The Controversial Art of Banksy, "We Reap What We Sow"

Jesus... "Either you get him or you don't...."

I have a lot of images of Jesus in my head. One of them is of Jesus as a political and social subversive who sharply divided people by His words and deeds. Wherever you read of Jesus in the New Testament you read of those who have become deeply convicted by what He had said, or done. There was rarely a middle ground in the presence of people's lives when confronted by Him.

Like the pop graffiti icon Banksy (see bio below) - whose art work tears at the ethics and morality of governments, capitalism, and social agendas, - no one could be neutral before Jesus. You either "got Him or you didn't." You either loved Him, or hated Him. Begging the question, "How would we react to Jesus if we were before His presence today?" Would we be deeply offended by Him? Would Jesus elicit from us long forgotten emotional stirrings of turmoil, unresolved conflicts, or bitter feelings of envy? Or perhaps, like the beloved Mary, or the disciple John, find a deeply contrite spirit falling upon us wrapped within an enlightened shroud of profound silence before His divine authority?

It's hard to say, I think, without first being tested and sorting it all out. But perhaps a good barometer of our reaction might be in how we assess popular religious figures whom we may not have very nice thoughts about. Mostly, thoughts of repulsion, criticism, or cutting cynicisms.... Rather than "hearing the message we quickly attack the messenger." Whether this is triggered by feelings of insecurity or protection it is left to the one conflicted by the message to discover its source of projection.

I think of Rob Bell as one today's controversial figures. The divisions around his persona are deep and wide. For myself, he once created a spiritual divide that required rethinking what Christianity had become in the latter days of my Christian faith.... Not that this sort of conviction hadn't occurred in my past at other times, eras, or personal events. But more so now, today, because it was pointedly made against the raging religious criticisms flowing through the intemperate modern day church as I have since observed it. A church that I love. Whose people I love. But a church that requires daily Renewal. Regeneration. Repentance. A change of message and of heart. A church whose institutions, dogmas, and traditions, seem to be addressed here within the pages of this website all too frequently. Rather than finding a church that lives the very message it breathes having fashioned its own message of Christianity rather than the gospel one of Christianity. A message limited by our religious borders and sensitivities, our words and habits, even our partisan policies and politics.

Though I have never been especially fond of Rob's tactics or demeanor, still I think of him as a wounded friend, and well-meaning spiritual advisor, that has helped in pointing the glaring inadequacies of the Christian faith fallen upon its religious idols and tempers. Something that is as true of our lives as it is with anyone's life housed behind the safeguards and barriers of our self righteousness and devote legalisms. Who has forced untimely decisions upon the sanitized world of Christianity become too comfortably entranced behind its message and ways; unprepared to make the timely sacrifices required behind the incendiary walls of iconoclasm that envelopes its bible, worship, prayers, and hymns. A church that I believe wishes to go forth in Jesus' holy name on bended knees when confronted by the Jesus of the bible who shows to us a life undone without His presence, truth, and love.

At the last, Rob is one of many prophetic voices that have been speaking to the church to awake to its First Love even as the Apostle John did 2000 years ago in Revelation chapters 2-3. To find the divine strength of God's presence and love in all that it says and does. To eschew any messages not first speaking of Jesus as the First and Last, the Alpha and Omega, in all that it says and does. Of a Christian faith that is all about Jesus. Centered only in Jesus. And one which makes Jesus the dividing line between a great fallen, man-centered religion... or a humbled, confessional faith, full of God's divine mystery, presence, and hunger for our souls. Whose universal message of salvation is to all, for all, and through all, in Jesus' name, by the power of His Spirit.

Yes, like Bell, or Banksy, or perhaps a good-hearted friend who challenges us in our lives - and like the many who have challenged me in my life from pulpit to fellow laborer - so is this God-Man Jesus. We either get Him, or we don't. But at that sublime moment when entering into His divine presence do we find ourselves deeply conflicted by our own proud words and paucity of deeds? Or emasculated of all our virtues and pride? Knowing only the rawness of our life without His presence and love, His Spirit, and guidance? Even so, Lord Jesus, come. Come this day upon the wings of our repentance and confession as on most days in our lives when we need a Lord and a Savior to help us through the mazes of this ungodly, unloving, sinful web of life. Even as we are now before your humbling presence. Even so, come. Let these words be our thanksgiving and our Amen. In you name we pray for Help. For Sustenance. For life itself. Amen and Amen.

R.E. Slater

Novermber 18, 2013

The Controversial Art of Banksy

We reap what we sow, Banksy

Wikipedia Bio - link here

Banksy is a pseudonymous United Kingdom-based graffiti artist, political activist, film director, and painter. His satirical street art and subversive epigrams combine dark humour with graffiti done in a distinctive stencilling technique. Such artistic works of political and social commentary have been featured on streets, walls, and bridges of cities throughout the world.[1]

Banksy's work was made up of the Bristol underground scene which involved collaborations between artists and musicians.[2] According to author and graphic designer Tristan Manco and the book Home Sweet Home, Banksy "was born in 1974 and raised in Bristol, England.[3] The son of a photocopier technician, he trained as a butcher but became involved in graffiti during the great Bristol aerosol boom of the late 1980s."[4] Observers have noted that his style is similar to Blek le Rat, who began to work with stencils in 1981 in Paris, Jef Aerosol, who sprayed his first street stencil in 1982 in Tours (France), and members of the anarcho-punk band Crass, which maintained a graffiti stencil campaign on the London Tube System in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[5][6] However, Banksy says he was inspired by3D, a graffiti artist who later became a founding member of Massive Attack.[7]

Known for his contempt for the government in labelling graffiti as vandalism, Banksy displays his art on publicly visible surfaces such as walls, even going as far as to build physical prop pieces. Banksy does not sell photos of street graffiti directly himself; however, art auctioneers have been known to attempt to sell his street art on location and leave the problem of its removal in the hands of the winning bidder.[8] Banksy's first film, Exit Through the Gift Shop, billed as "the world's first street art disaster movie," made its debut at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival.[9] The film was released in the UK on 5 March 2010.[10] In January 2011, he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary for the film.

Political and Social Themes

Banksy's works have dealt with an array of political and social themes, including anti-War, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism, nihilism, and existentialism. Additionally, the components of the human condition that his works commonly critique are greed, poverty, hypocrisy, boredom, despair, absurdity, and alienation.[121] Although Banksy's works usually rely on visual imagery and iconography to put forth his message, he has made several politically related comments in his various books. In summarising his list of "people who should be shot," he listed "Fascist thugs, religious fundamentalists, (and) people who write lists telling you who should be shot."[122] While facetiously describing his political nature, Banksy declared that "Sometimes I feel so sick at the state of the world, I can't even finish my second apple pie."

Melbourne City Council put a protective screen over a piece of Banksy graffiti stencil artwork in Cocker Alley, off Flinders Lane near Swanston Street. Picture: Mike Keating Source: News Limited

Police warn international graffiti artist Banksy
his work will be rubbed out

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/police-warn-international-graffiti-artist-banksy-his-work-will-be-rubbed-out/story-fni0fit3-1226761795755

by Aleks Devic, Sunday Herald Sun

November 17, 2013

ELUSIVE world-famous graffiti artist Banksy has copped a spray from Victoria's senior cops, who warn his work will be erased if he stencils without a permit.

The secretive street artist, whose identity is unknown, has divided the city.

The Victoria Police rebuke is at odds with Tourism Victoria and the City of Melbourne, which are welcoming the ­revered guerilla graffiti artist back to boost the city's creative credentials.

Transit Divisional Intelligence Unit Acting Sgt Paul Luck told the Sunday Herald Sun that Banksy would be treated like any other vandal.

"If he hasn't got permission to put it somewhere then it's a crime and we will encourage whatever bit of property that it's been put on, we will encourage them (the owners) to remove it," Sgt Luck said.

Banksy, who achieved cult status and whose works have sold for more than $1 million, has decorated Melbourne before but in blunders, his work was destroyed.

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle extended an invitation to Banksy in 2010 when council workers painted over one his pieces in Hosier Lane by mistake and said the council would consider commissioning him to do a work of art.

The artist has just finished a month-long "live exhibition" in New York City, and is looking for his next project.

Tourism Victoria chief executive Leigh Harry said it was "unfortunate" Banksy's local works were ruined. He said international tourists travelled to see his pieces.

"The fact that Banksy chooses to create his art in Melbourne, reinforces Melbourne's credentials in this creative field," Mr Harry said.

"Should Banksy wish to return to Melbourne to undertake any more art, he would be welcomed back."

It is believed all of Banksy's art has been removed from Melbourne walls.

During a late-night attack in 2011, vandals painted over two Banksy pieces that were in Fitzroy.

Residents Against Graffiti Everywhere founder Steve Beardon said glorifying Banksy's artwork sent the wrong message that people can become rich from being vandals.

"Banksy can go to hell as far as I am concerned and he should stay away," Mr Beardon said.

Melbourne art expert Ken McGregor compared the loss of the Hosier Lane Banksy as "painting over the Mona Lisa".

Banksy Sells Original Paintings Worth $40,000
for $60 each in New York City





BEST OF Banksy Street Art

Discussions in Science and Religion - Week 5: "A Theory of Consciousness"

A map of neural circuits in the human brain. Image: Human Connectome Project

A Neuroscientist’s Radical Theory of How Networks Become Conscious

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/all/

by Brandon Keim, Wired Magazine

November 14, 2013

It’s a question that’s perplexed philosophers for centuries and scientists for decades: Where does consciousness come from? We know it exists, at least in ourselves. But how it arises from chemistry and electricity in our brains is an unsolved mystery.

Neuroscientist Christof Koch, chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science, thinks he might know the answer. According to Koch, consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. All animals, from humans on down to earthworms, are conscious; even the internet could be. That’s just the way the universe works.

“The electric charge of an electron doesn’t arise out of more elemental properties. It simply has a charge,” says Koch. “Likewise, I argue that we live in a universe of space, time, mass, energy, and consciousness arising out of complex systems.”

What Koch proposes is a scientifically refined version of an ancient philosophical doctrine called panpsychism — and, coming from someone else, it might sound more like spirituality than science. But Koch has devoted the last three decades to studying the neurological basis of consciousness. His work at the Allen Institute now puts him at the forefront of the BRAIN Initiative, the massive new effort to understand how brains work, which will begin next year.

Koch’s insights have been detailed in dozens of scientific articles and a series of books, including last year’s Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. WIRED talked to Koch about his understanding of this age-old question.

WIRED: How did you come to believe in panpsychism?

Christof Koch: I grew up Roman Catholic, and also grew up with a dog. And what bothered me was the idea that, while humans had souls and could go to heaven, dogs were not suppose to have souls. Intuitively I felt that either humans and animals alike had souls, or none did. Then I encountered Buddhism, with its emphasis on the universal nature of the conscious mind. You find this idea in philosophy, too, espoused by Plato and Spinoza and Schopenhauer, that psyche — consciousness — is everywhere. I find that to be the most satisfying explanation for the universe, for three reasons: biological, metaphysical and computational.

'What is the simplest explanation? That consciousness extends to all these creatures....'

WIRED: What do you mean?

Koch: My consciousness is an undeniable fact. One can only infer facts about the universe, such as physics, indirectly, but the one thing I’m utterly certain of is that I’m conscious. I might be confused about the state of my consciousness, but I’m not confused about having it. Then, looking at the biology, all animals have complex physiology, not just humans. And at the level of a grain of brain matter, there’s nothing exceptional about human brains.

Only experts can tell, under a microscope, whether a chunk of brain matter is mouse or monkey or human — and animals have very complicated behaviors. Even honeybees recognize individual faces, communicate the quality and location of food sources via waggle dances, and navigate complex mazes with the aid of cues stored in their short-term memory. If you blow a scent into their hive, they return to where they’ve previously encountered the odor. That’s associative memory. What is the simplest explanation for it? That consciousness extends to all these creatures, that it’s an imminent property of highly organized pieces of matter, such as brains.

WIRED: That’s pretty fuzzy. How does consciousness arise? How can you quantify it?

Koch: There’s a theory, called Integrated Information Theory, developed by Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin, that assigns to any one brain, or any complex system, a number — denoted by the Greek symbol of Φ — that tells you how integrated a system is, how much more the system is than the union of its parts. Φ gives you an information-theoretical measure of consciousness. Any system with integrated information different from zero has consciousness. Any integration feels like something.

It's not that any physical system has consciousness. A black hole, a heap of sand, a bunch of isolated neurons in a dish, they're not integrated. They have no consciousness. But complex systems do. And how much consciousness they have depends on how many connections they have and how they’re wired up.

WIRED: Ecosystems are interconnected. Can a forest be conscious?

Koch: In the case of the brain, it’s the whole system that’s conscious, not the individual nerve cells. For any one ecosystem, it’s a question of how richly the individual components, such as the trees in a forest, are integrated within themselves as compared to causal interactions between trees.

The philosopher John Searle, in his review of Consciousness, asked, “Why isn’t America conscious?” After all, there are 300 million Americans, interacting in very complicated ways. Why doesn’t consciousness extend to all of America? It’s because integrated information theory postulates that consciousness is a local maximum. You and me, for example: We’re interacting right now, but vastly less than the cells in my brain interact with each other. While you and I are conscious as individuals, there’s no conscious Übermind that unites us in a single entity. You and I are not collectively conscious. It’s the same thing with ecosystems. In each case, it’s a question of the degree and extent of causal interactions among all components making up the system.

WIRED: The internet is integrated. Could it be conscious?

Koch: It’s difficult to say right now. But consider this. The internet contains about 10 billion computers, with each computer itself having a couple of billion transistors in its CPU. So the internet has at least 10^19 transistors, compared to the roughly 1000 trillion (or quadrillion) synapses in the human brain. That’s about 10,000 times more transistors than synapses. But is the internet more complex than the human brain? It depends on the degree of integration of the internet.

For instance, our brains are connected all the time. On the internet, computers are packet-switching. They’re not connected permanently, but rapidly switch from one to another. But according to my version of panpsychism, it feels like something to be the internet — and if the internet were down, it wouldn’t feel like anything anymore. And that is, in principle, not different from the way I feel when I’m in a deep, dreamless sleep.

A map of the internet, circa 2005. Image: The Opte Project

WIRED: Internet aside, what does a human consciousness share with animal consciousness? Are certain features going to be the same?

Koch: It depends on the sensorium [the scope of our sensory perception —ed.] and the interconnections. For a mouse, this is easy to say. They have a cortex similar to ours, but not a well-developed prefrontal cortex. So it probably doesn’t have self-consciousness, or understand symbols like we do, but it sees and hears things similarly.

In every case, you have to look at the underlying neural mechanisms that give rise to the sensory apparatus, and to how they’re implemented. There’s no universal answer.

WIRED: Does a lack of self-consciousness mean an animal has no sense of itself?

Koch: Many mammals don’t pass the mirror self-recognition test, including dogs. But I suspect dogs have an olfactory form of self-recognition. You notice that dogs smell other dog’s poop a lot, but they don’t smell their own so much. So they probably have some sense of their own smell, a primitive form of self-consciousness. Now, I have no evidence to suggest that a dog sits there and reflects upon itself; I don’t think dogs have that level of complexity. But I think dogs can see, and smell, and hear sounds, and be happy and excited, just like children and some adults.

Self-consciousness is something that humans have excessively, and that other animals have much less of, though apes have it to some extent. We have a hugely developed prefrontal cortex. We can ponder.

WIRED: How can a creature be happy without self-consciousness?

Koch:: When I’m climbing a mountain or a wall, my inner voice is totally silent. Instead, I’m hyperaware of the world around me. I don’t worry too much about a fight with my wife, or about a tax return. I can’t afford to get lost in my inner self. I’ll fall. Same thing if I’m traveling at high speed on a bike. It’s not like I have no sense of self in that situation, but it’s certainly reduced. And I can be very happy.

Neural pathways in the brain of a fruit fly.

Image: Hampel et al./Nature Methods

WIRED: I’ve read that you don’t kill insects if you can avoid it.

Koch: That’s true. They’re fellow travelers on the road, bookended by eternity on both sides.

WIRED: How do you square what you believe about animal consciousness with how they’re used in experiments?

Koch: There are two things to put in perspective. First, there are vastly more animals being eaten at McDonald’s every day. The number of animals used in research pales in comparison to the number used for flesh. And we need basic brain research to understand the brain’s mechanisms. My father died from Parkinson’s. One of my daughters died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. To prevent these brain diseases, we need to understand the brain — and that, I think, can be the only true justification for animal research. That in the long run, it leads to a reduction in suffering for all of us. But in the short term, you have to do it in a way that minimizes their pain and discomfort, with an awareness that these animals are conscious creatures.

WIRED: Getting back to the theory, is your version of panpsychism truly scientific rather than metaphysical? How can it be tested?

Koch: In principle, in all sorts of ways. One implication is that you can build two systems, each with the same input and output — but one, because of its internal structure, has integrated information. One system would be conscious, and the other not. It’s not the input-output behavior that makes a system conscious, but rather the internal wiring.

The theory also says you can have simple systems that are conscious, and complex systems that are not. The cerebellum should not give rise to consciousness because of the simplicity of its connections. Theoretically you could compute that, and see if that’s the case, though we can’t do that right now. There are millions of details we still don’t know. Human brain imaging is too crude. It doesn’t get you to the cellular level.

The more relevant question, to me as a scientist, is how can I disprove the theory today. That’s more difficult. Tononi’s group has built a device to perturb the brain and assess the extent to which severely brain-injured patients — think of Terri Schiavo — are truly unconscious, or whether they do feel pain and distress but are unable to communicate to their loved ones. And it may be possible that some other theories of consciousness would fit these facts.

WIRED: I still can’t shake the feeling that consciousness arising through integrated information is — arbitrary, somehow. Like an assertion of faith.

Koch: If you think about any explanation of anything, how far back does it go? We’re confronted with this in physics. Take quantum mechanics, which is the theory that provides the best description we have of the universe at microscopic scales. Quantum mechanics allows us to design MRI and other useful machines and instruments. But why should quantum mechanics hold in our universe? It seems arbitrary! Can we imagine a universe without it, a universe where Planck’s constant has a different value? Ultimately, there’s a point beyond which there’s no further regress. We live in a universe where, for reasons we don’t understand, quantum physics simply is the reigning explanation.

With consciousness, it’s ultimately going to be like that. We live in a universe where organized bits of matter give rise to consciousness. And with that, we can ultimately derive all sorts of interesting things: the answer to when a fetus or a baby first becomes conscious, whether a brain-injured patient is conscious, pathologies of consciousness such as schizophrenia, or consciousness in animals. And most people will say, that’s a good explanation.

If I can predict the universe, and predict things I see around me, and manipulate them with my explanation, that’s what it means to explain. Same thing with consciousness. Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now.

Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

The Oracles of Postmodern Theology Must Reinterpret Scripture...

Olson's article on the state of modern theology pretty much repeats what we have been voicing here for the past several years. That it is the job of postmodern theology to reinterpret Scripture and to bring our Christian understanding of its content in line with, and re-integrated to, today's sciences. To let go of the church's many past millennia's of out-dated, pre-scientific, biblical interpretations, and at the last begin questioning ourselves, our traditions, our orthodoxies, and dogmas, with the hard truths of postmodern discoveries. Its deconstructions and reconstructions. Its harsh glare of our antipathies and quizzical stares of incredulity.

The modernistic church has been obfuscating the lines and demarcations of theology for far too long and must now "pay the piper" his due to the bewilderment and stupefying of its congregations and society-at-large. It is time to declare that what we think we know as Christians must be re-examined in the cold, cruel light of scientific facts against our errant religious fictions which have so pleasantly entertained, amazed, and comforted us. When in fact the church continues to promulgate its own ruin and destruction by maintaining its religious idols of who God is, who we are, and what this world is. Christianity has become more-or-less a man-made religion rather than a godly faith broken upon the altars of its mirrorless self.

However, to act bravely, even self-critically, would be salvation itself against the bankruptcy of the Christian faith caught out along the lines of spiritual mysticism and magic, fanciful ideologies, and the squalor of human ignorance lying-everywhere-about its sacred, gilded pages of church doctrine and legalistic pride. Certainly it can be done reasonably, and without lost of God, sin, grace, and salvation. But let us be all the more certain that it must be done rather than not at all. Nor refused. Nor dis-allowed for fear of blasphemy. For the only blasphemy occurring at this point is the blasphemy of not understanding our Lord's revelation by being content upon the baseless fictions and fantasies we cry so assuredly about in our ignorance and zeal of Scripture's pages. If we're going to declare God's Word than let us do so without first declaring our lines and boundaries in which to do such a task. Otherwise we coddle ourselves and unnecessarily protect our beliefs which, if true, should need no protection at all.

It is not for naught that so many weary theologians have turned to postmodernism's critical thinking to rediscover the guiding truths of Scripture lost in the myriad unenlightening fictions of folklore religion loudly proclaiming misleading theological declarations by our brightest and best pulpiteers of recent years. The most golden voices, and stentorian speeches, so gladden our tin-leaden ears in its cacophonous man-made noise as to mislead from the hallowed truths of Scripture's subtler testimony attested to by the myriads of scientific disciplines and academic minds. And should such a preacher or theolog be so bold as to say, "Nay, but look here against your certainties," then one-and-all seeks that preacher's, or theolog's, rapid dismissal from the ranks of Christendom by pax and anathema.

 

Woe be to such a generation of vapid prophets whose vaporous flocks flee to their own wisdoms and falsehoods misunderstanding the hand of God in these surer times demanding relevancy, insight, and connectedness. Surely such self-ordained false prophets guide the flocks of God to their own valleys of the shadow of death declaring good bad, and bad good, all for the sake of maintaining unreflective church traditions and dogmas for their name's sake. Nay, let us be rid of such miscreants and learn to look again to those we hitherto decried so easily. To hear again the words of Jesus lost in the political scandals and derelict policies of a non-Christian ethos we have proclaimed in the name of God... so certain we have been of our own non-reflective, uncritical biases. It would be better that we tear down our own religious idols of mammon and greed than to stand against the Lord and declare His revelation bankrupted by our own private interpretations. Since when do the words of religious men resist his Maker? Or stand against his Redeemer's blood-bought world? Or seek to tear down brothers and sisters testifying of the Lord's beauty?

Today's postmodern generations can do better than this. Especially when we look at the cruelty and sufferings of man so abundant about us; committed against each other - and upon this good earth - all in the name of faith and religion, by both Christian and non-Christian alike. Man-made religion but protects our greed and pride without protecting the rights and liberties of those we so easily oppress without thought or regard. But true Christianity is selfless. Sacrificial. Service-oriented. It looks outwards towards others in its upward gaze to the God above who is present within our midst. And it looks away from ourselves, our petty needs and pleasures, our need for certainty and security, our private lusts and hatreds, jealousies and self-absorptions. If not, than the Christian faith is useless and become but an empty banner of patriotic zeal and nationalism wrapped in a religious blanket of Christianized humanism. A pantry of evils best walked away from and uneaten lest its worm continues to rot both gut and head, heart and soul.

So then, what say you on this Veteran's Day set to honor the lost and the dead, the living and the oppressed, of all nations? For what truths did they die if not for peace, righteousness, hope, and salvation of the dispossessed and ruined? Even so must we humbly turn to our Lord and say, "Forgive us, Lord, and help us to hear your Word again with ears and hearts that are opened to your Spirit's counsel and guidance. To show tolerance and wisdom in listening to our enemies and protagonists everywhere about, shaking their fists at our God and Bible." They have their arguments, and it would be best to listen again lest we miss God's voice in the rumble of our own words with its accompanying clouds of delusion and apostasy. The Christian faith is a humble faith. Meek, and meekly led, by the Christ-of-the-Cross, who is our only sure Hope-of-contrite renewal and repentant resurrection. Let this humility guide us even now within this frail life that we mercifully possess onto the Lord's surer counsels which at present seem to speak from without - since they no long seem to come from within - our self-annointed, fracturous, faith and its congregations. Amen and Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

November 11, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * *

 

 

Christianity and Science: How They Relate to Each Other in Modern Theology

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/11/christianity-and-science-how-they-relate-to-each-other-in-modern-theology/

 

by Roger Olson

November 9, 2013

Comments

 

The unifying theme of my newly published book The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (IVP) is Christian theological responses and reactions to modernity. Modernity is, of course, that cultural ethos stemming from the Enlightenment and the scientific revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries especially. (One could extend the era of modernity’s cultural dominance in the West into the twentieth century.) Toward the end of the book, beginning with the chapter on liberation theologies, I discuss postmodernity, but, of course, postmodernity, whatever else it may be, is a response and reaction to modernity.

 

My study of modern theology, from the deists (Toland, Tindale, et al.) to deconstructionists (my case study is John Caputo), led me to believe that much of it is driven by desire to extricate Christianity from conflicts with “the sciences” (broadly defined, not just the so-called “physical science”). The book begins with the “Galileo affair” which, I believe, still haunts thinking Christians. Both the majorities of Protestants and Catholics rejected Galileo’s discoveries in astronomy (as they had ridiculed and rejected Copernicus’s before him). And yet, in the end, he proved his heliocentric universe idea to be true so convincingly that everyone had to agree. The Catholic Church leaders of his time knew he was right, but wanted to suppress his discovery. His persecution by the church was for not obeying its order not to publish his proof.

 

Other scientists discovered facts and promulgated theories that conflicted with traditional Christian reliance on Aristotle, and a non-scientific cosmology based on misinterpretation of the Bible. For at least two centuries it seemed that in every conflict between “science and Scripture” or “science and theology” Scripture and theology lost to science. This added up to a humiliation for orthodox theology (as it was understood then) and the established churches. Two extreme reactions set in among Christians. One was to reject everything science says. “Science” became the sphere of evil and deception. The other, opposite, extreme was to accept whatever seemed to be the prevailing scientific mood and theory at any given time and totally capitulate to it, trimming Christianity down to an “essence” that could not conflict with science.

 

But many Christians worked in the middle ground between those extremes. Galileo himself carved out a compromise approach in his “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina” (of Tuscany). According to him, theology reigns in matters of salvation whereas science reigns in matters of physical reality. The approach was something like “Christianity is not about how the heavens go but how to go to heaven.” That’s oversimplifying, of course, but it pretty well describes his general method of handling conflicts between traditional Christianity and science. To be more precise, Galileo denied any errors in Scripture but said that whenever science proves something that seems to conflict with Scripture, theology must reinterpret Scripture. Twentieth century evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm took this approach in his classic The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954). Between Galileo and Ramm, Charles Hodge advocated much the same approach in his Systematic Theology (1872/1873). Of course, neither Hodge nor Ramm advocated adjusting theology to every theory of scientists. Ramm stated that traditional biblical interpretation should accommodate only to the “material facts” of science—what has been proven beyond serious doubt.

 

It seems to me (and I have described this in Journey) many modern Christian theologians have adopted a different approach than Galileo’s, Hodge’s or Ramm’s. Much modern theology seems to be intent on rescuing Christianity from conflicts with science, where theology usually loses, by redefining “Christianity” such that it cannot conflict with science. Wolfhart Pannenberg fought against this “ghettoizing” of theology and spent much of his later career attempting to establish dialogue between science and theology with an eye toward re-integration of the two. His goal was mutual transformation of science and theology, not capitulation of theology to science or antagonism between them.

 

However, from Friedrich Schleiermacher on, the general “drift” of modern theology was to separate Christianity from science so that conflict is impossible. If Schleiermacher is right, if Albrecht Ritschl is right, if Rudolf Bultmann is right, if Paul Tillich is right (and one could name many more), Christianity’s “true essence” has nothing to do with what science studies, so conflict between them is impossible. Christianity’s true essence came to be seen as either “God-consciousness"  (Schleiermacher) or ethics (Ritschl) or “authentic existence” (Bultmann) or “ultimate concern with Being Itself” (Tillich). Many other modern theologians, in their own ways, attempted to reinterpret Christianity so that it could not be undermined by science.

 

But, according to Pannenberg and others, all this came at great cost. For one thing, it helped fuel the “Atheismusstreit” (the atheism struggle”) in the European universities. Especially, but not only, atheists wanted theology expelled from the universities as it was considered not a science at all. (It is usually taught as one of the human sciences.) It also, Pannenberg argued, reduced theology’s voice to irrelevance in the “public square,” the market place of ideas, making it esoteric.

 

One serious problem with these many theological attempts to rescue Christianity from “the acids of modernity” (Walter Lippman’s phrase) and especially science by subjectivizing it (using Romanticism or existentialism, etc.) was that science kept expanding its territory to include the human subject and his or her consciousness. Schleiermacher did not foresee Freud. Tillich struggled with depth psychology, attempting to integrate it with theology and vice versa, without much success. Sociobiology appeared on the scene to argue that religion itself is an adaptive behavior. In other words, redefining Christianity to avoid conflicts with science while retaining any reliance on “God of the gaps” thinking does not seem to work. Science seems intent on closing all the gaps—even subjective consciousness and self-understanding.

 

This is the pathos of modern theology—how to avoid repetitions of the Galileo affair.

 

One wrong approach is to trim “Christianity” to fit whatever “science” seems to be saying. This is the accommodationist approach. It appears in all versions of “naturalistic theisms” including process theologies. As one pundit put it, theology was so afraid of being kicked into the ditch by modernity that it jumped there to avoid the pain of being kicked.”

 

Another wrong approach is to resist science to the point of rejecting even its material facts. Most conservative Christians have long accepted the truth of the heliocentric system and that the earth is round so that heaven is not “up.” (Although I once heard a Christian evangelist argue that heaven is truly “up”—from the north pole because all maps show that as “up” from anywhere on the planet.) But many Christians seem simply to want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore science (if not demonize it)—except for its technological creations (e.g., cancer treatments).

 

A very common wrong approach, however, is to redefine “Christianity” so that its “essence” cannot be undermined or supported by science. Theology and science exist in water tight, separate compartments. This results in theology’s irrelevance to public truth and its reduction to an esoteric “science.”

 

Finally, some Christians wrongly take the “two truths” approach. For them, scientific facts can contradict Christian beliefs but somehow both are to be embraced.

 

Probably no single issue has caused as much consternation and confusion and loss of credibility for theology as its various approaches to science.

 

For now, anyway, I hold to the common sense approach of Hodge and Ramm. It’s not that Christianity is only about “how to go to heaven” and not at all about “how the heavens go.” Christian theology needs to have a cosmology informed by the best science. However, theology need not adapt to every passing theory of scientists. But when something is established as material fact beyond a reasonable doubt theology must accept it and adjust to it. An example, more recent than Galileo, is the age of the earth. Only people who refuse to face material facts still think Bishop Ussher’s dating of the creation is even close to correct.

 

Recently even some orthodox Christians, evangelicals among them, have sought a “non-interventionist” view of God’s providence [(sic, the sovereignty of God)]. I would dare to say that this is quickly becoming a major trend among even moderate theologians. (To be sure, not all are seeking this, but more are than make me comfortable.) The whole concept of “miracle” is becoming problematic, even among theologians who adamantly deny being “liberal.” They do not deny “acts of God,” they simply do not think they include anything like “interventions” in nature or history which are ruled by laws. God acts, they say, through natural laws which are under his control.

 

The question this raises, of course, is the resurrection of Jesus. How does one express the bodily resurrection (which many of these non-interventionist theologians affirm) in non-interventionist terms?

 

One of my questions for non-interventionist theologians (and here I’m talking only about those who still believe God acts in nature and history outside the individual’s consciousness) is how did God bring about the resurrection of Jesus Christ “non-interventionally?” What model of “act of God” can be called non-interventionist while still affirming the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

 

Now, if someone says, well, Jesus didn’t rise from the dead bodily, my response is “Here I’m not talking to you or about you.” What I’m seeking to know is how an orthodox Christian, one who believes in God’s providential activity in the world, including (even if only) the bodily resurrection of Jesus, can explain the miracle of the resurrection non-interventionally.

 

For now, anyway, I still do not see any conflict between believing God sometimes intervenes in nature and history with genuine miracles and belief that normally nature is uniform. Scientists studying nature should practice methodological atheism, but I don’t see how believing in the normal uniformity of nature (everything we normally observe has a natural cause) excludes miracles if God is conceived as omnipotent—”big enough” to “fix” whatever problems an intervention might normally cause in the universe.

 

- Roger Olson

 

-----

 

*Lest Dr. Olson be misunderstood, he does in fact believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the incarnate God, even as I do (cf, the sidebar under "Virgin Birth"). What he wishes to know is how God can, and will, "intervene" in this world without breaking his own primodial counsels when decreeing creation's evolutionary existence (sic, think Stephen Hawking's statements of creation not needing its God once set in motion; against the Christian understanding that one-and-all needs God's very breath to move forward). In an evolutionary understanding of Scriptures what then does this mean? How then may God "intervene" without breaking His earlier decrees? Even so have we made a few attempts in the science and sovereignty sections of this website. But for now, I would suggest some further research along the lines of the univocity of God, and especially in the area of "essential kenosis and freewill theism" in a more recent article lately posted - How Does God Move and Act in the Universe? - "Eight Positions of Divine Sovereignty."

 

And lest anyone gets the wrong idea, this website does indeed intend to continue its research and investigations into process theology by comparing its insights in combination with relational theism and open theology. As well as to further understand the continental philosophies of existentialism, phenomenology, and even radical theology (which is an even more radical form to that of liberal theology). As thinking Christians we should know and understand what we are talking about rather than avoiding (or decrying) every "-ism" that comes our way. Know your subject. Take what you can. And learn from it. Every area has something to say. Even atheism. For instance, I think its contrasts gives support to theistic structure making itself in the process unsupportable.... But you wouldn't know that if you don't know the subject (John Caputo: Towards a Radical Theology, Not a Radical Atheism: A Review of Modern Atheism, Atheology, and Divine Inexistence) or the many reasons for its attractiveness (sic, Peter Rollins commentaries)

 

The trick is to not get lost. Too many have begun pure-in-heart only to lose their way in the dark wildernesses of man-made religion or wisdom (sic, both within the church's own dogmas as well as without its walls and indoctrinations). Those few of us who have found good counsel along our heavy roads of doubt and uncertainty are the more fortunate for the Lord's kindly grace. For this was my own testimony when breaking past the borderlands of my own churched Christianity to the broader lands of a Jesus-centric faith fraught against the religious legalisms so readily at hand  (ever the seeker's temptation and unwanted foundling). But thanks be to the Lord for Christ His Son, ever my Guide and Savior. At the last, my definition of Christianity is a simple one. It is Jesus. Only Jesus. And all of Jesus. Around Him must the Christian faith and its hope most assuredly revolve. He is our best Shepherd, Guide, and Counselor. The God of all creation. Who is the Alpha and Omega of our faith. Not its rules. Not its styles and preferences. Not its alarmisms and protestations. Nor its religious lifestyles and presumed rags of self-righteousness without blood or stain of our Savior and Lord. Our faith must be in Jesus alone. He is our Amen and Verity. Forever and ever. Amen and Amen.

- R.E. Slater


----


My Note to Dr. Olson:

"Not sure where to begin... for myself I began with Lippman's idea of rescuing Christianity from the "acids of modernity" and its secularity... which has since led me to a form of postmodern, post-evangelic, expression of theology. Mostly holding to its evangelic roots but more willing to now examine them under the outside scopes of non-evangelic thought. I continue to investigate process theology both thru the lens of relational theism and open theology; to think that continental philosophy can be helpful where reasonably applied; and even that radical theology has a thing or two to say about our apocalyptic faith, the weakness of God, and doubt and faith. Science is much less problematic for me as I was trained in it from both the physical and socio-biological streams of thought, and quite enjoy working it back into theological discussion.

Overall I am determined that postmodern theology (or its succeeding forms) must re-interpret the Bible in order to restore it back to the mainstreams of thought and life. However, short of this monumental effort, it seems to me that the one good reason for the Lord to return is that He must. If I were to neglect the many good men and women that He has used over the past 2000 years of church history, this age has been barren of its OT-like prophets, priests, and kings... 2000 years has been a long time for God to not intervene... however this "divine silence" does perfectly fit in with the realization that He has died, and has quite literally left in His place His many servants to speak His good word by His prevailing Spirit. Even so, my brother, continue to declare God's Word.

- Russ
 

continue to -

 

Roger Olson, "The Journey of Modern Theology:

From Reconstruction to Deconstruction"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index - Kingdom Eschatology

King of Kings and Lord of Lords

INDEX TO KINGDOM ESCHATOLOGY

  

Kingdom as Reconciliation and Peace

Repost: Let Us Dance!

Let Us Dance!

Coming Home to Phillip Phillips "Home," Arcade's "Wild Thing's," & Guetta's "Titanium"


The Presence of the Kingdom of God

(mcknight) Church and Kingdom as Inaugurated Eschatology in Process of Finality

(res) The Presence of the Kingdom of God Now

(res) Kingdom as a Participatory Eschatology

(res, cook) What is Heaven? The Kingdom of God Come NOW to Earth...

(hauerwas) Interview & Vid Links: Stanley Hauerwas, "Cross-Shattered Christ"


Kingdom as a Social Ethic in Postmodern Theology

(res) Pluralism, Tolerance and Accommodation: In You, the Kingdom of God Has Come

(olson) Justice in the Kingdom of God

(ecological) Renewing God's World: The Redemptive Renewal of Creation

(pluralism) The Emergent Spectrum of Evangelicalism

(res, mcknight) The Ethical and Redemptive Aspects of the Kingdom of God

(mcknight) The Failure of Christianity is a Modern Myth


Kingdom Theology

(res, olson) Is God Always In Control?

(res) What Is Narrative Theology? It is the "Grander Story of God and Creation"

(wright) N.T. Wright - How God Became King

(res, mcknight) Book Review: "How God Became King," by N.T. Wright

(wright) N.T. Wright asks: Have we gotten heaven all wrong?

(jwh) How God Became King: Putting Creed and Canon Back Together Again

(olson) The Kingdom of God as Premillennial

(mcknight) Misunderstanding "Kingdom"

(evans re mcknight) The Gospel as the Story of Jesus

(mcknight) Review: Matt Chandler's "Explicit Gospel" misses on many fronts...


Radical Theology

Kevin Corcoran's Critique of Derrida and Caputo


Covenantal Kingdom Theology

(ap) Translating the Apocalyptic Literature of Revelation: The Defeat of the Pagan Empire of Babylon

(ap) Translating the Apocalyptic Literature of Revelation: The Woman and the Dragon and the People of God

(ap) From Old Creation to New Creation - The Story of Redemption and Mankind

(ap) How Paul Saw the Future: The "Day of the Lord" For Saints and Sinners


Historic Premillenialism v. Rapture Theologies

(olson, res) Leaving Behind "Left Behind"

(res) Of Blood Moons & Prophecy: "What Kind of God Leaves People Behind?"

(res) Kingdom Theology (Stay & Work) vs. Rapture Theology (Wait & Leave)

Is "Left Behind" Really A Christian Movie? (podcast)

Why the Rapture isn’t Biblical… And Why it Matters

Debunking "Left Behind" Theology - Resources for Shaping A "Raptureless" Theology

Thy Will be Done



The Last Judgment





The Eschatological Unfolding of the Kingdom of God



 

The Kingdom of Christ our Lord

Jesus as the Midpoint of Redemptive History

Kingdom of God as Promise

Past, Present, and Future

An Old Schema of Kingdom

(Old Dispensational Chart by Clarence Larkin)

An Old/New Schema of the Church

as an Eschatological Community