Forgive Me but I Disagree - LGBTQ Christians and Vatican Prouncements

LGBTQ CHRISTIANS in a

Universe of Christian Anathemas

"Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire

whether or not they are worthy." - Thomas Merton

"In God's love all are worthy." - R.E. Slater

Proposal: "Can We All Just Learn To Get Along," said Rodney King after he was Beaten by Police

Yes, I get it, having been raised in fundamentally conservative Christian fellowships with all their anathemas

As the church saying goes, "We proclaim who we are by proclaiming what we're against." But the LGBTQ community are people too, and the last time I read the bible God says, He loves everybody, not just those prideful few who declare themselves Christians by judging everyone else around them as less worthy of God than themselves.

Of course, by extending this argument I can be just as guilty of intolerance and unloving acts as my Christian brothers and sisters who proclaim that part of the church - their gay brothers and sisters - aren't worthy of God's love. So let's not do this. I cannot agree with the church's LGBTQ stance against gays without first recognizing a few things the recent Vatican ruling on March 16, 2021, had neglected....

What are they? Here's a few to start. Perhaps you might come up with a few more...

First Disagreement: Civil Democracies Cannot Exclude Societal Distinctions

On the matter of refusing fellowship with the LGBTQ community I would disagree with all similarly outcomed Catholic and Protestant rulings. Here's why....

Rather than splitting hairs over personal conduct our responsibility is to love and respect one another giving full equality of rights to every individual in a civil democracy.

But one might answer that the church isn't a civil democracy. And yet, isn't the church to take in all men and women in the gospel of Christ without distinction? To love all of God's children?

Since when is the church allowed to make a distinction of who is worthy for heaven and who is worthy of hell? I see a lot of heaven-bound Christians preaching and acting in hellish-bound ways. And this is the tragedy of Christian faiths which have become all about condemning rather than receiving and bringing in lost sheep to their folds.

This kind of Christian faith appeals to its legalistic heart, which is never a good thing to promote.

Second Disagreement: But the Bible Has Many Verses on Gay Sex

Yes it does. But was it the act, or the usury, of the other which the bible is protesting? And if the latter, since when do straight people get away with misusing or abusing one another in sexually addicted or unhealthy ways? A pure relationship is one which doesn't use the other for self-gratification.

I remember reading a gay Christian once who had reviewed at length every one of the major "gay sin verses" in the bible. He was quite thorough. His conclusion? Not quite what the typical conservative Christian would come up with.

Here's several starter stories which I have found to be helpful over the years: "Ask a Gay Christian" by Rachel Held Evans; "Tearing Down Walls of Oppression, Part 2/2," by Shane Claiborne; and, here, "Index - Homosexuality and Alternative Lifestyles".

Third Disagreement: Do We Emphasize the Act or the Relationship?

Rather than concentrating on the sexual act I might suggest we concentrate on the relationship - whether it is one of loving faithfulness or not. The attitude of love should spill over into how we treat one another.

However, one who is plagued by sexual addiction cannot easily rid themselves of its abusive mindedness (whether of one's self or of another). There is a world of pained psychosis, psyche, and suffering out there. Common morality rules fall apart with such individuals trying to survive themselves and their environments.

Sexual addiction is a long term problem involving perhaps one's self-worth, of feelings of worthlessness, of childhood abuse, of deep trauma, and so on. But sexual addiction and the condition of being a gay person are two different things. They are not even close to being in the same category too many of us foolishly lump together in our Christian dialectics.

To accuse a gay person of being a sex addict is both unbecoming, ignorant, unhelpful, and deeply divisive. I believe Christians can be wiser and more longsuffering towards both the gay communities and their harmed sisters and brothers than to bluntly state their personal biases and intolerance.

"Fall in love with God as the Fountain of all things.

Cultivate the virtue of compassion." - Thomas Merton

Fourth Disagreement: Are Straight, Heterosexual Relationships Any Less Different Than Gay Relationships?

If any sexual relationship is abusive, addictive, perverted or unhealthy in some way then let's generally agree that the individuals involved are working through some fairly complex issues in their lives. That mere external judgment cannot help or serve in any way as adequate replacements for constructive repair of the internally injured soul.

"For what we judge for one we must judge for all... even ourselves. Jesus said, 'First look to the plank in your own eye before attending to speck in the other's eye'" (Matthew 7.3).

"Isolating the gay act alone in judgmental huff-and-puff is unhelpful." - re slater

Fifth Disagreement: Faithfulness speaks to Covenant Fidelity.

If fidelity is warranted for heterosexual couples than it should be professed by gay couples as well - which is as true for those gays who do practice fidelity towards one another as they are similarly untrue for those heterosexuals who don't practice fidelity towards one another.

We should admit that there's plenty of failure on both sides of the aisle in this matter. But again, let's not overly focus on the sexual act but on the corporeal relationship between one another....

And why? Because all these disagreements are meant to lift one another up in welcoming embrace and love without distinction of personages. Thus, marriage, preaching, church ministries are to be encouraged and supported both for faithful gay and faithful non-gay couples. If it's good for one then its good for the other, and vice versa.

One last thought pertaining to unmarried couples... perhaps we should stretch out our definition of marriage a bit to those couples - whether same sex or straight - who do not marry but who remain in faithful fellowship to one another. 

There are many reasons people do not marry. And as many reasons for gay couples who do wish to marry but cannot and are prevented from marriage.

So apart from the civil contract, let's be a bit more understanding of one another and a lot less judgmental in our opinions. Christians are a judgmental lot when taken together. Let's unlearn these attitudes we have too easily accepted into our holier-than-thou circles of fellowship, shall we?

Sixth Disagreement: The Legal Status of Civil Unions Do Not Provide the Fullest Legalese Needed

We all know, or should know, that the legal status of civil unions do not provide the broadest possible legal protections and societal uplift as do monogamous gay marriage licenses under the law. From hospital rights to inheritance, from personal property settlement to societal acceptance, recognized civil unions are less robust than marital unions between couples.

In a civil democracy there should never be any status difference in relational covenants - whether gay or straight. We all know civil unions are not covered as broadly financially, tax-wise, medically, or legally as are marital rights as component structures of societal inclusion symbols.

The marital title is a more broadly accepted status over that of a civil union. It simply provides far more protection and safeguard. As such, gays wishing to marry must be wholly acceptable within a civil democracy to allow for their fullest civil and marital protections. And this should also include a church's positive doctrinal stances to err on the side of fellowship AND ministry within the body of Christ. In God there should never be a "distinction of personages."

Seventh and last Disagreement: Evolutionary Drift and Biological Outcome

Let's consider one last, and I think, one very substantial argument as a universal difference maker between gays and straights. This greatly will apply to the Trans-gay population who are caught betwixt-and-between sexual identities (cis, binary, non, neutral, etc).

That of evolutionary drift....

"Evolutionary drift recognizes nature's experimental differences between the human psyche, spirit, mindset, and physiology of one another. The LGBTQ community tells many stories, but the biological one is another story which should be considered. Do not accuse someone of something outside of their control." - re slater

When a person is born differently, as in the sexually amorphous, or the inspecific sexual identity sense of oneself, society must generously make allowances for the "acts of God" presented through nature which often creates a challenged universe for those gifted recipients.

These dear ones should be regarded as specially as we do ourselves. The simplest response we must have is the one deeply bearing love, kindness, respect, and understanding.

We are all driven by differing makeups and backgrounds. In a civil democracy we seek unity not division. And in religious faith, we should be seeking loving embrace over condemnatory acts of damnation.

"Learn to err on the side of compassion. It makes both society and your church all the better for the promise-keepers each communion avows to the other in a spirit of toleration with one another." - re slater

And forget the counseling component, unless its really needed.

The Christian organization Exodus learned a hard lesson when attempting to revoke, reduce, or remove an individual's biological makeup. It learned that no amount of counseling can help change another from being who they are.

More the rather, Exodus' well-intentioned ministries drove those loved ones to greater acts of anger, inconsolation, grief, guilt, even suicide. The lessons learned? "Never force one's religious views or dogmas on to another."

"God's love is not about force but about walking with one another through life's many challenges." - re slater

Alan Chambers and his wife, Leslie, respond to survivors of ex-gay therapy.
Exodus International Apologizes to LGBT Community

More probably the counseling lies with those of us who think we are the more whole than those different from us, whom we would judge as less fitting to our social or religious moral universe. Jesus said something along these lines when he said, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick," (Mt 9.12).

"The sick Jesus was referring to were the self-righteous and legalistic religious leaders who deigned to judge men they believed as unholy and condemned by God. Ironically, it was these same religious  leaders who could not see their own unholy offenses before God as they stood condemned in their own condemnations.

"Such moralists were known as hypocrites, saying one thing but doing another, as they went about speaking death into those around them. Learn to speak life into others instead. Do not be a hypocrite." - re slater

 

Learn then to live in peace with one another.

Even today's churches are trying to find their way through the vernaculars of past condemnatory creedal faith formulas as reported here in the Vatican news below. Yes, the Vatican failed its greater church fellowship by not recognising, nor receiving, gay fellowships into their ranks.

In time, perhaps, this may change, but for now, like their Protestant Church brethren, the Catholic Church stayed with its older, unrelenting attitudes against the LGBTQ community.

Lastly, I might suggest we rework our unhealthy religious statements and dogmas drilled into our heads and hearts in light of what we know of a loving God.... As versus an unloving God of judgment we too quickly proclaim to our shame along with our ungodly, ill-considered responses.

Peace, my friends, Peace. Learn to pursue Peace.

R.E. Slater

March 17, 2021

* * * * * * * * * *

Pope Francis celebrates mass on the occasion of 500 years of Christianity in the Philippines, in St. Peter's Basilica, at the Vatican, Sunday, March 14, 2021. (Tiziana Fabi/Pool photo via AP)

Vatican bars gay union blessing, says God ‘can’t bless sin’

article link here

by Nicole Winfield

ROME (AP) — The Vatican declared Monday that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions since God “cannot bless sin.”

The Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response to a question about whether Catholic clergy have the authority to bless gay unions. The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”

The note distinguished between the church’s welcoming and blessing of gay people, which it upheld, but not their unions. It argued that such unions are not part of God’s plan and that any sacramental recognition of them could be confused with marriage.

The note immediately pleased conservatives, disheartened advocates for LGBT Catholics and threw a wrench in the debate within the German church, which has been at the forefront of opening discussion on hot-button issues such the church’s teaching on homosexuality.

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for greater acceptance of gays in the church, predicted the Vatican position would be ignored, including by some Catholic clergy.

“Catholic people recognize the holiness of the love between committed same-sex couples and recognize this love as divinely inspired and divinely supported and thus meets the standard to be blessed,” he said in a statement.

The Vatican holds that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect, but that gay sex is “intrinsically disordered.” Catholic teaching says that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and woman, is part of God’s plan and is intended for the sake of creating ew life.

Since gay unions aren’t intended to be part of that plan, they can’t be blessed by the church, the document said.

“The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan,” the response said.

God “does not and cannot bless sin: He blesses sinful man, so that he may recognize that he is part of his plan of love and allow himself to be changed by him,” it said.

Francis has endorsed providing gay couples with legal protections in same-sex unions, but that was in reference to the civil sphere, not within the church. Those comments were made during a 2019 interview with a Mexican broadcaster, Televisa, but were censored by the Vatican until they appeared in a documentary last year.

While the documentary fudged the context, Francis was referring to the position he took when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires. At the time, Argentine lawmakers were considering approving gay marriage, which the Catholic Church opposes. Then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio instead supported providing legal protections for gays in stable unions through a so-called “law of civil cohabitation.”

Francis told Televisa: “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God.”

Speaking of families with gay children, he said: “You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

In the new document and an accompanying unsigned article, the Vatican said questions had been raised about whether the church should bless same-sex unions in a sacramental way in recent years, and after Francis had insisted on the need to better welcome gays in the church.

It was an apparent reference to the German church, where some bishops have been pushing the envelope on issues such as priestly celibacy, contraception and the church’s outreach to gay Catholics after coming under pressure by powerful lay Catholic groups demanding change.

In a statement, the head of the German bishops’ conference, Bishop Georg Bätzing, said the new document would be incorporated into the German discussion, but he suggested that the case was by no means closed.

“There are no easy answers to questions like these,” he said, adding that the German church wasn’t only looking at the church’s current moral teaching, but also the development of doctrine and the actual reality of Catholics today.

Bill Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, praised the decision as a decisive, non-negotiable “end of story” declaration by the Vatican.

“The Vatican left nothing on the table. The door has been slammed shut on the gay agenda,” Donohue wrote on the League’s website, calling the document “the most decisive rejection of those efforts ever written.”

In the article, the Vatican stressed the “fundamental and decisive distinction” between gay individuals and gay unions, noting that “the negative judgment on the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex does not imply a judgment on persons.”

But it explained the rationale for forbidding a blessing of such unions, noting that any union that involves sexual activity outside of marriage cannot be blessed because it is not in a state of grace, or “ordered to both receive and express the good that is pronounced and given by the blessing.”

And it added that blessing a same-sex union could give the impression of a sort of sacramental equivalence to marriage. “This would be erroneous and misleading,” the article said.

Esteban Paulon, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals, said the document was proof that for all of Francis’ words and gestures expressing outreach to gays, the institutional church wouldn’t change.

“Saying that homosexual practice — openly living sexuality — is a sin takes us back 200 years and promotes hate speech that unfortunately in Latin America and Europe is on the rise,” Paulon said. “That transforms into injuries and even deaths, or policies which promote discrimination.”

A similar note of exasperation was echoed in the Philippines, Asia’s largest Roman Catholic nation, where gay rights leader Danton Remoto said it simply wasn’t worth it to fight an old institution. “I keep on telling LGBTQ's to just have their civil unions done,” Remoto said. “We do not need any stress anymore from this church.”

Other critical commentators noted the Catholic Book of Blessings contains blessings that can be bestowed on everything from new homes and factories to animals, sporting events, seeds before planting and farm tools.

Juan Carlos Cruz, a Chilean survivor of sexual abuse who is gay and close to Francis, said the document was out of step with Francis’ pastoral approach and was tone deaf to the needs and rights of LGBT Catholics.

“If the Church and the CDF do not advance with the world ... constantly rejecting and speaking negatively and not putting priorities where they should be, Catholics will continue to flee,” he warned.

In 2003, the same Vatican office issued a similar decree saying that the church’s respect for gay people “cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.”

Doing so, the Vatican reasoned then, would not only condone “deviant behavior,” but create an equivalence to marriage, which the church holds is an indissoluble union between man and woman.

Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of the U.S.-based NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice and an advocate for greater LGBTQ inclusion in the church, said she was relieved the Vatican statement wasn’t worse.

She said she interpreted the statement as saying, “You can bless the individuals (in a same-sex union), you just can’t bless the contract.”

“So it’s possible you could have a ritual where the individuals get blessed to be their committed selves.”

___

AP writers David Crary in New York, Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Almudena Calatrava in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Jim Gomez in Manila, Philippines, contributed to this report.

What A Process God of Mystery Might Mean

 

To rely on mystery as an explanation is not sufficient for a coherent theology of God, nature or man. Conversely, one may never state with absolute certainty a surmise in an ever evolving cosmogony between God and creation. The best we can do is to approximate reality that it sufficiently explains pain and loss, joy and passion. In this might a theology be described as coherent but never static as a dynamically evolving system. - re slater

What A Process God of Mystery Might Mean

by R.E. Slater

Can There Be Another Way?

The process of deconstructing biblicism is evangelicalism's gateway to embracing mystery, as long as the biblicism is left behind. Otherwise it is a gateway to unbelief. - Anon

I am modifying a recent conversation I had with a friend of mine whom I have followed at a distance for quite some time. Someone whom I greatly respect and admire as much for their courage as for their creativity in the wake of decades long evangelical turmoil of what it's classicisms was to what it's theologies might become in light of the more recent movement towards Open and Relational (Process) Theology. As such, the author's name will simply be Anon to preserve their identity.

My questions came with the loaded word mystery which evangelical Chrsitians have long used to explain the conflicts between a good and loving God and the harm and suffering they, their friends and relatives, or the world in general must endure within a process world promising as much beauty as it does pain, suffering, horror, and tragedy. Whether by nature's floods and winds, or man's neglect and lack, or by purposeful evil committed by the wicked against humanity and nature's creaturely wonders.

So let's start with a general description of the problem of mystery as used by Christians and applied to a personal or familiar cases of grief, tragedy, illness, or death. For myself, I've never been comfortable in its applications. It relieves God of accountability and ourselves questioning our faith in the kind of God we have been taught and think we know.

The Many Usages of the Word of Mystery

I've summarized the slogans pictured below. There are many more but here are some of the ways God and mystery is used:

• Jesus Christ is the mystery of God (believing)
• One may unravel God's mysteries (knowing)
• God's Mind is a mystery (ontology)
• God's mystery is bound up in Jesus (believing)
• All is mystery from God's Self to the cosmos (metaphysics)
• Mystery can be revealed in the bible (epistemology/biblicism)
• Godliness is a mystery (ethics, morality, cultural/religious values)
• God reveals mysteries (knowing, biblicism)
• The mystery of God's care (love of God, ethics, morality)
• God must remain mystery (belief)
• The Persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are a mystery (belief)
• We live in mystery in order to accept good and bad outcomes (belief)

Is There a Way to Sum Up the Many

Pictures of Theological Mystery?

1 - The CLASSIC Version of MYSTERY

2 - The PROCESS Version of Mystery

3 - How BIBLICISM Complicates Mystery

* * * * * * * *

The CLASSIC Version of Mystery

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/mystery-theology

New Catholic Encyclopedia

A. Dulles

A hidden reality or secret. More specifically, in the theology of revelation, a truth that human beings cannot discover except from revelation and that, even after revelation, exceeds their comprehension. In addition to this primary meaning, which will be discussed in the present article, the term has other connected meanings that should be kept in mind: (1) in soteriology, the great redemptive acts of God in history, especially in Jesus Christ; (2) in the theology of worship, the sacramental reenactment of the redemptive deeds of Christ (see sacramental theology).

History of the notion

While the complete history of the term has yet to be written, the following high points may be noted.

Greek Fathers. The term μυστήριον is used by the Greek Fathers in many senses. They include the following: 1. The salvific counsels of God, hidden from all eternity in the divine mind, but partly manifested through His Prophets and especially through Christ. 2. The great salutary interventions of God in history, whereby He executes His salvific designs, including especially the decisive events of the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ. 3. The hidden senses of Scripture, especially the typological sense of the Old Testament, which looks forward to Christ and the Church. 4. The Sacraments, as ritual continuations of God's salvific actions in Christ. This sacramental use of the term μυστήριον did not become established until the fourth century, when the mystery religions were no longer serious competitors of Christianity. 5. The pagan cults and rites, for example, those of Eleusis, Attis, Osiris, Cybele, and Mithra (see mystery religions, greco-oriental). 6. In some of the Alexandrian writers (notably Clement), certain esoteric doctrines that, for fear of profanation, should be restricted to an elite among the faithful. 7. In Gregory of Nyssa, objects of mystical knowledge, such as were revealed to Moses and Paul in their ecstasies. 8. Especially in the fourth-century Fathers (Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, etc.), a revealed truth that even to faithful and educated Christians remains obscure by reason of its sublimity.

This last use of the term is particularly important in view of the later development of the notion. The theme of God's incomprehensibility, already set forth by Philo Judaeus in the first century, was strongly emphasized by the orthodox Fathers of the fourth century in opposition to the Eunomians, who maintained that God had so revealed Himself that the Christian believer could fully understand His essence. The anti-Eunomian Fathers developed a markedly negative (or "apophatic") theology, insisting on the total otherness and immeasurable majesty of God. As Rudolf Otto noted in his work, The Idea of the Holy [tr. J. W. Harvey (2d ed. New York 1958)], Chrysostom provides some of the finest expressions of the sense of the "numinous" in ancient Christian literature. With apt illustrations from the Bible, Chrysostom shows how the mysterious presence of the revealing God gives rise to sentiments of consternation, mental disarray, and trembling due to a combination of fear and delight.

In the sixth century, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite made effective use of the vocabulary, of the mystery religions to inculcate a sense of holy awe. His mystical works, translated into Latin by John Scotus Erigena (c. 850), were to influence the great scholastics, including thomas aquinas.

Latin Fathers and Doctors. In the West the Greek term μυστήριον, especially where it referred to Christian sacred rites, was generally translated  by sacramentum.  But mysterium was also uesd, both to designate the pagan mystery cults and to signify hidden truths,  including the hidden meanings of Scripture. St. Augustine  uses sacramentum and mysterium and almost interchangeably, but with slightly different connotations. Sacramentum refers primarily to the outwardly visible rite or symbol; mysterium refers to the hidden meaning behind it.

The medieval tradition was, on the whole, quite faithful to Augustine in its handling of the terms. Often mysterium was used to denote the spiritual or allegorical significance of Scripture.

St. Thomas Aquinas, relying on the etymology of the word, takes note of hiddenness or secrecy as fundamental to mystery (In Isaiam, prol.). In his theology, the divina mysteria are truths hidden in God, knowable to man only under the veils of faith. Very frequently in Thomas's writings mysterium occurs as the object of the verb credere. Following the biblical practice, he normally applies the term "mystery" not to the inner being of God, but to His redemptive counsels, whether already executed or still to be accomplished in eschatological times. Only on rare occasions does he call the Trinity a mystery, and then principally in connection with the Incarnation, which he terms "the most excellent of all mysteries" (Summa Theologiae 1a, 57.5 obj. 1). For example, in Summa Theologiae 1a2ae, 1.8 he distinguishes between the "secret of the Godhead" (occultum divinitatis, i.e., the Trinity) and the "mystery of Christ's humanity." Except in passages referring to the Eucharist, Thomas practically never calls the Sacraments mysteries. The consecrated wine, he says, is rightly called "mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei ) because the blood of Christ is not apparent to the senses (ibid. 3a, 78.3 ad 5).

Nineteenth Century. During the controversies with various rationalistic movements, mystery gradually emerged as a technical term in the Catholic theology of revelation. The semirationalists maintained that human reason, at least when sufficiently schooled under the tutelage of revelation, was in principle capable of comprehending and demonstrating all the dogmas of faith. From this it would follow that faith, in the sense of an assent to testimony, would not be required on the part of those who had reached full intellectual maturity. The doctrines of the leading semirationalists were severally condemned (H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963] 2738–2740, 2828–2831, 2850–2861). The Syllabus of Errors, reaffirming this stand, rejected the fundamental tenets of semirationalism (ibid. 2909–2914).

Vatican Council I, climaxing this development, solemnly defined that there are "true mysteries properly so called," that is, dogmas of faith that cannot be "understood and demonstrated by a properly cultivated mind from natural principles" (H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963] 3041). In the chapter corresponding to this definition, the council explained that by strict mysteries it meant truths "hidden in God that cannot be known unless divinely revealed" (ibid. 3015) and that "by their nature so transcend a created mind that even when communicated by revelation and accepted in faith, they remain covered by the veil of faith itself and as it were shrouded in obscurity, so long as in this mortal life 'we are exiled from the Lord, for we walk by faith and not by sight"' (ibid. 3016; cf. 2 Cor 5.6–7).

The council, in the passage just quoted, seems to imply that there will be no more mysteries in heaven, when the light of glory replaces the dimmer light of faith. This classical position of Catholic theology—which is also that of St. Thomas (In 1 epist. ad Cor. 2 lect. 1)—is supported by various biblical texts in addition to the one cited by the council (e.g., 1 Cor 13.9–12; 1 Jn 3.2). Nevertheless, it is well to note, as K. Rahner has several times insisted, that no created intellect can be elevated to the point where it will have absolutely comprehensive knowledge of God (cf. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963] 3001). Not even in heaven will God be appropriated as an object by the dynamism of the human ratio.

While stressing the negative note of incomprehensibility, Vatican I took pains to point out that "reason, enlightened by faith, when it diligently, reverently, and modestly inquires, by the gift of God, attains some understanding of mysteries, and that a most profitable one" (ibid. 3016). Such understanding is achieved by comparison of mysteries with things naturally known, with one another, and with the final destiny of man. In this way one may perceive the harmony between the natural and super-natural orders, the mutual coherence among the truths of faith, and the meaningfulness of the mysteries for man in his earthly pilgrimage. Although the concepts by which one knows mysteries are only remotely similar to the realities for which they stand, they afford a knowledge that is fully valid so far as it goes. Indeed, the contemplation of mysteries in this life can provide a kind of faint anticipation of the eternal vision enjoyed by the blessed.

Further speculation

In the struggle against rationalistic tendencies in the nineteenth century, the notion of mystery was gradually modified. Whereas the Fathers and medieval Doctors, thinking of mystery as something hidden within a sacramental presence, were inclined to regard the Incarnation as the supreme mystery, the nineteenth-century theologians, concentrating on the features of transcendence and obscurity, more frequently held with M. Scheeben that the Blessed Trinity is the "mystery of mysteries." In line with this tendency, Leo XIII referred to the dogma of the Trinity as "the greatest of all mysteries, since it is the fountain and origin of all" [Divinum illud munus; Acta Sanctae Sedis 29 (1897) 645].

In current Catholic teaching, three classes of divine mystery are commonly recognized. These are discussed below in the order of ascending sublimity.

Natural Mysteries. Naturally knowable truths that remain obscure because we lack proper and positive concepts of the realities involved are natural mysteries. While such mysteries may be found in the created order (e.g., animal instinct, human free will), they are preeminently verified in God, by reason of the extreme deficiency of the created analogies by which we know Him. For example, the divine freedom is far more a mystery than human freedom, for our experience affords no clue as to how freedom can be present in an immutable subject.

Supernatural Mysteries in the Wide Sense. Truths concerning the created order that are not knowable without revelation but that, once revealed, are free from any special obscurity are supernatural mysteries in the wide sense; for example, the primacy of the Roman pontiff in the Church. Such a fact, being dependent on God's free disposition, could not be known without revelation, but after being revealed it has an intelligibility comparable to that of other juridical notions.

Supernatural Mysteries in the Strict Sense. Those truths that cannot be known without revelation and that, even after revelation, remain obscure to us by reason of the sublimity of their object are supernatural mysteries in the strict sense. Three principal mysteries are normally recognized as belonging to this class: (1) the Trinity (H. Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963]3225), which is the mystery of the communication of divine life within the Godhead; (2) the Incarnation (ibid. 2851), which is the supreme supernatural communication of the divine life to a created nature; and (3) the elevation of finite persons to share, through grace or glory, in the divine life (ibid. 2854). All other supernatural mysteries (e.g., original sin, the Eucharist, the Church as a supernatural communion, predestination) are commonly held to be reducible to the three central mysteries just named.

Supernatural mysteries in the strict sense, since they concern realities of the divine order, are beyond the comprehension of any created intellect. Their special obscurity comes from the fact that they have to do with God, not merely under those aspects in which He is directly mirrored by creatures (as, for instance, His goodness is reflected in the goodness of creatures), but precisely under those aspects wherein, thanks to His immeasurable transcendence, created analogies break down (see analogy, theological use of). Because the generation of living creatures only remotely resembles generation within the Godhead, we cannot reason from the former to the latter. Even after revelation, we cannot see the inner grounds that account for the fact. Revelation tells us that there are three Persons in God, that one of them has become man, and that men are called to be sharers of God's inner life. But it does not explain how such things can be.

During the early part of the twentieth century, a controversy arose as to whether we could know without revelation that there are any strict mysteries in God. Many competent theologians (e.g., C. Pesch, I. Ottiger, H. Dieckmann) replied in the negative, but others (e.g., R. Garrigou-Lagrange, M. D. Roland-Gosselin) held that we can definitely establish that there must be in God perfections that lack any counterpart in the created order, so that we could not learn them without revelation or, even after revelation, understand their internal possibility.

Apologetical considerations

Apologetics must show that the Christian notion of strict mystery is meaningful and credible. This task is necessary, for modern rationalism and scientism have sometimes claimed that in view of the unlimited possibilities of rational and scientific progress, all truths of revelation can eventually be reduced to strictly demonstrative knowledge.

To this object one may reply, with K. Rahner, that the human mind is so structured that it necessarily grasps particular limited objects against the horizon of the unconditioned and indefinable, the Absolute. Since this Absolute is the ground of all intelligibility, the human mind, even before it is the faculty of comprehension, is the faculty of mystery. The revealed mysteries of Christianity enrich our knowledge of the Absolute by certifying that God can communicate His divine life and draw near in grace without compromising His utter transcendence. But because all these truths have reference to the inner being of the Absolute, which outstrips objective concepts, the Christian mysteries can never be rationally or scientifically demonstrated.

Religious phenomenology, by showing that the notion of mystery is a constant feature of human religion, has underscored the value of mystery. All vital religions, as R. Otto recognized, live off a numinous experience of the divine presence, which arouses sentiments of awe and fascination. Men have always suspected that if God communicates with us, He must do so in a mysterious way, imparting deep and inscrutable secrets. Scheeben was therefore able to argue that the mysteries of the Christian faith, far from making it incredible, support its claim to be God's supreme self-revelation. If Christianity were devoid of mystery, he added, it could not stir and hold men as it does.

Modern Personalism. Approaching the question from another point of view, modern personalistic philosophers (such as M. Scheler, G. Marcel, and J. Lacroix) have shown that an element of mystery is inseparable from genuinely personal knowledge. Spirit as such is never deductively proved or experimentally verified; it is normally discerned through the signs by which it freely manifests itself. When a man reveals himself to a friend, he opens up something of the mystery of his own being. If God wishes to reveal Himself and draw human beings into friendship, He must share with them His own inner mystery. The human relationship of personal intercommunion therefore provides a fruitful analogy by which to approach the revealed mystery of our supernatural communion with God. In this perspective, mystery appears less as a particular datum of revelation than as a dimension in which the entire relationship of revelation and faith unfolds.

Bibliography:

a. michel, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 15 v. (Paris 1903–65) 10:2–2585; Eng.

tr., c. j. moell, Mystery and Prophecy (West Baden Springs, Ind. 1954).

k. rahner, "The Concept of Mystery in Catholic Theology," Theological Investigations 4 (Baltimore 1966) 36–73.

m. j. scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, tr. c. vollert (St. Louis 1946). Le Mystère: Semaine des intellectuals catholiques, Paris, Nov. 18–25, 1959 (Paris 1960).

j. macquarrie, Mystery and Truth (Milwuakee 1973). History of the notion.

b. neunheuser, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 10 v. (Freiburg 1957–65) 7:729–731, with literature.

f. cavallera and j. danielou, Introduction to j. chrystostome, Sur l'incompréhensibilité de Dieu (Sources chrétiennes 28; Paris 1951).

h. rahner, Greek Myths and Christian Mystery, tr. b. battershaw (New York 1963).

p. visentin, "Mysterium-sacramentum dai padri alla scolastica," Studia Patavina 4 (1957) 394–414, with literature.

a. m. hoffmann, "Der Begriff des Mysteriums bei Thomas von Aquin," Divus Thomas 17 (Fribourg 1939) 30–60.

m. a. vacant, Études théologiques sur les constitutions du concile du Vatican, 2 v. (Paris 1895).

The PROCESS Version of Mystery

by R.E. Slater

The process of deconstructing biblicism is evangelicalism's gateway to embracing mystery, as long as the biblicism is left behind. Otherwise it is a is gateway to unbelief. - Anon

What is Biblicism? Long story short, treating the Bible like it’s a book designed to settle through proof texting complex theological questions. - Anon

Why Biblicism Is Unhelpful

When reading Anon's statement it pretty much subsumed my own feelings towards the use of mystery within evangelical theology. If the actions of God conflicted with our ideas of who God is then the evangelical fallback position has typically fallen upon "mystery". Examples abound such as, " How could a loving God do this to these people? To His own people? To those tragic innocents caught up in the upheavals of the natural or immoral world?" Answer: "All is a mystery."

As an open and relational process theologian I cannot accept this kind of usage of the word mystery. It leaves too many holes in the usages of language. In Process Theology we may aver that God is a God of love. Accepted. That the future is unknown and therefore pregnant with possibility. Accepted. That God is a God of relationships to all created things, including to this present world and man. Accepted. That God's love was fully shown in Jesus. Even God's very Self. Accepted.

So then, when I read of God committing unloving (sic, ungodly or un-god-like) acts in the bible I have a problem. When I hear or read of God's followers committing wickedness upon others because God told them do this or that thing which is unloving towards others (or towards nature) I have a problem. When despicable acts of evil are portrayed in the bible as God ordained, I have a problem. When the Church declares God is avenging, revengeful, or is vindictively judgmental, I have a problem. When Church dogma insists that a loving God created Hell and casts damned souls into it, yes, I have a problem.

These ungodly theological assertions and creeds are contrary to who God is. They are not consistent with God's portrayal of Himself as a relational God of love who assists us to overcome the evil we find in life in a way which might lead others back to repentance and wholeness.

So what am I to do? The conflict lies in the reading of the bible most assuredly... as it is in those pages of the Old and New Testaments where the ancients wrote what they believed they knew and were convinced of in their beliefs. However, I am not. I cannot read the bible literally. The bible cannot be for me an unassailable monument to the monstrosity of God. It's reading by others and interpretations of its ancient script must be consistent with God's love or not conjoined at all in my mind or heart.

A Normative Process Reading of the Bible

It is here open and relational process theologians begin to disagree with the classicisms of older church theologies. They long for consistency in the God of love to whom they testify and from which God Himself tells us who He is. The bible breaks down for us in a good way when it no longer holds a place on the altars of worship or inerrant decree. We'll go as far as saying, yes, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but in its inspiration it was written by cultures oriented to worldviews looking at God through their own vernaculars or religious lenses.

As such, the bible is sensibly read when it is not literally read. It is better read as a collection of ancient narratives containing some truths, some legends, and some religious beliefs about who God is and how God works in the world. Some two to four thousand years later, after many wars, environmental collapses, culturally constructed philosophies and theologies, we in the 21st Century must be forgiven for looking back on history and presuming there must be a better way for religion to move forward than to enforce age old societal grievances with one another, inhumanitarian treatment of each other, or be content with the cultural racisms and discriminations of our fellow neighbour and friend. Our sisters and brothers.

Yes, classic theology and the classic way of reading the bible in literal fashion is unhelpful. When reading the bible it shouldn't be read using spiritualized analogies or symbolisms. Nor as a mystery book we will never be able to understand. Nor even by angelic tongues. None of these church approaches are viable today. Nor should the bible be read using pet "hermeneutical interpretations" overlaying it (protestantism and catholicism is rife with theological interpretations presuming the text, or conforming the text to prior religious beliefs).

The bible is a collection of ancient worldviews expressing in inconsistent manner from one cultural era to the next, era-specific societal views of God. We are free to dissect these beliefs in every way possible, and for the open and relational process theologian, to construct them in a more viable reading towards enlivening human society with goodwill, peace, and love. Especially as it looks forward to yesterday's tomorrows through glasses full of possibility and opportunity.

A Running Discussion on Mystery I Had Held Online One Day

RES - I'm very much dissatisfied with the mystery approach. Yes, do away with biblicism and literalism. That would be great!! That approach has provided nothing but ungodly creedal dogmas and harmful unhumanitarian actions. I would rather read the bible as a collection of ancient regional beliefs about God kept by local religious lore and legends. It shows why the bible has so much variance within it which wrongly attributes evil actions to a loving God rather than to the ungodly religious cultures holding such unloving beliefs. This then allows today's contemporary cultures to read the bible in other, more consistently loving ways. This means that if God is loving as He claims than all "biblically" unloving actions of God are untrue. Even those which are written in the bible. Such narratives tells us not about God but of the religions of those eras. As such, the bible is better read through the open and relational process perspective (ORPT). It also discourages present day churches from hateful dogmas of not loving certain segments of society or claiming God teaches such cruel beliefs as "biblical" when they clearly are not. The mystery beliefs can then be rightfully abandoned and better absorbed into the ORPT approach - if one must to cling mystery. But much of the so called evangelical mystery statements are better answered within ORPT's Christian approach.

KA - Russ Slater, I’ve never heard someone put ORPT down on paper, but have thought that way a ton. It allows the Spirit to interpret. I do believe that mystery can go along with that. The Orthodox Church tends to point towards mysteries as an explanation [in place of their] systematic theology. Which again, I believe allows the Spirit to interpret to the individual.

Russ Slater - Thanks KA. I never had heard of ORPT either until falling into it while writing alone years ago. I much later discovered there were many of my contemporaries who were developing it for public consumption. Pick any of the Whiteheadian process guys (Cobb, Merlitt, Epperley, etc; or popular ORT figures like Thomas Jay Oord and the Center for ORT begun a year or two ago. My rant against mystery was a rant against my dead-ended faith  I was raised and trained in. One which saw God as both evil and good. Who is vengeful and avenging. Who hates sinner and sinning saint. It held to a controlling, determining God with a closed future, and a hardlined, literal bible, with no ability to explain the contradiction of hell except its where sinners go. Mystery, when used by this group, is a stale, bleak usage for a process God of love through and through. A God who opens up a possibility world to us from the many becoming possibilities which may become around us, starting with ourselves as much as with God Himself in His experience of the world. Those descriptors are positive, healthy, nurturing mysteries for me. But the other type of God I find expressed in classical theology is unhealthy and unnurturing. The God who threatens, cajoles, and creates evil around me, or towards me, and to the world in general. It is inconsistent with who God is and was as exampled in His (Christ's) atoning, reconciling ministry and love for and to us. The motto "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD) applies equally to the OT God as to the NT God. Open and Relational Process Theology (ORPT) says there is a more consistent, mystery-filled path to travel than the faerie kind of tale I've been raised to believe. Blessings.

Anon - Russ Slater, I think we might be using mystery in two different ways.

Russ Slater - Thx. Please enlighten!

Anon - It seems you are thinking of mystery as a “get out of theological trouble” card, which is how it is sometimes used...you know, “How can a good God order the extermination of the Canaanites?" Answer: “Mystery of God.” I am using it in more its contemplative sense, where we simply acknowledge, by grace, that God is infinitely knowable and therefore always outside of our knowing.

Russ Slater - Anon. Sounds good. Thx.

Russ Slater - Anon. One last... I prefer the word relatability to the word knowability. I came to the subject using Open and Relational Process Theology rather than standard evangelical Platonic arguments for the harm we experience as people in a process filled world. Here, God is infinitely relatable as the first process even as God is infinitely loving with no diminishment within an unfolding process-filled world. If mystery lies anywhere it is:

(1) how God's relatability subtends all future becoming processes which may be as much loving as they can be unloving. This latter relational moment is answered by the phrase "indeterminate creational agency" as versus the classic "determinative theistic agency" response. This latter speaks to God being something other than God isn't. A God who purposely directs ill upon creation. The former speaks to a loving God birthing agency even in the act of birthing loving process.

(2) The greater mystery which captures me lies not in God's Being as a loving God and all that this means, but in what God Himself is Becoming when He had initiated the first process to all future process of creational becoming. Mystery leaves the future undefined, calling us to enter in bringing the godly essences of wellbeing, care, love, and valuation into its unfolding process even as God is calling us to do, and is doing Himself.

(3) Lastly, the mystery lies in even the act of "loving and becoming" as a series of processes which strive against other less kinder processes wishing to quell the subtending originating processes working against it. In sum, the metaphysic and ontologic meets the teleologic. All driven by unknowable relational process. Hence, divine relatability is the higher preference over the human capacity of knowability. Two approaches from two different perspectives. One process, the other classicism Thx!

Anon - Russ Slater, Very helpful. I don’t have a quibble. For me, knowing is a relational notion. I’ve gotten a lot out of contemplatives like Rohr, Keating, Teilhard, Brourgeault. Throw in some brain science, consciousness, panentheism. The parameters of classical theism do not add up well in my opinion to our current [evangelical] context [of reading the bible].

Russ Slater - Agreed. My new word last year which I was attempting to get head around was Whiteheadian process panpsychism and panexperientialism. The latter I got, no problem. But the cosmic panpsychism category I had to separate from the 70s new ageism and far eastern mysticism (let's throw enneagram charts and astrology in with this too). When I did, it started to make sense when referring back to Whitehead's "Philosophy of Organism" bespeaking the cosmic energy or panpsychic feeling of creation of its parts to the whole, and the whole to its parts. All bespeaking of relationality or relatability or even relational-ness. At which point the Genesis account of the birth of consciousness fell immediately into place. That is, "Adam and Eve's" consciousness was far more primal then pertaining to the human species alone (I'm speaking in my past evangelic voice here). "Consciousness" or "feeling" (in the cosmic quantum energy sense) is innate within creation itself as radiation and gravitational forces to mention a few. God birthed creation as an "panpsychic living organism" with "feelings, connections, etc." (Whitehead is hard to put into words on this subject). But the bottom line, (cosmic)panpsychism goes all the way down even as it goes all the way up. In the evolutionary sense, humanity has no corner on the consciousness block of creatures or creation. Consciousness is innate within the very process of creation itself. Thus the psalmists may sing that "the trees may clap their hands and hills rejoice." Yes, poetic metaphor, but we can have fun with it and stretched it out a bit beyond its originating setting. Blessings.

R.E. Slater

March 8, 2021

* * * * * * * *

How BIBLICISM Complicates Mystery

Biblical Literalism complicates the understanding of the word mystery by placing the bible in such a way as not to be read for how it is but for what it isn't. Rather than reading the bible for its many good and bad beliefs of God we try to justify its bad with its good. Why? Because we tell ourselves the bible should never be questioned.

Yet by reading the bible literally prevents us from distinguishing good theology in the bible from bad theology in the bible. From distinguishing what-and-who God is when accepting all the scripted words-and-deeds of God portrayed in it's narratives without question.

How? When reading the bible as fully inspired of God and fully inerrant, these religious a prior assumptions prevent the faithful reader any ability to see past any of the bad beliefs about God in its day. Beliefs which later were passed along as gospel into oral legacy and solidified in collected written manuscripts which later became canonized.

What has been the outcome? Bad teachings of God have come along with good teachings of God. Yes, the result should be expected but we should also reconsider how we use the dogmatic word inspiration.

How Moses may have understood God was different from the early prophets, from the kings, from the latter prophets, from the people of their eras, and from Israel's religious leaders in their eras.

The bible went through a lot of life versions of others by insight, hard experience, and in the good. It was remembered in many different timeful settings. And it was preserved under a temple system much, much later removed from the actual occasions of the actual history or their oral recitations.

For us to read the bible today without reflecting on the how or why ungodly genocides were religiously approved, or harsh cultural laws were carried out (stonings for one), does not begin to reflect on how a loving God could be reimagined by religious people in such deeply painful and harmful ways.

But I think the bible stories were collected as much to show us what not to accept as to what to accept if for nothing more than to distinguish and reflect how other religious cultures in their day responded to their gods by their own human beliefs, words and deeds.

The church throughout history has been no less different than that of Israel in it's days as we read of it's tyrannies, atrocities, and horrors all enforced under the cruel banners purportedly believed coming from a loving God. Forgive me, but not all of Israel or the church's religious decrees and deeds are of God but of man. Templating God in man's image is always a bad idea.

And this is what you get with a literal bible: Something which cannot be tampered with because we have accepted the unquestioning bald belief that "the Holy Spirit infallibly inspired its words through "holy" men and women to communicate God's inspired divine wishes" (Inspiration).

And worse, "Nor can those originating inspired words be tampered with because they are God given" (Inerrancy).

By these creedal dictums have resulted the worse of religion in God's name.

And though God did inspire in some way through the good and evil instructions of well-meaning religious men and women in their societies, it was always towards enacting the Spiritos words of loving, forgiving, and repenting so that other men and women might be helped when beholding God's acts of love, mercy, forgiveness, and atoning redemption.

And when based on limited freewill agency (e.g., limited because we cannot control where we are born, the environment we live within, our cultures, and societal prejudices) we are the ones which bring hell upon our heads, not God.

Nor does God control our destinies. But provides opportunities for us to work with Him towards possible outcomes within the tortured paths life may have bound us upon to tread. 

The future is open because God, in His love, and not by His divine fiat, must give to His creation an open future. It's how love works. By God's love all creation has agency.

And words and phrases like predestination and God is in control cannot operate in an environment of divine love. Love does not fate futures but grants futures unlimited possibilities for good or for ill.

Love is love all the way through. Our destinies and futures are our own. And with God's help we try to make it what it can be as we walk along paths of love and forgiveness.

The downside of agency is of course, the misuse of it, or misapplication of it. Such things we call "sin and evil." The burden we bear is the burden of agency. It is a lifelong pandora's box of beauty and shame.

Finally, a process theology (1) rejects biblical literalism; (2) It qualifies what is meant by divine inspiration of the bible; (3) And rejects biblical inerrancy as a harmful, even magical, wish-fulfillment genie lamp to help reinforce biblical inspiration.

Process theology strives to read all the possible versions of the bible which best comports with God's love and loving actions.

Process theology rejects and opposes all religiously accepted and practiced asceticisms, leaglisms, self-righteous prides, unloving deeds, and bigoted hypocrisies which have too easily been preached in the church and transcribed onto unloving creedal doctrines justifying the church's continued malfeasance, social injustices and inhumanitarian actions towards sinful nonbelievers.

God is in the business of love. God's people should be in the business of love too. To impose ourselves as God's reapers of tares and weeds is not our mission. Our mission is to love as God loves building individuals, families, and communities into supportive, beneficial, and nourishing entities of peace and wellbeing.

R.E. Slater

Marcy 18, 2021

* * * * * * * *

Biblical Literalism (excerpts)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Biblicism)

Biblical literalism or biblicism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense",[1] where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical".[2]

Alternatively, the term can refer to the historical-grammatical method, a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre. It emphasizes the referential aspect of the words in the text without denying the relevance of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor).[3] It does not necessarily lead to complete agreement upon one single interpretation of any given passage. This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians,[4] in contrast to the historical-critical method of mainstream Judaism or Mainline Protestantism. Those who relate biblical literalism to the historical-grammatical method use the word "letterism" to cover interpreting the Bible according to the dictionary definition of literalism.[5]

Background

Fundamentalists and evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as literalists or biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also biblical inerrancy. The term "biblical literalism" is often used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.[6][7][8]

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."[9]

Clarity of the text

The vast majority of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians regard the Biblical text as clear, and believe that the average person may understand the basic meaning and teachings of the Bible. Such Christians often refer to the teachings of the Bible rather than to the process of interpretation itself. The doctrine of clarity of the text does not mean that no interpretative principles are necessary, or that there is no gap between the culture in which the Bible was written and the culture of a modern reader. On the contrary, exegetical and interpretative principles come into play as part of the process of closing that cultural gap. The doctrine does deny that the Bible is a code to decipher,[20] or that understanding it requires complex academic analysis as is typical in the historical-critical method of interpretation.

Biblical literalists believe that the story of Noah's ark (depicted in this painting by Edward Hicks) is historically accurate.

Biblical literalists believe that, unless a passage is clearly intended by the writer as allegory, poetry, or some other genre, the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements by the author. Critics argue that allegorical intent can be ambiguous. Fundamentalists typically treat as simple history, according to its plain sense, passages such as those that recount the Genesis creation, the deluge and Noah's ark, and the unnaturally long life-spans of the patriarchs given in genealogies of Genesis, as well as the strict historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural interventions of God in history, and Jesus' miracles.[21][22] Literalism does not deny that parables, metaphors and allegory exist in the Bible, but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on apparent authorial intention.[23]

As a part of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,[24] conservative Christian scholarship affirms the following:

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. 

The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

Short Takes - God, Time, Process, and Today

FIRST PERSPECTIVE

Its very popular to ask whether God can exist outside of time. The short answer is no. Yes, logically it feels better to imagine a God who is beyond us in some spiritual realm of dimensionless space but it is a moot question. It has no meaning to us except that it makes us feel good. If God was beyond us then there would be no us. Creation would cease to exist. Nor could we ever answer this question as we would cease to exist. However, God and space (used in the quantum mechanic sense of "spacetime", e.g. think Einstein et al) must ever exist the one with the other. If there were no God there is no space. It ceases to exist. And conversely, if there were no space, logically God ceases to exist in any meaningful way to our creation-bound spacetime dimensions. Thus God and space have ever existed one with the other and ever will exist one with the other. Whatever "spirit realm" people are referring to is either part of a higher spacetime dimension or existent in some logical world that cannot exist in any of the multidimensional multiverses math and physics have posited may exist. For myself, this "spirit realm world" is the here-and-now. To caretake each other and the planet around us. We are part of a larger process of goodness and love and should contribute all time and energy in bringing into being (or nurturing) valuative processes in the lives and habitats of all around us. This is a godly thing. A godly act. A godly use of rightful agency. Let's begin today. Living in tomorrow's future promises of a spirit realm is as meaningless as living our existence here without rightfully, spiritually, contributing to it. Whatever this heavenly spirit realm is, our spirit realm now is here, with each other, in this dying planet.

R.E. Slater

March 10, 2021

SECOND PERSPECTIVE

On a protoplasmic quantum level space-time exists bc of its relationship to energy-matter. In the Big Bang all was energy but within its space all was timeless. That is, time went to zero and joined with infinity. Time's relationship to energy-matter (radiant forces) was all bound up in one dimensional timeless space. And, for that matter, spaceless space. The kind of space which has but one dimension (not zero dimensions as it would cease to exist. Cease to be space). One can lose time in space but one cannot lose space. Conclusion: time is always defined in terms of its relationship to space of whatever dimension. This means that in Whiteheadian terms of process, moments and events compose life and reality. The Platonic ideas of Eternal Objects become phenomenological expressions of a moment-by-moment event-filled reality but upon relationships between processes.

Secondly, for God to be "outside of time" is impossible. God may be "timeless" (in the one dimensional sense, not the zero dimensionless sense as this latter is nonsense). But God must always exist in the space created by energy-matter forces. So the better question to ask is if God can exist apart from a quantum void of energy-matter.

A panentheist (not pantheist) would say no, God and creation have ever been one together per the idea of "creatio continua." For the theist, they'll say yes, per their ideas of "creatio ex nihilo". But in a quantum universe you can only have the former sense. Granted, in a philosophical logic argument you can have the latter. But the latter is meaningless to us. It only says God can be apart from creation which is a moot point. If God was apart from creation then we, as creation, would never know this. Further there would be no creation us to think these though. Nor, for God to create from. Why? Physics states: "Something cannot come from nothing." Hence, the question of God being outside of spacetime is meaningless except to reinforce the idea that God and creation ever were and ever will be. Apart from that, there can be no "now". Time only exists in relation to energy matter. For God to be beyond time is impossible as the universe is quantumtatively constructed, though logically argued to make God feel bigger to us. Yet the logic fails in the relational reality of physics.

R.E. Slater

March 10, 2021