Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

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

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern, Quantum Age

Introduction

Christian Apologetics is an area of theology that defends the Christian faith as that faith is understood by various Christian denominations, sects, and church organizations. It is popular precisely because it lends comfort to Christians caught in a vortex of God-skepticism and denial. Who long for helpful epistemological arguments that can resolve the paradox between faith, and reality's perception by other's not-of-the-Christian-faith. Especially when confronted by the agnostic college professor or disbelieving buddy at work who have all the right arguments for why a Christian should not have faith in a God who is hidden behind His creation, and hidden to the eyes of the world seeking for truth and knowledge.

However, for the seeking Christian believer, we know these agnostic or atheistic arguments to be specious. Whether we look up-and-around, or within-and-through, we everywhere see God's essence, or imprimatur, stamped throughout His creation. For some, seeking to prove God from nature, they have devised a Natural Theology that is biblically based to do just that.... Though the more preferred way of proving God's existence has been through His revealed revelation in the Bible: using biblical theology apprehended through the eyes of faith to tell of church doctrines steeped in biblical expose.

But for most, it has simply been the experience of God's grace and mercy that has confidently led to God's reality with the discover that in Jesus has God's grace and mercy been found at its highest zenith. Without Divine love's outreach the faithful of God would simply be sycophants worshipping a dead image of their own making (which is ever the fell temptation of godly followers commonly demonstrating a religious faith instead of a living faith).

And precisely because God is a God of faith and love is the very crux of the problem of Christian apologetics... one cannot objectively prove God's existence, much less God's presence in our lives. At least not scientifically. Nor by logical argumentation. It has to be seen with the "inner eye of faith" or felt by the "outer demonstration of God's love" in some fashion to us disbelieving masses of sinful cynics and skeptics. And when done, too often many think to approach God in a mystical, magical experience (through nature, cultic worship, dreams, deprivations, etc). Or to discover Him in what we do - by our good deeds, our self flagellations, our stoic lives of self-denial, or even in life's hedonistic excesses. But for the seeker of God we have best found God by His historic presence through Jesus, the Incarnate Messiah, who showed to us our Creator-Redeemer fully God, and fully come as man. The Lover of our Souls. The high and holy One who visited man in his sin and shame. This God - the God who is Jesus - is the God who best gives to us our faith, our love, our adoration and commitment. Who preferred the designate of "Son of Man" indicative of His divinity, even as he claimed the title "Son of God" indicative of His Kingship (in the line of David).

A Postmodern Witness

More recently, the church has come under the fire of postmodernism wishing for the church to abandon modernism's secularity and its modernist epistemologies for the proof of God. Though the church longs for a broader conversation with the world, the use of intellectual posturing by philosophical argument and scientific proofs, as its primary offense weapons aren't really God's way who leads out by our faith, by our good works in Jesus, by our love, mercy, forgiveness, humility, and reconciliation, even as He did in His own ministry as Jesus.

Apologetics as a discipline always has the goal of demonstrating God by logical validity and metaphysical certainty. But faith-and-love are not always logical enterprises, so that by concentrating the Christian witness on making apologetics more primary as an argument for the Christian faith can become a way to avoid spiritual demonstrations of the faith by not reaching out to others in God's love - pretending instead that we are witnessing to God's truth. But for many of us, we are challenged everyday by these spiritual enterprises of faith-and-love, and too often simply retreat to tell ourselves "no one is listening, and so I will prove God to them instead," rather than being willing to bear love's scars of burden-bearing, receptive listening, and true personal forgiveness. Or, faith's mercies of receiving at God's hand the ministrations of others into our desperate lives seeking forgiveness - whether coming from the world or from the church itself. These things are too difficult, and we would rather flee-and-hide-and-argue for God than to live out God before others in sacrificial love and service, or to receive ministrations of grace and mercy from His hand through the hands of others.

Succinctly, apologetical arguments only work to ease the doubts of people who already are believers. But if someone should come along to argue for a different view of the Bible (as we seem to be doing here at Relevancy22), or a different way of thinking about God (ditto), than too suddenly does that believer fall from his/her faith, filled with uncertainty and doubt, questioning God and themselves (which in my view is not at all counterproductive but perhaps quite helpful if conducted in the Spirit of God's strength and discernment, guidance and leadership). Too often we find our simple explanations for our God, our faith, our Bible, filled with holes... holes which we do not know how to stop-up. Nor plug and fill. Which cause us to slip in what we thought the Christian faith was all about. Though more often than not, we simply had listened to the wrong arguments from sincere followers of Jesus, but sincerely bounded within their enculturated church traditions, speaking to things that are not simply there, though they had supposed them to be there by many words spoken passionately and with heart-felt affection.

According to Myron Bradley Penner in his book The End of Apologetics, he wonders aloud "how useful Christian Apologetics might be for a Christian witness today within the postmodern context." Certainly, showing how belief in God can be reasonable is helpful, but mostly the Christian argument falls on the ears of fellow-believing Christians rather than on those non-Christians confused about Jesus' relevancy for our world today. Asking "Why God is worshipped through Jesus?" Or, "Why does Jesus' claims to be God really matter?" Or, "Why any of this might be meaningful to their worlds of toil and trouble, ecstasy or delight."

Penner goes on to state that modern apologetics unwittingly carries forward the very nihilism found in modernity's core... that by trying to reduce Christianity to a set of objective, universal, and neutral propositions, it subtly undermines the very gospel it seeks to defend. Nor does it offer a good alternative to the skepticism and ultimate meaninglessness of the modern secular condition (pg 49).

Ultimately, we end up with a Jesus-free apologetics that tells us of an anonymous Designer rather than of a Triune, Crucified, and Resurrected God. For some, yes, this might be a first step towards Jesus. But when arguments become the focus for God's existence it too easily ends up as a "God of the philosophers." At which point we are every bit as lost as a disbelieving atheist or pandering agnostic. Thus, trying to argue people into the faith in a postmodern era can be ineffective and counterproductive for most. It is far better to live Jesus out, and to tell who Jesus is, in a living, relevant witness by good works and deeds, faith and love.

Process Theology for a Quantum Age

Process theology tells of a Creator-Redeemer who speaks to us through a process of apprehension and report in our daily lives as we grow in maturity, acumen, experience, and delivery. And within this process we soon discover that even God Himself daily changes to His everyday experiences of the world. For both God and ourselves, we most richly experience this world through relationships to it, as to one-another. If we were not relational creatures than this world would hold no meaning. This theological aspect is known as Relational-Process Theology, and may be found on this blog's many sidebars under a variety of topics.

---

Process Theology [Wikipedia]

"...It is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes, an idea that conflicts with traditional forms of theism that hold God to be in all respects non-temporal (eternal), unchanging (immutable), and unaffected by the world (impassible). Process theology does not deny that God is in some respects eternal, immutable, and impassible, but it contradicts the classical view by insisting that God is in some respects temporal, mutable, and passible.[2]

Process theology is unrelated to the Process Church.

Process theology is an internally diverse field and while there are general directions that they all take, there are many ongoing debates such as on the nature of God, the relationship of God and the world, immortality, and interreligious dialogue.

---

Within a postmodern era, Process Theology does the best job of describing who God is, why He is, and what He is doing. In short, God is a personal God who is personally (and fully) involved in His creation. An involvement that is non-coercive (as respecting nature's indeterminate randomness, and humanity's free will); that is weak (He leads by example through the demonstrable weakness of the Cross when crucified by men); that is apocalyptic (it turns all worlds upside-down when entering in as Jesus converts); that is teleological (a paradox that tells of God's purposeful renewal into a world that lives on its own terms seemingly without God); that is interdependent and interconnected upon His own creation (where each party gives life, definition, and meaning, to the other).

This in no way lessens God's sovereignty, nor His mission via the Spirit and church, nor His own Being's essence. It simply broadens out the complexity of this life as we think we know it. However, it does show to us God's pervasive presence and mitigating essence blending into the frame-and-foundation of our cosmos and within our own lives. Rather than being an interventionist God exacting His divine will upon His minions (meticulous sovereignty), or a deterministic God who controls our lives' outcomes (determinism), God is a partnering God (relational theism) bringing His will, His being, His person, into the lifeblood of our own lives by our own will's submission without circumventing our freedom to believe, or to responsibly submit. Even so may we understand and so practice this type of Christian faith. Amen.

R.E. Slater
August 8, 2013
 
* * * * * * * * * *
 
 
Arguing for God
 
by Scot McKnight
Aug 6, 2013
 
The field of Christian apologetics often forms arguments for the existence of God, and in doing so knows that God needs no defense though human minds are made to think and reason and what the human mind wants is a reasonable explanation for the existence of God. Many want belief in God to be reasonable.
 
Do you think argument from cause or origins is a compelling argument for God?
 
Perhaps the first and core argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. It goes back to Aristotle.
 
This can be called the “Classical cosmological argument”:
  • Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  • The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
  • The universe has a cause of its existence.
But there is a newer form of this classic argument called the Kalam argument, and it probably most connected to William Lane Craig. Bill Craig formulates the argument with an additional set of premises:
 
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
  • An actual infinite cannot exist.
  • An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
  • Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
  • A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
  • The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
  • Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

I am reading a splendid new book edited by J.P. Moreland, Chad Meiser, and Khaldoun Sweis, Debating Christian Theism, which isolates twenty separable issues in apologetics and Christian theism and arranges each into a positive case and a rebuttal by nothing short of experts in the field. This book can serve as a complete course in Christian apologetics for Christian theism. It must be on all seminary and theological college bookshelves and can serve well as required reading for theologically educated students.
 
In this book Craig orders his Kalam argument with a set of three basic questions, and this may be seen as a positive case for the existence of God:
 
1. Did the universe begin to exist? That is, did it have (a) a beginning or was it (b) beginningless?
  • Craig argues for (a): the earth began to exist. He confirms this through the Big Bang theory.
2. Was the beginning of the universe (c) caused or (d) uncaused?
  • Craig argues for (c). Thus, the earth began to exist and was caused.
3. Was the cause of the universe (e) personal or (f) impersonal?
  • Craig argues for (e). Person, so he proposes, flows from the conclusions that the cause is uncaused, changeless, immaterial, timeless — must “transcend both time and space” (16) — thus an “unembodied mind” (17). And there must be “personal, free agency” (17) that brings previously non-existing conditions into reality. This is what everyone means by “God.”

Thus, his kalam argument argues the universe began, its beginning was caused, and it was caused by a personal being, God.
 
In the next post I want to look at the argument for God from apparent design.
 
- Scot McKnight

 
* * * * * * * * * *
 
 
My Postmodern, Quantum Response:
to Craig's Modern Epistemic Apologetics
 
R.E. Slater
August 6, 2013
 

In Scot McKnight's article, "Arguing for God," I could as easily have argued for the opposite of each of William Lane Craig's terminus definitions for God's existence. At base, Craig is using a classical argument from a "cosmological cause of origins" to support his classical corollaries (steeped in convoluted sentences) which he uses as the basis for his philosophical assumptions. As said, I could just as easily have chosen the opposite of Craig's conjectures and still arrived at an amazing Creator-God that is less limited by His creation than if bound to it within classical theism's theological arguments.

What would these opposing arguments be? That our universe was beginningless, uncaused, and impersonal... at least this would be congruent with current atheistic evolutionary theory. However, within my preferred theological preference for a God-filled evolutionary creation, I would prefer a beginningless universe (contra Craig) while affirming God's necessary involvement as Creator (according to the Bible, not Christian apologetic argument) as both creation's cause, origin, meaning, end, purpose, and plan. Moreover, since God is a Trinitarian God we must expect a natural relational-ordering within creation even as God imparts Himself into His creation (as any artist would do by their artistry). But these have all been argued in past articles here at Relevancy22 under the various sidebars of "theism, science, creation, and such like."

From the outset, "creatio ex nihilo" (sic, Latin for "creation from nothing") becomes a moot point to the scientific discoveries of quantum physics.... Meaning that there is no "ex nihilo" to be created from because the universe has already been shown by quantum physics to have a beginningless mass where time was non-existent because of its dense gravitational forces (for more on this see, The Quantum Evolution of the Universe, amongst other articles). If anything, we might more accurately describe creation as "creatio continua" (creation from something that always was) as Wolfhart Pannenberg did in his theologic writings many years earlier.

Moreover, within our present cosmos' given space-time dimensionality, we may only surmise that the universe's originating mass had a quantum-like structure thus giving its chaotic nature a dense quantum-like order where time is liquefied into spatial constructs (that is, time was asymmetrical with no causal arrows of time until quantum symmetry was capable of being released). Consequently, there was no 4th dimension (3 of space and 1 of time), and perhaps not even 3 dimensions (where time is liquefied, or merged, into the spatial constructs under quantum gravity's intensity), just 2 (I've yet to read of 1 or 0... 0 presents some intriguing possibilities I think). Thus, with time's liquefied amalgamation into spatial mass we may more accurately speak of a beginningless time where time has gone to infinity.

In quantumtative terms, this means that God created from something, and not from nothing. Which doesn't mean that He didn't create this something from nothing. But because science cannot know this answer at present, if ever, given that its discipline is housed within our present form of universe... which is apparently one of an infinite many multi-universes mathematically speaking (10 to the 500 I once read). Only that for us, in our present universe, God had created from pre-existing materials (should we chose to follow the logic of multiverse-based physics). This is why "ex nihilo creation" becomes a moot point only important to theologians who wish to argue which side of the theistic fence they are on - whether from classic theism's perspective or from a process thought basis with its panentheistic corollaries (that I've modified to show God to be both independent and dependent upon this world of His determination).

Thus, God created using a current quantum structure that was pre-determinative to His divine efforts so that when He solidified its structure it became what we now experience it to be. And perhaps from a structure that held infinite possibilities (as a multi-universe structure must be supposed by mathematical inference; which structure we cannot know because its physics are unlike our own). Whichever way, from this dense gravitational, pre-inflationary state of beginningless mass evolved a state of intense chaos - but a chaos that had a chaotic quantum order within it (based upon our own universe's given present-state quantum structure). Meaning that God created from something - and not from nothing - within our universe. Even so, God created. And that is the key for any biblical study. And within that creation we find relational beginning-ness: supportive of Craig's last two arguments but generating perhaps from a differing basis than his logical, philosophical, arguments (which I suspect may be anti-evolutionary as well).

What Does This Mean for Hermeneutics Today?

Why? For myself, my philosophical hermeneutic is not based upon a classically-derived modern idealism for interpretive theological thought, but upon an evolving idea of an anthropological hermeneutic (sic, Jacques Derrida and Paul Ricoeur) that jettisons the Enlightenment era's logical arguments for one filled with a biblical narrative seeking to be free of modernistic, logical argumentation resulting in systematized creedal statements for faith's foundation. If anything, I wish to be a skeptic to all logical arguments preferring instead to analyze the reason for the necessity of those arguments within the church itself (even as we have done here). And wishing to be freed to investigate the meaning of language as a fluid, multi-vocal, linguistic series of expressions that are timeless, and timelessly bound (thus, the Word of God's timeless nature when unbounded from literal, inerrant biblical expression; but rather one as authoritative and infallible as pertaining to God's salvation irrespective to how we understand its history). Especially as God's Word is set within a historic, cultural critique from within the biblical pages themselves as found in their present Old and New Testament contexts written at the hands of men and women who themselves preferenced (or wrote within) their own existential and phenomenological events of their lives. Even so, I don't think it stops here so much as it begins here when thinking about God, His Incarnation, His life, ministry, passion death, and resurrection, which for me opens up the bible even as it opens up my faith lived in its temporal context.

Moreover, I wish to shade all meanings at present towards an apocalyptic faith couched within a weak theology that is both open and non-coercive. Hence, these investigations cannot be done within an analytic post-enlightened philosophical framework as I understand it. And if done, will get the church-of-tomorrow as embroiled in the same modernistic turmoil that it finds itself floundering in now within the flanks of today's dis-believing humanistic cultures. One requiring dualistic expression and less systematized creedal formulations - which in the past has forced the church to spend too much time maintaining its conventional thoughts, rather than in pursuing a progressive, postmodern orthodoxy more adept to philosophical/theological expression within our postmodern era. Especially as it is lived out and enacted in the lives of Jesus followers.

Finally, as an addendum, Homebrewed Christianity will soon present a "Science and Religion" discussion that probably won't get into the depth of quantum physics as we have examined here (nor in our past articles), but may be a good springboard from what I have been discussing above re a postmodern, anthropologic hermeneutic. It commences in September of 2013, and I hope to write several reviews from Homebrew's podcast discussions that might help broaden out our own, more mundane, earthy perspectives where they may now be presently too-shortened or disinclined. At least that is my hope in my continuing studies and prayers. As always, thank you for your consideration.
 
R.E. Slater
August 6, 2013

 

Index - Phase III



 Index to Phase III


Foundations Series

Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 1 - Change

Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 2 - Thriving

Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 3 - Jesus

Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 4 (incomplete)

Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 5 (incomplete)


Roots of Change





On Knowing in the Bible: How Can We Know That We Know? Part 1 & 2


The Oracles of Postmodern Theology Must Reinterpret Scripture...

The Erasure of Self & De-Privileging of MetaPhysics (or, "Life After the Death of God")

Phase III: Christianity's Journey from Modern to Postmodern Theology

Part 1 - How Modernity's Secularism Changed the World: An Introduction to
Postmodern Hermeneutics

Part 2 - How Modernity's Secularism Changed the World: Charles Taylor, "A Secular Age"

Christian Apologetics for a Postmodern, Quantum Age

R.E. Slater - Rebirth (a poem)

Luke 7: A Gospel of Reversals - "Who Are the Invited? And Who Are the Sinners?"

Phase III - Building a Postmodern Theology that is both Weak and Apocalyptic

Catching Up with Radical Theology

Paul Tillich's "God Above God" and the "Restlessness of the Human Heart"

Radical Theology & The New Materialism





Chronologically


R.E. Slater - A Long Journey Ended


Why Process Philosophy Might Present a Better Form of a Liberal Democracy or Socialism


Course Outline: Whitehead's Process and Reality, by Jay McDaniel


Relevancy22 - Disclaimer, Purpose, Intention, and Goal


Structuring Theological Revolutions


Post-Structuralism in the Life of Prophetic Christianity


Devolution is the New Evolution: Christianity's need for Radical Theology


Deconstructing "Evangelicalsim"


Christianity's New Atheism


Foundations for a Radical Theology, Part 8 - A Radical Re-Examination of the Christian Faith


Foundations for a Radical Theology, Part 7 - Epistemology: Language, Lacan, and Postmodern Theology


Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 6 - Theology, Philosophy, & Science


Has Science Made Philosophy and Theology Obsolete?


Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 5 - A Theology for the End of Modernity


Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 4 - A New Philosophy


Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 3 - Jesus


Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 2 - Thriving


Foundations for a Radical Christianity, Part 1 - Change


The Roots of Social / Progressive Evangelicalism and Movement Towards Radical Christianity


Steampunking a Generation of Theology with New Music and Airs


Badiou on Badiou Reference Material


On Knowing in the Bible: Is God Dead? Badiou's Reflective Thought for Theology, Part 3


On Knowing in the Bible: How Can We Know That We Know? Part 1 & 2


What will the Post-Evangelic Church Look Like?


The Oracles of Postmodern Theology Must Reinterpret Scripture...


The Erasure of Self & De-Privileging of MetaPhysics (or, "Life After the Death of God")


Phase III: Christianity's Journey from Modern to Postmodern Theology










Tuesday, August 6, 2013

R.E. Slater - Rebirth (poem)



 

Rebirth
by R.E. Slater

@copyright R.E. Slater Publications
all rights reserved



Photo Credit: Song Bird Art



( For context to poem see this link )



Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"






  "Eat up little birdies or die!"

(a popular German saying)

(ref. Roger Olson re fundamentalist sayings)





Monday, August 5, 2013

"Same Love feat:" Being Love to Those Who Are Unloved. Being a Refuge to Those Knowing None.


If today's church wishes to stay current with the issues of the day than the video below will challenge you in appreciating, supporting, and accepting those who have been subjected to society's worst vulgarities and discriminations. Jesus died for us all. Not just for some. And if you believe that than you must be willing to admit that and make room in your heart for those unlike yourself who bear special temperaments. Who bear the harsh burdens brought on by their unique physiologies. That they not be treated in any other way than the way you would treat your own child whom you love. Whom you ache for when bullied about or ostracized in school, by friends or family, church or society, because they are different and misunderstood. We do the love of God wrong when we refuse to not love all. And especially those men and women who wish to obey God and be obedient to His Word. This is not an issue of sin in others but an issue of the sin in us which wishes to discriminate, hate, and oppress those unlike ourselves. Let us not be guilty of these charges but be willing in our hearts to embrace, love and support all that we can. To be havens of safety, and shelters of refuge, to the oppressed of society uniquely bearing burdens we can never appreciate unless we try. To defend their rights and to protect their uniqueness from a harsh, judgmental world. Appreciation. Support. Acceptance. These are the truer words of love. Be it. Do it.
 
R.E. Slater
August 5, 2013

 
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis - Same Love feat. Mary Lambert
 
 
 
 
Published on Oct 2, 2012
Same Love feat. Mary Lambert on iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/same...

We support civil rights, and hope WA State voters will APPROVE REF 74 and legalize marriage equality. Visit http://www.music4marriage.org for more info. Support Marriage Equality by ordering the limited edition Same Love vinyl here: http://www.subpop.com/catalog/artists...

Same Love, as featured on the debut album from Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, The Heist, will be available 10/09/2012

The Heist
iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZ...
Amazon: http://amzn.com/B00908DDZM
Deluxe CD: http://www.macklemoremerch.com
In-Stores NOW!!

Same Love, A Film By:
Ryan Lewis
Jon Jon Augustavo
Tricia Davis

Directed by:
Ryan Lewis
Jon Jon Augustavo

Produced by:
Tricia Davis

Director of Photography:
Mego Lin

Associate Producer:
Honna Kimmerer

Starring:
Jairemie Alexander
William Pontius
Shelton Harris
Sarita Valdez
Jay Sommerville

Cast:
Jairemie Alexander
William Pontius
Shelton Harris
Sarita Valdez
Jay Sommerville
Thomas Collins
Tina Tsiakalis
Kendall Kapsner
Rosie Cole
Rory King
Josue Gonzalez
Mia Clapp Perfetti
Mary Lambert
Robert Braxton
Jaida Kimmerer
Brooklyn Thornton

Crew:
Tricia Davis - Producer
Mego Lin - Director of Photography
Honna Kimmerer - Production Design
Miles Johnson - Lead Green
Evelyn Brodersen - Lead Green
Jennifer Terrana - Lead Green
Jennifer Popochock - Makeup Artist
David Herberg - Key Grip
Wil Drake - Best Boy Grip
Mike Dyrland - Best Boy Grip
Yu Chen Lin - Gaffer
Blueboy Sguiggley - Production Assistant
Seth McDonald - Production Assistant
Chris Duerkopp - Steadicam Operator
Craig Nisperos - Still Photographer
Austin Santiago - Location Services
Ben Haggerty - Story Supervisor
Sahwn Anderson - Transportation Coordinator
Nic Adenau - Additional Footage

Special Thanks To:
Tina Tsiakalis @ Eastlake Center For Birth - http://centerforbirth.com/
Greg Turk & Ray Nutter @ All Pilgrims Church - http://www.allpilgrims.org/
The Parry Family & The Kimmerer Family
Miles Johnson @ Fiori Floral Design - http://www.fiorifloraldesign.com/
Meadowbrook Community Center - http://www.seattle.gov/parks/centers/...
Kelly Warner-King
Kristie Gamer and Alvin Stillwell

And a VERY special thank you to Kerri Harrop (Music for Marriage) for her hard work and dedication in the fight for marriage equality and her devoted support to Same Love as an idea, song, and finally now as a music video. "Same Love" and the campaign to approve Ref 74 wouldn't be the same without you, Kerri.

SONG:
Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
Same Love feat. Mary Lambert
(B. Haggerty, R. Lewis, M. Lambert)
Macklemore Publishing BMI, Ryan Lewis Publishing BMI
Produced by Ryan Lewis for Macklemore DBA Ryan Lewis LLC
Written by Macklemore, Mary Lambert
Piano performed by Josh Rawlings
Violin by Andrew Joslyn
Cello by Natalie Hall
Trombone by Greg Kramer
Recorded and Mixed by Ryan Lewis, Ben Haggerty
Macklemore/RyanLewis Studios, Seattle, WA
Mastered by Sterling Sound, New York City, NY

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis managed by Zach Quillen

 

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Certainty and Doubt: "Can the two live together?"

 
Theropod Footprint, Perot Museum of Nature and Science

“Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God
by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.”
 
 - Charles Hodge, Princeton Theological Seminary

An interesting comment made by a very popular theologian in the middle of the 19th Century.
Apparently churches arguing about the validity of science are a little out-of-date (like, say,
170 years). But as my friends like to say, "I believe what I believe what I believe...
my convictions will never change." - re slater


I find the quote above a very interesting comment made by a popular theologian at the end of the 19th Century. A theologian whose life was as conflicted by his own beliefs as we are today. A theologian who consistently studied the Word of God in order to present the Christian faith as an intelligible source of authority, helpfulness, and reliable spiritual guide:
 
*[Wikipedia] Charles Hodge (December 27, 1797 – June 19, 1878) was an important Presbyterian theologian and principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878. He was a leading exponent of the Princeton theology, an orthodox Calvinist theological tradition in America during the 19th century. He argued strongly for the authority of the Bible as the Word of God. Many of his ideas were adopted in the 20th century by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.[1]
 
As a theologian, Hodge was fully informed about his times, and took a hard stand in the middle both for-and-against slavery as a way to preserve (i) national order without anarchy and, (ii) justice in the face of injustice. In the end, even Hodge's own Presbyterian denomination split for-and-against slavery, and with it, any hopes he may of had of repairing a situation that was irreparable without secession from the Union by the South. As a result Hodge did what he could to effect healing the torn disrepair brought about by America's disunion. Others, like the Beechers of Boston fought equally as hard for the freedom of the black slave from their oppressors, and as well as equally as hard for the resolution of the Union back into federal control.
 
* * * 
*[Wikipedia] Slavery
 
As an archconservative and a believer in both the inerrancy and the literal interpretation of the Bible, Hodge supported the institution of slavery in its most abstract sense, as having support from certain passages in the Bible. He held slaves himself, but he condemned their mistreatment, and made a distinction between slavery in the abstract and what he saw as the unjust Southern Slave Laws that deprived slaves of their right to educational instruction, to marital and parental rights, and that "subject them to the insults and oppression of the whites." It was his opinion that the humanitarian reform of these laws would become the necessary prelude to the eventual end of slavery in the United States.[10]
 
The Presbyterian General Assembly of 1818 had affirmed a similar position, that slavery within the United States, while not necessarily sinful, was a regrettable institution that ought to eventually be changed.[10] Like the church, Hodge himself had sympathies with both the abolitionists in the North and the pro-slavery advocates in the South, and he used his considerable influence in an attempt to restore order and find common ground between the two factions, with the eventual hope of abolishing slavery altogether.
 
*[Wikipedia] Civil War
 
Hodge could tolerate slavery but he could never tolerate treason of the sort he saw trying to break up the United States in 1861. Hodge was a strong nationalist and led the fight among Presbyterians to support the Union. In the January 1861 Princeton Review, Hodge laid out his case against secession, in the end calling it unconstitutional. James Henley Thornwell responded in the January 1861 Southern Presbyterian Journal, holding that the election of 1860 had installed a new government, one which the South did not agree with, thus making secession lawful.[11] Despite being a staunch Unionist politically, Hodge voted against the support for the "Spring Resolutions" of the 1861 General Assembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church, thinking it was not the business of the church to involve itself in political matters; because of the resolutions, the denomination then split North and South. When the General Assembly convened in Philadelphia in May 1861, one month after the Civil War began, the resolution stipulated pledging support for the federal government over objections based on concerns about the scope of church jurisdiction and disagreements about its interpretation of the Constitution. In December 1861, the Southern Old School Presbyterian churches severed ties with the denomination.[12]
 
* * * 
 
Likewise, Charles Hodge had strong views about Darwinism:
 
*[Wikipedia] Darwinism
 
In 1874, Hodge published What is Darwinism?, claiming that Darwinism, was, in essence, atheism. To Hodge, Darwinism was contrary to the notion of design and was therefore clearly atheistic. Both in the Review and in What is Darwinism?, (1874) Hodge attacked Darwinism. His views determined the position of the Seminary until his death in 1878. While he didn't consider all evolutionary ideas to be in conflict with his religion, he was concerned with its teaching in colleges. Meanwhile at the college across town (a totally separate institution) President John Maclean also rejected Darwin's theory of evolution. However in 1868, upon Maclean's retirement, James McCosh, a philosopher, became president. McCosh believed that much of Darwinism could and would be proved sound, and so he strove to prepare Christians for this event. Instead of conflict between science and religion, McCosh sought reconciliation. Insisting on the principle of design in nature, McCosh interpreted the Darwinian discoveries as more evidence of the prearrangement, skill, and purpose in the universe. He thus argued that Darwinism was not atheistic nor in irreconcilable hostility to the Bible. The Presbyterians in America thus could choose between two schools of thought on evolution, both based in Princeton. The Seminary held to Hodge's position until his supporters were ousted in 1929, and the college (Princeton University) became a world class center of the new science of evolutionary biology.[13]
 
The debate between Hodge and McCosh exemplified an emerging conflict between science and religion over the question of Darwin's evolution theory. However, the two men showed greater similarities regarding matters of science and religion than popularly appreciated. Both supported the increasing role of scientific inquiry in natural history and resisted its intrusion into philosophy and religion.[14]
 
* * * 
 
Theology, was ever a hot bed of beliefs - even as it was back 170 years ago - and no less today in the 21st Century when thinking through the coloured lenses of our preferred personal philosophies and biblical centrisms. In Hodge's day, he was considered an ultra-conservative with very literalistic views of biblical inerrancy. Today, ultra-conservatism is seen as harshly ideological to the tearing of the political system even as its twin, ultra-liberalism, pulls at the same. Too, the literalistic reading of the Bible preferences a style of reading that creates as much ambiguity in its reading as it seemingly sheds enlightenment. Causing many conservative Christians to rethink what they are saying about the Bible's literalism even as many liberal Christians are rethinking their verities when beholding Jesus' divine footprints in Scripture.
 
It would probably be more correct to say that each side of these ideological debates may wish to cast aside their abject dogmatism on the one side, and abject humanism on the other, should they each wish to meet God somewhere in the middle of His Word. A simplistic statement to be sure, but one that portends doubt over conviction, uncertainty over adamant belief, moderation over intolerance, and the art of listening within the heat of argument.
 
I had earlier opined that "churches arguing about the validity of science are a little out-of-date (like, say, 170 years). But as my friends like to say, 'I believe what I believe what I believe... my convictions will never change.'" My concern is that we, as Christians, do not do very well at listening to one another. Thus Relevancy22's many articles attempting to reopen the debates to conservative Christians too use to not questioning their church, pastor, or even God Himself. Thinking that being out-of-step with society and scholarship is spiritually enlightening rather than spiritually blinding as it really comes off to those of us watching Christians flounder about in the headwinds of Postmodern flux and change. Rather than bearing a relevant gospel, their church and faith have become irrelevant with society and scholarship, theology and change.

And at the last, when conservative Christians come out to meet postmodernism head-on they lapse into either a kind of spiritual despair, or a lost of personal faith. At which time they resort either to some sort of mystical / magical interpretation of God's Word ("no one knows, only God, I just do what He says"), or utilize some kind of heavy subjective reading of the Bible unwarranted by contemporary biblical criticism and commentary ("God's Word means what I think it means to me"). While all along trying to reconcile our street-level philosophies, whimsies, and personal preferences, around a kind of spiritual meaning that cannot even begin to better properly inform us about God and His Word.

However, a good theologian learns to listen and to investigate.... And even abandon ideas that have held him hostage for most of his life. At least that has been mine own experience when finally reversing my biblical convictions and attempting to reach beyond my boundary-leveled thinking and self-absorptions. To see that some ideas are not really biblical but preferences of either myself or my church or my denomination. Preferences that are open to interpretation and perhaps not as fully informed as they once were believed. Preferences that when seen in another light don't really work as well as they had in my youth when life was simpler, my knowledge and experiences more limited, my maturity yet forming. With Paul, there comes a time when we put away "childish things and grow up to become men and women of the Word."

Perhaps it begins by questioning ourselves. Our church. Our denomination. Even our faith. And in the doubt and uncertainty to learn to rest in God's timing in our lives, fully certain that His Spirit has brought us to this place in our lives where we might undressed out of our old theologic garments of rags so that God's newer garments of love and life might become our own displays of God's wisdom and grace. That we no longer reach out for the old wines and stale breads on the dining table of a past theology become dated and useless. But reach instead for the newer wine and broken bread of Jesus laying nearer at hand than we had thought. To not simply give up in thinking that "no one can know anything about God and His Word" and begin believing that perhaps it is our own convictions and beliefs that might have to change so that God and His Word may live again within our hearts and minds, bodies and soul.

Divine revelation is meant to tell us a few things about God but when we learn to read God's revelation through our own coloured lenses it is hoped that those lenses aren't so crooked as to mislead us away from God towards a kind of spiritual despair and lostness. Sometimes the solution is to simply find a new optometrist - one who might fit us with a better pair of glasses than the pair we have been using for too many years as they have become crooked and worn. And one way to begin is by seeking a more reasoned discourse in life that might be a little more discerning - not only of cults and misleading religious endeavors - but of a better informed, more relevant discussion of a Postmodern Christianity that puts the past to bed and rises up on the other side of a Monday morning to do the heavy lifting of relearning God's ways and paths in this uncertain life of ours.

Not all is certain... this is true... but of somethings we may be certain. And especially in how we might ask our questions so that they become open-ended and not closed-ended, nor stifling prophetic speech and apocalyptic vision. A kind of speech and vision that is not spoken from the mouths of angels, but the kind that comes from the hard work of everyday reading, studying and listening to the voices of informed men and women sent as heaven's angels (sic, messengers and prophets) into our barren, broken lives. And not the kinds of messengers and prophets that misleads us from Jesus into mystical Christian cults.... My more recent experience has heard Jesus spoken of as my Rabbi rather than my Redeemer; my Mystery rather than God's Son; my Gnosis rather than my certainty; my Myth rather than my Resurrected God.... Truly men will say all kinds of things, but we only wish to know those who keep to Jesus and to the historic Christian faith. But a faith that learns to transition and change within the orthodoxies that it keeps.

At the last, I originally had asked whether certainty and doubt might be able to live together? For the spiritual Christian - for the follower of Jesus - they must, for if they do not than we either become religious or lost. Religious in our faith. Or, lost within our faith. Consequences that God's Word will not portend - for in either instance we see Jesus driving out the Pharisees from the temple of God, or restoring sight to the blind, and healing to the leper, considered anathema to Jewish society. As God's living Word - the divine Logos who is God's very breath - came to give life and light. Not death and darkness. Even so, we may be confident of these verities of our Christian faith.
 
R.E. Slater
July 31, 2013

 
* * * * * * * * * * *



 
 
Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
Author, 'Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics'

June 18, 2012
emendations are mine own - re slater (res)

 
In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution [(my preferred terms is "Evolutionary Creationism" over the older terms of theistic evolution - res)] among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
 
As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they've abandoned it. [(What have they abandoned?? The historic Christian tradition.... - res)]
 
In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner's view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.
 
These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary's Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: "Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science."
 
In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science - not because they don't believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.
 
Of course, anti-evolutionists claim their rejection of evolution is not a rejection of science. Phillip Johnson, widely considered the leader of the Intelligent Design movement, states that all he's rejecting is the atheistic lens through which evolutionary scientists view the world. Evolution, he argues, is "based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly philosophical presupposition."
 
And to a certain extent, this line of argument makes sense. Science is not a neutral enterprise. Prior beliefs undoubtedly influence interpretation. If one believes God created vertebrates with a similar design plan, one can acknowledge their structural similarities without believing in common descent. No amount of dating evidence will convince someone the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if that person believes God created the world to look old, with the appearance of age.
 
But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down. Because no amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: "[non-evolutionary]creationism" has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
 
It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
 
It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
 
It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
 
It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
 
It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
 
It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
 
It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
 
Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles. Because if "nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible," it's basically the same thing.
 
Many think the widespread rejection of evolution doesn't really matter. Evolution is about what happened in the past, the argument goes, so rejecting it doesn't have an impact on policies we make today. And aside from school curricula, they may be right.
 
But the belief that scientists can discover truth, and that, once sufficiently debated, challenged and modified, it should be accepted even if it creates tensions for familiar belief systems, has an obvious impact on decisions that are made everyday. And it is that belief Christians reject when they reject evolution.
 
In doing so, they've not only led America astray on questions ranging from the value of stem cell research to the etiology of homosexuality to the causes of global warming. They've also abandoned a central commitment of orthodox Christianity.