According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater
Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger
Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton
I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – anon
Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII
Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut
Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest
People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – anon
Certainly God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater
An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater
Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann
Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner
Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14)
Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton
The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – anon
The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul
The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah
If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – anon
Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Discussions in Science and Religion - Week 2: "A Tale of Two Cities"




"Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."
- Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pg 5

"The universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence."
- Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pg 6

INTRODUCTION

The title of Charles Dicken's "Tale of Two Cities" comes to mind when examining the philosophical and theological foundations behind the symmetry of science and religion - for a symmetry they most assuredly make each-to-the-other as unlikely companions giving necessary shape to each other's form and function. Begging the question which must lead-out first? Does Science? Does Religion? At first, many think religion had led out which either invigorated scientific discovery, or held it back. And then science willingly replied either to add to religious understanding, or to question all that religion held dear. Hence, the cathartic Ying-and-Yang pull of each discipline's tug upon the other has held a mystical attraction that is unlikely to abate, if ever, until the end of days.

Consequently, one finds it necessary to be as careful in developmental research and adjudicated thinking respective to either discipline's present understanding and conjectures. To not underplay, nor overplay, one's theories and philosophical insights to the detriment of the other, but to purposely try to allow each to temperately exist in an uneasy alliance between the other. Allowing each one as full a voice as the other while all-the-while attempting the high-wire act of balancing one's views - and knowledge of the other - in some primordial mix of positive critique, helpful questioning, perhaps homage, or complete indeference.

A good philosopher/theologian does not wish to be unawares of scientific research no less than a good scientist wishes to be unawares of the undercurrents in philosophy and theology. However, it would be naïve of either discipline to think that time does not create change to the behavior or impact of one upon the other. And since our focus at Relevancy22 is on the many contemporary topics of theology, it would be absurd to think that the Christian faith is held in some kind of a sealed time capsule irrespective to the ideas of science and society. To behave in a way that would not admit progression of theological perspective with the frenetic insights and topsy-turvy discoveries of postmodern research forcing the classical worlds of Greek logic and Medieval theology beyond yesteryear's inroads of enlightened modernism.

But to react to change by fighting it is not what is helpful to today's churched congregations. Nor should we be fearful of technology's rapid rate of flux and influx. But to be sensible in discerning its influences in a way that might be helpful to believers wishing to follow Jesus, who are themselves unsure just how to do this in today's 21st century techno-scientific revolution. One way to do this is to explore science's discoveries and our responses to its understandings perhaps by enlarging the boundary sets we live within that once gave us comfort and relief but now have become blown-to-bits if held beyond their normal life's expiration date (speaking philosophically, that is).

Thus the pastor turns to the philosopher/poet, or the scientist/theologian, or to the media's darlings who drive both good-and-bad ideas forward that s/he might explore with them the ramifications of their arguments, insights, and ideas. Philip Clayton is such a one who has spent a lifetime becoming conversant with both sides of the science-and-religion debate, working towards resolutions that might offer sanity in the face of seeming insanity. Comfort and counsel where there has been none. To this end, Philip has worked equally as hard at understanding science as he has religion... to be generous, reflective, constructive, and helpful. So that in week two's discussion of Cosmology and Quantum Physics we come to a place that must stop and reflect upon our universe's origins from both a biblical understanding as well as a scientific one.


ENTER THE QUANTUM PHYSICISTS

Accordingly, with such purposeful reflection has come my glad contentment for taking the time these past several years to explore these same subjects of theism and science on my own before coming to Philip's, or another's, aggregative counsel (and perhaps even aggravating! counsel, lol). While other fellow Christians were blasting the renown physicist Stephen Hawking for his atheistic reconstruction of the quantum universe I read with a vengeance all that he had to say on the subject trying to discern his understanding of quantum physics. So that by having read his thoughts I have found for myself a curious spiritual synthesis based upon the same equations-and-formulas Stephen felt well-advised to accept for himself in quite a different, more-materialistic direction.

So that when coming to Philip Clayton's quotations of John Wheeler about humans "changing the course of world history by mere observation" I could sense the misdirection of that phrase as to how it should more properly be used (sic, according to Hawking, our observation doesn't change the course of history of a particle, but views one instance of its infinite singular histories). That is not to say that Philip (or Wheeler) understate their exploration of quantum principles based upon the Feynmann Sum of Histories, only that they have selectively written of it within a context that presages their own understanding of cosmological science, rather than to run away from it as theologians. Even so, I'll let the ramifications of their conjectures be told by themselves as I have more probably misunderstood their observations already! (cf., pg 78 in Science and Religion).

Which is one of the reasons I have been reading Philip's book on Science and Religion, and listening to his lectures, not that I might gainsay him, but rather glean from his many years of exploration, knowing that we each come from differing backgrounds, theistic needs, and perceptions. Like himself, I have become one who wishes to err on the side of science - and not on the side of past classical (philosopohic or theological) arguments. Nor fall prey to Hawking's ascetic observation that "philosophy (and faith) have not kept up with science." But to make a concerted effort to update my Christian faith in as intelligent a way as possible without voiding its historical past. Yet, perhaps, enhancing its ancient past with today's newer scientific discoveries formed in the symbiotic relationships of theoretical balance and mutual partnership.

As such, for literary reasons, Philip encapsulates the Age of Scientific Materialism into three empirical categories - idealism, indeterminacy, and interconnectivity. For purposes of this discussion he has found these categories helpful for his listeners even as I found them more restrictive, perhaps even prejudicing towards a certain philosophical outcome based upon assumed parameters and logical elocution. Still, Philip has simplified a difficult subject by utilizing a practical methodology which necessitates my abbreviated review as to its merits of reflection, and not to mine own literary hesitancies or theoretic perambulations.


First, Newton and Einstein, according to Philip, were determinists disbelieving that "God plays dice with creation." They wanted order and natural explanation right down to the very last gravitational pull-and-push of (atomic) energy. Shortly, quantum physics came into being, and with it the death of scientific absolutism, crouched within a mathematics that would make absurd all previous scientific statements when beheld in the light of quantum indeterminacy, Planck's constant, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Shortly, philosophers derived the (weak) Anthropic Principle stating that the universe 'must be compatible with the conscious life observing it" (Hawking prefers the term "Selection Principle" instead). Quickly it was modified under multiverse theory (sic, many universes each unlike the other holding different natural laws, dimensions, etc, that are impossible for our type of quantum existence) to a biophilic theory that was friendly to the emergence of life and not just human life. Subsumed under that came Hawking's M-Theory which basically states that "we are what we are because we are" which is really a form of the Strong Anthropic Principle that predisposes even the very atomic structure of the universe towards human life (sic, its atomic bonds, molecular covalences, electronic spins, quantum phases, amplitudes, vibrational strings, and etcetera). Thus "our universe and its physical laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way (Hawking, The Grand Design, pg 162).

For Hawking this means that we, and our universe, are part of a larger, indeterminate process. But for the theist, it means that God is its Maker and Sustainer of all - however He arranges this universe that we live in. Moreover, it should be of note that Hawking, as a theoretical physicist, was exploring the idea of String Theory to that of the universe's origins. A theory that might lead to his Theory of Everything while accounting for the supersymmetries found between bosons (energy) and fermions (matter). It was an ambitious undertaking that few theoreticists are able to take - and those that can continue to vigorously research it (cf., Higgs-Boson research, amongst other efforts such as string theory). Accordingly, M-theory is the unified theory Einstein was hoping to find, and later in life revised his previous formulas to include the then unknown substances of dark matter (26.8%) and dark energy (69.3%) to balance off his equations of ordinary matter (which makes up 4.9% of the composition of the known universe). Making of him a dice thrower after all (even as we should be today).

CONCLUSION

The essence of Philip's arguments is one of finding the line between science and philosophy, and for him, as for myself, we each tend to erase that line as much as we can so that they both might bleed a little bit - if not a lotta bit - into the other. The other main argument Philip wishes to convey is that each discipline is housed within their own metaphysical arguments - certainly science, whether it is one of agnosticism or atheism, as much as theism, with its pushbacks and classicisms. As such, we must be aware that "today's lines can become tomorrow's laws" meaning that theoretical predictions, given time and observation, can become axiomatic and no longer postulates. As such, our theological certainties must always be tempered with epistemic humility... to be as skeptical of our own theological foundations as scientists have evidenced towards their own postulates and theorems.

What might we conclude then? That if we hold an eschatology that is orientated towards admission into a "New Heavens and New Earth" than more-than-likely we may show an evangelic carelessness towards ecological care and nurturing (even as the Reagan administrative did in its budgeting). Moreover, if we look to find God's integrity within creation's keeping than we will be disposed towards a quasi-science that misunderstands the physics of quantum indeterminacies - thinking we can change history merely by observing it. Not realizing that we are simply looking at one possible path of history over a sum of histories with infinite probabilities that is irrespective of the observer as timelines collapsed towards a state of singular infinities. (Which is why it was such fun to watch the TV show LOST as the Island timelines intersected, overlapped, bisected, and interfered with each character's timeline... better known as "quantum entanglement.") Of course the ramifications for the doctrines of sovereignty and evil can go far askew when held within a general misunderstanding of scientific principles. Even as Open Theism (cf. this site's sidebar under Theism) has thrived within this uncertain environment of humanity and creation (sic, the future is relational to both God and creation making it indeterminative in correspondent structure).

Of course, beyond Philip's ideas of idealism and indeterminacy is the idea of interconnectivity. That we inhabit a universe of localized energy-and-matter that influences other localized energy fields as they correspond to our Galaxy, our Solar System, our interactions with this world, and even with each other and ourselves. That everything is interconnected thus making everything relational.... Which is an idea that I like a lot as a Relational-Process theist (cf. the sidebar Theism). Overall we must accept the dictum that "truth may be informed by the past but must not become necessarily led by it" as both time-and-circumstances, events-and-society, evolve with each passing era. That we are responsible to form reasonable, open-minded opinions realizing that God is a God who is much bigger than we can think or imagine. That our metaphysical arguments cannot dictate to Him his essence and being much less His activity upon, within, through, for, by, around, or on behalf of, His creation. That we are part of God's amazing creation even as we have been made co-creators with Him in remaking, renewing, redeeming, rebirthing, and resurrecting, this old world into one verily in His image.

How? By the Spirit's empowerment of submission, humility, grace, mercy, peace, and forgiveness. These latter spiritual practices of course speak to a Weak Theology that is necessarily deconstructive to classic theism's insistence upon God meticulous control of all things in a mechanistic, pre-determined world as once thought by Newton et al. Thus my preferencing of Arminianism here at this blogsite, led by Dr. Roger Olson. And no, Arminianism is not a virus, its the practical side of Christian faith living: cup of water, helping hands, free will sort of thing that doesn't believe in God's meticulous sovereignty, but in a non-coercive, indeterminant creation that willfully partners with God even as God partners with His creation by its active allowance and submission. Thus we bear a Christian faith that allows worldly wills to become submissive to God's holy rule-and-reign even as our own wills are becoming formed now in the Spirit's apocalyptic event.

I have used these examples above to show how science can be relevant to theology. That theology can, and does, change at the behest of societal movement, whether we think it does or not.... And thus, it is my hope that these past recent discussions on Science and Religion might move the church past its own metaphysical localities onto faith's broader epistemological planes of reflected, Spirit-filled movement. Perhaps then, it should be so... even so, like any good Battle Star Galactic fan would say, "So Say We All."

R.E. Slater
September 18, 2013


Addendum

*What is the Difference between Weak v. Strong Anthropic Principles? (sic Wikipedia)

From Ken G's internet posting on this issue: "Actually, those are the weak/strong versions of Tipler and company-- the more standard original distinction by Carter (I got most of this from Wiki) is simply that the weak AP says that 'given the fundamental parameters we observe, we have to live in a place and time that is conducive to life.' Thus the WAP is only relevant to resolving "fine tuning" problems in regard to why we are here now, as opposed to somewhere else later. Given the cosmological principle that all places are more or less the same, the 'fine tuning' that is resolved is purely temporal-- why we are here after 13.7 billion years and not 1 year or 1 decillion years.

The strong AP goes on to look at the fundamental physical parameters themselves, and asserts that they also have to be fine tuned such that we could come along at some point in space and time. So it talks about why if you monkey even just a little with the dimensionless ratios of the universe, you seem to dramatically alter the resulting likelihood for generating life.

The reason the SAP is more speculative is that it is not clear what you are comparing-- you can compare life as it might develop in different places and times, and might scientifically find evidence for such life, but life in other hypothetical universes would seem to be a nonscientific issue. So the SAP is not really considered testable science, it's more philosophy, whereas the WAP is on a more solid footing in regard to the general requirements of a scientific explanation.

Personally, I don't think the SAP gives us any understanding of why the parameters are what they are, beyond the obvious point that given the laws we have found, the parameters would have to be within certain ranges or we couldn't be here. That doesn't qualify as "understanding" in my book. The idea that this does not require "fine tuning" on the grounds that there can be many other universes with other parameters that are not fine tuned, but we had to show up here, seems a fruitless and untestable claim. For example, how would one attribute a "probability" to a "universe"? Should we allow the laws to be anything in these hypothetical universes, or assert the laws have to be the same only with different parameters? What are we doing?"


Related Stephen Hawking articles -
Lenticular Clouds at Sunset, Tioga Pass, Yosemite, California



Index to past discussions -
Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"







What To Do About Bad Theology




Lately I've been mentioning an existential form of interpretive theology placed by us, the Bible's readers, upon the biblical passages of Scripture - whether rightly or wrongly. For most of us, our theology from Scriptures more probably is gained by our own enculturated views of God, His Word, His mission, and outreach, presuming that our pre-shaped social views and ideas are the more correct form of biblical interpretation of God and biblical doctrine. Not realizing that we have invaded the process of interpreting Scripture based solely upon our own views of its "rightness" and "wrongness," its sense of "holiness" and "judgment." Existentially, this works out to make us the Word's sole interpreters based upon our own view of the world around us.

"Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals."
                                                                                              - Jim Forest

And yet, though our resulting theology may range from being bad and incorrect, to harmful and destructive, still God allows us the freedom to interpret His Word based upon our own understanding of it to the world around us. We become, in essence, God's holy narrators... if not false teachers and shepherds... when misunderstanding His Words for our own words of gospel.

To drive this point home, not long ago I knew a person who, when coming to faith in Christ as a new Christian, began to immediately proclaim God's gospel message as one filled with the prejudicial assumptions of their former life's societal views. Now, in their case, this made sense and was helpful to their spiritual growth in a curious sort of way, though not commendable as a post-redemptive practice. Still, they felt strongly that in order to gain Christ, and to leave their worldly practices, the prejudices of their newly acquired church setting must necessarily be correct and required voicing, even if they did not understand why those errant sentiments were both unnecessary for their faith, and generally speaking, unreflective of Jesus' life and ministry, message and death.

This mostly typical response thus makes it necessary for the shepherds of God's church to pay better attention to what they are saying in the pulpit, and how it is being perceived through their ministerial emphases within their churches and amongst their responding congregant's assenting views and sentiments of yeah and nay. As God's servants we are to rightly divide His Word of truth and love - and where we are conflicted, to step back, and pray over, its division whilst seeking the guidance of God's holy church where possible. Listening not only to the tandem voices of sycophants in mutual assent with our own, but to those less-golden voices we normally would tune out thinking their insight and passion to be misdirected to God's holy Word. We might call them "liberals," or "progressives," or "fundamentalists," or even "evangelics," but we each form a portion of God's holy church, that together, might lend a more concerted voice of epistemic humility and harmonious spirit.

Overall, for the follower of Jesus, and the servant of the Lord, though we would seek to preach God's truth, it is better, as the Apostle Paul would say, to preach God's love lest we become like tinkling brass bells clanging away on subjects we little understand, or worst - might exasperate to greater societal harm and division within our congregant's hearts and ministries. So that when we do speak, let us err on the side of grace and mercy, forgiveness and wisdom, if at all possible. To not callously banish those whom we disagree with to the fires of hell. Nor heap unkind words of misunderstanding upon the lives of broken seekers of God's way. For these are not the marks of God's servant. But marks of a false prophet and false shepherd come to scatter and divide, devour and harm, God's holy calling in the lives of men and women. We pray then, dear Jesus, to forgive us our trespasses, even as we would learn to forgive those who have trespassed against us, so that your Kingdom beauty might become a light within our lost and desolate lives so lit, however meagerly, amongst men such as ourselves. Amen.

R.E. Slater
September 18, 2013

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


What to Do About Bad Theology
September 17, 2013

A few years ago, I had the chance to spend some time with an African American couple who pastored a small church in an urban area. They were good, kind hearted people with a real passion for God. And they knew the bible better than anyone I’ve ever met. One night we sat down and opened the bible and spent about 3 hours doing the best, most interesting bible study I think I’ve ever been a part of. The really odd thing about it was that they held some of the worst theology I’ve ever encountered.

The worst of it was that they taught that people of African descent bore the mark of Cain and were uniquely cursed among all the people of the earth. Africans had been cursed due to their worship of demonic spirits, their abhorant tribal practices and the division of tribalism which lead to violence and dehumanization of other Africans. Evidence of the unique depravity of African people was their willingness to sell each other into slavery. (Just so we’re crystal clear – this isn’t what I think. This was the teaching of this couple, who were themselves African American.)

Not quite as bad, but still erroneous was their teaching that in order to overcome the curse put on them by God, people of African descent needed to walk the same path by which God redeemed Israel. Emancipation from slavery was their escape from slavery. Next they must receive and keep the law which would lead to them being grafted onto the house of Israel so they could inheret the work of Jesus. Essentially they lived and practiced their faith much like Messianic Jews.

The “best” part of their theology was rejecting all patterns of thought which were part of the mentality of those who were cursed. They identified the mentality which kept them tied to the curse mainly with tribalism which among African Americans was typified by gangs (ie quick to anger and be offended, us vs them outlook, a willingness to resort to violence, rituals by which members gained access to the group, a will to power). They also rejected the sort of legalism which took away their God-given right to do things like drink wine, play cards, dance, go to the movies, etc. Instead, they encouraged, kindness, humility, tolerance, ready forgivess, patience and other Christian virtues. And they threw in some prosperity gospel style “believe and think right, reap the benefits” thinking for good measure.

All in all, I think I can safely say they had some bad theology going. If I had met them a few years earlier, I probably would have been so repulsed by it that it would have kept me from enjoying their company, much less engaging in scripture study with them. I probably would have tried to argue with them; convince them to see the error of their ways. I would have been angry that there were people spreading the sort of theology which defames God like that. Instead, I went to their church picnic, drank wine and covered my head with a scarf to pray with them.

Now, you may not ever have the chance to meet Christians with such wild theology, but odds are good that there are theological beliefs which drive you to the point of wanting to commit violence. It could be neo-reformed theology, partriarchal teachings, pro or anti-gay marriage theology, legalism, liberalism, or some other ism that drives you nuts. We Christians have a very bad track record of being able to tolerate differences in theological opinion. Yet unity among believers is a common teaching of the New Testament. It was one of the things which Jesus prayed for us, in fact.

What I have come to understand is that since our ability to grasp truth fully is limited, God’s concern is less that we believe the right things and more that what we believe is drawing us closer to him. And the truth is that we hold so many theologies not simply because we’re evil or unthinking sheep or don’t care about truth. Rather, we hold so many different theologies because there are so many different ways of being wounded, confused and needy. Different theologies can meet different needs.

That couple I met with their terrible theology? They and the members of their church came from violent, gang infested neighborhoods where the disciplines of the middle class didn’t exist. They had inherited a history of unspeakable cruelty and oppression towards their people. And their theology, mistaken as it was in many ways, was helping them make sense of and overcome all of that. The narrative of God’s curse on Africans helped them understand their history and find a way beyond it. The discipline of keeping the law helped them learn the sort of disciplines which middle class people often take for granted – planning, budgeting, keeping a schedule. Framing the dysfunction around them as tribal remnants or oppressive, slave mentality made it easier for them to recognize and reject the water of dysfunction they were swimming in. It was terrible theology, but it served a real purpose for these particular people in this particular time.

Again, their’s is a rather extreme example. But the truth is that those theologies which make you want to wretch may well be just what someone else needs. And it could well be that the theology which brings you life would do nothing for them. We all need different things on our way to a greater truth.
Of course, bad theology isn’t always so benign for those who hold it. It can, in fact, destroy people. It can engender abuse. It can make people’s hearts hard or shatter them. It’s not always without consequence. And it’s for this reason that a lot of people expend a lot of time and emotional energy speaking against bad theology. Which to a certain extent is fine. I guess. But more and more I wonder if this urge to argue and divide doesn’t really stem from our own immaturity and lack of faith.

First of all, God doesn’t need us to defend him. As Crystal St. Marie Lewis says, “When a god begins to require the custodial protection of those who worship him, he is no longer a god. He becomes an idol.” Without realizing it, many of us think that God can not handle those who defame him without our assistance. That if we don’t step in to mount a good defense, bad theology will win and God will lose. The truth is that God will make himself known in his own way and his own time with or without our assistance.

The second issue is that we have actually underestimated the scope of the problem; there’s a lot of evil theology out there. Much more than you think, in fact. Any theology which isn’t completely true is evil. God is light and in him there is no darkness. If it’s not God, it’s dark and evil. So there’s evil in your theology and in mine. But, whether it’s evil in our theology or in the theology of others, the answer isn’t to search it out, cast it out and rise up against it. Rather it’s to allow God to do that work. The bible says, “what the enemy meant for evil, God uses for good.”

Our part isn’t to fight, but to obey. Jesus said not to resist the evil man. Paul instructs us to keep our eyes on what is good, true, pure, praiseworthy. Evil is overcome by goodness. Do good to those who oppose you.

I know, I know, “all it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.” And yes, Jesus spoke out against the bad theologians of his day. But consider that doing good isn’t being passive. Often, doing good is an assertive challenge. Especially when working from a position of less power than the one promoting evil. Greg Boyd recently wrote a book in which he argued that God has choosen to do battle through the “weak power of love” instead of by taking hold of the strong power of aggression which we humans prefer to do battle with.

And those bad theologians Jesus told off? They provoked confrontations with him. He wasn’t sitting to the side when these people taught, pointing out all their errors and condemning them. With few exceptions, Jesus followed the edict to promote what you love rather than bash what you hate. We should do likewise.

I know that this seems like really bad advice. God’s instructions usually make for bad advice. Which, I suppose is why we so rarely follow them. But ultimately, we need to put our faith in the power of God and not our own. We need to look at these things with spiritual eyes rather than measure them with human methods. Do you trust in God and the work of the Holy Spirit to lead the bride out of all the bad theology? Do you trust that if you seek first the Kingdom – not go to battle for it, not defend it, not defeat its enemies – that God can handle the rest? If so, then may I suggest that the next time you run into some really bad theology, you simply recognize a brother or sister in Christ and love them the best you can?