Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: SIX: Science Has Disproved Christianity
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
SIX: Science Has Disproved Christianity
Dr. Francis Collins is mentioned in this chapter and is head of the Human Genome Project. He lectures on ‘faith and reason’ and theistic evolution at a Veritas Forum at U.C. Berkeley, recording found here: http://www.veritas.org/berkeley/recordings. One thing he mentions is that there are two alternative assumptions -- that something which had a beginning just popped into existence ... or that God (with no beginning) made that something pop into existence... and both require faith to assume them. The first assumption is just as 'miraculous' as the second. So – the belief that something which had a beginning just popped into existence is an implicitly religious faith assumption which is not provable by science, but also does not conflict with science. This in itself shows how science and faith are not necessarily in opposition. Science is simply restricted to natural phenomena and can say nothing of how natural phenomena came to be, or what its overall purpose is (without committing the is-to-ought fallacy). It can merely describe natural phenomena, it cannot prescribe. Feel free to give feedback.
“In chapter 6, Keller looks at the argument that science has disproven such things as a creator, an afterlife, and supernatural intervention in the universe. To counter this argument, he writes: ‘When evolution is turned into an all-encompassing theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel, and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in the arena of science, but of philosophy’ (p. 87). In other words, believing that evolution rules out God and his intervention in the universe is a departure from science, and instead a decision to substitute one belief (evolution) for another (faith in God). How do you respond to this argument?” – Penguin, found here:
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf Throw in Dawkins’ insistence that the ‘scientific mind’ embrace ‘physicalist naturalism’ and Nagel’s response quoted in the chapter. Also consider this quote from Dawkins’ “Out of Eden” -- “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other god. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music,” [Richard Dawkins, “Out of Eden” (New York: Basic Books, 1992), 133.] This supports the idea that nature cannot prescribe and that our moral sense that there is truly right and truly wrong is a pointer to God. Freely discuss.
There is a lot of discussion on evolution and miracles in this chapter. Keller thinks evolution is a real process compatible with both atheism and other faith assumptions, a process that does not tell the whole story (and that this is not one of the important issues to consider when weighing the central claims of Christianity), and that science cannot rule out supernatural phenomena since it is restricted to studying natural phenomena. I am not prepared to discuss evolution/creation (apart from agreeing with Keller), but if you want to discuss miracles more, go here or copy/paste from here into the current discussion:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=152736
*******
Excerpt from discussion in ILP:
Xunzian: I was happy to see some talk of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Though I do think NOMA runs into the problem of making God ever more distant from the subject at hand, reducing his role from that of a Watchmaker to a sort of disaffected CEO. But, Keller does do his best to step up and show other areas where God would be relevant to the believer.
Ichthus: googled non-overlapping magisteria (not discussed in the chapter by that title). Keller rejects it, and so does Dr. Collins. Was that a trick question, lol?
Xunzian: Sure, he rejects NOMA when he talks about it (which is good because NOMA has a lot of problems) but he co-opts a lot of its structure. A strict and absolute divide between science and religion (as Gould originally discussed) doesn't make sense unless one of those systems is false. But I've seen it used since where it basically lets each area specialize independently. More of a 'rule-of-thumb' than a strict concept. You know, "The Bible: not a biology textbook" and "Biology: not gonna get you a relationship with God." Which is more-or-less how I understood Keller's argument with a few 'God-of-the-gaps' bits thrown in -- but he didn't rely on those as proof so I'm fine with that.
Ichthus: this is a very interesting topic. I'm not exactly sure where I even stand on it! lol It sounded like Keller was somewhere between two extremes (the two extremes being "total conflict between faith and science" and "total independence between faith and science" which, to me, is like saying, "unless you keep those two dogs apart, they're gonna fight"). Plus, see my signature. I'm going to work something up and see if we have a conversation. Brb.
[back]
Thanks for being a gadfly, Xunzian.
"When evolution is turned into an All-encompassing Theory explaining absolutely everything we believe, feel, and do as the product of natural selection, then we are not in the arena of science, but of philosophy."
--That sounds like the arenas are independent from each other. (You could say philosophy in this case is like religion in the sense of 'unprovable faith assumption'.)
Dr. Collins believes in evolutionary science… AND is an evangelical Christian.
--That sounds like science and faith are complementary arenas.
Ian Barbour says science and religion can be in conflict (where you must choose one or the other, because they contradict each other), dialogue (?), integration (?), and independence (you can choose both, because they have nothing to say to each other… seems like this sort of faith has only to do with myth and is not grounded in reality). Keller says Barbour is in the middle, where "science and religious faith recognize their respective spheres of authority" - which doesn't sound like the 'middle' unless you realize that "independence" makes faith into the stuff of fairy tales, whereas "respective spheres" acknowledges faith is grounded in reality, rather than conflicting with it, and science can only study the creation, not the Creator ("science cannot explain everything" - that's what Keller says Gould and Nagel's position is).
Now-was Gould's deal "independence" or was it "respective spheres"? When I googled it, it sounded like 'independence'. In Keller's book, it sounds like "respective spheres" - 'cause Gould says "the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious belief-and equally compatible with atheism" - maybe he 'was' for independence, but changed his mind?
Then Keller talks about evolution and the conflict/dialogue/integration/independence thing. He got 'conflict' right (young earth clashes with science), but when he tells of the 'independence' perspective, it comes off sounding more like 'respective spheres'-like faith doesn't clash with science ("God was the primary cause in beginning the world and after that natural causes took over"). The 'central position' examples do not seem any different from the example given for independence, as far as not clashing with science ("God created life and then guided natural selection to develop all complex life-forms from simpler ones" and "God performed large-scale creative acts at different points over longer periods of time"). It seems like a better example for "independence" would have included "the creation story in Genesis is totally made up". But, he didn't say anything like that. Sometimes people do that-assume certain things are obvious and don't need to be said. In this case, it should've been said.
So, my position, and Keller's, is "respective spheres"… in the middle… far away from the extremes. More specifically, Keller says, "I personally take the view that Genesis 1 and 2 relate to each other the way Judges 4 and 5 and Exodus 14 and 15 do. ... I think Genesis 1 had the earmarks of poetry and is therefore a 'song' about the wonder and meaning of God's creation. Genesis 2 is an account of how it happened. ... I think God guided some kind of process of natural selection, and yet I reject the concept of evolution as All-encompassing Theory."
I like where he talks about Matthew 28:17 and how some doubted what they saw with their eyes and touched with their hands… how the miraculous isn't something just we modern folk struggle with… but how the apostles all ended up as great leaders in the church, though some had a lot more trouble believing than others. And I like how Keller wrote, "We modern people think of miracles as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order. … His miracles are not just proofs that he has power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power. Jesus' miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts, that the world we all want is coming." Unless, of course, we think of the natural world the way the Gnostics did, and totally miss the beauty of creation.
Where is your focus? Is it in something you can learn about and enjoy forever? If not, how is that working out for you?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
RFG 5: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: FIVE: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
FIVE: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Before I even begin I want to insert an idea I remembered from a philosophy chat room discussion while discussing chapter two with my mom: it is not that God punishes you for all the crap He knew you would do before you were even born – it is that God forgave you for it before you were even born – but He will not force love from you against your will.
Two questions from Penguin, found here:
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
“What about the Bible’s portrayal of a God of love who also judges his enemies? In chapter 5, Keller defends belief in a God of love who also is a God of wrath and judgment. If God loves his creation, it’s understandable that God would oppose anything that does harm to his creation (see p. 73). Do you agree that God is big enough to encompass mercy and love, as well as judgment and wrath? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin My thought on the matter is that anyone who claims to love good, but allows evil to go unchecked, is indifferent to evil, is lying. Loving good includes hating evil. Love and hate are not opposites (when the ‘object’ of that hate is ‘evil’ – not that ‘evil’ is an ‘object’ – I still agree with Becky Pippert on page 73). I also think God’s judgment is an expression of love – having experienced it myself. He disciplines those He loves, like any good, loving father should.
“On the question of a loving God sending people to hell, Keller writes that God gives people free choice in the matter. “In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” (p. 78). In other words, those who end up in hell chose that destination by rejecting God. How do you respond to such an assertion?” – Penguin
What do you think of this quote: “The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God,” (74)? Does it seem like a double-standard to you? To me, it doesn’t, because I can see that humans can resort to violence for the wrong reasons, and that God will never resort to violence for the wrong reasons. Some consider a case of justified violence to be defense, for example, of one’s country or a country with which one’s country is allied. Is Keller implying we should not defend in any case whatsoever, but let God “eventually put all things right”? I don’t think so. I think the original quote may be referring to a particular type of violence. For example, I don’t think Keller would say “let’s do away with the justice system and let God ‘eventually put all things right.’” I do however think we should definitely slow down and check our motives and seek God’s guidance in every case that triggers a defensive impulse. What do you think about the thought that loss of belief in God’s judgment leads to less inhibition (an opiate) to violence?
What do you think about the fact that the Bible is the only source of a belief in a God of pure love, who forgives everyone and allows those who reject His love to choose hell?
“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place,” (72-73). What do you think?
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon for this chapter:
Download sermon and study guide:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
Hell Luke 16:19-31 (Rich Man and Lazarus)
Doubt: A judge who consigns people to hell-how can He be a loving God?
--the biblical imagery of hellfire is metaphoric-for something infinitely worse than fire
--crucial for understanding your own heart, living in peace with the world, and for knowing the love of God
1. Crucial for understanding your own heart.
Only parable in which the character has a proper name-the poor man-Lazarus
The rich man believed in God, but did not follow Him, is in hell without a name
Status and wealth was the rich man's identity-now that it's gone-he's gone
Kierkegaard's "Sickness Unto Death" sin: building your identity on anything but God (grace) Rom 6
--Pharisees follow the law but are lost, because their identity is not built on God but on their moral performance
When you build your identity on anything but God, it leads to disintegration, isolation, blaming others (denial to see what's really happening)-consequences of addiction-(fire)
--Iron Giant: souls don't die, souls can't die (movie)
Iron Giant + Kierkegaard = eternal disintegration
"hell begins with a grumbling mood"
God doesn't "send" us to hell-there is something in us which will "be" hell unless we build our identity on God. "the doors of hell are locked from the inside" …like folks who don't want to get out of addiction, though they hate being in it. All who are in hell, choose it.
Rich man: still ordering Lazarus around in hell…doesn't try to get out of hell…just tries to Lazarus in to help him out…blames God for not giving him enough information…
Who are you? Nameless? On what is your identity grounded? This doctrine calls you to look deep into your own heart.
2. Crucial for living in peace with the world.
Doubt: "Hell" translates into oppressing people. Inherently divisive. How can believers treat unbelievers equally if you think we're damned?
v.25-Abraham calls the rich man "son". A sense of sadness (pathos), tragedy.
Volf: cycle of retaliation fueled by lack of belief in a God of justice (who will right all wrongs)
--Marx "opiate" objection answered by MLKJr. Already
Jesus died for His enemies-His sacrifice means nothing if you don't believe in hell.
3. Crucial for knowing the love of God.
Rich Man wants God to send Lazarus back to talk to his brothers. Abraham says that won't work-even if they believe Lazarus, fear of hell won't change anything.
Being good to avoid hell is more hell-not "good for goodness' sake"-using God-just turning up the flames.
Jesus rising from the dead is not enough-have to know "why"-which is explained in Moses and the Prophets: love.
The only thing that will put out the flame is love.
Unless you believe in hell, you will never know what Jesus communicated in His sacrifice.
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
FIVE: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Before I even begin I want to insert an idea I remembered from a philosophy chat room discussion while discussing chapter two with my mom: it is not that God punishes you for all the crap He knew you would do before you were even born – it is that God forgave you for it before you were even born – but He will not force love from you against your will.
Two questions from Penguin, found here:
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
“What about the Bible’s portrayal of a God of love who also judges his enemies? In chapter 5, Keller defends belief in a God of love who also is a God of wrath and judgment. If God loves his creation, it’s understandable that God would oppose anything that does harm to his creation (see p. 73). Do you agree that God is big enough to encompass mercy and love, as well as judgment and wrath? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin My thought on the matter is that anyone who claims to love good, but allows evil to go unchecked, is indifferent to evil, is lying. Loving good includes hating evil. Love and hate are not opposites (when the ‘object’ of that hate is ‘evil’ – not that ‘evil’ is an ‘object’ – I still agree with Becky Pippert on page 73). I also think God’s judgment is an expression of love – having experienced it myself. He disciplines those He loves, like any good, loving father should.
“On the question of a loving God sending people to hell, Keller writes that God gives people free choice in the matter. “In short, hell is simply one’s freely chosen identity apart from God on a trajectory into infinity” (p. 78). In other words, those who end up in hell chose that destination by rejecting God. How do you respond to such an assertion?” – Penguin
What do you think of this quote: “The only means of prohibiting all recourse to violence by ourselves is to insist that violence is legitimate only when it comes from God,” (74)? Does it seem like a double-standard to you? To me, it doesn’t, because I can see that humans can resort to violence for the wrong reasons, and that God will never resort to violence for the wrong reasons. Some consider a case of justified violence to be defense, for example, of one’s country or a country with which one’s country is allied. Is Keller implying we should not defend in any case whatsoever, but let God “eventually put all things right”? I don’t think so. I think the original quote may be referring to a particular type of violence. For example, I don’t think Keller would say “let’s do away with the justice system and let God ‘eventually put all things right.’” I do however think we should definitely slow down and check our motives and seek God’s guidance in every case that triggers a defensive impulse. What do you think about the thought that loss of belief in God’s judgment leads to less inhibition (an opiate) to violence?
What do you think about the fact that the Bible is the only source of a belief in a God of pure love, who forgives everyone and allows those who reject His love to choose hell?
“For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Christianity is not the product of any one culture but is actually the transcultural truth of God. If that were the case we would expect that it would contradict and offend every human culture at some point, because human cultures are ever-changing and imperfect. If Christianity were the truth it would have to be offending and correcting your thinking at some place,” (72-73). What do you think?
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon for this chapter:
Download sermon and study guide:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
Hell Luke 16:19-31 (Rich Man and Lazarus)
Doubt: A judge who consigns people to hell-how can He be a loving God?
--the biblical imagery of hellfire is metaphoric-for something infinitely worse than fire
--crucial for understanding your own heart, living in peace with the world, and for knowing the love of God
1. Crucial for understanding your own heart.
Only parable in which the character has a proper name-the poor man-Lazarus
The rich man believed in God, but did not follow Him, is in hell without a name
Status and wealth was the rich man's identity-now that it's gone-he's gone
Kierkegaard's "Sickness Unto Death" sin: building your identity on anything but God (grace) Rom 6
--Pharisees follow the law but are lost, because their identity is not built on God but on their moral performance
When you build your identity on anything but God, it leads to disintegration, isolation, blaming others (denial to see what's really happening)-consequences of addiction-(fire)
--Iron Giant: souls don't die, souls can't die (movie)
Iron Giant + Kierkegaard = eternal disintegration
"hell begins with a grumbling mood"
God doesn't "send" us to hell-there is something in us which will "be" hell unless we build our identity on God. "the doors of hell are locked from the inside" …like folks who don't want to get out of addiction, though they hate being in it. All who are in hell, choose it.
Rich man: still ordering Lazarus around in hell…doesn't try to get out of hell…just tries to Lazarus in to help him out…blames God for not giving him enough information…
Who are you? Nameless? On what is your identity grounded? This doctrine calls you to look deep into your own heart.
2. Crucial for living in peace with the world.
Doubt: "Hell" translates into oppressing people. Inherently divisive. How can believers treat unbelievers equally if you think we're damned?
v.25-Abraham calls the rich man "son". A sense of sadness (pathos), tragedy.
Volf: cycle of retaliation fueled by lack of belief in a God of justice (who will right all wrongs)
--Marx "opiate" objection answered by MLKJr. Already
Jesus died for His enemies-His sacrifice means nothing if you don't believe in hell.
3. Crucial for knowing the love of God.
Rich Man wants God to send Lazarus back to talk to his brothers. Abraham says that won't work-even if they believe Lazarus, fear of hell won't change anything.
Being good to avoid hell is more hell-not "good for goodness' sake"-using God-just turning up the flames.
Jesus rising from the dead is not enough-have to know "why"-which is explained in Moses and the Prophets: love.
The only thing that will put out the flame is love.
Unless you believe in hell, you will never know what Jesus communicated in His sacrifice.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
RFG 4: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice
“In chapter 4, the author looks at Christian hypocrisy and the problem it creates for those outside the church. The author agrees that people who do not claim to be Christians are often more ethical and more moral than those who attend church. Then he proposes an interesting explanation: churches might have a higher concentration of broken people, compared to the constituencies of other organizations, because people in need realize their condition and seek out assistance (see p. 53 — 54). Do you feel this explanation is too close to saying “don’t judge Christianity by its weakest representatives”? Do you agree with the criticism that if Christianity really does transform lives, that the behavior of Christians should surpass that of the average human? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
An observation I have made is that some people who call Christians hypocrites because they witness a Christian doing things they would consider “un-Christian” – they do the exact same things, and often worse things. Maybe it makes them lose hope that they can be lifted out of the mud, when they see Christians who are indistinguishable from the world? Maybe their anger at hypocrisy is misplaced guilt and helps relieve their sense of guilt at doing things they know are wrong -- a sense of guilt that is maybe a very heavy guilt complex because they grew up with a Pharisaical (“holier than thou”) attitude about Christianity, rather than knowing that we are saved by grace? I also wonder if they have standards (for Christians, or for themselves-if-they-were-Christians) that are too strict. When I was growing up it was wrong to drink alcohol, and now that rule is more relaxed and we even held sermon group in a pub one time. Maybe their anger about Christian hypocrisy comes from observing ‘nominal’ or ‘fanatical’ people who call themselves Christians but do not know Christ (perhaps some wolves in sheep’s clothing), or maybe from observing newborn Christians who “have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually,” (53) and judging them prematurely (without grace… perhaps because they don’t yet know grace)? It’s crazy – I was reviewing this book, “Lord, I Need Grace to Make It” by Kay Arthur – all over it in different sections I wrote, “Sorry… I just don’t get it.” I was losing faith at the time I did that Bible study, and clearly – I had not even yet understood grace (as a ‘reality’ and not merely as a ‘concept’). So it is not hard for me to understand how a non-Christian may not understand grace. It’s like God keeps your eyes closed until you are ready to see His world… like a doctor pushing on a newborn’s head to keep it from being choked by the umbilical cord.
I liked how Keller contrasted between ‘nominalism’ and ‘fanaticism’ (56-57) – distinguishing between those who claim the title “Christian” but do not live it out and barely believe it – and those who claim the title “Christian” but behave and believe more like Pharisees. I liked how he emphasized the need to move to a fuller and deeper grasp of what Christianity is – that it is not a form of moral improvement, but salvation by grace – God’s loving us no matter what we do, which motivates us to love others likewise. I liked how Keller pointed out Jesus’ critique of religion similar to the prophets of the OT, and how Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others used their knowledge of true Christianity, of salvation by grace, to live out grace in their critique of religion and the church from within. Here is Rev. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” for your perusal:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
I liked how Keller pointed out (via Alister McGrath) that “when the idea of God is gone, a society will ‘transcendentalize’ something else, some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior. The Marxists [Ichthus: not Marx] made the state into such an absolute, while the Nazis did it to race and blood. Even the ideals of liberty and equality can be used in this way in order to do violence to opponents. … violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it,” (55-56).
When you make decisions, do you consider others in general, including being willing to risk your life to liberate others, as Jesus did, or do you not have the motivation--the joy of God spoken of at the end of chapter 4 (if you do have the motivation, I am not asking you to toot your own horn) (if you don’t and you’re a Christian, remember grace and that growth is gradual)? Or do you think God’s self-sacrificial love is not the only motivation for self-sacrificial living [if so, describe the alternative motivation(s)]. Or would you lean more towards the reasoning that, “If this world is all there is, and if the goods of this world are the only love, comfort, and wealth I will ever have, why should I sacrifice them for others?” (66). Does it not at all anger you when Christians do not live self-sacrificially, because you value honor like “the pre-Christian northern European tribes, like the Anglo-Saxons” whose ethic was self-regarding, rather than other-regarding (one could also refer to the egoism of Rand’s ‘rational self-interest’)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy#Ethics:_Rational_self-interest
Footnote 2: “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him. You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next-door neighbors or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count when the anesthetic fog we call ‘nature’ or ‘the real world’ fades away and the Divine Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1964), p. 168.
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon of this chapter:
Download sermon and study guide:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
Injustice
James 2:1-17
Hypocrisy--the Christian church has a long history of oppression. Marx: disempowers the poor.
1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.
2. All who choose Him do the same.
3. How can we make that connection?
1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.
"Has God not chosen the poor?" (James) Not 'only' the poor-but the poor are not excluded, the Gospel appeals mostly to the poor (as opposed to religion/morality in general) because it empowers them--and God likes to turn the values of the world upside down.
Sociologists who study neighborhoods in Latin America which have undergone conversion, find they are improved economically-Marx was wrong.
Which worldview empowers the poor: Gospel (purpose), or secular (accident).
According to Jesus, the pimps and prostitutes get in before the economic and religions leaders (Pharisees).
Two ways of self-salvation, rebelling against God:
1. Break all the moral rules.
2. Keeping all the moral rules, as if it obligates God to save you.
--Both need God's grace-only the first category sees it. The poor welcome it.
Push-back: sure, God chooses the poor-but what about the church? Terrible record.
2. All who choose Him do the same.
"Faith without works is dead." Doesn't mean works "save" us (Pharisees) (all social workers are not going to heaven necessarily). Means they are evidence (fruit) of that salvation-signs that you are not a Pharisee. Caring for the poor (Pharisees did not). Don't discriminate. Care for physical needs of people. "Judgment will be w/o mercy for those who have shown no mercy." Word translated as 'mercy' means 'to be kind, favorable' - specifically 'meeting the physical needs of the poor'. Good Samaritan example-'the one who did mercy'. "Have mercy on us" means "heal me". The poor should recognize God loves them and the rich man the same. The rich should recognize they are no better than anyone else in God's eyes-all fall short. You are the poor man-you are the rich man. You are the Other. Identity transformed by the Gospel.
MLKJR - when he confronted Christian clergymen, did he say "let's get away from Christianity" - did he say "Christianity is the opiate of the masses" - no, he said, let's return, get to the heart of the Christian faith. Faith without works is dead.
3. How can we make that connection?
"as believers in our Lord Jesus Christ the Glory" - we will not show favoritism, be controlled by superficiality-the "perfected surface".
Phil 2 - Jesus ultimate glory…gave it up…for the humility of the cross…so that we could share in His glory. But there is beauty in the sacrifice of the cross-"I will attract all men to myself" - though it humbled Him, though it was ugly.
The doubt doesn't knock down Christianity, but it should knock us down to our knees. Though He was rich, He became poor for us-which is a balm to heal all the wounds we have inflicted upon ourselves.
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice
“In chapter 4, the author looks at Christian hypocrisy and the problem it creates for those outside the church. The author agrees that people who do not claim to be Christians are often more ethical and more moral than those who attend church. Then he proposes an interesting explanation: churches might have a higher concentration of broken people, compared to the constituencies of other organizations, because people in need realize their condition and seek out assistance (see p. 53 — 54). Do you feel this explanation is too close to saying “don’t judge Christianity by its weakest representatives”? Do you agree with the criticism that if Christianity really does transform lives, that the behavior of Christians should surpass that of the average human? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
An observation I have made is that some people who call Christians hypocrites because they witness a Christian doing things they would consider “un-Christian” – they do the exact same things, and often worse things. Maybe it makes them lose hope that they can be lifted out of the mud, when they see Christians who are indistinguishable from the world? Maybe their anger at hypocrisy is misplaced guilt and helps relieve their sense of guilt at doing things they know are wrong -- a sense of guilt that is maybe a very heavy guilt complex because they grew up with a Pharisaical (“holier than thou”) attitude about Christianity, rather than knowing that we are saved by grace? I also wonder if they have standards (for Christians, or for themselves-if-they-were-Christians) that are too strict. When I was growing up it was wrong to drink alcohol, and now that rule is more relaxed and we even held sermon group in a pub one time. Maybe their anger about Christian hypocrisy comes from observing ‘nominal’ or ‘fanatical’ people who call themselves Christians but do not know Christ (perhaps some wolves in sheep’s clothing), or maybe from observing newborn Christians who “have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually,” (53) and judging them prematurely (without grace… perhaps because they don’t yet know grace)? It’s crazy – I was reviewing this book, “Lord, I Need Grace to Make It” by Kay Arthur – all over it in different sections I wrote, “Sorry… I just don’t get it.” I was losing faith at the time I did that Bible study, and clearly – I had not even yet understood grace (as a ‘reality’ and not merely as a ‘concept’). So it is not hard for me to understand how a non-Christian may not understand grace. It’s like God keeps your eyes closed until you are ready to see His world… like a doctor pushing on a newborn’s head to keep it from being choked by the umbilical cord.
I liked how Keller contrasted between ‘nominalism’ and ‘fanaticism’ (56-57) – distinguishing between those who claim the title “Christian” but do not live it out and barely believe it – and those who claim the title “Christian” but behave and believe more like Pharisees. I liked how he emphasized the need to move to a fuller and deeper grasp of what Christianity is – that it is not a form of moral improvement, but salvation by grace – God’s loving us no matter what we do, which motivates us to love others likewise. I liked how Keller pointed out Jesus’ critique of religion similar to the prophets of the OT, and how Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others used their knowledge of true Christianity, of salvation by grace, to live out grace in their critique of religion and the church from within. Here is Rev. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” for your perusal:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
I liked how Keller pointed out (via Alister McGrath) that “when the idea of God is gone, a society will ‘transcendentalize’ something else, some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior. The Marxists [Ichthus: not Marx] made the state into such an absolute, while the Nazis did it to race and blood. Even the ideals of liberty and equality can be used in this way in order to do violence to opponents. … violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it,” (55-56).
When you make decisions, do you consider others in general, including being willing to risk your life to liberate others, as Jesus did, or do you not have the motivation--the joy of God spoken of at the end of chapter 4 (if you do have the motivation, I am not asking you to toot your own horn) (if you don’t and you’re a Christian, remember grace and that growth is gradual)? Or do you think God’s self-sacrificial love is not the only motivation for self-sacrificial living [if so, describe the alternative motivation(s)]. Or would you lean more towards the reasoning that, “If this world is all there is, and if the goods of this world are the only love, comfort, and wealth I will ever have, why should I sacrifice them for others?” (66). Does it not at all anger you when Christians do not live self-sacrificially, because you value honor like “the pre-Christian northern European tribes, like the Anglo-Saxons” whose ethic was self-regarding, rather than other-regarding (one could also refer to the egoism of Rand’s ‘rational self-interest’)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy#Ethics:_Rational_self-interest
Footnote 2: “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him. You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next-door neighbors or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count when the anesthetic fog we call ‘nature’ or ‘the real world’ fades away and the Divine Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1964), p. 168.
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon of this chapter:
Download sermon and study guide:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
Injustice
James 2:1-17
Hypocrisy--the Christian church has a long history of oppression. Marx: disempowers the poor.
1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.
2. All who choose Him do the same.
3. How can we make that connection?
1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.
"Has God not chosen the poor?" (James) Not 'only' the poor-but the poor are not excluded, the Gospel appeals mostly to the poor (as opposed to religion/morality in general) because it empowers them--and God likes to turn the values of the world upside down.
Sociologists who study neighborhoods in Latin America which have undergone conversion, find they are improved economically-Marx was wrong.
Which worldview empowers the poor: Gospel (purpose), or secular (accident).
According to Jesus, the pimps and prostitutes get in before the economic and religions leaders (Pharisees).
Two ways of self-salvation, rebelling against God:
1. Break all the moral rules.
2. Keeping all the moral rules, as if it obligates God to save you.
--Both need God's grace-only the first category sees it. The poor welcome it.
Push-back: sure, God chooses the poor-but what about the church? Terrible record.
2. All who choose Him do the same.
"Faith without works is dead." Doesn't mean works "save" us (Pharisees) (all social workers are not going to heaven necessarily). Means they are evidence (fruit) of that salvation-signs that you are not a Pharisee. Caring for the poor (Pharisees did not). Don't discriminate. Care for physical needs of people. "Judgment will be w/o mercy for those who have shown no mercy." Word translated as 'mercy' means 'to be kind, favorable' - specifically 'meeting the physical needs of the poor'. Good Samaritan example-'the one who did mercy'. "Have mercy on us" means "heal me". The poor should recognize God loves them and the rich man the same. The rich should recognize they are no better than anyone else in God's eyes-all fall short. You are the poor man-you are the rich man. You are the Other. Identity transformed by the Gospel.
MLKJR - when he confronted Christian clergymen, did he say "let's get away from Christianity" - did he say "Christianity is the opiate of the masses" - no, he said, let's return, get to the heart of the Christian faith. Faith without works is dead.
3. How can we make that connection?
"as believers in our Lord Jesus Christ the Glory" - we will not show favoritism, be controlled by superficiality-the "perfected surface".
Phil 2 - Jesus ultimate glory…gave it up…for the humility of the cross…so that we could share in His glory. But there is beauty in the sacrifice of the cross-"I will attract all men to myself" - though it humbled Him, though it was ugly.
The doubt doesn't knock down Christianity, but it should knock us down to our knees. Though He was rich, He became poor for us-which is a balm to heal all the wounds we have inflicted upon ourselves.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
RFG 3: Christianity is a Straightjacket
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: THREE: Christianity is a Straitjacket
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
THREE: Christianity Is a Straitjacket
Chapter 3 is similar to chapter 1 in that both of them deal with the doubt that Christianity is too exclusive about truth and should be more tolerant of non-Christians; they are different in that chapter 3 addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian.
Some favored quotes from the chapter which reflect how chapter 1 and 3 are similar: “Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle,” (39) (examples given are western democratic values foreign to many other cultures, and the distinctly different commitments of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center and the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriage). “Sanneh argues that secularism with its anti-supernaturalism and individualism is much more destructive of local cultures and ‘African–ness,’” (41) (remember the Jewish holocaust and the increasingly global push for secularization). “Christianity may become the most truly ‘catholic vision of the world,’ having opened its leadership over the centuries to people from every tongue, tribe, and nation,” (45) (‘catholic’ meaning ‘universal’).
Keller mentions that he asks “‘Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?’ They would invariably say, ‘Yes, of course.’ Then I would ask, ‘Doesn’t that mean that you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks?’” (47, emphasis Keller’s). What do you think – is there some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ and is not defined by us, that will ultimately fulfill us if we live within it or damn us if we don’t (see C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48 – “The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation,”)? Granted – a being that doesn’t exist (so isn’t even a ‘being’) cannot live within or be fulfilled by any moral reality (but put heavy emphasis on ‘regardless’ in Keller’s question – and on ‘feels’ – for any potential emotivists reading this).
Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in the sense where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas, because it was always the only correct worldview). Does your chosen community’s worldview include “beliefs that lead its members to treat persons in other communities with love and respect—to serve them and meet their needs? … lead it to demonize and attack those who violate their boundaries rather than treating them with kindness, humility, and winsomeness?” (40). Also -- if your worldview was 'always' the only correct worldview -- when did 'always' begin?
What is hard to accept is that there is only one Way, but it is the Way for everyone – for God so loves the world (John 3:16). But it is not a Way He unlovingly forces upon us, as love is not forced – we must freely choose it. So, let’s turn our focus to how Keller addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian -- the “freedom factor,” if you will.
“Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it? … What then is the moral-spiritual reality we must acknowledge to thrive? What is the environment that liberates us if we confine ourselves to it, like water liberates the fish? Love. Love is the most liberating freedom-loss of all,” (47, emphasis mine). The discussion of discovering a set purpose rather than manufacturing a new purpose reminds me of the saying, “No need to reinvent the wheel.” “Freedom, then, is not the absence of limitations and constraints but it is finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us,” (49, emphasis mine). I love the C.S. Lewis quote on 48. I love knowing that the divine requirement is also our complete fulfillment: love.
I also love how Keller points out that this love requirement is not a one-way street. “In the most radical way, God has adjusted to us—in his incarnation and atonement. In Jesus Christ he became a limited human being, vulnerable to suffering and death. On the cross, he submitted to our condition—as sinners—and died in our place to forgive us. In the most profound way, God has said to us, in Christ, ‘I will adjust to you. I will change for you. I’ll serve you though it means a sacrifice for me.’ If he has done this for us, we can and should say the same to God and others. St. Paul writes, ‘the love of Christ constrains us’ (2 Corinthians 5:14),” (49). It is this truth that set me free – the truth of His sacrificial pursuing of each of us, before and after He finds us, whether or not we yet know it.
I have heard two ironically opposed arguments related to this: 1) if He can omnipotently rise from death, His death means nothing, and 2) if He can be vulnerable, He is not omnipotent. To the first: He did physically die and communicate His unconditional love through His sacrifice. To the second: God’s love is more powerful than raw power – the last will be first, the first will be last. One could argue that the inability to love (or fear of loving; love requires more than mere physical strength) is a greater weakness than lack of physical strength (see again C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48) – and God does not love we temporal beings from a lack (as we do apart from Him), but from His eternal perfection. See also…
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm
This is also discussed in chapter 14.
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon on the chapter:
Download sermon and study guide: http://www.reasonforgod.com/media.php
Absolutism
Galatians 2:4-16
Doubt: Christians think they have absolute truth-but that undermines freedom, tends to oppress people, restricts the individual who believes it. "The heart of liberty is to define one's own concept of existence or the meaning of the universe" -Supreme Court.
Answer: truth more important, freedom more complex, Jesus more liberating (than you think)
1. Truth is more important than you think.
v4-5 freedom in Christ because of truth of the Gospel (truth will set you free) John 8
Foucault-"truth is a thing of this world, it is produced only by multiple forms of constraint, and that includes the regular effects of power" - truth claims are power plays
--disciple of Nietzsche (hermeneutics of suspicion) (philosophical squinting) (motive?)
--same thing Jesus says of Pharisees-your truth claims are power plays
But, if you conclude "all" truth claims are power plays, you're wrong.
C.S. Lewis in "The Abolition of Man"--
"You cannot go on 'seeing through' things forever" - if you say "all truth claims are power plays" - you are saying 'that' truth claim is just a power play (not true)
It's not the truth claim (the "fundamental")-it's what's "in" the truth claim (the "fundamental")-that leads or does not lead to oppression.
Fundamental truth claim: grace. If you're out of touch with that reality/truth-no freedom (truth will set you free). Everything else is "real" slavery/addiction to whatever else it is you build your identity on.
2. Freedom is more complex than you think.
Paul was going to the Gentiles, where the power/money was. The apostles were reminding him they have far less money/power, and to remember them.
v.10-free, but restricted to biblical norms
Doubt: thought freedom is absence of restrictions/boundaries/norms?
Give up freedom to eat whatever you want, if you want freedom of good health (or vice versa).
Give up freedom of free time, if you want freedom of musical skill (or vice versa).
But--discipline/restriction is not a good in itself-freedom is not the absence/presence of "restriction"-but it is the "right restrictions"-the ones that fit your nature (design) (who God made you to be).
A fish out of water isn't free-must be restricted to water.
Our water is love, which requires we surrender all kinds of individual freedom
Afraid of being exploited?
3. Jesus is more liberating than you think.
I Robot: find your own way is what it means to be free
If you have a design-not free.
John: Word-Logos: logic, reason-reason for life
This Logos is not "abstract"-we beheld His glory-is a personal absolute
fish designed for water-free in water
humans designed for love-free in personal love relationship with Logos
an "abstraction" is dehumanizing
If we only surrender to God, it's one way, it's dehumanizing, it's out of fear--Nietzsche and Foucault are right.
But Jesus surrendered to us, adjusted to us, by becoming human and dying on the cross. He was exploited, killed. What more could you ask for from God? Phil 2.
His grace is liberating.
Paul goes after Peter's racism against Gentiles on the basis of being free, using truth.
v14-"not in line w/ the truth of the Gospel"-you're a slave to what these people think about you…think about what God thinks about you (love)
"the love of Christ constrains us" - like water constrains the fish
Grace makes God's desire-our desire.
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
THREE: Christianity Is a Straitjacket
Chapter 3 is similar to chapter 1 in that both of them deal with the doubt that Christianity is too exclusive about truth and should be more tolerant of non-Christians; they are different in that chapter 3 addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian.
Some favored quotes from the chapter which reflect how chapter 1 and 3 are similar: “Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle,” (39) (examples given are western democratic values foreign to many other cultures, and the distinctly different commitments of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center and the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriage). “Sanneh argues that secularism with its anti-supernaturalism and individualism is much more destructive of local cultures and ‘African–ness,’” (41) (remember the Jewish holocaust and the increasingly global push for secularization). “Christianity may become the most truly ‘catholic vision of the world,’ having opened its leadership over the centuries to people from every tongue, tribe, and nation,” (45) (‘catholic’ meaning ‘universal’).
Keller mentions that he asks “‘Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?’ They would invariably say, ‘Yes, of course.’ Then I would ask, ‘Doesn’t that mean that you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks?’” (47, emphasis Keller’s). What do you think – is there some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ and is not defined by us, that will ultimately fulfill us if we live within it or damn us if we don’t (see C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48 – “The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation,”)? Granted – a being that doesn’t exist (so isn’t even a ‘being’) cannot live within or be fulfilled by any moral reality (but put heavy emphasis on ‘regardless’ in Keller’s question – and on ‘feels’ – for any potential emotivists reading this).
Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in the sense where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas, because it was always the only correct worldview). Does your chosen community’s worldview include “beliefs that lead its members to treat persons in other communities with love and respect—to serve them and meet their needs? … lead it to demonize and attack those who violate their boundaries rather than treating them with kindness, humility, and winsomeness?” (40). Also -- if your worldview was 'always' the only correct worldview -- when did 'always' begin?
What is hard to accept is that there is only one Way, but it is the Way for everyone – for God so loves the world (John 3:16). But it is not a Way He unlovingly forces upon us, as love is not forced – we must freely choose it. So, let’s turn our focus to how Keller addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian -- the “freedom factor,” if you will.
“Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it? … What then is the moral-spiritual reality we must acknowledge to thrive? What is the environment that liberates us if we confine ourselves to it, like water liberates the fish? Love. Love is the most liberating freedom-loss of all,” (47, emphasis mine). The discussion of discovering a set purpose rather than manufacturing a new purpose reminds me of the saying, “No need to reinvent the wheel.” “Freedom, then, is not the absence of limitations and constraints but it is finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us,” (49, emphasis mine). I love the C.S. Lewis quote on 48. I love knowing that the divine requirement is also our complete fulfillment: love.
I also love how Keller points out that this love requirement is not a one-way street. “In the most radical way, God has adjusted to us—in his incarnation and atonement. In Jesus Christ he became a limited human being, vulnerable to suffering and death. On the cross, he submitted to our condition—as sinners—and died in our place to forgive us. In the most profound way, God has said to us, in Christ, ‘I will adjust to you. I will change for you. I’ll serve you though it means a sacrifice for me.’ If he has done this for us, we can and should say the same to God and others. St. Paul writes, ‘the love of Christ constrains us’ (2 Corinthians 5:14),” (49). It is this truth that set me free – the truth of His sacrificial pursuing of each of us, before and after He finds us, whether or not we yet know it.
I have heard two ironically opposed arguments related to this: 1) if He can omnipotently rise from death, His death means nothing, and 2) if He can be vulnerable, He is not omnipotent. To the first: He did physically die and communicate His unconditional love through His sacrifice. To the second: God’s love is more powerful than raw power – the last will be first, the first will be last. One could argue that the inability to love (or fear of loving; love requires more than mere physical strength) is a greater weakness than lack of physical strength (see again C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48) – and God does not love we temporal beings from a lack (as we do apart from Him), but from His eternal perfection. See also…
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm
This is also discussed in chapter 14.
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon on the chapter:
Download sermon and study guide: http://www.reasonforgod.com/media.php
Absolutism
Galatians 2:4-16
Doubt: Christians think they have absolute truth-but that undermines freedom, tends to oppress people, restricts the individual who believes it. "The heart of liberty is to define one's own concept of existence or the meaning of the universe" -Supreme Court.
Answer: truth more important, freedom more complex, Jesus more liberating (than you think)
1. Truth is more important than you think.
v4-5 freedom in Christ because of truth of the Gospel (truth will set you free) John 8
Foucault-"truth is a thing of this world, it is produced only by multiple forms of constraint, and that includes the regular effects of power" - truth claims are power plays
--disciple of Nietzsche (hermeneutics of suspicion) (philosophical squinting) (motive?)
--same thing Jesus says of Pharisees-your truth claims are power plays
But, if you conclude "all" truth claims are power plays, you're wrong.
C.S. Lewis in "The Abolition of Man"--
"You cannot go on 'seeing through' things forever" - if you say "all truth claims are power plays" - you are saying 'that' truth claim is just a power play (not true)
It's not the truth claim (the "fundamental")-it's what's "in" the truth claim (the "fundamental")-that leads or does not lead to oppression.
Fundamental truth claim: grace. If you're out of touch with that reality/truth-no freedom (truth will set you free). Everything else is "real" slavery/addiction to whatever else it is you build your identity on.
2. Freedom is more complex than you think.
Paul was going to the Gentiles, where the power/money was. The apostles were reminding him they have far less money/power, and to remember them.
v.10-free, but restricted to biblical norms
Doubt: thought freedom is absence of restrictions/boundaries/norms?
Give up freedom to eat whatever you want, if you want freedom of good health (or vice versa).
Give up freedom of free time, if you want freedom of musical skill (or vice versa).
But--discipline/restriction is not a good in itself-freedom is not the absence/presence of "restriction"-but it is the "right restrictions"-the ones that fit your nature (design) (who God made you to be).
A fish out of water isn't free-must be restricted to water.
Our water is love, which requires we surrender all kinds of individual freedom
Afraid of being exploited?
3. Jesus is more liberating than you think.
I Robot: find your own way is what it means to be free
If you have a design-not free.
John: Word-Logos: logic, reason-reason for life
This Logos is not "abstract"-we beheld His glory-is a personal absolute
fish designed for water-free in water
humans designed for love-free in personal love relationship with Logos
an "abstraction" is dehumanizing
If we only surrender to God, it's one way, it's dehumanizing, it's out of fear--Nietzsche and Foucault are right.
But Jesus surrendered to us, adjusted to us, by becoming human and dying on the cross. He was exploited, killed. What more could you ask for from God? Phil 2.
His grace is liberating.
Paul goes after Peter's racism against Gentiles on the basis of being free, using truth.
v14-"not in line w/ the truth of the Gospel"-you're a slave to what these people think about you…think about what God thinks about you (love)
"the love of Christ constrains us" - like water constrains the fish
Grace makes God's desire-our desire.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
RFG 2: How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?
Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: TWO: How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
TWO: How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?
From now on, along with my own observations and questions, I will be including discussion questions written by Penguin and found here, if you’d like to look ahead:
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
Keller talks right on the front page of his book’s website, plus there’s other talks to download:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/ / http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
I don’t have time to listen to all of it, but I thought I’d pass it along anyway.
As always, feel free to comment on any part of the chapter not mentioned here.
“In chapter 2, Keller responds to the contention that a loving God could not allow suffering. He states: ‘Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one’ (p. 23). Do you buy the argument that the absence of a clear answer doesn’t rule out the possibility that a plausible — but hidden — explanation exists? Why or why not? Do you feel that claiming that God has reasons for his actions that are beyond human reasoning is a cop-out? Or is this a valid argument when the topic is God and his transcendent ways of doing things?” -- Penguin
“As he continues to examine the problem of pain, Keller writes: ‘… though Christianity does not provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair’ (pp. 27-28). Have you ever experienced the hope and/or courage that he refers to? If so, describe your experience to others in the group.” -- Penguin
“Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, the author states: ‘… modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair-play and justice. People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak — these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust’ (p. 26). How would you respond to Keller’s question? Does an allegiance to the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest contradict human values that oppose suffering, discrimination, and the victimization of the poor and powerless? Why or why not?” – Penguin
And my own contribution to the discussion: It wasn’t mentioned in the chapter, but I think a lot of (but certainly not all) suffering is the natural, direct consequences of sin. It is not evidence against God, but against our being God, and in favor of the fact that God, like a good father, allows us to learn from our mistakes, rather than dysfunctionaly protecting us from them by a) preventing us from making them, or b) preventing us from experiencing the consequences. Agree, disagree? Pick one: prevent suffering and prevent free will (love), or allow free will (love) and allow suffering.
http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2008/01/problem-of-evil.html
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon for this chapter:
Download sermon and study guide:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
Suffering 1 Peter 1:3-12
"The Problem of Evil and Suffering"
Doubt: If God allows evil and suffering to continue because He can't stop it, He might be good, but He's not all powerful. If God allows it because He can stop it, but He won't stop it-then He might be all-powerful, but He's not good.
One way "not" to face evil/suffering-three ways "to face" it.
1 not. One way "not" to face evil/suffering: abandon faith.
Peter says the pain you are going through can "strengthen" faith-not weaken it.
Abandoning faith doesn't help you understand or deal w/ pain/suffering.
MLKJr: Only way to know if a human law is unjust, is according to the divine law.
If no God-no divine law-can't say 'any' historical event is unjust.
In nature, there's nothing more natural than violence.
Sartre and Dostoevsky-no God, all permitted-no "evil"-suffering is not a "problem".
If there is evil/suffering-if they are problems-a lack of God's existence is a problem.
Look: 1. Back 2. Ahead 3. In
1. Look back (to cross)
Peter likens pain/suffering to a fire/furnace/crucible. Daniel 3.
Isaiah: fear not, I have redeemed you-when you pass through the waters, I will be there-when you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon you
"thy dross to consume, thy gold to refine" - hymn
Promise is NOT "smooth sailing" - the promise is WHEN you go through trials-I will so love you, and you will so sense my presence, you will be refined and not be broken
God became vulnerable to suffering/pain/death (calling out Why?) on the cross for us.
--connection to hell sermon
Ask Jesus on the cross why He allows pain/evil-the answer cannot be that He doesn't love us-when there He is loving us…in the furnace with us.
2. Look ahead (to resurrection)
Peter says we have a living hope that will get us through the furnace-our inheritance in heaven, the foretaste of which was Jesus' physical resurrection-the first-fruits of the new heavens, new earth, our own resurrection. Rev 21-22. 1 Corinthians 15. Restoration of "this" world. Pure, unfading, imperishable, unspoiled. Everything sad and horrible is going to be brought up into the victory.
Dostoevsky: "I believe like a child that suffering…will be made up for." (get whole quote from RFG book)
3. Look in (YOU are His living hope)
V.12 angels long to look into this-"long" means "lust"-they obsessively, passionately look into the Gospel…never get tired of it.
How did Jesus get through His furnace? Heb 12-for the joy that was set before Him, He endured the cross.
What was His living hope? What drew Him away from heaven, brought Him down here-"the results of His suffering He will see and be satisfied"--
Isaiah: my righteous servant will justify many"
YOU are His living hope.
That will make Him your living hope, and your suffering in the furnace will burn away the dross and you will be refined and turned to gold.
“The Reason for God” (Keller) Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt
TWO: How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?
From now on, along with my own observations and questions, I will be including discussion questions written by Penguin and found here, if you’d like to look ahead:
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf
Keller talks right on the front page of his book’s website, plus there’s other talks to download:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/ / http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
I don’t have time to listen to all of it, but I thought I’d pass it along anyway.
As always, feel free to comment on any part of the chapter not mentioned here.
“In chapter 2, Keller responds to the contention that a loving God could not allow suffering. He states: ‘Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean there can’t be one’ (p. 23). Do you buy the argument that the absence of a clear answer doesn’t rule out the possibility that a plausible — but hidden — explanation exists? Why or why not? Do you feel that claiming that God has reasons for his actions that are beyond human reasoning is a cop-out? Or is this a valid argument when the topic is God and his transcendent ways of doing things?” -- Penguin
“As he continues to examine the problem of pain, Keller writes: ‘… though Christianity does not provide the reason for each experience of pain, it provides deep resources for actually facing suffering with hope and courage rather than bitterness and despair’ (pp. 27-28). Have you ever experienced the hope and/or courage that he refers to? If so, describe your experience to others in the group.” -- Penguin
“Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, the author states: ‘… modern objections to God are based on a sense of fair-play and justice. People, we believe, ought not to suffer, be excluded, die of hunger or oppression. But the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak — these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the natural world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust’ (p. 26). How would you respond to Keller’s question? Does an allegiance to the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest contradict human values that oppose suffering, discrimination, and the victimization of the poor and powerless? Why or why not?” – Penguin
And my own contribution to the discussion: It wasn’t mentioned in the chapter, but I think a lot of (but certainly not all) suffering is the natural, direct consequences of sin. It is not evidence against God, but against our being God, and in favor of the fact that God, like a good father, allows us to learn from our mistakes, rather than dysfunctionaly protecting us from them by a) preventing us from making them, or b) preventing us from experiencing the consequences. Agree, disagree? Pick one: prevent suffering and prevent free will (love), or allow free will (love) and allow suffering.
http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2008/01/problem-of-evil.html
*******
Notes on Keller's sermon for this chapter:
Download sermon and study guide:
http://www.thereasonforgod.com/media.php
Suffering 1 Peter 1:3-12
"The Problem of Evil and Suffering"
Doubt: If God allows evil and suffering to continue because He can't stop it, He might be good, but He's not all powerful. If God allows it because He can stop it, but He won't stop it-then He might be all-powerful, but He's not good.
One way "not" to face evil/suffering-three ways "to face" it.
1 not. One way "not" to face evil/suffering: abandon faith.
Peter says the pain you are going through can "strengthen" faith-not weaken it.
Abandoning faith doesn't help you understand or deal w/ pain/suffering.
MLKJr: Only way to know if a human law is unjust, is according to the divine law.
If no God-no divine law-can't say 'any' historical event is unjust.
In nature, there's nothing more natural than violence.
Sartre and Dostoevsky-no God, all permitted-no "evil"-suffering is not a "problem".
If there is evil/suffering-if they are problems-a lack of God's existence is a problem.
Look: 1. Back 2. Ahead 3. In
1. Look back (to cross)
Peter likens pain/suffering to a fire/furnace/crucible. Daniel 3.
Isaiah: fear not, I have redeemed you-when you pass through the waters, I will be there-when you walk through the fire, you shall not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon you
"thy dross to consume, thy gold to refine" - hymn
Promise is NOT "smooth sailing" - the promise is WHEN you go through trials-I will so love you, and you will so sense my presence, you will be refined and not be broken
God became vulnerable to suffering/pain/death (calling out Why?) on the cross for us.
--connection to hell sermon
Ask Jesus on the cross why He allows pain/evil-the answer cannot be that He doesn't love us-when there He is loving us…in the furnace with us.
2. Look ahead (to resurrection)
Peter says we have a living hope that will get us through the furnace-our inheritance in heaven, the foretaste of which was Jesus' physical resurrection-the first-fruits of the new heavens, new earth, our own resurrection. Rev 21-22. 1 Corinthians 15. Restoration of "this" world. Pure, unfading, imperishable, unspoiled. Everything sad and horrible is going to be brought up into the victory.
Dostoevsky: "I believe like a child that suffering…will be made up for." (get whole quote from RFG book)
3. Look in (YOU are His living hope)
V.12 angels long to look into this-"long" means "lust"-they obsessively, passionately look into the Gospel…never get tired of it.
How did Jesus get through His furnace? Heb 12-for the joy that was set before Him, He endured the cross.
What was His living hope? What drew Him away from heaven, brought Him down here-"the results of His suffering He will see and be satisfied"--
Isaiah: my righteous servant will justify many"
YOU are His living hope.
That will make Him your living hope, and your suffering in the furnace will burn away the dross and you will be refined and turned to gold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)