How God Created by Evolution: A Proposed Theory of Man's Evolutionary Development

The Bible reflects the ancient cultures in which it was written,
and this very fact proclaims the glory of God.

January 6, 2012, Update

After re-reading the NPR story, "Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve" (found further below) submitted on August 16, 2011 (along with my initial opening comments, "Introductory Comments to NPR's Review")  I thought I might provide a simplified formula that might blend the traditional understanding of the Genesis Account to the evolutionary account confronting it. In this way both accounts stand true within their own systems and yet can find working agreement between each other. I had thought of this emendation when considering the impasse between classical physics of yesteryear and its more contemporary twin of quantum mechanics seeking to explain the "large" through terms of the "very small." Left unexplained, we have two separate scientific systems at loggerheads with one another separated by an unexplained paradox lying between them. Similarly with traditional Christianity's impasse of theology with today's evolutionary/scientific discoveries.

Consequently, the impasse that exists between the traditional and contemporary understandings of the Genesis Story could be more simply resolved by offering a small explanation that might recover God's creative acts to the theological satisfaction of both sides. Technically, this commentary should actually fall after the NPR report and not before it, as I am only now updating my thoughts several months afterwards. However, I am making it foremost before all else as a completely separate topic. And when given the time and opportunity I may later try to rewrite this entire section again from a more extenisve biblical, hermeneutical, theological standpoint. My proposal now follows...

R.E. Slater

January 6, 2011

HOW GOD CREATED BY EVOLUTION

------------

A Proposed Theory of Man's Evolutionary Development

from a

Contemporary Christian Theological Perspective

A Suggested Plausible Theory Inter-relating Biblical Theology

with Evolutionary/Scientific Discoveries

by R.E. Slater

January 6, 2011

[This commentary continues from my earlier critique of a National Public Radio commentary submitted on August 16, 2011, listed further below and is titled "Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve." Because it created an unnecessary impasse to Christian theology I have consequently written a secondary response to it contained here in this present commentary.... - R.E. Slater]

Introductory Comments

"...In this writer's opinion, I consider Al Mohler's traditional sentiments (as quoted in an earlier NPR review) to be a "false positive assertion" spoken by a church traditionalist unwilling to integrate orthodox theology with present-day academic findings. And yet, by turning that very same traditional Christian sentiment around, I would further submit that we may be able to find theological agreement between (Mediated/Progressive) Evolutionary Creationism to that of the (Immediate/Spontaneous) Traditional Creationism position of late-20th century Evangelicalism. The former relies on present day sciences whereas the later relies on present day interpretive ideologies in order to retain orthodox teachings.

But in order to proceed with finding a corollation between both Christian positions it must be immediately understood that Evolutionary Creationism does not refer to Darwinian Evolution (or, Scientific Naturalism). This distinction has been addressed in another article which drew the conclusion that the former proceeds from a theistic foundation whereas the latter proceeds from an atheistic or agnostic foundation. Though each position uses the sciences, they too differ by ideological interpretation (sic, Differences between Evolutionary Creationism and Darwinian Scientific Naturalism).

To begin then, in this writer's opinion, traditional Christianity has a valid argument for their pointed misgivings regarding the following Christian doctrines as listed below:

1 - original sin and human depravity, known as the Fall, seems to have no initiating point;

2 - the uniqueness of humanity seems inspecific from the animal kingdom in regards to man's creation in the image of God when descending "as a population" from the lower primates;

3 - the origin of sin into the world is also inspecific when regarding Eve and her disobedience (including Adam's); their mutual eating of the fruit of the tree of life; and the involvement of the serpent's deception using human speech and logic. Consequently there is no specific point of disobedience when using the evolutionary model nor a similarly corresponding language of evil;

4 - the typologies of Adam and Christ references of the OT and NT no longer seem pertinent as viewed from within the evolutionary model of creationism.

To this list might be added other traditional theological doctrines of disagreement, however, the point is made here that contemporary theology's model of Evolutionary Creation must re-integrate these most basic of Christian doctrines back into the Christian faith if it were to be considered as a valid counter-proposal of God's creative activity. And so, how can we proceed beyond this impasse if we should attempt a reconciliation beyond the doctrinal watershed of orthodox Christianity's foundational theologies? I submit that it can, and must, be done using evolutionary discoveries couple with contemporary biblical research.


A Proposal

Importantly, let us first begin by saying that the Genesis story is an ancient Hebrew creation story used both for theologic and national purposes by Israel. That it was understood as part of Israel's historical legacy as witness to its oral traditions passed along from generation to generation. That it uses poetic and mythological elements to convey a literary construction. And that the lessons it teaches have importance to understanding Israel's monotheistic religion of God whom they knew by the name Yahweh (YHWH); and who declared Himself to be the "I AM whom I AM." From this interaction we understand then that God is the Creator of the world who judges sin. Who is declared to be "The Lord of all" and the "Almighty God" as witnessed by His actions. And whom the Hebrew's Creation Story declares to be their Savior when observing God's promises made to the man and the woman in the Garden of Eden whose offspring will wound the head of the deceptive serpent.

From these observations we may also say that the Genesis story in its early narrative passages (chp 1, chps 2-3, chps 4-11) is not allegorical (that is, symbolic language left to imagined retelling). But that it has a literal-historical content that relates a meta-narrative of the nation Israel's nationalized history as it bisects with God's own meta-narrative of bringing salvation to both themselves, as a nation, and to each man personally in the history of the earth. Nor is it mythological in the Greek sense of a polytheistic religion. It is, however, a monotheistic religion that can be said to be mythological both in the literary sense of historical genre as well as to the disbelieving non-Christian who considers the Christian God but mere myth. But to those who follow Jesus it is anything but that, as the Jewish faith (or,  Jewish religion) provided a spiritual depth and reality not usually found in any of the other world's ancient religions. But this is a discussion for another time and place....

So far we have declared the biblical creation story of Genesis to be factually true as an ancient comprehension of cosmogeny taught and passed along by the Hebrews to the next successive generations (much like the Church has done through the centuries of its teachings on Jesus). Thus, we are giving our support for a biblical hermeneutic that is historical, grammatical, and contextual. but not allegorical. Nor mythological (in the strict, polytheistic sense as used in the ancient Near-Eastern religions of that time). And not without support by Israel and its religious traditions. For Israel believed their creation account to be true and had drawn from it certain theological conclusions about God, man, sin and salvation as described in Genesis.

Consequently, here is my first proposal of theological/linguistic solidification - That "original sin" and "human depravity," typically used in describing "the Fall" by the Church in Christian literature, could possibly be described in present day scientific terms as the early formation and development of "human consciousness." Especially as it developed within the Homo Sapien branch of the hominid population evolving distant eons later into today's human populations. Whether human consciousness was learned, or innate (probably both), will be left to the anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and learning theorists to debate. But since Evolutionary Creation theory proposes God's purposeful and intricate relationship to the continuing formation of creation that we call evolution (even unto this present day!) than we can assume that God somehow (1) "sparked" that innate sense of consciousness, as well as (2) directed the earliest Homo Sapiens towards its learned acquisition and development. (I'm assuming earlier hominid forms may not have had this quality but there is no reason not to assume this either. Why? Because ape and chimpanzee studies seem to indicate a self-conscious awareness as well; as perhaps did other hominid groupings. Though not found to be as refined as it may have been within the succeeding Homo Sapien populations that were beginning to evolve 800,000 years ago. Especially in connection with the correspondent (and similarly evolving) concepts of "sin" and "guilt" that we as mankind bear today).*

*Most recently the concept of eusociality has come to light pertaining to the development of human consciousness and I would refer the reader to this more recent article entitled, Eusociality and the Bible, for a fuller explanation by Edward O. Wilson after completing your present study here - http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/eusociality-and-bible-part-2-of-2.html].

Now some reports that I have read have put the branch of Homo Sapien closer to 160,000 years ago... but I suspect that this "inception" date to perhaps signify the "maturity" of that species away from Neanderthal man into its own more separate lineage (cf. sidebar articles under this topic). That said, I have toyed with the idea that sometime then - or later - God could have "breathed" His divine image in a specialised moment of interrupted creation which would appeal to Immediate Day Creationists who may be more open to the evolutionary development of man but are caught between the Genesis account and its theology of sin, death, disobedience, etc. Consequently, this idea could be allowed for we have no factual evidence that it couldn't have occurred. How could we? It is too far back to be proved. Nor could it be proved except on the oral tradition of Israel's processions.  However, in the view of Evolutionary Creationism, it seems an unnecessary interuptive act of God in the stream of human development's natural course. And as a point of rigorous scientific discipline it would be more credible to maintain an evolutionary perspective throughout the development of mankind and cede to the understanding that God subtended throughout the creation and development of man through a continual act of special creation. This avoids the instantaneously miraculous, per se, but extends the concept of the miraculous continually throughout the creative development of man, beginning all the way back to the creative spark of the universe itself. Why? Because if this is God's universe, and if God created it to share with free willed beings, then this is not incredible at all to believe despite sin, death, disobedience and the indetrminacy found within the heart of the cosmos (or in nature) - that God sovereignly rules through allowance and subtendance - as we've discussed in a variety of articles from process thought and open theism to evolutionary theory and indeterminacy.

So then, this is my first scientific + theological proposal in attempt to wed a human trait - consciousness - with the theological concept of - sin or guilt - and merge the two into one, thus bridging the gap between science and biblical doctrine. I also find Edward Wilson's concept of eusociality to be immensely helpful in regard to the development of man's social consciousness through primitive tribal groupings, posturings, and protection that were occurring in the Stone Age. And from this evolutionary concept I now intend to proceed to wed other theological concepts to it as a way to bridge the incendiary gap between Evolutionary Creationism and Traditional Creationism.

With consciousness comes humanity's uniqueness

One that God provided again by "tweaking" the mutation stream of the Homo Sapien gene pool to cause a more refined development within this more evolving hominid branch. Perhaps this quality began further back in earlier hominid lines (as I think it must) as hominid populations mutated further and further away from their common ancestral evolutionary line of apes. But eventually, after millions of years of evolvement - at the directing hand of God, or by God's most intricate involvement (cf. Evolution: Is God Playing Dice?) - a more refined sense of "self-understanding" grew through "societal interaction" between Homo Sapiens and the world around. All brought about by the scientific concept of "consciousness" that can now be used to not only describe sin and guilt, but the uniqueness of mankind from the animal kingdom. A uniqueness we may describe as the "image of God" found within man.

Thus far I am appealing to God's active presence and involvement  within the "process" and "mediation" of creation itself using the propositions of Relational Theology (see sidebars) coupled with Evolutionary Creationism's theoretical propositions. Simply, God is relational and thus we should find that same relational aspect within man which we call in theological terms as "the image of God." Moreover, God is independent of, but intricately involved with, His creation. That is, God is immediately and always involved with evolving not only mankind, but the earth, and the universe beyond. This continues even now to this day of modernised, industrialised mankind. God is here and present within the societies of men. We should not expect otherwise. Though this holds no meaning whatsoever for those who see the world as a cold, mechanistic place lurching haphazardly from one societal era to the next, devoid of the simple elements of love, peace and forgiveness. These are but adjectives for how we get along in life until we die and become nothing again held within that sterile space of void and darkness. But to those of us who vibrate with God's Spirit, who feel the flow and energy of God's love, peace and forgiveness, the world is a beauty place filled with the incense of heaven overflowing with God's presence, personage, perspective, and propitiation.

However, I am not proposing a panentheistic relation as process theologians think of God's relationship with this world. But am attempting to elevate a classic theistic position using appropriate parts of process thinking and describing it in terms of relational theology. Why? Because somewhere in the mix comes the vital aspect of "free will" as it relates to (1) God's self-image; to (2) creation in general - which seems to have its own kind of "free will" not normally acknowledged by latter day Evangelical theologians; and (3) to ourselves in the composition of our being. For now, I'm simply stating that free will is part-and-parcel of man's make-up of "consciousness." That free will is actually the true meaning of consciousness in that to be conscious of one's self is to be aware of one's determinative choices. If we could not choose, could we be self-conscious of ourselves and of the world about us? We see this similar trait of will and choice within the ape and monkey population. But again, not to as great a degree of enhancement as it lays within the Homo Sapien line of hominids. Further, we'll again leave it to the  anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and learning theorists to debate how will and consciousness are related to one another; or distinguished from one another; or are compounded definitions of the one to the other; or even which one gave birth to the other,... or to neither. I am simply saying that if man bears the scientific qualification of a conscience, than with it has come man's willfulness.

Thus science is married again to theology's terms of free will and the image of God in man. Evolutionary Creation describes these concepts in terms of process or development which are mediated by God into evolving traits and characteristics. Whereas Traditional Creationism declares man immediately formed with these traits and characteristics and without the necessity of a mediated process. That these were spontaneous qualities of man sprung from the heart and hand of God's own Image as mythologically described in Israels national account of its history written sometime between 500 and 1500 BC (should we wish to include both the first AND the second temple periods). Logically, evolution was occurring many millions of years earlier and would be impossible to be witnessed by the more developed species of ancient mankind in man's earliest hunter-gather phase. Nor certainly could it be witnessed from the much later bronze ages of the Israel's very recent temple periods 3000-3500 years ago. Why? Because that event is much to recent to such an old, old process occurring eons earlier. But traditional Creationism assumes this and so, these time differences must be noted. However, a Christian evolutionist would say that the Genesis Account simply was God's way of telling Israel about basic theological concepts that would distinguish God as God, and man as man, and give purpose to Israel's monotheistic religion as versus the polytheistic (and pagan) religions surrounding them. That the Genesis Account was not a scientific account of Creation but an consolidated theological account of Creation using poetry, mythology, and narrative. The Bible is still a real and true account. But it has a different interpretive value when faced with the prospects of scientific discoveries made in anthropology, biology, geology and cosmology.... Scientific discoveries which were not conceived of by ancient civilizations at the time of writing the book of Genesis.

Evil results as a by-product of human consciousness

That is, if ancient man was developing the sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and even that of choice, than it was all birthed because he had a conscience. Or a graduated conscience in the sense that it was becoming more pronounced through nearer and nearer mutations, innate development, and learned behaviors. The further we get away from primitive man and the closer we get to early/ancient man the more pronounced evil and sin has become to us as a species. As a simple illustration, the idea of slavery and exploitation is less desirable socially today than it was 2000 years ago. The same can be said concerning the contemporary concepts of social inequality between men and women, various types of race and cultures, of child or gender exploitation, and so on. Meaning that the longer we cohabitate together with one another in our evolving civilizations the more pronounced have become our concepts of right and wrong sociologically. And thus, we as a hominid branch, we are exhibiting graduated levels of a more pronounced social consciousness (which also reveals the truth of the continuing occurrence of evolution within mankind - and the world in general - today! Hence, we are generally less brutish with each other as versus more ancient Assyrian/Babylonian/Roman invasions; even though Spanish Inquisitions, Nazi genocide, and human slavery still occur in pockets of time and civilizations; yet social injustices and regional respect of cultural identity seem to be more of an overriding concern in today's technologically-evolving world). Consequently, we are witnessing evolution occurring, if not physically because of the long periods of time required, then socially amongst human populations, at the hand of God who chooses to evolve - or assimilate - our world into His own ethics of Kingdom and Kingdom living.

Similar argumentation may also be used of "God as light" in considering "sin" or "evil" as a by-product of consciousness: If God is light all else is darkness. God is not the opposite of darkness, but contains the absence of darkness. Or, said another way, sin is that which is not God. Or even, sin is that which is unGod-like. Or, God is without sin. As a result, the conscious level of awareness in primitive man is becoming more pronounced as his faculty develops in connection with his self-understanding, his connection to his environment, and with the other Homo Sapien evolving with him. This is not to say that other hominid populations were not similarly endowed with a self-understanding beyond that of a brute beast. But that God's image of light (and not darkness) had conveyed itself into the evolving stages of mankind's earliest development (and the Relational Theist in me says that God has been intricately involved with man's development throughout every level, every breath, and each-and-every stage of his mutational progress, right down to the personal level of mankind's individuality).


Consequently, Adam/Eve may be retained as Typologies

between the Christian Faith and Christ

The terms of "First Man" and the "Last Man" can be another way of describing some men who have died to sin and others who have lived in Christ. These are concepts of life, death, even sin. But better understood in relational contexts of man to himself, to his environment, and to others within his own species of hominids. As example, Caan's murder of his brother Abel was a reprehensible act to ancient primitive man. He was banished and isolated from the mutual help and support found in primitive communities. Ideas like murder were linked to concepts we call "sin." But in man's development of consciousness came the continuing pronunciation of this quality, or characteristic, through long millenias of hominid development, cycles of life and death, and the general evolution of the species. We see this with Neanderthal man being murdered by the Homo Sapien population as a competing threat to their limited environment due to glaciation and so forth. And perhaps because of bigotry or feelings of superiority by Homo Sapiens to the Neanderthals. Each lived in family and tribal collectives. But the Homo Sapien line was more adaptable to the changing environment. In other instances, both species intermingled and may have collaborated together. Still, the Neanderthal line died out due to environmental changes that the Homo Sapien line could better withstand and adapt to against these same factors. Whether due to biological superiority, mental or social acuity, etc, can only be theorized. But in terms of Pauline origin, this cannot be known. Only that the apostle Paul used the concept of Adam from Israel's creation narratives to describe Israel's Messiah.

Now admittedly my inference and reliance upon the argument of consciousness is simplistic and given as a quick illustration as to how to bring about a type of resolution between traditional arguments for Genesis as factually true against accusations of Genesis as simply allegory and myth. But it does draw upon modern scientific discoveries while arguing for a literal-historic Hebraic account of creation within an ancient mythological context that has elements both of good story-telling and universal truths within it. Moreover, it further accounts for God's story through the apprehension of ancient man (early civilizations) not endowed with scientific reasoning and resources. All the factual elements are there... from creation's order (given as days 1 through 7 now supported by cosmological and early earth studies) to its theologic imports of Creator, creation, man, sin, evil, etc....

In fact, I could argue that modern man in all of his "evolved" subtleties would be hard-pressed to come up with a better explanation of the Genesis account (first written in Moses' day... c.1626 BC?) than what the ancient Hebrew account has done. How could would we explain Homo Sapien history as it was occurring  between 1.2 million or 800,000 years ago (or even earlier branches of hominid development occurring many millions of years earlier than that!!) when even our own oral traditions have had a hard enough time simply retaining what it meant to be "a people of God" conceptually. Consider all the many nuances of that term and phrase as it morphed and changed within the Exodus and Wilderness eras; Israel's early tribal and first monarchy periods; Israel's divided kingdoms and exiles; the Second Temple rebuilding period; the inter-testamental times; then the era of Jesus and the early church; then the early church fathers era, to the middle ages, to the Renaissance, to the modern and postmodern eras. When taken as a whole, to be called "the people of God" had different meanings to each person living within each of those sublime eras. And this would account for roughly only 4000 years of human history (what we call man's "civilization period")! So how could we simply assume that a more detailed account of God's creative activity could be better preserved than it has been at present with a more elaborate story. No, God gave Israel a creational narrative that would be easier to pass down through the years than a more explicit one with more mitigating factualities. A narrative that could be ably preserved in simple literary terms. Not in exquisite scientific explanations and innuendo.

Conclusion

Thus, for ancient man in his early civilizations to account for his anthropological development at least a hundred thousand years earlier or more, through using oral traditions of earlier historical occurrences and theological teaching, would be rather exceptional even by our own standards of literacy today when we cannot even garner agreement from one year to the next between our own contemporary interpretations of society, industry, finance, and historical movement! The fact still remains that we work with what we have as theologians while studying ancient biblical literature and cultures and trying to integrate those understandings within present day science. And that we must be willing to adapt our more traditionally orthodox church-based theologies to present day findings into updated theo-sophical/scientific declarations that might be as valid as their counterpart scientific formulae and evolutionary assertions of human development. Of course this is assuming today's Big Bang theory and man's anthropological evolutionary in the fossil records still are valid a thousand years from now (I suspect that the Big Bang will be greatly modified! But I'm not so sure how to argue against earth's fossil records and geologic/biologic processes as interpretive source).

So here is my proposition for synthesizing the traditionally orthodox understanding of the Genesis record with today's more modern, contemporary Evolutionary Creation theories and concepts within a biblical/theological paradigm. By interposing the inspecific term of "consciousness" as the spiritual/behavioral modifier as the leap (or missing link, pun intended!) between an ancient Hebrew Creation Story to today's more radical understanding of man's ancient development we find a somewhat credible gap of continuity between the old and new. I would suspect better, more sophisticated, theories to  replace this simplistic idea, but for now it's one we can understand, accept and work off from. It supports the biblical revelation of the creation story. And it correlates early civilization views with today's scientific findings. And consequently we have an adequate marriage of Evolutionary Creation with that of Traditional Immediate Creation Theory. Thank you for your consideration.

R.E. Slater

originally posted January 6, 2012

later revised April 2, 2012

 

Related follow Up Article -

Eusociality and the Bible

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/eusociality-and-bible-part-2-of-2.html

 

 

 

 

Index to past discussions -

 

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

 

 

 

 

 

Learning to Listen to God and to Unmask Ourselves

Just Sit There

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2011/12/just-sit-there/

by Pete Enns

posted December 14, 2011

If you’ve ever tried to be still, just still, you know how hard this is.

We long for noise, distractions–anything to spare us from admitting to ourselves that things are not as they should be: TV, books, music, other people, complaining, that non-stop, self-serving, chatterbox we call our “thoughts.”

Why is it so hard to be alone? Perhaps because we feel awkward in unfamiliar company.

“Isn’t it true of human beings that no matter what we may do, the best of what we name ‘me’ seems to elude our understanding? Why is it that no matter what I do, and even at times do well, I am never satisfied? Why, when I am honest with myself, do I discover that I am always on a hunt, not even particularly knowing what I am hunting for” (Listen to the Desert, 3).

Just sit there. Without distractions. If you are feeling brave, even (try to) tell your mind to take a chill pill for 10 minutes. Just sit there. Alone.

It takes courage to move into unfamiliar territory.

“It is no small act of courage to face squarely the fictions of your life and the troubling sense that something isn’t quite right about our life. Scapegoating, excuses, self-pity, are common disguises that shield us from deep-seated doubt. These fictions, these acceptable deceptions, are the way we distract ourselves from the nagging suspicion that at the bottom of what I call ‘me’ is something terribly disturbing” (LTTD, 5).

Isolation was a habit the desert fathers and mothers cultivated. They would sit in their cells, alone. They knew there was a valuable lesson to be learned there–alone with only themselves, without the distractions of the games we play with others and ourselves.

Alone, in your cell–whether actual or metaphorical–is where you learn what you need to know about who you are…who you really are. No gimmicks.

Sitting in their cell was no cowardly removal from the bad old nasty world. They were not shrinking from the world. They were brave enough to face themselves, and knew that the demands of daily life worked non-stop to keep them in a dream-existence of their own making.

Neither is this narcissistic self-absorption. That is what happens when we look inward a few millimeters, allowing our false selves to remain unchecked. Leave that to Oprah and Dr. Phil. God will not guide you there.

What the desert dwellers were after was a clear, unburdened, honest view into themselves. And this takes guts.

Do not many of us lack the courage to look into ourselves and name what we see for what it is? Would we not rather look at others and name their shortcomings?

How many truly know themselves with brutal, God-like, honesty?

Learning to be alone a little more can be a beginning to seeing past the masks we wear, not only to posture for others, but for ourselves–because we do not want to see what is there.

And so much of our private and public posturing happens in church.

Maybe God calls us inward from time to time. At the end of the day–both literally and metaphorical of death–our true selves cannot be propped up by others or our false selves.

“If we accustomedly flee our loneliness and the lessons it has to teach us, hiding behind the excitement around us and in social company, then we will greet [this] advice with a goodly portion of dread. If, on the other hand, we are weary of the shallow trivialities of the social order and afflicted by the inane discourse of most human communication, then you will likely feel relief at the advice….Whichever way we react, we do not enter the cell alone” (LTTD,

[This post is based on chapter one of Listen to the Desert, Gregory Mayers: "Your Cell Will Teach You."]

* * * *  * * * * * * * * *

MY OBSERVATIONS

As in all of life one needs a balance. Some of us are too busy to take the advice given here but should. Some of us are too lonely having already lived solitary lives for too many days that actually need the company of men and women to talk to and to listen. Life needs a balance and only you can judge this fact. Busy people talk all the time about their need for times of quiet meditation but never seem to find the courage to do this. Lonely people have already found themselves in the ever present silence of their meditation that daily urges their need for community that never seems to come their way. Some have been unmasked by God from early on. While others have refused God's unmasking. We each know the truth of our needs and the actions that we must take. Somehow. Somewhere. Sometime.

Moreover, inasmuch as we tend to lie to ourselves (1 John 1.8), and would lie to God about ourselves (1 John 1.10), it is good practice to seek both inward truth as much as to test that truth in the company of others. The masks that we wear can be disturbingly unclear if left to our own judgments based upon personal shame and guilt. Sometimes it takes the company of people to help us hold up a truer version of ourselves than what we would allow our very selves to wear. At other times it takes separation from the ones that love us (or from those who may not love us in their toxic selves) to allow us to reflect on God's version or direction for us.

The disconcerting truth is, we are made in God's image. That image is both personal and requires fellowship. God is not alone. He exists in the company of a fellowship. A Tri-une fellowship of three, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each reflects the other as much as the other reflects the Three. This reflection holds an image of each in the eye of the Other. They understand themselves through the other's input. But they also hold a true version of Themselves within their own image. It is a refined reflection of Who they are in Themselves as much as in their own Fellowship. They are inseparable. They are forever bonded together in infinite community, personal sharing and unselfish reflection.

And without getting too ontological here concerning the infinite mysteries of the Godhead it must be said that our own image  - the one that God created of Himself in us - is first and foremost found in God Himself... and that image is never alone. It exists in the company of a Divine Fellowship. And while it is good advice to seek God in the aloneness of time and activity, it is also very good practice to listen to God through the fellowship of true men and women who have removed their false masks of self. Who know how to love others. Who are not toxic to the idea of God's plan in our lives.

For the sociology of man's self-discovery requires the input of others. We better understand ourselves through our actions and judgments in the community of men and women whom God has placed into our lives - be they believer or unbeliever. We test out our theories of ourselves, our judgments of ourselves, in the company of others, to determine whether we have been able to lay down those false versions of ourselves for a better version of God acting through us. It requires that God de-construct, or unconstruct, our guilts and our shame, and reconstruct our truer personhood and image of Himself through us. It is both a solitary task and a community task. And it is best helped along with others having experienced similar journeys of self-reflection and death.

I say death because the Christian journey is one that requires our old selves to die, to be placed away from ourselves. The selfish wants and needs. The unkind acts of unlove. The unceasing tongue that continually harms and injures those around us. The old man of sin must die. It has to die if Christ is to live in us. For the Spirit of God requires the key to every room of our lives. First to the door of our hearts. Then to the doors of the main room. Then to all the little separate rooms and chests and cupboards that we have locked away from His repair and renovation. The old must be burned up. Consumed by the Spirit of God. It must fully die if we are to fully live as new men and women in Christ Jesus our Savior and Lord.

To do this we must both draw away and draw back - to draw away from the old communities of friends and family to find ourselves in God. And to allow God to draw us back into new communities of friends and family to re-apply the discovery of our newly re-constructed selves. To test its validity and discover whether true or not. To test the spirits as it were - whether of man or of God. Whether this truth we have found is God's truth or simply another lie that we have told ourselves and have allowed to lead us again through the false gospel of lies and deceits applied to us by false teachers and would-be shepherds. Be they people, books, TV programs, or some kind of church or fellowship. Each-and-all must be tested to find if they are truely sent from God for we are easily misled. For some of us this may require several renditions or trials of exploration until we find ourselves in God. Stay strong during this time. Do not give up. Seek good advice and in time your efforts will be rewarded.

Lastly, we each have been created with a personality that does not change with time. This is the real us that we need to find. To discover. But our character can and will change over time. Those character defects that we have imbibed early on to survive or to exist can and must change and adapt. Liars can become truth tellers. Gossips can become silent and learn to hold their thoughts and their tongues. Trouble makers can cease from troubling the affairs of others and seek restitution in the lives of those they would destroy. We can change before God's grace with God's help.

For our characters must change if His grace is real. They must be un-defected. Or, per-fected in God if His image will truly take hold of our lives. For there is no variableness in God's character. He is light and in Him darkness does not dwell. We are to be light bearers no longer submitted to darkness as unthinking, unfeeling creatures or brute beasts. We bear God's image. It is an image of light. It requires the work of the Spirit to which we must give every key. Submit every urge. Yield every thought. Bow to every willful act. It is God's task to unmask us. And that He will do. It may hurt. But it will never destroy.

R.E. Slater

December 27, 2011

The Ethical and Redemptive Aspects of the Kingdom of God

"My contention would be that kingdom goodness is done
by kingdom people who live under King Jesus." - Scot McKnight

While understanding Scot's purpose in saying this and wanting to sympathize with his purebred insistence upon the Kingdom concept that only Kingdom people living under King Jesus can do Kingdom goodness, my personal position would be more on the other side of this statement....

...That God's Spirit rests upon all mankind, and that anyone who does the will of God (or the will of the Father for those Christians amongst us) may commit true Kingdom goodness. It's not so much the vessel that pours out God's goodness and ethics, but the Spirit Himself, through his vessels, be they beggarly or redeemed.

Conversely, we all know examples of redeemed Christians who do not commit acts of Kingdom goodness (which is where I feel these arguments again fall down here, however much I would wish to side with these sentiments). These believers are ones who lapse, or fail in their faith, do not trust God's leading, and submit to the spirit of man, the flesh, the devil, and sin. (I will avoid for now any discussions of a believer's positional justification / sanctification in Christ as versus a believer's practical failings and sins in his faith that reflect more his own spirit than that of Christ's work on the Cross).

However, I do agree with Scot in his distinction between God's ethical Kingdom and God's Redeemed Kingdom... there is a difference of residents in this concept. God's ethical Kingdom is inhabited by all mankind, some who will do God's will and some who will not. Just as in God's redemptive Kingdom there will be some who will do God's will and some who will not. HOWEVER, the main distinction here is that those in God's Redeemed Kingdom are just that - residents redeemed in Jesus' atonement and resurrection who have acknowledged their sin and need of a Savior.

Why do I say this? Because it correlates with one of the major themes of the Bible, that of "God's Remnant." Throughout both Testaments it can be seen that those believers who follow God through faith and obedience are designated by God as His sons and daughters. And that those who do not follow God through faith and obedience are not His sons and daughters. And by-and-large that group of spiritually faithful are usually less in number than those found in society at large, and are therefore known as the remnant of God for that very reason.

In the OT those believers exhibiting Abraham's faith were of God (I should someday like to better explain the importance and meaning of the Abrahamic Covenant, for it is very important indeed!).... In the NT that Abrahamic faith is crystallized into God's Son Jesus so that Jesus' Jewish disciples (Matthew, Mark, Peter, James, John, etc... and later, Paul in place of the appointed apostle Stephen whom he had stoned to death by Jewish fiat) went throughout the ancient Jewish world proclaiming the very personage of Christ in the Jewish synagogues.

Why? So that Jewish believers everywhere may worship God through His sent Messiah/Savior Jesus who completed their Covenants and Exile. For it was in Jesus that (1) the Jewish Covenants - the Abrahamic, the Mosaic (known as the Old Covenant), and the Davidic - found their conclusion through Jesus' divine Personage and work of Redemption. And it was also through the personage of Jesus that (2) Israel's spiritual exile from God concluded into assemblies of believers known as the Church. So then, in Jewish terms, Jesus is the end of the Covenants and the end of Israel's exile from God. Which explains John the Baptist's earlier mission to the Jews before Jesus; then Jesus' mission to the Jews; and then the disciples missions to the Jews before they went to all the world to bring in (reap, harvest) non-Jewish societies of Samaritans and Gentiles as the adoptive children of God.

In review, the Kingdom of God is a blood-bought Kingdom of faithful believers known as the remnant of God who are to live according to God's new charter called the New Covenant; are Covenant purchased and inscribed in Jesus; and avow to all the ethics and goodness found in the Kingdom. But more than that - these very same believers proclaim the Covenant-Maker, Christ Himself, through their lives, their work and duties, their worship and fellowship, and in their very acts of love, mercy, and righteousness.

Why? As witness and testimony to Jesus who is God, and came to redeem mankind, who is Love, Mercy and Righteousness in-and-of Himself. His children do as their Father does. Not because we have to. But because we are. And must. And follow our newly redeemed natures over the fallen nature still inscribed within us. That disturbs and mars the Image of God in us; that corrupts the spirit of Christ present; that groans the Spirit of God who indwells his faithful. It is a life-long battle that God wants to win because God's nature knows no darkness. He is light and light has no communion with darkness. It is powerless before He who is Light and Love. And man's fallen nature, even when redeemed, struggles with perfection until death comes and God takes him home to eternal rest, peace, light and joy, to be with his Spirit eternally.

So then, these are the Kingdom residents the Bible speaks of... they are God's adopted children who testify of their Savior; who live as a true Kingdom community of redeemed sinners; and who exhibit and obey the ethics of that Kingdom community. This Kingdom community is now known as the Church universal until that era passes when, in the future, Jesus returns (in an event called the "Parousia" in theological terms) to rule directly. At which point the Church era becomes the Kingdom era. And as the Church era uplifted the OT era from a Jewish monarchy to a fellowship of believers in Jesus. So the Church will be uplifted itself from an era of persecution and oppression to an era of freedom and liberty when Christ comes back to rule. (We call this an "eschalation" that is not-so-much "circular" as it is a "stretched, upwardly spiraling, coil" of historic proportions accounting for the linear movement of time, and the forward movement of God's spirit upon his creation to redeem it from sin. It also where we get the word "eschatology" which speaks of the end-times, the times to come when Jesus returns).

But God's rule is perfect. Which rule the Church attempts to live under and exhibit. Thus the Church is an "upside-down" Kingdom. Whose Kingdom characteristics or elements are not self-laudatory qualities. They seek the best from others, give fully of themselves to the "redemption" of other men and women found both in the body of Christ or outside the body of Christ. Jesus follower's (or born-again believers) are to be selfless in their service of God's love to all mankind. Love is what God is. And love is what God's children are, and are to be, however imperfectly we share God's love.  And then, in the Kingdom era to come, this service will be perfected, as it were, into all the realms of man's societies, man's rulings, man's communities. Love will flow throughout the world and with it, Truth and Justice.

Meanwhile, God's Spirit rests upon all men's hearts and kingdoms everywhere, including the very nature of man himself through God's Image and Pervasive Presence. And because of these truths we will witness the ethics and goodness of God's Rule (or Kingdom) even within the world of men, despite the interruptions of man's fallenness, sin and devil. Thus, that portion of society not submitted to God's work of redemption through His Son Jesus, though residing as God's creation (and who may be pervasively known as God's "children" through God's very act of creation itself) are not known by God as His redeemed remnant (or, redeemed "children"). The importance is more than colloquial, it's very meaning carries eternity in it. And by import, our eternity starts now, in this life. Today. Within linear time and space. Within our personal histories to one another as to God Himself (which has been Rob Bell's main argument in the book, Love Wins).

And so it can be said, the Kingdom of God has come to men and women, even though it has always been present through God's creational acts from Genesis forward, and in His very-present Sovereign activity working within our fallen, self-willed, sinful worlds. Including the sinful "will" or "bent" of the creative order itself (see link here). Further, the Kingdom of God comes especially through Jesus who is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in His person as Suzzerainty-King; who is the fulfillment of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant's High Laws and Standards as both Priest and Lamb; and, who is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant as man's Lord and King.

It is in Jesus that a NEW Covenant is made with mankind, and more specifically, with the remnant of God who follow Jesus by faith. It is a New Covenant established in Jesus' bodily death and resurrection which fulfills all previously existing Covenants of God with His people. In essence, it is enlivened (as it always as been enlivened) through God's faithful remnant to all men or women everywhere (whether believing or not) who enact its charters of goodness and mercy, regardless of Covenantal (or Testamental) era. For God's rulership has always been present whether man has submitted to it or not. It is in the goodness of God - in His Love for His creation - that He continues to "redeem" our worlds of sin back to its once pristine order of holiness and fellowship with Himself. Which is what I think Scot McKnight is getting to in his earlier statement and can now be more fully appreciated in its ramifications.

For God's Kingdom is "here, but not fully." A heavenly Kingdom that lives in tension with the corporate kingdoms of men as well as in tension with the personal kingdoms of men's hearts. It calls all men everywhere to seek Jesus and become one with the rest of their spiritual brotherhood of blood-bought believers through faith in Christ. This is the call of God by His Spirit to convert and follow, to obey and believe, to count the cost and know it as nothing short of marvelous, majestic, sublime. And this then is what is meant by God's REDEEMED Kingdom as versus God's ETHICAL Kingdom. It has all the heart and none of the constrictions of God's blessed Being and fellowship. We are part of Him now. And part of God's Worlds already here and growing in fulfillment to His will. 

Thanks Scot for bringing this important distinction back before us!

- RE Slater

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

Steve Jobs’ Legacy: Kingdom Work?

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/11/03/steve-jobs-legacy-kingdom-work/#more-21972

by Scot McKnight

November 3, 2011

The word “kingdom” is perhaps the flabbiest term being used by Christians today. In fact, many who like “kingdom” would rather they not be called “Christians.” This good word of Jesus’, which he inherited from his scriptures and from his Jewish world, has come to mean two wildly different things today: for some it means little more than personal redemption, that is, it means submitting personally to God as your king and Lord. Let’s call this the redemptive kingdom. For yet others it means the ethics connected with the kingdom, that is, it means wherever there is peace, justice, goodness, freedom, liberation … you name it … there is kingdom. Let’s call this the justice kingdom.

Before I raise my hand and speak from the floor in a way that many simply don’t like, I want to make two things clear: Yes, the kingdom needs to be connected to the redemptive powers at work in this world, and this can be found at times in Jesus’ teachings when he says things like

“if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:28).

And Yes there is an ethical dimension to this term, besides ideas like righteousness and zealous commitment and joy (as in Matthew 13), but also flat-out ethical categories like justice, as in Romans 14:17 - but which has much less support in the language of the Bible:

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” So, Yes, it is reasonable to see a redemptive kingdom and a justice kingdom.

My beef today is that too many today have abstracted the ethical ideals from Jesus’ kingdom vision, all but cut Jesus out of the picture, and then called anything that is just, peace, good and loving the “kingdom.” The result is this equation: kingdom means goodness, goodness means kingdom. Regardless of who does it.

My contention would be that kingdom goodness is done by kingdom people who live under King Jesus. I applaud goodness at large. This is not a question of either/or but whether or not all goodness is kingdom goodness. Some say Yes, I say No.

_______________________________________________

Please refer to my earlier observations at the beginning of this article.

- RE Slater

_______________________________________________

Here’s a really good example and I use this post on a blog because the author sent it to me and because it’s a great example of what we are talking about. I’m not picking on this piece and don’t want this conversation to be about this piece or about what this author says about Steve Jobs. I only want to show how goodness or usefulness and progress in society is sometimes called “kingdom.” In fact, Steve Jobs denied Christianity and was a Buddhist. This guy says Steve Jobs’ contribution to our society was kingdom.

In his words:

There are hundreds of millions of people who can trace a tangible improvement in their livesdirectly to the labor of this man. In reflecting on that, without adequate mental categories for it, erroneous conclusions abound. Whether one concludes that Steve Jobs was a demigod, or that his life’s work to revolutionize the way people can interact with information was a petty and trivial waste of time, there seems to be a lot of confusion. I decided to write this essay because I think that the reflexive eulogizing of those hundreds of millions of people has roots in something more profound than delusional worship of the creator of the smartphone. 

Why did Steve Jobs’s life work strike such a personal chord with so many people? I’d like to suggest that the answer has to do with the kingdom of God….

At the risk of over-simplification, the kingdom of God is the realm where God’s will is done—where things work the way God wants. It requires some vivid imagining for people stuck in a bitterly broken world to conceive of such a kingdom. But if you let your mind roam, you might be able to sketch some outlines. Start with the obvious: no more meaningless suffering, no more inexplicable pain. No more sickness, no more death, perhaps not even any decay. Purpose and meaning are woven into the fabric of all experience. Work is productive. Love is the prevailing character of all interaction. Everything works the way it’s supposed to, for everyone. And at the heart of it all, there is perfect goodness—a person of inexplicable beauty and wisdom and perfection, sustaining the economic, social, physical and spiritual dynamics of all that takes place. In other words, words can’t do it justice, but it’s good.

But what does Steve Jobs’s life have to do with this kingdom? One of the things that Jesus taught was that the kingdom of God was “at hand.” Again, this probably means a lot of things, among them that people are called to participate in bringing the kingdom of God with us, “on earth as it is in heaven.” To labor with the goal of making things work the way God wants. Whether by taking a stand for social justice, or by fighting oppression and poverty, or by opposing all things that set themselves up against the way of God. By unlocking the spiritual and psychological chains that stunt people, or by pointing people to the path of freedom and maturity, or by working for the restoration of the natural world. By pleading with God to set things right in individual instances, and once and for all. The way I see it, Steve Jobs did this type of work.

For the immensity of his impact on modern life, he participated in the work of the kingdom in a small, but noteworthy, manner. He recognized the importance, and profound good, of having access to information – for solving problems, for connecting with other people, for experiencing music, for creating. You might say he recognized that, in the kingdom of God, the barriers to information and communication would be dissolved. And he realized the poignancy of creating truly beautiful tools for people to use for these purposes. Jobs was, to borrow a phrase from philosopher Dallas Willard, “free and powerful in the creation and governance of what is good.”On Tuesday night people publicly recognized, at the rate of 10,000 per second, that this was the story of Steve Jobs’s life.

Get out your Bible and find the references to kingdom and you will discover that it refers to a society in which God’s will is done, with Jesus as the King, where the Story of Israel finds its completion in the Story of Jesus and where that same Story of Jesus shapes everyone. Kingdom refers to that Davidic hope for the earthly world where God sets up his rule in the Messiah and where people live under that Messiah as God’s redeemed and liberated and healed and loving and peaceful and just people.

Yes, feeding the poor is good and it is God’s will for this world, whoever does it. But “kingdom” refers to that special society that does good under Jesus, that society that is buried in his death and raised in his resurrection and lives that Story out in our world today. It makes no sense to me to take this word of Jesus that he used to refer to what God was doing in and through him at that crucial new juncture in time and history and use it for something else.

At this point I want simply to mention that when the early Christians did “good” in society, they didn’t call it kingdom work but “doing good” or “benefaction” and 1 Peter has a few examples of this, including 1 Peter 2:13-15:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. [Italics refer to those words of benevolence in the public realm.]