God will likewise be displeased.  And so we distance ourselves from him and hide.  We believe the lie that our sin disqualifies us from relationship with God, as well as the lie that we are polluted and unloveable, and so in our own minds God becomes our antagonist.

(3) Alienation from others.  Immediately the excuses start flying: “The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate” (v. 12).  This further alienates Adam from God because Adam blames God for his sin by saying “it was the woman you gave to me.”  But it also drives a wedge between two people who until that point must have been a pretty happy couple.  Sin has them playing the blame game, the game that is familiar to all of us and which can be so deadly.  One of the first sins was the sin of deflection and not taking responsibility for our own actions.  Perhaps to acknowledge the reality and magnitude of his sin was too hard for Adam, as it threatened to further shame and alienate him from himself.  But sin that we have the courage to confess is sin God is all too willing to absolve us of.  Now all that happened was Adam got mad at Eve and threw her under the bus.  And the relationship was never quite the same, I am sure.

(4) Alienation from creation.  Finally, there is a cosmic dimension to this first sin.  There is a curse that is put on the ground.  And whereas the first command of God was for the people to be tenders and cultivators of the garden, which meant enjoying its bounty with ease and at their leisure (1.26-30), now the man must work — not even just work, but toil — for his food (3.17-19).  Suddenly God’s good creation, with which they should always have been at harmony, now resists him and becomes his enemy.  There is today much left in nature that soothes the soul, and the food that comes from the ground can bring great pleasure, but talk to a subsistence farmer or someone who has experienced a hurricane or an earthquake, and the danger, the raw power, and the unpredictability of nature becomes evident, and you must reckon with the fact that the natural world owes no allegiance to you or makes any promises to keep you safe and prosperous.

So try it on for size.  Take a look at any episode of sin recorded in the Bible and it will fit into one of these categories or feature some elements from across these categories.  Even extra-biblical literature and stories up to the present day can only recap these themes.  The are the archetypes of sin and conflict upon which our fallen human nature and experiences are built.

October 19, 2012

Who is the Bible Written for, Anyway?

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 4:02 pm

Christian culture in North America is exceptionally confused about how Christians are supposed to engage with those who do not profess faith in Jesus.  Some people are very happy to keep their faith a private thing and never discuss it with others, while some take every opportunity to share by bludgeoning people over the head with the Bible and seek to create laws based on a certain vision of biblical morality.  There are certain other (and healthier) approaches than these, but both of these are equally laid bare when we consider the seldom-asked question: “Who is the Bible written for, anyway?”  When we answer that question correctly, the best approach to sharing faith become much clearer.

We should be very clear about the fact that the Bible, first and foremost, was delivered into the context of a believing community.  It was given by God to those whom he was instructing toward being in relationship with himself — be it Israel or the Church.  The Psalms were the song-book of Israel, the Pentateuch was written to the Israelites to teach the story of creation and let the people know how to worship God, Judges and other history books were written to instruct the Israelites about how to live (or more often than not, how not to live), the Gospels were mostly written so that Christians could know the whole story or so those who wanted to investigate the life of Jesus had a source document to refer to, and the letters of Paul were clearly written to Christian churches.  Even Revelation was primarily written to Christians as an encouragement to hold fast in the face of persecution.  And the Old Testament prophetic books catalogued judgments God would bring on his people as well as the foreign nations — even the judgments against foreign nations were addresses to Israel, because their main point was to show God will still deliver and fight on behalf of his people.  All that to say, for the most part the Bible, in both Testaments, is meant for those who would follow him.

What does this have to do with the situation presented at the beginning of this post?  Simply this: that those who do not consider themselves followers of Jesus, and who are not interested in becoming followers, are not the target audience of the Bible.  Therefore, to use the Bible as a weapon to speak against such people is missing the mark.  Followers of Jesus actually have no business in using the Bible to correct the morality of those who do not believe in it.  Therefore, any type of legislation that is based on some version of biblical morality contradicts the spirit of the Bible.  Yes, the Old Testament records lists of laws that were to rule the nation of Israel, but that was a nation of believers from the very beginning, whereas the New Testament goes beyond the borders of nations to call people into the Church, and the borderless Church is the recipient of these new laws, no longer nations.  There actually is no such thing as a Christian nation, nor could there be.

But the Bible does make a certain claim on all people: there are numerous places where the Bible explicitly teaches the worldwide Lordship of Jesus and God.  Faith cannot be a private matter because God is Lord of the entire earth and of all its people.  Whether people like it or not, or accept it or not, God is King, and this is something that we can (and should) communicate to all people.

So where does that leave us?  I suppose the best formulation of this is to say the power of the Christian faith is in proclamation of the Good News and demonstration of it (i.e. living in accordance with that which is proclaimed), not in legislation.  Yes, we have an obligation and privilege as those who know and love God to verbally tell others about his love and compassion for them, and to get people to ask questions and witness the power of Jesus because of the unique ways in which we live.  But if people refuse to put themselves under the Lordship of Jesus, while we can claim that those actions which are at odds with the Bible are objectively immoral, we have no business holding these people to the moral standards communicated in a book primarily for those who are his followers; which means Christian legislation is against the spirit of the Bible and its Author, and, I would argue, abusive toward non-believers.

The virtue of sustained thought

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 3:15 pm

I was having a conversation yesterday in which a friend of mine reminded me of a passage from Plato’s Symposium.  In the passage Alcibiades remarks on a strange habit that Socrates had of stopping to think about things:

“One day, at dawn, [in the middle of a army encampment, Socrates] started thinking about some problem or other; he just stood outside, trying to figure it out. He couldn’t resolve it, but he wouldn’t give up. He simply stood there, glued to the same spot. By midday, many soldiers had seen him, and, quite mystified, they told everyone that Socrates had been standing there all day, thinking about something. He was still there when evening came, and after dinner some Ionians moved their bedding outside, where it was cooler and more comfortable (all this took place in the summer), but mainly in order to watch if Socrates was going to stay out there all night. And so he did; he stood in the very same spot until dawn! He only left next morning, when the Sun came out, and he made his prayers to the new day.”

My friend went on to say that this represented to him the dedication to the increasingly rare virtue of sustained thought.  Yes, he called sustained thought a virtue.

My experience has been in my own life is that thinking (let alone sustained thought on a topic) gets left for periods of leisure, or is never taken up at all.  I have not often seen it as a necessity; perhaps because it seems boring, intimidating, or because I can use Google in order to find someone who can tell me what to believe.  And yet, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the task of contemplation is an urgent one.  Why?  For several reasons:

(1) Sustained thought creates and feeds your inner world.  Many of us at at least some point in our lives feel a lot like a hollow patchwork shell of other people’s expectations, relentless actions, and achievements.  We don’t have much inner world to speak of; we are constantly on the move and may not even be sure what is motivating us in any given direction.  To live the unexamined and externally-motivated life is to live an impoverished life.  In order to live in a way that will give us joy and purpose and will be of true value to others, we need to become a true and vivid person in our own minds, and this doesn’t happen unless we spend lots of time thinking and evaluating.  And there will inevitably come a time when age or disease slows us down or stops us all together, and then we are left with ourselves in a way that may be entirely uncomfortable if we haven’t been familiar with ourselves for a long time or maybe don’t really see much inside at all even if we dare look.

(2) Sustained thought allows you to be your own person.  God gave you a brain, which means he wants you to think for yourself.  There are lots of other people who are ready to do the thinking for if you let them, but they could be downright wrong and/or have an agenda that is driving what they are discovering and teaching that you may not share.  Spending the time to think through an issue yourself is the best way to assert your own beliefs and make sure the opinion you espouse in the end is actually consistent with your own values and who you are, even if in the end you end up coming to the same conclusion you might have if you just quickly surveyed the Google results.

(3) Sustained thought fosters creativity.  If we aren’t spending time to think, then we aren’t thinking outside the box, which means the original solution that might be the answer to our problems has no chance of coming to the surface.  Without sustained thought about the presenting issue, we are doomed to try old (and lackluster) solutions because these are all we have access to, and then we get less than ideal or even downright horrible and destructive results.

(4) Sustained thought counters thoughtlessness.  This friend who pointed me to the passage in Plato also taught me that the brain can be thought of a muscle that benefits from a good workout.  I was telling him that I was quite discouraged with how thoughtless I have been for much of my life — both forgetful and also moving to action without thinking through the situation from the point of view of those I care about and who might be affected by the action.  He said that like any muscle, you don’t just  expect to lift something heavy without training, so I shouldn’t enter a situation, be thoughtless, and then walk away frustrated, because I didn’t train for it so it isn’t a surprise that I wasn’t as thoughtful as I might have liked to be.  He coached me to practice deliberate thoughtfulness — to purposely take some time out on a regular basis to think about a certain situation or person, so that when I encounter a time when I am required to assess something, that person or similar situation will jump to mind and some of my “pre-thinking” will help me in that moment decide on a course of action that is beneficial for anyone who might be involved or affected.

July 4, 2012

Don’t All Paths Lead to God?

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 5:45 am

When someone asks me this question, I find it helpful to have them participate with me in a reasoning process, instead of flat out saying “no” or jumping to “Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”

I first propose there are three possible answers to that question: “yes,” “no,” and “sort of.”  That would seem to encompass the entire range of possibilities.  Now, the answer implied in the question when it is stated this way is “yes.”  However, ask the person you are in the conversation with to consider the possibility of “sort of” or “no.”

The issue with the statement that all paths leads to God is that many of the major world religions make exclusive claims about their Gods and therefore point toward other gods as being lesser than or unreal.  Islam certainly says there is no God other than Allah.  Judaism says there is no God other than Yahweh, and Christianity says that Jesus is the one and only Lord of the universe.  One may say that these three faiths all worship the same God but just call him different things.  But then there is Buddhism, which insists that there is no God, while Hinduism insists there are many gods.  Not all of these can be true at the same time.  It is a logical impossibility.  And the existence or non-existence of one or many gods, and their names and character are absolutely essential core statements of faith.  It’s not as if were are arguing about peripheral issues here: the central ideas of these religions differ immensely.

In response, one might say then “Well, every religion has aspects of truth to them.  No one religion is entirely right.”  This is a valid option, and in fact on a purely logical basis, we would have to admit that this very well could be true.  We do know that nearly all of the faith traditions of the world encapsulate very noble teachings and aspirations, and each has distinctives that people of other faiths can learn from.  The question about this option, however, is how do we decide which teachings from which religion are correct?  We are left grappling with a buffet approach to religion: one person may look at all the various teachings and ideas and put together one kind of plate, and someone else something entirely different.  Even if each person’s melange of ideas didn’t conflict within themselves, at some point that certain concoction will conflict with someone else’s, leaving us with the question of who is right.  Or, more importantly, what gives any person the right to pass judgment on the beliefs of traditional religions and other’s ideas and to make truth claims?  What makes one person’s version of truth better than another’s? — a question that cannot be ignored when these mixtures conflict on certain key points.

So your conversation partner will either have to provide a logically defensible answer to that question or move on to the “no” possibility.  The “no” means that either no religion is right and we should just stop worrying so much about it and move on, OR that one religion stands out above the others as providing the true way to access God.  Which option to chose and which religion that might be could be left to another series of conversations.

April 5, 2012

God’s Truth and the Human Point of View

Filed under: Uncategorized — kevinocoin @ 3:37 am

Jesus asked his followers, “Who do you say I am?”  Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”  Jesus replied, “You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being. 

From then on Jesus began to tell his disciples plainly that it was necessary for him to go to Jerusalem, and that he would suffer many terrible things at the hands of the elders, the leading priests, and the teachers of religious law. He would be killed, but on the third day he would be raised from the dead.  But Peter took him aside and began to reprimand him for saying such things. “Heaven forbid, Lord,” he said. “This will never happen to you!” Jesus turned to Peter and said, “Get away from me, Satan! You are a dangerous trap to me. You are seeing things merely from a human point of view, not from God’s.”

– Matthew 16:15-17, 21-23

I am amazed at the ability of Simon Peter to be so smart and so dense in such quick succession.  In one scenario Jesus commends him  saying he has heard what he knows the from the Lord.  In the next scenario from mere days later Jesus reprimands him for seeing things from a human instead of divine view.  It is quite amazing that one person could be so right at one point and then so wrong in almost the very next breath.

But somehow I don’t think Peter is unusual in his glimmers of insight or frustrating obtuseness.  I myself have this same ability to be so bang on in one minute and so far off in the next.  At one point it can seem as if I am listening to God’s voice and saying all the best things and the next I could be saying something totally stupid and out of line with God’s plans and purposes.

Such is the human struggle.

 

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers