On Not Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater (A Message for Abused Ex-Fundamentalists)

Having decided to submit this article by Roger Olson I can't say that he and I didn't have similar fundamentalist backgrounds - with the exception that my brand of faith was less harsh, and more lenient, in many ways from his own (mainly because my family were not as closely connected to our Baptist church, which was not Pentecostal, by the way). But still, when growing up spiritually in the Lord as a young child, the Christian faith I was taught focused a lot on the "do's and don'ts", to actively participated in like-minded tribal associations of fellowship, and to go to conservative bible colleges not dissimilar with Roger's own experience. However, I was fortunate in that regard too, because the Christian college I eventually ended up at was beginning to "come around" and though we had regulations of dress and so forth, they were also hiring "intellectual" professors into our fundamentalist faith culture. Which made all the difference for me (and also explains the beginning of "evangelical creep" into the fundamentalist church movement as I was experiencing it.... not rules and regulations but "Jesus" and His "message"). I could also witness firsthand my teachers struggles and the administration's frets over lost of funding and purposeful dedication to yesteryear's standards. It allowed a person to "breathe" a little, and that was all that I needed, without the feeling of incrimination that could've grown up in its place.

Too, I was the first home-grown member to have graduated from seminary in my home church. It was an honor and I longed to do the work of ministry but very soon found that I wasn't "qualified" to be a worker without going through additional deprivations and church-based mentoring. After years of struggle (and many years of church-based ministry at my home church) I could not afford this last demand and so became isolated. My church was growing a lot during this time and had dozens of young men now willing to make this last effort (sometimes to the harm and peril of their family life). As such, the best I could expect was Sunday School ministries of some kind, and no longer the personal discipleship nor promotion of opportunity I had hoped from my pastor. Several years later another church requested my services (my wife's church) - from the Sunday School level - and offered to me grand opportunities for ministry from kids to senior adults. I choose college & career (which much later transitioned to older single adults) and the rest is history.

Those were wonderful years with the blessings of God in them. But again, curiously, this mega-church was focused on other recruitable volunteers and never once sought to present to me formal church staff ministry opportunity. Not that I had wanted it because, quite frankly, I was now married and forming my own family, and quite past the mindset of believing I could ever minister in a formal capacity again (I'm sure my shyness, or lack of confidence, had something to do with it). Rather, I was focused on God's present blessings and opportunities and was taking full advantage of them. Consequently, "formal" ministry (in the "paid" sense) never became my life path. Perhaps a past regret but now no longer a personal desire.... For I had determined that my approval comes from God and not from man. And have ceased to be concerned over the lack of purposeful recruiting by my brothers and sisters. I was in lay ministry and did not have time to think about seeking full time staff ministry. I was there to help and not self-promote. To serve and not to worry about personal recognition. These are foolish temptations better left to the devil and the world. From here, at the lay level, God has given the keys of the Kingdom, which if left to a church board or congregational vote may have been ripped out of my hands. I could therefore focus on spiritual ministry and not waste time or anxiety on lesser matters. And so, without realising it, God had blessed me by allowing ministry where ministry was thought not to exist. I had mine own pulpit of God made without earthly hands and it was enough.

Consequently, I find a great amount of sympathy for Roger in his article below. And applaud the determination he found to become the minister of God that was waiting for him. It took courage (and I imagine a bit of "growing up" in the "public-tack-and-personal-frustration" department). But God kept Roger to the course He had for him. And to that end Roger has been a great blessing to us as our favorite informal "resident" historical theologian on this blog.

In the same way, to you my readers, do not give up on God. However harsh, however incredulous, however idiotic fellow Christians and churches behave around you. Be mature and act maturely. Be wise. Be informed. Learn to speak your position better. More tactfully. Even bravely. In all things reach out in love and keep self-incriminating judgment at bay. This is God's department not ours. We judge of-a-kind but ultimately it is for God "to clean house." And, as has been said so many times through this year, "Be at peace." With yourself. With your circumstances. With God and society. We only seek to uplift God's name not our own. When that relationship is understood than all else will fall into place. Be at peace my brothers and sisters. For God reigns and will direct your life at every opportunity we give to Him for this to occur. Amen.

R.E. Slater

August 26, 2012

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

On Not Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater (A Message for Abused Ex-Fundamentalists)

by Roger Olson

August 24, 2012

On Not Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater

1 Thessalonians 5:19-20

A few years ago I must have said “We shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” once too often because when I said it the whole class burst out laughing.

That’s okay; one thing I know about myself is I’m funniest when I’m not trying to be.

I confess it. I do like that rustic saying—”Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” It very well describes a struggle I’ve been involved in for many years. In some ways, it defines my personal struggle with my religious heritage.

After teaching Christian theology to college and seminary students for 27 years I’m confident I’m not alone. Many students share my struggle in their own ways. The same is true for many of my colleagues and friends.

Some succeed in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater and some don’t. I’m not here to blame anyone but to share my struggle with you and hopefully encourage you if you find yourself involved in such a struggle.

That saying—”Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”—has an interesting history. I have heard one explanation of its origin that seems a little far-fetched. Allegedly, back in the Dark Ages, peasants bathed only once weekly. They would fill a half barrel with soapy water and the family members would take turns bathing in it. Of course, the father would go first. Then the oldest son. Then the mother and children. The baby would be bathed last and by then the water was so filthy it was easy to lose the baby in the bathwater—especially if you looked away for a minute and the baby sank down into the water. So, the tale goes, occasionally the baby would be thrown out with the bathwater.

Personally I always found that explanation unlikely. The urban myth debunking web site snopes.com agrees with me.

While nobody knows who first coined the saying, it seems to come from Germany and the first published appearance is in a 15th century book of German poems. Interestingly, Martin Luther used it in a 1526 letter. He wrote “Man soll das Kind nicht mit dem bad ausgiessen.” It’s first use in English was by British essayist Thomas Carlyle in 1849.

I suppose I probably first heard it from one of my grandmothers. They were always going around uttering quaint advice like “Watch your ‘p’s’ and q’s'”—whatever that means.

But this saying—”Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”—however quaint and odd seems to paraphrase Paul’s advice to the Thessalonians well. In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 he instructs them (my translation): “Do not quench the Spirit or despise prophecies. Carefully examine all things and hold on to what is good.” In the next verse—21—he tells his readers to “reject whatever is harmful.”

Some English translations translate the Greek word δοκίμάζέτέ “prove” thus rendering the verse in English “prove all things.” That doesn’t make any sense in modern English, of course. In the past “prove” could mean “test,” but today it generally means something else. So a good, workable translation for today is “critically examine everything.”

Thayer says δοκίμάζέτέ means “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize (to see whether a thing be genuine or not)”, as in metal testing. It is used often in the New Testament and in the Septuagint almost always meaning critical examination of something to prove its validity.

The context of this verse is “prophecies.” Paul instructs the Thessalonian Christians not to despise them. Immediately he then instructs them to critically examine them which raises a lot of questions the foremost being “how?” Paul doesn’t answer here. And that’s beside the point for my purposes.

My only intention in choosing this passage as a “text that has shaped me” is to support and defend something much neglected in Christian communities—especially conservative ones. That something is critical thinking and testing of things within the church and Christian organizations.

But Paul then goes on to say that after they have tested prophecies (or whatever) they are to hold firmly to what is good. The implication, of course, is that they were to discard what is bad.

Don’t you wish Paul had finished his thoughts sometimes? I can just imagine the Thessalonian Christians listening to this letter being read to them and asking in consternation “How?” “By what criteria are we supposed to critically examine prophecies?” We can only wish with them that Paul had given specific instructions about that.

I’ll never forget when this text first hit home to me. You know that “Aha!” moment when experience and text come together and suddenly it means something very existentially compelling to you? That happened to me. I don’t remember the date, but I remember the place and the time frame. Then this text became a great comfort and challenge to me.

I grew up in a form of Christianity most of you can’t even imagine. Sometimes I’m even embarrassed to talk about it. Whenever I meet someone who also grew up in it I want to grab them and sit down and talk at length. I want to say “Hey, let’s form a support group!” Often I find they went one of two directions with it—either deeper in or farther away.

You see, the religious form of life I was raised in was almost cultic in its extreme legalism. I’ve come to refer to us as “urban Amish.” We lived in a city, but we regarded everything and everyone around us as bound for hell unless they repented and joined our group or something very much like it.

Television was held in great suspicion; it tended to come and go in our home. Our first television was a rented set so that I would have something to do when I was bed ridden for months with rheumatic fever when I was 10. A 10 year old can only read the Bible so much. And reading the Bible was strongly emphasized in our home and church. Anyone who had not read the Bible all the way though—including all the “begats”—by the time he or she was 12 was considered destined for hell. (I exaggerate only slightly!)

When I got well the television stayed for a while, but then it went back to the rental store and we didn’t have another one for years.

Movies were absolutely Verboten. “What if Jesus came back while you were sitting in a den of Hollywood iniquity where people have sex in the back seats?” Seriously. That’s what we were asked by Sunday School teachers. I didn’t darken the door of a movie theater until I was 20.

I think you get the picture. But more pertinent to my story than all the rules and regulations that governed almost every minute aspect of life was the one great unspoken but always enforced rule and I learned the consequences of breaking it much to my detriment.

That one great rule was “Don’t ask why.” Of course, it was okay to ask why IF you asked in the right spirit and with the right attitude—one of humble acceptance of whatever answer was offered. But if you asked why really challenging a rule or a belief or a custom you’d better watch out. Your eternal soul was in jeopardy. Here I do not exaggerate.

You see, our form of Christianity was not garden variety fundamentalism. It made fundamentalists look like liberals. We considered fundamentalist Baptists liberals because they didn’t believe in the supernatural gifts of the Spirit such as speaking in tongues and healing.

My stepmother was the epitome of our spiritual way of life.

When we went on family vacation we had to find a church as close to ours in beliefs and practices as possible and attend it in Sunday morning—Sunday school and all.

I got punished for putting my school books on top of a Bible at home.

My brother and I weren’t allowed to wear cut off jeans, to say nothing of shorts, or to swim with girls—which meant no swimming in any public pool. Occasionally our church would rent a YMCA swimming pool for an afternoon or evening. But the boys sat out while the girls swam and vice versa.

My problem was that I pretty much kept all the rules and, in spite of them, had a marvelous, life-transforming experience of Jesus Christ in that context, but as I matured I couldn’t stop asking “Why?” Why this rule and that belief? And when the answers weren’t satisfying I kept asking.

When I was in sixth grade I must have asked too many questions in Sunday School because one Sunday the teacher stood up, threw down his Sunday School quarterly and said “Roger, you teach the class” and stomped out. I did teach the class. Needless to say, I got a spanking that afternoon.

If you grew up in our church there was really only one option for college—our denomination’s Bible college. Everyone went there. To not go there was to put a big question mark over your spirituality. It was a deal breaker—not to go there was to be shunned by family and friends. So I went there. And I suffered four years of hell.

We were not allowed to ask questions in class unless they were simply for clarification of a point. The whole curriculum and pedagogy was about indoctrination. And there was a deep strain of anti-intellectualism in the school.

I simply couldn’t stop myself from asking the “Why?” question. “Why do we believe that?” “Where does that tradition come from?” “Why do we do that?” Most often the answers were less than satisfactory and I was labeled a trouble maker for persisting in my questioning.

At a particularly low point in my college career I came across this verse—”Examine all things”—and felt released from guilt and condemnation. I came to realize that I was being spiritually abused. That my elders had created idols out of highly questionable beliefs and practices and were using shame to manipulate and control students—especially those few of us who dared to question the idols.

One day the president of the college called me into his office and told me not to come back to school the next day unless I got my hair cut. My hair then came down a bit over my collar and about half way over my ears. Men were not allowed to have “long hair” or facial hair including side burns. (Not that I could ever grow side burns anyway!) I got my hair cut, but that was a turning point for me. I knew I was being singled out for special abuse because of my constant subjecting of things to critical examination.

During the second semester of my senior year the college’s board of regents discussed not allowing me to graduate in spite of my grade point average which was 3.5. They finally decided they probably couldn’t legally prevent me from graduating, but agreed among themselves to blackball me from finding a position in the denomination.

I was tempted to run as far as I possibly could from that form of Christianity. We called ourselves “conservative evangelicals.” Did I even want to be an evangelical Christian anymore? I wasn’t at all sure.

But I kept coming back to a few really amazing experiences of the reality of Jesus Christ in my life. They kept me anchored in my evangelical faith even as I slowly but surely shook off the extreme fundamentalism and legalism and anti-intellectualism of my home, church and denomination.

The last straw for my family and church and denomination was when I enrolled in seminary. I was the first person raised in that denomination ever to go to seminary. My people always called it “cemetery.” Enrolling in a Baptist seminary assured that I would never again be welcome among my own people.

At that seminary I found a very different flavor of evangelical Christianity—a warm-hearted but at the same time tough minded evangelicalism that was not at all threatened by my questions. And I drank deeply at the wells of open, progressive evangelical theology and it tasted so good.

As I progressed on into my doctoral studies I met many young men and women who had grown up in religious environments like my own and I noticed a pattern. It seemed they either were incapable of thinking for themselves or they rejected evangelical Christianity entirely. I determined to do what I didn’t see very many of those friends doing—keep the baby while throwing out the bathwater.

It hasn’t always been easy. Where’s the line between legalism and righteousness? Between traditionalism and tradition? Between fanaticism and passion? Between authoritarianism and authority? Between gullibility and openness to the miraculous?

Over the years I’ve witnessed so many young Christians in university and seminary struggling out of abusive fundamentalism with its near idolatry of human ideas and traditions and its abuse of inquiring minds. And I’ve been dismayed by how often they do throw the baby of evangelical faith out with the bathwater of fundamentalism. But I can’t blame them because I came very close to doing it myself.

Now I’ve become a little more comfortable in my own skin and knowing the difference between the baby and the bathwater comes easier for me. I need to be patient with those who are still finding their way in that. I want to give them guidance if I can.

So let me tell you some of the things I think we should keep as we discard their counterfeits.

• We should not throw the baby of tradition out with the bathwater of traditionalism. Historical theologian Jaroslav Pelikan of Yale said that “Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living while tradition is the living faith of the dead.”

• We should not throw the baby of certitude out with the bathwater of certainty. Kierkegaard coined the term “certitude” as the replacement for Enlightenment "certainty" which is a myth. We finite and fallen human beings can’t have certainty—especially about answers to life’s ultimate questions. But we can have certitude which means, in Lesslie Newbigin’s words, “proper confidence.”

• We should not throw the baby of confession out with the bathwater of creedalism. I no longer will sign someone else’s creed or confessional statement, but if asked I will gladly tell my confession of faith in classical Christian doctrine.

• We should not throw the baby of faith out with the bathwater of anti-intellectualism or the baby of reason out with the bathwater of rationalism.

• We should not throw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of totalizing absolutism.

• We should not throw the baby of feeling out with the bathwater of emotionalism. 

• We should not throw the baby of patriotism out with the bathwater of nationalism. 

• We should not throw the baby of the God’s supernatural activity out with the bathwater of gullibility about miracles. 

• We should not throw the baby of biblical authority out with the bathwater of wooden literalism and strict inerrancy. 

• We should not throw the baby of accountability out with the bathwater of hierarchy.

And so I could go on. There are so many examples of ways in which disillusioned Christians throw the good out with the bad.

So how can we know which is the baby and which is the bathwater? Perhaps there’s no litmus test. I haven’t found one. It would be too simple just to say “Jesus.” But a Christ-centered consciousness is part of it.

But one thing I’m sure of. In our Christian communities, we should find ways to reward and not punish those courageous souls who dare to ask “Why?” because they do us a great service by making us ask about the difference between babies and bathwater.

Re-thinking & Innovating Evangelical Christianity through the Example of Postmodern Indian Medical Practices

Strictly speaking, the post today will not be pertinent to issues of Emergent Christianity or biblical revisionism caused by cultural disruptions and the requisite societal needs that follow. However, we have spoken to creativity in the past (How the Genius Thinks) and about Christianity's need to recreate itself from its antiquated past (Thinking About a New Christianity, Parts 1-3; What Wikipedia Has to Say About the Emerging/Emergent Church. Parts 1-2). And so, today's article about Indian medical practices seems relevant to me. Especially because it reveals how our mindset must change away from societal expectations and assumptions in order to fundamentally recreate newer Gospel practices and missional objectives with far-flung affect and distillation.

If Christianity continues to refuse fundamental change, adaptation, and re-orientation, by clinging to antiquated subcultural mores and beliefs (most recently re-expressed from the 1970-1990s) then it should only expect a growing irrelevancy and subcontextualization of itself without any further impact to society-at-large - except to itself in growing isolation and systemic blow back repercussions - much like assorted Fundamentalist and Amish groups have experienced over the past century. I think a good illustration of this is the Muslim religion which has tenaciously clung to its outdated beliefs and practices in an "us" versus "them" cultural affirmation. By this mindset we have seen extreme examples of cultural/religious aggravation and frustration expressed through cruel insurgencies and governmental suppressions, unabated militarism and heart-rending terrorism, and an adamant refusal to recognise or accept religious and cultural pluralism into strict Muslim society. The saner, more wiser elements of Muslimism is doing what it can, but its voice has been far out-distance by the rhetoric of their militaristic mullahs and clerics.

However, the same could be said of Evangelical Christianity (per earlier Fundamental Christian groups self-isolating experiences) as it hunkers down from society (i) by creating subcultural contexts of itself; (ii) by becoming unnecessarily hostile to cultural and postmodernistic incursions into its belief systems and practices (as witnessed in the backlash to a small, innocuous book by the title "Love Wins"); and, (iii) by adamantly not accepting anything that even smells "unbiblical" or "non-Christian" to its way of life and living. In the end, evangelical Christianity is harming itself in spite of its sincerity of devotion to God, the Scriptures, purity of life, outspoken goals of ethical behavior, and its gospel message of salvation. More rather, (i) Jesus' radical message of love in the Gospels becomes threatening and unintelligible; (ii) Jesus' criticism of the Scribes and Pharisees of His day becomes a ghostly representation of themselves in refusing admittance to Jesus heavenly kingdom on earth; and, (iii) Jesus' universal message of salvation to all men and women everywhere is refused when bounded by church rules and creedal confessions wrenched out of historical context and biblical assignment. And this list could go on-and-on. Not that each one of these subjects haven't been reviewed and re-capsulated adnauseum here on this blogsite during this past year but that just the merest expression of each of these bullet points is enough to send an Evangelical Christian reeling to his or her nearest flock of like-minded affiliates to crucify again the Son of God in unnecessary fears, religious frockery, and pulpiteered rhetorical perturbations.

And so, when reading of the article of Indian medical practices below, I see again the need for both Church and Society to fundamentally look at themselves as objectively as possible. To take out again that metaphorical "white sheet of plain paper" and work out practices and practicalities that would best serve or reflect the objectives and ministries of the Gospel of Jesus. To welcome the disruption and evolution we see taking place in this world of sin and woe as signposts to the brokenness of our present efforts. To recognize that vast multitudes of the world's poor and destitute are being underserved and overlooked in our haste to accumulate and preserve wealth and security. To recommit our lives and livelihoods to the dedication of a more benevolent and selfless humanity. To understand that civil wars and economic dishevel are mirrors to our misdirected efforts and energies. To remove all our past knowledge and beliefs, and sit there, at our mental table, with a piece of plain white paper in our heads and our hearts, thinking through what must be removed from our lives before we can properly draw out a design for the future. A design open enough, expansive enough, unbounded enough, to force us to never again be so set in our ways and our beliefs. That will allow God to recreate our hearts and spiritual beings into the image He wants, and not our own images of fears and insecurity.

And finally, to remember that if one is to construct, one must first deconstruct; and if deconstruct, then one must remember to reconstruct. For many of us are good at one task or the other. But make sure to listen to those rare bridge builders amongst us discontent in living in either of these worlds. And learn to work together. To listen. To dispute irenically. To argue with listening ears, hands, hearts, and tongues. This Earth demands it. This Cosmos was built for this. And by our efforts, however meager, our Redeemer/Creator will sanctify each passion and desire given to the blessing humanity by the works of our hands and hearts. Be a blessing then and this day commit to an innovated thinking that matters. However small. However peripheral. We each are responsible to begin somewhere within our lives as spiritual forces. As battered vessels of servitude and blessing.

R.E. Slater

August 20, 2012

Health care in India

Lessons from a frugal innovator

http://www.economist.com/node/13496367

The rich world’s bloated health-care systems can learn from India’s entrepreneurs

Apr 16th 2009 | Bangalore | from the print edition

Photo by Tom Pietrasik

ENTER the main cardiac operating-room at Bangalore's Wockhardt hospital on a typical morning, and you will find a patient on the operating table with a screen hanging between his head and chest. On a recent visit the table was occupied by a middle-aged Indian man whose serene look suggested that he was ready for the operation to come. Asked how he was, he smiled and answered in Kannada that he felt fine. Only when you stand on a stool to look over the screen do you realise that his chest cavity has already been cut open.

As the patient was chatting away, Vivek Jawali and his team had nearly completed his complex heart bypass. Because such “beating heart” surgery causes little pain and does not require general anaesthesia or blood thinners, patients are back on their feet much faster than usual. This approach, pioneered by Wockhardt, an Indian hospital chain, has proved so safe and successful that medical tourists come to Bangalore from all over the world.

This is just one of many innovations in health care that have been devised in India. Its entrepreneurs are channelling the country's rich technological and medical talent towards frugal approaches that have much to teach the rich world's bloated health-care systems. Dr Jawali is feted today as a pioneer, but he remembers how Western colleagues ridiculed him for years for advocating his inventive “awake surgery”. He thinks that snub reflects an innate cultural advantage enjoyed by India.

Unlike the hidebound health systems of the rich world, he says, “in our country's patient-centric health system you must innovate.” This does not mean adopting every fancy new piece of equipment. Over the years he has rejected surgical robots and “keyhole surgery” kit because the costs did not justify the benefits. Instead, he has looked for tools and techniques that spare resources and improve outcomes.

Shivinder Singh, head of Fortis, a rival hospital chain based in New Delhi, says that most of the new, expensive imaging machines are only a little better than older models. Meanwhile, vast markets for poorer patients go unserved. “We got out of this arms race a few years ago,” he says. Fortis now promises only that its scanners are “world class”, not the newest.

Mr Singh is not alone in thinking that many firms in the rich world are looking at innovation the wrong way. Paul Yock, head of the bio-design laboratory at Stanford University, which develops medical devices, argues that medical-technology giants have “looked at need, but have been blind to cost.” Amid growing concern about runaway health spending, he thinks the industry can find inspiration in India.

Poverty, geography and poor infrastructure mean that India faces perhaps the world's heaviest disease burden, ranging from infectious diseases, the traditional scourge of the poor, to diseases of affluence such as diabetes and hypertension. The public sector has been overwhelmed, which is not surprising considering how little India's government spends on health as a share of national income (see chart). Accordingly, nearly four-fifths of all health services are supplied by private firms and charities—a higher share than in any other big country.

  

In the past that was more a reflection of the state's failure than the dynamism of entrepreneurs, but this is changing fast. Technopak Healthcare, a consulting firm, expects spending on health care in India to grow from $40 billion in 2008 to $323 billion in 2023. In part, that is the result of the growing affluence of India's emerging middle classes. Another cause is the nascent boom in health insurance, now offered both by private firms and, in some cases, by the state. In addition, the government has recently liberalised the industry, easing restrictions on lending and foreign investment in health care, encouraging public-private partnerships and offering tax breaks for health investments in smaller cities and rural areas.

Cheaper and smarter

This has attracted a wave of investment from some of India's biggest corporate groups, including Ranbaxy (the generic-drugs pioneer behind Fortis) and Reliance (one of India's biggest conglomerates). The happy collision of need and greed has produced a cauldron of innovation, as Indian entrepreneurs have devised new business models. Some just set out to do things cheaply, but others are more radical, and have helped India leapfrog the rich world.

For years India's private-health providers, such as Apollo Hospitals, focused on the affluent upper classes, but they are now racing down the pyramid. Vishal Bali, Wockhardt's boss, plans to take advantage of tax breaks to build hospitals in small and medium-sized cities (which, in India, means those with up to 3m inhabitants). Prathap Reddy, Apollo's founder, plans to do the same. He thinks he can cut costs in half for patients: a quarter saved through lower overheads, and another quarter by eliminating travel to bigger cities.

Columbia Asia, a privately held American firm with over a dozen hospitals across Asia, is also making a big push into India. Rick Evans, its boss, says his investors left America to escape over-regulation and the political power of the medical lobby. His model involves building no-frills hospitals using standardised designs, connected like spokes to a hub that can handle more complex ailments. His firm offers modestly priced services to those earning $10,000-20,000 a year within wealthy cities, thereby going after customers overlooked by fancier chains. Its small hospital on the fringes of Bangalore lacks a marble foyer and expensive imaging machines—but it does have fully integrated health information-technology (HIT) systems, including electronic health records (EHRs).

New competitors are also emerging. A recent report from Monitor, a consultancy, points to LifeSpring Hospitals, a chain of small maternity hospitals around Hyderabad. This for-profit outfit offers normal deliveries attended by private doctors for just $40 in its general ward, and Caesarean sections for about $140—as little as one-fifth of the price at the big private hospitals. It has cut costs with a basic approach: it has no canteens and outsources laboratory tests and pharmacy services.

It also achieves economies of scale by attracting large numbers of patients using marketing. Monitor estimates that its operating theatres accommodate 22-27 procedures a week, compared with four to six in other private clinics. LifeSpring's doctors perform four times as many operations a month as their counterparts do elsewhere—and, crucially, get better results as a result of high volumes and specialisation. Cheap and cheerful really can mean better.

But there is more to India's approach than cutting costs. Its health-care providers also make better use of HIT. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, fewer than 20% of doctors' surgeries in America use HIT. In contrast, according to Technopak, nearly 60% of Indian hospitals do so. And instead of grafting technology onto existing, inefficient processes, as often happens in America, Indian providers build their model around it. Apollo's integrated approach to HIT has enabled the chain to increase efficiency while cutting medical errors and labour. EHRs and drug records zip between hospitals, clinics and pharmacies, and its systems also handle patient registration and billing. Apollo is already selling its expertise to American hospitals.

Eye on the prize

A casual visitor to Madurai, a vibrant medieval-temple town in southern India, would not think it was a hotbed of innovation. And yet that is exactly what you will find at Aravind, the world's biggest eye-hospital chain, based in the town. There are perhaps 12m blind people in India, with most cases arising from treatable or preventable causes such as cataracts. Rather than rely on government handouts or charity, Aravind's founders use a tiered pricing structure that charges wealthier patients more (for example, for fancy meals or air-conditioned rooms), letting the firm cross-subsidise free care for the poorest.

The 25 Most Influential Business Management Books,
Time Magazine, August 2009

Aravind also benefits from its scale. Its staff screen over 2.7m patients a year via clinics in remote areas, referring 285,000 of them for surgery at its hospitals. International experts vouch that the care is good, not least because Aravind's doctors perform so many more operations than they would in the West that they become expert. Furthermore, the staff are rotated to deal with both paying and non-paying patients so there is no difference in quality. Monitor's new report argues that Aravind's model does not just depend on pricing, scale, technology or process, but on a clever combination of all of them.

C.K. Prahalad and other management gurus trumpet examples like Aravind, but do the rich countries accept that they could learn from India? Unsurprisingly, some reject the notion that America's model is broken. William Tauzin, head of America's pharmaceutical lobby, warns that regulatory efforts to cut costs could stifle life-saving innovation. Sandra Peterson of Bayer, a German drugs and devices giant, stoutly defends the industry's record. She argues that overall cost increases mask how medical devices, “like cars or personal computers, give better value for the money over time.” Diabetes monitors and pacemakers have improved dramatically in the past 20 years and have fallen in price—but costs have gone up because they are now being used by more patients.

But those examples are exceptions. Many studies show that America's spending on health care is soaring, yet its medical outcomes remain mediocre. Mark McClellen of the Brookings Institution, an American think-tank, says that a big problem is the overuse of technology. Whether or not a scan is needed, the system usually pays if a doctor orders it—and the scan might help defend the doctor against a malpractice claim. “The root cause is not greed, but tremendous technological progress imposed upon a fractured health system,” says Thomas Lee of Partners Community HealthCare, a health provider in Boston.

Dr McClellen, a former head of America's Food and Drug Administration, points out that other innovative industries often sell new products at a loss, and recoup their investments later. In genuinely competitive industries, innovators are rarely rewarded with the “cost plus” reimbursements demanded by medical-device makers for their gold-plated gizmos.

That is why Stanford's Dr Yock wants to turn innovation upside down. He has extended his bio-design programme to India, in part to instil an understanding of the benefits of frugality in his students. He believes that India's combination of poverty and outstanding medical and engineering talents will produce a world-class medical-devices industry. Tim Brown, the head of Ideo, a design consultancy, agrees. In the past, he notes, health bosses thought all devices had to be Rolls-Royces or Ferraris. But cost matters, too. Pointing to another recent example of India's frugal engineering, he says: “In health care, as in life, there is need for both Ferraris and Tata Nanos.”

So what’s so wrong with panentheism?

Eden's Banishment

When approaching Process Theology (PT) it is necessary to be able to grasp and understand its related and essential component of pan-en-theism from which each proceed together apace (please note we are not talking here of pan-theism. See links below for further definitions in this area). Over the past year we have attempted to discern both concepts - PT and panentheism - and to appreciate the relational aspects of our Creator God in living partnership to the cosmos and to humanity where each together are known and described as God's creative universe in living birth and dependency upon the other: God with His creation and His creation with Himself. Whereas the counter position of Classical Theology (CT) will emphasize the independency of God's being from that of His creation making Him more of a sympathetic, but wholly-Other God to creation's essence. Who holds Himself in unmitigated void apart from creation until He personally experiences it through His Incarnational birth, life and death in the wholly-Divine personage of Jesus (sic, cf. the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of Christ). As such, the difference and the chasm that lies between both Process and Classic Theism is summed up in the phrase "ex nihilo creation" with PT denying its concept and CT affirming it.

 

Over the past year we have discussed the theological and philosophical ramifications of God and creation in terms of biblical ontology, metaphysics, and existentialism. We have also examined its scientific evolutionary origins through quantum physics and anthropological studies focused on the communicational development of individuals through learning theory and cultural sub-groupings. Beginning with man's early primitive understanding of himself and his surroundings discovered by anthropologists in the fossilized rock and earth; to the basic components of man's theorized social / psychological formation and interaction with one another in his early, primitive settings; to the archaeological examination of ancient human records discovered in early civilizations entombed around the world. Especially those ancient near-Eastern records discovered in comparative cultural and religious studies to that of the bible's own ancient contracts, social constructions, institutions, and theology of God. Who has especially revealed Himself in revelation to this region of mankind... specifically to a people/tribe/nation-state we know as Israel. Who tells us of His own divine being - who He is. What He wants. What His heart desires of us and this world that we live in. And from these early descriptions preserved upon ancient (biblical) manuscripts we enter into today's more lively discussion of Emergent Christianity.

A discussion which forces the active re-composition of the Reformational Era's theological by-products of systematized and reformed theology through a rigorous post-examination of both the Old and New Testaments from a post-modernistic understanding of narrative theology as it relates to the larger meta-narrative of God's own story to that of our own. Especially as both are beheld in the central personage of Jesus whom we understand to be the incarnate God who re-incarnates all living flesh with His own life force of redeeming grace-and-love. How? Through the profound experience of His personal atoning sacrifice that singularly reconstitutes all of life - both humanity's and the creative cosmos - from death's finality and destruction - to a newness of life and livelihood, existence and charter.

Who re-orients the cosmos and humanity from its fundamental willfulness away from Himself back into the life-giving breath-and-heart of its Maker-Creator-Sustainer. Process Theology then focuses upon this fundamental process and tells us how God is actively re-balancing creation through His own personal involvement of essential redemption. An involvement as much a part of His own divine being as it is a part of His own divine will. A fundamental act much misunderstood in Classical Theism's Reformational and Enlightened dispositions describing God as separate - and above - this very same process. But not in an unfeeling way. But in a dispassionate, ruling, capricious capacity, much as one would describe a machine or a computer dispensing truth and justice upon the non-elect of the earth.

Whereas Relational Theology then comes along and says to both Process Theology and strict Reformational Classicism that neither position should disqualify the other but join together in illuminating the many infinite aspects of the Unfathomable One who speaks life to the dry bones of our beings. Giving sunshine and warmth to the cold, mechanistic processes of life's fundamental aspects of growth and development. Mercy and peace. Truth and justice. Giving purpose, and hope, and meaning, to both the cosmos and to humanity that held none before without the active, ceaseless, involvement of a Creator God (if ever there was such a time!). Who has never let either this world, nor our own, go upon their wayward paths. But always-and-ever-and-only directs each cosmos (whether impersonal or personal) into His own paths of light-and-life even before either were created in the depths of His being's longings and passions.

For this almighty Creator knew our paths even as He knew of His plans for us (which is the debate of another doctrinal position known as Open Theism/Theology with Classic Theism/Theology - see sidebars for more info). And it is only ourselves who have become gravely misinformed by our many disconnected theories and mistaken reflections. Endlessly debating each other as we preach certain knowledge from our own biased doctrinal positions (heaven, hell, universalism, damnation, election, foreordination) all the while being woefully misguided having missed the telltale narrative themes of God's revelatory tone and import concerning these very same subjects! ...That He is. ...That He always has been. ...That He always will be.... And because of His divine being we must know and expect that He has not left us alone to the imaginations of our own hearts. But has come to be with us giving light-and-life. Foreordaining grace out of the determinative counsels of His own heart. Who will actively pursue this grace into our broken hearts and lives till all is healed and made whole. And all will sing in divine fellowship with the Godhead of creation. Singing eternal songs of love, and grace, and peace, and hope. This we must know through trust and belief.

For from time immemorial God is the God who reaches out to us in ceaseless care and love. Who desires truth and justice but knows these are unattainable without the administration first of His almighty grace and mercy in continual calls of repentance by His Spirit. And there to find common cause with the Creator of our hearts and lives who is become our Savior. Despite sin and death. Who makes all things new. Despite the ugliness and harm around us. Who creates life where there is no life. Hope where there is no hope. Who gives light in even the darkest of shadows. It is this Savior God that all will answer to. Who seeks our allegiance to trust in His great goodness. His majesty of wisdom. His undergirding power, sublime, and awesome. Who is strong in our weakness. Who is compassionate to the lost. Granting mercy to the forgotten. The downtrodden. The poor. Giving His breath of hope to the hopeless. Favour to the unfavoured. Blessings to those that languish. He is God. And His promise is to never leave us nor forsake us (whether saved or unsaved, I might add to my Calvinist friends). Not even in our sin and destruction. Our pride and shame. So be ye at peace then. God is, and will ever be, God. Incorruptible. Indivisible. Inexpressible. Incomparable. Who comes to give life. Be life. Provide life. Live life. His kingdom is forever. And forever is this kingdom ours, in the personage of His being, and majesty of His power. Be at peace then and know your salvation has come. Even as it comes into this world that we live to be remade into the image of its Sovereign Creator become its unwanted Savior.

R.E. Slater

August 8, 2012

Addendum:

Pantheism or Panentheism?

If you were like myself a year ago I would not have understood the difference between "pan-theism" and "pan-en-theism" thinking that both terms meant the same, or in my case, just not noticing the casual spelling difference between the two words! However, pantheism means that God and the universe are the same ontological entities, whereas panentheism suggests that God and the universe are two halves of the same coin, though not necessarily the same ontologically. Moreover, each are considered dependent upon the other thus removing the distinction between a Creator vs. Creation (Cosmos). Put another way, "if there were no Creator there is no Cosmos. If there is no Cosmos then there is no Creator." This is pan-en-theism.

Thought through, there isn't a lot of difference between the two concepts of pantheism and panentheism. The first term arises from a polytheistic basis such as is found in Hinduism, whereas the other term arises from a Christian basis and has been adopted into an important new branch of Christian thinking known as Process Theology/Theism/or Thought. As background to the article below please refer to the links below but begin with Part 2. And do not be afraid to wade in. Its a simple enough concept with big, big ramifications. Thanks!
 

Open Theism & Process Theology, Part 1/2

Doctrinal Differences Compared

Open Theism & Process Theology, Part 2/2

Basic Definitions

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

What’s wrong with panentheism?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/08/whats-wrong-with-panentheism/

by Roger Olson
with emendations from R.E. Slater
 

August 7, 2012

Comments

So What’s Wrong with Panentheism?

Recently I suggested that Jonathan Edwards may have been guilty of panentheism. I won’t explain why again here; if you’re interested please go back and read that post. At least one commenter asked why that’s a problem in light of Paul’s quotation in Athens of a Greek poet. He referred to God as the one “in whom we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) Was Paul affirming panentheism? What’s wrong with panentheism?

Confession that one is a panentheist is, rightly or wrongly, the kiss of death when it comes to being hired to teach theology at most evangelical institutions of higher education. A few years ago an acquaintance who was a candidate to teach theology at an evangelical seminary was rejected by its president because, during his interview, he admitted he is a panentheist.

“Panentheism” is a somewhat flexible and evolving concept. When someone says “panentheism” or “panentheist” I ask what they mean. The term has no definite, universally agreed on definition. I no longer take it for granted.

Panentheism is a relatively recent term, if not concept, in Christian theology and philosophy of religion. Scholars agree that it was coined by German philosophical theologian Karl Friedrich Krause (1781-1832) who invented the German word Allingottlehre which literally means “the doctrine that all is in God.” Of course, Krause was not the first person to promote the idea. (See John W. Cooper, Panentheism: The Other God of the Philosophers [Baker, 2006], 121-122.)

Krause meant more than merely that “all is in God, however.” That can be interpreted in multiple ways and might even fit Paul’s statement in Athens. According to John Cooper, Krause believed “the distinction between God and the world is that of whole and part.” (122) Exactly what Krause meant by panentheism is debatable, but the concept took on a life of its own, apart from whatever Krause meant, in philosophers such as G. W. F. Hegel who famously asserted that “Without the world God is not God.”

Hegel is usually thought to have been the paradigmatic panentheist of the 19^th century, but Alfred North Whitehead is usually considered that of the 20^th century. Whitehead, of course, was the philosopher-mathematician who is the inspiration behind process theology. Whitehead said that “It is as true to say that God creates the world as that the world creates God.”

A consensus used to exist that panentheism is any view of the God-world relationship that portrays God and the world as essentially interdependent although God’s essence is not contributed by the world. One of the first whole books exploring the concept was Philosophers Speak of God by Charles Hartshorne and William Reese (University of Chicago Press, 1953). They defined panentheism as any view in which “To be himself [God] does not this universe, but only a universe.” (22) They asserted that, at the very least, panentheism denies creation ex nihilo (23).

So, traditional, classical panentheism distinguishes between God’s essence, his eternal being, and his experience. God’s essence, his thatness and whatness are his independent of the world, but his actual experience is given to him by the world. Many panentheists have used the body-soul or body-mind analogy to describe the God-world relationship in traditional, classical panentheism. The world (universe, cosmos) is God’s body.

I came to think that what distinguishes panentheism, in its German idealist (Hegelian) form and in its process (Whiteheadian) form, from traditional Christian theism (in its broadest form) is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In other words, I have no problem believing that God actually experiences the world such that there is a sense in which the world is “in” God. That’s how I interpret Paul’s statement in Athens. Also, I believe Paul meant that "the world is dependent on God for its existence from moment to moment" [which is the traditional expression for Classic Christian Theism - R.E. Slater].

The crucial difference between traditional, classical panen-theism and Christian theism, broadly interpreted (i.e., not necessarily as defined by Augustine or Anselm or Aquinas), is God’s dependence on the world. Panentheism traditionally affirms it; all forms of classical Christian theism deny it. Creatio ex nihilo [as a philosophical expression AND as a scientific expression - R.E. Slater] is the crucial doctrine that protects Christian theism from making God essentially dependent on the world....

* * *

 

In re-reading what I have said here a year ago (2012) I noticed I had written my understanding of panentheism backwards... as such, I've re-written it again to read as follows:

I've come to distinguish between the two expressions by remaining neutral to the philosophical while affirming the scientific.... That is, in scientific terms "something" cannot come from "nothing"... which correlates with quantum physic's observation. So, when using the phrase creatio ex nihilo in connection with panentheism it must be considered both "nay" and "yeah." "Nay," because quantum physics has stated shown our universe to have a beginningless mass from which our present universe became. And "yeah," in that I still prefer the classic idea of God giving mass and energy to the pre-universe though this cannot be proved scientifically.

Additionally, pertaining to God's sovereignty as related to creational evolution, I understand God to have reordered the quantum nothingness of the pre-universe into a quantum state of chaos filled with divine purpose and indeterminate possibility (sic, the "free will" side of creation). That is, evolution has a "teleological" side to it. Though random and chaotic per God's divine plan, there is also found superintending over its indeterminate structure (or "creational freedom") His divine direction in some mysterious process we've yet to understand giving to us life from nothingness. Most atheistic evolutionists will disagree with this sentiment as would be proper within a strict evolutionary understanding of creation. But as a theistic evolutionist I cannot explain biblical passages that express again-and-again God's deep involvement with creation as its Creator without understanding God's involvement within it as He directs its chaotic process towards our present day humanity.

On the philosophical side of the question of whether God is, or is not, dependent upon His creation I would like to affirm classic theism's idea that God is not dependent upon it based upon His essence both ontologically and metaphysically. As well as based upon the absolute necessity that we remain culpable free willed beings for our sin (which likewise makes God blameless for our sin). And yet, because He is our Creator there is also the sense that God is not so much "dependent" upon creation but somehow equisitely "linked" to His creation. So for me, process thought has the right idea leading in the right direction but is using the wrong word and linkages when discerning the Bible's idea of God's interconnected relatedness to our world. Hence, classic theism is the poorer without process theism's observations, while process theism must widen its idea of panentheism to allow a separateness of God's ontologic being from His relational being as creation's Creator.

- R.E. Slater, August 7, 2013

* * *

... Why is it important to deny God’s dependence on the world? Traditionally Christian theologians have said “to protect the transcendence of God.” Fine. But why? The bedrock reason is, as I have stated and argued here before, that “whatever is of nature cannot be of grace.” Christianity is not a philosophy; it is a message of grace. If God’s creation and redemption of the world is not free, then it is not of grace. Only that which is freely done is truly gracious. That’s a bedrock principle of theology. When someone disputes it, I frankly don’t know what they mean by “grace....” [To sum up: God is not dependent upon the world to protect His transcendancy over the world, but to allow our world and ourselves our greatest freedom when separated from God's "dependency" upon it (remember, I do not like the word "dependency"). When we speak biblically of creation's indeterminacy, or of man's free will, we assert a non-coercive free will of man and nature held quite apart from God's divine will. God has given to creation its highest possibility of separateness from His holy will as free-willed creatures. Thus, God is neither culpable to sin's progeneration, nor are we protected from its affects, and yet God longs for reconciliation and works always to restore creation back to Himself, who is inseparably a part of His creation in terms of will and purpose, rather than as ontologic or metaphysic connection per panentheism. As such, the term panentheism is evolving to mean many things instead of the classic Hegelian or Whiteheadian expression it once was intended to be in the 19th and 20th centuries. Consequently, we should not be afraid to use the word, but when we do, to use it less strictly, and perhaps with adjectival address. - R.E. Slater

 

* * *

Hence, in nature - as pictured in creation's current state of fallenness - some aspect of God's image may be borne. And yet, it remains unresolved, impure in some sense, corrupted, and unlike God's fully divine image. As such, though one may find a kind of "rebirth" from some aspect of God's creation - an experience of nature perhaps, or an experience within society itself through someone's story of rebirth - the rebirth that is sensed is but a glimpse of the very God Himself imperfectly reflected through His creation. Redemption cannot lie in these experiences (per biblical statements reflected through Jesus and the Apostle Paul, amongst others), though it may be lead back to the Creator-Redeemer God. But existentially (and metaphysically), the completion of divine redemption can only be found in God Himself, and not obtained from creation's ground of being.... Redemption's reality, presence, and ultimating source, is the divine personage of God Himself. This is the Christian doctrine of redemption, salvation, rebirth, and so forth.

Creation may direct us back to God (as it can, and will, because of the image of God lying resident within it's frame when glimpsed through sin's constant distortions). But in God's being doeth redemption fully reside unhindered, unmitigated, uncorrupted, unmangled. A redemption based upon the grace of His being met in the redemptive willfulness of God as a derivative of His grace. Where salvation's fullest, redemptive expression is found in the God who bears redemption's ground of being in Himself.... Especially when understood through Jesus, as God Incarnate expressing grace and glory, healing and life, light and reconciliation.

Presented in the form of redemption to both the world and to mankind each are found to be corrupted. Held in the grip of sin's disorderliness and ungodlike willfulness. Where no synergy of fellowship can be complete (or completed) without the singularity of redemption's repurposing of all of creation's aspects back upon God's divine person, being, and fellowship. Redemption must come from God. And especially from God's grace.

- R.E. Slater

* * *

... Notice that in Acts 17, during his speech in Athens, Paul not only quotes the Greek poet but also asserts that “God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things.” (vs. 24, 25) That has to be kept in balance with “in whom we live and move and have our being.”

So, the problem with traditional, classical panentheism, as expressed in the philosophies of Hegel and Whitehead (and their many followers), is that it seriously blurs the line between God and the world with the result that God’s creation and redemption of the world are not free and gracious acts but necessities for God. [Hence,] in saving the world God is somehow saving himself. And concepts like “create” and “save” don’t even mean the same in traditional, classical panentheism as in classical theism (broadly defined).

Having said all that, I must admit that the term “panentheism” is undergoing change in contemporary theology [as I have been demonstating here... R.E. Slater]. Like all theological concepts, over time it is being stretched to cover much more than it meant under the influences of Hegel and Whitehead (et al.).

A relatively recent study of panentheism illustrates this: In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World edited by Philip Clayton (we studied together under Pannenberg in the 1980s) and Arthur Peacocke (Eerdmans, 2004). Especially helpful is the chapter “Three Varieties of Panentheism” by Niels Henrik Gregersen (19-35).

I won’t go into the details here, now. I have submitted an article about this change in the meaning of panentheism to a theological journal. If it is published I will alert my blog readers to it.

Essentially, what is happening, is that some Christian theologians are adopting the term “panentheism” and adapting it to a more classical theistic view of the God-world relationship. Gregersen talks about “Christian [Theistic! - res] panentheism” by which he means a view in which God’s experience is contributed at least partly by the world [think in terms of Open Theology, if this helps - R.E. Slater], and what happens in it while God is himself not essentially dependent on the world. In other words, God freely chooses to include the world in his life. A good example is Juergen Moltmann who explicitly labels his theology panentheistic in several of his writings (“trinitarian panentheism,” “eschatological panentheism”). Many other relatively conservative Christian theologians, including some evangelicals, are calling their theologies panentheistic, but they don’t mean in the Krause, Hegel or Whitehead sense. They seem to mean only that the God-world relationship is ontologically real, not merely external to God. God freely (he could have done otherwise) creates the world and experiences it such that he is not the same with the world as he was, or would be, without it. And yet he does not literally “need” it to be who and what he is [which, with this last expression (underlined) would seem to me to be very un-panentheistic like, and not a true expression of panentheism, but some appendix of classic theism that is dangling off of it - R.E. Slater].

The analogy of parenthood comes to mind. In this panentheism, God is like a parent who freely chooses to have a child but, once the child is born or adopted, the child is part of his or her life. The parent is not the same as before. And yet, should the child die, the parent would still be the person he or she was even if changed. (This is only an analogy, of course, so please don’t pick it to death because it’s not perfect.)

My concern is whether this is stretching “panentheism” too far. It seems to me to lose all shape, so to speak, unless it is kept closely tied to (i) the rejection of creation ex nihilo and (ii) affirmation of the idea of God’s essential dependence on at least some world. I fear that, like many theological concepts, panentheism is losing meaning. In light of this broadening of its meaning to cover new ideas not traditionally meant by it, I suspect the candidate for the position teaching theology who was rejected by the evangelical president may have been treated unfairly. He may have only meant what Gregersen means by “Christian panentheism” which is compatible with creation ex nihilo.

I personally do not consider any theology that affirms creation ex nihilo panentheistic. That doesn’t mean affirming it makes everything correct; a person might affirm creation ex nihilo and be profoundly wrong about something else in his or her doctrine of God. But, it seems to me that creation ex nihilo is minimally necessary for a robust biblically and theologically sound doctrine of God. Traditionally, classically, it is one major factor dividing Christian theism from panentheism (or even pantheism).

[As addendum, in my opening comments I had mentioned how to overcome this doctrinal impasse between both theological divisions by coining the phrase Relational Theism to distinguish it from Process-Relational Theology's traditional panentheism that excludes ex nihilo creation; and from Classic Theology's impassive, wholly-Other God, unfeeling, untouched, and transcendent over His creation. I then attempted to bind both together into a synthesized framework by relating thematic plotlines from Scripture and our human experiences. Moreover, I have used the parental example myself and have found it helpful in describing God's personal experience of creation both as Creator-Sustainer and sublimely as its Incarnate (and Incarnating) Redeemer-Messiah. - R.E. Slater]

 

The Narrative Story of God, Creation and Mankind from an Evolutionary Perspective of Love Wins

An interesting post by one of my favorite theologians whose guest writer pretty much says what we've been saying during this past year's investigation into Science and Evolution, Human Origins, the Universe, even Narrative Theology and Emergent Christianity's focus on "Love Wins"! Each are major sidebars in this blogsite which I will reference throughout Bev Mitchell's guest article on the story of mankind, the story of God, His divine acts and almighty purposes! Amen and Amen!

R.E. Slater (res)
August 6, 2012

red highlights = links to other articles in this blogsite

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

A guest post (the biblical story of God and us that includes evolution) from a frequent visitor here
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/08/a-guest-post-the-biblical-story-of-god-and-us-that-includes-evolution-from-a-frequent-visitor-here/

by Roger Olson

August 5, 2012

Comments

Homo Sapiens (Naturalis) and The Creator-servant’s Universe-The Revelation:

The Biblical Story of God and Us in Brief

By Bev Mitchell

Homo Sapiens (Naturalis)

Homo Sapiens, the ones who know, the conscious ones, the self-conscious ones. We sense that we are on a journey, that we have a story and are in a story, that we are part of that story [e.g., cf. "Narrative Theology" - res]. We know in our conscious selves that we have come from somewhere and are going somewhere. We resist the thought that our conscious self will one day end. We refuse to really believe this. Self consciousness, self awareness act like powerful lenses that focus us on …. well, ourselves. We are not only self conscious, we are naturally, unavoidably, self-centered. This is perfectly natural, even essential in a material setting.

We, the conscious ones, are aware of life. An amazing thing, life. Think about it. Consider the energy required to make life possible – start with the energy of the sun. Those energized packets (photons) arriving in waves from the sun, specifically those in a narrow energy band called visible light, making life possible. Photosynthesis organizes carbon, present in the air as carbon dioxide, into carbon-based life. All life, as we know it, is carbon based. Consider the word ‘organize’. The only way to organize anything is to put in energy, continuously. It is fundamentally a battle against entropy (disorder), relentless entropy. To win against entropy requires a continuous flow of energy and efficient management of that energy. As far as we know, this battle has been going on from the time something was first organized – from the first moment that chaos was challenged, and it will continue as long as entropy makes disorder a possibility.

Our consciousness also makes us aware of the other-others like us, others not like us, others not at all like us. Beings. Living things, with an existence, beneficiaries of those sunny photons and photosynthesis and efficient energy management, but apparently not self-conscious. At least not in a way that allows the kind of communication we would like to have. But part of the family of living things nevertheless. It’s really quite amazing when you stop to think about it. [sic, cf. "Eusociality," - res]

Our awareness of a journey, of a story there somewhere, also moves our minds beyond life, to before life, to afterlife. A bit of a scary thought that second one. But just try not thinking about it for very long, I dare you. While we are naturally self-centered, we have a strong sense that …………… I won’t presume to say what your strong sense is, but I am prepared to bet that you have one.

So, here we sit, conscious, amazed, self-centered, unsatisfied. Maybe if we just get busy we can ignore that last bit. After all, there is so much to do, so much to learn. It’s even a full-time job just keeping entropy at bay in our own little corner. What keeps us very busy should satisfy us, right? And then there is this self-centeredness, kind of cozy really, maybe it’s even all about me. That would be satisfying, wouldn’t it? If only I could get everyone, everything, else to agree. Damn!

Meanwhile, the universe continues to spin, to evolve. Much stays the same, but, if we pay attention, much is changing. We can’t conclude or pretend, like our recent ancestors did, that things are essentially wrapped up. The story is moving. We are conscious of this movement, we are conscious of the passage of time, we are conscious of a direction in the movement, we want to know what the movement is about, what is behind it, what is its purpose, where are we going? Enter religious thoughts, theories, speculations, disagreements, battles……..

Religious awareness first comes from our self-centeredness, and may never move beyond ourselves, may remain entirely on the human plane, and may be thought of in material or spiritual terms, or both. This kind of religious thought and activity is essentially like all other complex thinking and activity, it’s entirely self-centered. It’s probably even adaptive, in the Darwinian sense. Such is the state of Homo Sapiens before some revelation from God. Some revelation from the One who makes all this highly organized universe possible, a reality, brings it into existence and sustains it. [cf, Tim Keller's quote of the Christian philosopher Peter van Inwagen's statement for God's inclusion of mankind's religious belief into the human genetic structure from early on. - res] 

To continue with the story, some revelation from God is absolutely essential.

The Creator/Servant’s Universe -The Revelation

This universe came into existence in the face of a spiritual rebellion against God’s will. Our creator is waging a cosmic battle against rebellion, chaos, disorder and confusion – a physicist would say, a battle against entropy. Maximum entropy equals maximum disorder. There is a spiritual battle, a rebellion against God, that comes from a great deceiver who wants only chaos and darkness (Rev 12:7-9). In the first verses of the Bible we see God’s response to chaos, darkness and emptiness – he simply and powerfully says “Let there be light.” This is the first bit of evidence that our Creator, through divine love, will win because he is the one God, YHWH, and in response to his first command we are told “there was light.” This work will be completed as our Creator’s perfect masterpiece when rebellion is no more and the Son of God, the resurrected Man-God, reigns supreme in perfect love. [cf. "The Origin of Sin, Hell, and Universalism," - res] 

Our Creator is neither a God of the gaps nor a God of the zaps nor the grand tweaker. The vast majority of the gaps left by current scientific work will be filled in, so these are ultimately embarrassing places to shelter our understanding of God’s mighty acts. As for imagining a God who ‘zaps’ things into existence (or out of existence) this only reveals our sad desire for magic. At least, we should expect our Creator to behave in a more interesting manner. More recent proposals that God deems evolution a reasonable way to get to our present world, but reserves the right to tweak things along the way, don’t really capture the big picture of an immensely great God either.

According to the growing mountain of scientific evidence, God does indeed work in far more interesting ways. The observable universe studied by physicists and cosmologists is unfolding, and has been unfolding for 13.7 billion years. The living world that biologists explore is constantly changing, and it has been changing for more than 3.5 billion years, with no end in sight. Furthermore, all living things are related; none have been found that don’t belong to the same big family. Now that is the work of a very interesting Creator. No zaps, no gaps, except those due to our lack of knowledge, and tweeks unnecessary.

The evolving cosmos and the evolving bios to which we belong are clearly works in progress; not independently either, but part of a huge, long-term, unfolding masterpiece. And amazingly, all of the participants are part of the process. All are unfolding in relation to everything else in an unimaginable, magnificent symphony. If, on our own, we tried to imagine how a Creator might operate, we would never come up with this – it’s way beyond us. We would probably imagine something more like a grand zapper who controls everything. It’s a good thing we weren’t asked for advice on the method to use! We were just given the opportunity to participate and ended up with the blessed ability to appreciate the results, the ongoing results.

It turns out that our Creator doesn’t stop creating. It’s also obvious that he is not in a hurry. At 13.7 billion and counting, we probably have a while to go. Diversity and change also seem to be high on the Creator’s list of good things. It seems, as well, that our Creator is more than a little interested in us. We can’t reach him, but he reaches us in self-revelation. His works in the natural world certainly get our attention, but he actually comes to us, first through Israel, the chosen nation, then in person, the new Adam. The creator actually becomes a creature.

We have noticed, all of us, that we have serious problems with what Scriptures call the ‘knowledge of good and evil’. Having this knowledge, like Israel having the law, makes us acutely aware that knowing the difference between good and evil but is of little help in actually doing good. We are born failures at doing good, far too often. We expect points for trying, but basically we lack something fundamental when it comes to being good the way we know we should – in ways that will please a holy God.

Enter the Creator become Creature. Since he is making everything in perfect love, he knows a thing or two about always doing the right thing. The Creator’s physical presence among us, is a unique, once-in-a-creation event – what scientists refer to as a singularity. In fact, from a Christian perspective, the singularity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of Man, the God-man, is the very heart of creation as well as the essential beginning of the Gospel. He is the apex of creation while also being the one through whom creation flows. This Creator we worship is truly interesting beyond our imagining!

Then, because of our inborn inability to deal with the temptation to not do the right thing, and the resulting dysfunction and horror this brings to our world, our Creator as Servant voluntarily suffers with us. In fact, suffers maximally and ultimately, participating even in death for us. But our Creator/Servant did nothing that should lead to death, he accepted it on our behalf – a willing sacrifice. Then, our Creator/Servant, in a glorious continuance of his very interesting creative work, rose from the dead in a glorified body – a victorious King. Scriptures call him the ‘first-born’ from among the dead because he is indeed a new creation – the Creator/Servant/Perfect Sacrifice/King, our Lord.

This resurrected Lord now takes up residence with the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and looses the Spirit, the very Spirit of Creation, upon the earth for our edification, guidance and empowerment. As we have been through all of time, we are called to continue with our own role in creation, now under the guidance of this Spirit of Creation. The Creator is not done yet. He keeps making moves that are more and more interesting. Now we are called to get on with the good over evil thing, but with the Spirit of Creation within us, because, in Christ, we too are new creations. Not completed yet, but, as with all of creation, works in progress.

This great, ongoing and ever more interesting creation story needs to be told. The Spirit of Creation within us moves us to tell the story, with boldness. The treasure we have within is a treasure to tell people about. It’s all connected. It has been going on for 13.7 billion years. We are a part of it simply by being born, and as Christian believers we are a part of it with a wonderful new re-birth and a new role. We have been given Good News to tell to the whole world. The Creator, Immanuel, has come to us. The Creator, Jesus the Saviour, has redeemed humanity. By repenting from our self-centeredness and acknowledging the work and centrality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we can live and grow in him as he lives and grows in us. Ultimately, we shall behold him and we shall be like him. We will then know him as he is. His love will have won! [yes, "Love Wins." - res]

Bev Mitchell, Doaktown, NB, Oaxaca, MX The Creator/Servant’s Universe April 19, 2012 modified May 2 and 9, 2012 Homo sapiens (naturalis) added May 11, 2012

For further discussion on Human Origins & Evolution see -

How God Created by Evolution:

A Proposed Theory of Man's Evolutionary Development

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/01/resolving-genesis-story-between.html

Unfriended

 

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/relationships/unfriended#overlay-context=life/relationships/unfriended

 

By Preston Yancey
August 3, 2012

Preston Yancey is a blogger, painter and author of the forthcomingTables in the Wilderness: A Memoir of God Found, Lost, and Found Again (Rhizome Publishing). Visit Preston at www.seeprestonblog.com.

You used to be inseparable, but now you barely talk.

Exploring the sad reality of friendship erosion.

“We’ll keep in touch.”

This is the collegiate equivalent to writing HAGS! (Have a Great Summer!) or Don’t ever change! or I wish I had gotten to know you better! in someone’s yearbook when you graduate high school. It’s polite sentiment, acceptable intimacy, and commits us to everything we wish we could bring ourselves to feel without ever having to feel it.

As freshly minted young adults turned out from four years of college facing hiring options and reruns during the summer, checking our phones every few minutes to see if our once close friends still remembered that we’re breathing, we are left with the annoying anxiety that our lives weren’t supposed to end up like this.

We are left with the annoying anxiety that our lives weren’t supposed to end up like this.

If we believe the television—and many of us do—the ties we formed carefully over our collegiate career or any period of high-pressure intimacy, were supposed to ferry us into the embrace of adulthood and provide comfort when rent came due or break-ups snapped.

According to the movies, we all have a clever best friend who—no matter what time we called, pouring coffee out of a stainless steel french press and about to sit down to a dinner in good company, would wax long poetic to us when we mourned our bank statement before he offered a bit of cracking, wise insight as the music swelled (because in this world, we live set to a soundtrack scored by Ben Gibbard) and everything that had ever needed explaining would be majestically made clear. We would be reassured, and then we would have dessert.

Grey’s Anatomy lied to us. Meredith and Christina’s tight-knit friendship, which was identified most clearly by their reference to one another as each other’s person, is perhaps sustainable only in a world of 24 episode seasons an hour a week with hiatus during summer and midwinter. For outside of a carefully crafted script, we usually don’t end up having an actual person, let alone the poet friend waiting patiently and perennially by the phone.

In reality, our bank statement comes the moment we overdraft our debit card buying a cup of coffee we are positive we can both afford and also deserve after hours of interviewing for minimum wage jobs we are at once overqualified and under-qualified to hold. When we call our best friend from college to lament, his response on answering his phone is that he’s busy and will call back the next day. He does a week later, when we’re still overdrafting, buying more coffee, which we reason is cheaper than therapy, and he tells us that he’s still busy and he’ll call again soon.

HAGS!

What happened? Weren’t we supposed to have it all? Between Twitter and iPhones and Starbucks and Gap commercials and college degrees, weren’t we supposed to have our best life now? Weren’t all those people who told us at graduation that they would love us forever supposed to, perhaps, show that love in some tangible form?

It’s understandable that jobs, relationships, family and opportunity spring young people in all different directions. But after the parting of ways, shouldn’t friendship be more than a Facebook “Like” after three months of no contact?

In the summer following college, though some friends remained, geography’s cruel conspiracy springs friends in all different directions, and we are left with the waning of texts, emails and the occasional Skype conversation interrupted by lives lived beyond each other. We neglect a long overdue phone call with a friend, and so “Like” their Facebook status instead as proof of closeness. We all know how easy it is to neglect people when we don’t see them anymore, when we actually have to work to connect.

So, what do we do?

We are not now what we thought we would be then, back when we promised to always be there for each other, when we thought we’d always laugh at our secret jokes.

We lean into two hard places our hearts are not naturally inclined to embrace: perspective and grace.

We all haunt someone’s grace limit.

Yes, Grey’s Anatomy lied, and the people we thought would be our people weren’t always who we had wished they would be. As blogger Carlos Whittaker says, “We all haunt someone’s grace limit.” Though it would be fair to say that we can’t be in the wrong all the time and if we feel slightly abandoned by those we love, there is likely some truth in it, it is also true that there is someone, somewhere we are presently neglecting in our own lives. Someone probably thinks we’re their person and a pretty bad one at that. We stopped calling, we didn’t text back, and while we sit watching reruns and frustrated that our person isn’t calling us back, this someone else is feeling the same about us. Maybe we should take out our phones, roll through the last month of texts and emails, and ask the hard question of if we’ve been Christ to those we did not reply to.

Further, there is something we love about grace when it means that all we need to do is to sit back and pray for the person in question to repent. We are less fond when grace means that we keep loving and keep extending even when we receive nothing in return. But this returns us to Christ. We have been entrusted with a feast, the abundance of a God who has and continues to give, and by His Spirit equips us to feed from our storehouses. Grace would have us keep feeding, even during the rerun watching, and would expect us to stop expecting what others, perhaps, do not have in their storehouse to give.

So between all the falsehood of saying, “We’ll keep in touch,” perhaps there is a truth we speak when we say it. A hope. Perhaps a sort of promise. It is the audacious commitment that as Christ never withdrew His touch from those around Him, from the leper, from the sick, from the wealthy, from the poor, so too can we respond to the phone call from our once good friend who is just too busy with a simple, honest, and charitable, “I understand.”

Maybe then we’ll really have it all. In this way of grace, we’ll have all we need.