tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45715409718169362242024-03-11T12:34:18.646+11:00Church and meReflections and thoughts on my experience of church life.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger929125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-70467940512436909882024-03-10T18:15:00.004+11:002024-03-11T12:33:47.689+11:00Science and the Bible, or Science v the Bible?<div>All intellectual endeavor starts with a conception of the world. If that
conception is not aligned with the world as it truly is, it fails to enable, or
even allow, proper examination of the world. By proper I mean, in a manner that
gives true knowledge of the discretely objective world. For instance,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>> the ancients and pagans generally entertained fictitious <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/occasionalism/" target="_blank">occasionalist </a>(look it up) gods contained by the cosmos that were fickle derivations of man at
his stupidest, even the fates, that seemed to be over them also seemed to be
contained by the cosmos.</div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>> animists as a type of pagan had gods that were enemies and the world
was their playground: again, fickle, needing to be appeased, usually by human
suffering and sacrifice (oops, we do that today with abortion). It was
spooksville all round.<br /></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>> Aristotle had a view that made the world impossible to truly explore.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>> Plato too, for that matter, and the</div><div> </div><div>> German idealists more or less
the same (we are now entering a time that inherits their subjectivism and undoes science). </div><div> </div><div>>
Islam views it as subject to a capricious god, making pursuit of knowledge
gained by study of the world impossible. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>> Eastern monism, broadly speaking, reduces the world to a figment, so
science is irrelevant, so science is irrelevant and because 'god' is everything, impossible, and</div>
<div> </div>
<div>> materialism reduces it to chance material conjunctions, or 'dirt' for
short, eliminating any hope that a mind that resulted from such random events
would have anything of value to say about anything.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Darwin also noted this risk, but he nevertheless went on to undermine
himself, sitting on the branch he was sawing off.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Christian understanding of the world is utterly different, and thus
underpins the rise of modern science, explicitly.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The description of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2 gives us this: The world
(the cosmos, really) is separate from God, and brought into existence with
coherent purpose. At the same time God was active and present in the world, as
Creator, not creature.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The creation described, as analyzed below was set in the world we are in,
indicated by the 'days' of creation making what it teaches set in and about reality (indeed it 'grounds reality'): the reality that we are in and have
intellectual access to.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This was not off in some silly-ville of paganism or fantasy; it was located
concretely in the history we are in and so its characteristics were definitive
for us.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Its creation showed rational causality and propositional (intelligible)
content, with a clear dependency sequence, starting with the general energy
field (light). Each day's action rejecting 'chance' and showing its own
teleological arc. Something NDE fails in at every point.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It shows that we, created 'like' the creator, are able to correspondingly
(or conjointly) examine the world which we are to rightly
govern/subdue/superintend/steward (none of which means 'exploit', degrade or
destroy), gain knowledge and convert this to communicable and intelligible
propositions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The basis for this is a confidence in the constancy of the world at some
level, regularity and rationality of material processes, and reliability of our
cognitive faculties to understand the world as deeply as we can go.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There is no limit because we are confident that the world is entirely
explicable. A 'designed' world encourages this, a random world jeopardizes the
project before it starts.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This mission is encouraged because we are also confident that we have a
purposeful role in the purposeful world: we have an in-built teleological sense
that encourages the worthiness of the project.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, Genesis 1-2 is not a science text, per se. Rather it is the text that
explains why science is possible at all, worthwhile and within our grasp.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>It demonstrates this where Adam is asked to name various animals brought to
him. Those sitting on the village idiot fence always get this wrong. Name
follows 'understand'. Adam necessarily observed, understood, evaluated and
classified in one way or another. The first example of empirical science that we
have. All other science has followed this pattern.</div><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-26274745825654865492024-02-26T20:49:00.005+11:002024-02-26T20:49:55.016+11:00Name the animals? Why?<p>Adam was told to name the animals in Genesis 2:20. Why?<br /></p><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">We don't know at what taxonomic level naming occurred. So the time it would take is a moot point. A day may have been plenty of time. It is certainly foolish to imagine it was every modern species. At higher levels we have cranes, water fowl, raptors and parrots...etc. Perhaps a dozen or so kinds.<br /><br />Aside from anything else, this process of 'naming' was perhaps the first move of Adam's governing of the creation and so has significance in his reflecting the image of God in ' taking responsibility'. It also drives the point of the location of the event in real time and space, in history, that is, and showing that the animals were not creatures to be worshipped, but to be subject to mankind.</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"><br /></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">The other aspect of naming is the commencement of the intellectual component of stewardship. Here Adam is told to make the first move in creating knowledge! The intelligibility of the creation shown in Adam's intelligent analysis of it.<br /> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">Now we must be careful in talking about man's dominion here. Today anti-theists, read back into this man's current foolish and selfish domination of the creation. Adam's role as being in God's image would entail loving and caring for the creation as God's gift and reveling in the joy of doing so.</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"><a href="https://creation.com/how-could-adam-have-named-all-the-animals-in-a-single-day" style="color: #0066cc;">How could Adam have named all the animals in a single day?</a> <br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-15800241825246000842024-02-12T14:15:00.002+11:002024-02-12T14:15:14.520+11:00Yesterday at church: be family<p>The sermon was on 'being family'.</p><p>Clearly our teachers saw a deficiency here and urged its correction.</p><p>However, a 'family' ethos is a result, not a cause. If our current systems are not producing the desired outcome, then 'try harder' within these systems will achieve no change, just frustration, fatigue and disenchantment.<br /></p><p>We must understand the system that is causing this result, and then devise relevant changes to it. It is probably a long term effort, not one that will work next week.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-36244444900872405032024-02-10T15:02:00.007+11:002024-02-12T14:11:28.466+11:00Welcomers at your church gatherings/services/meetings<div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">The job of a welcomer is usually to say 'hi' hand out the service handout, if there is one, and for a newcomer, offer to help them find a seat and escort them to it. <br /></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">Welcomers should continue to be 'on duty' after the gathering: keep an eye out for the newcomer, speak to them again, ensure they have a coffee if desired and available. Introduce them to a regular member.</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">Emergencies: the welcomers must be trained for emergencies, be able to help with exits, operate fire extinguishers, and do initial aid care (not 'full' first aid) and assist as guides for evacuation. They must train for this regularly.</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">Spiritual issues. The welcomer may be the only person a newcomer speaks to, and so they should be able to give a plain English, cogent answer to any of the 7 basic questions:</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">1 -- Why do you go to church?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">2 -- Why are you a Christian?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">3 -- Why do you read the Bible?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">4 -- Did Jesus of Nazareth really resurrect -- is he really God?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"><span> </span><span> </span><a href="https://youtu.be/K3YEjpF1HAk" target="_blank">Bible teaches Yeshua is God</a> <br /></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">5 -- Why do you believe in God?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">6 -- Doesn't science disprove the Bible?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"><span> </span><span> </span>See John Lennox on <a href="https://youtu.be/Lyt9ECm8V9g" target="_blank">Science and God -- Two Mistakes we Make</a>. <br /></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"> </div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;">7 -- How can you believe in God/be a Christian with so much evil and suffering in the world?</div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"><span> </span></div><div style="background-color: #f9fbf4; color: #010101;"><span> </span><span> </span>My first impulse here is to ask how they deal with evil and suffering in the world without a Saviour? Do they just accept it mutely, ignore it, seek to redress it, and how? However, the first question, as always should seek information: what do they mean by 'evil and suffering'? But also see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFRpUh1tiS8" target="_blank">John Lennox on this</a>. And <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9scK_xKfWM8" target="_blank">the full lecture</a>.<br /></div><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-46122340356694107942024-02-05T18:30:00.001+11:002024-02-05T18:30:37.439+11:00Who is in charge?<p>The default answer to this question asks you to trot out the 'leader'.</p><p>We don't have 'leaders' in church.</p><p>A leader in modern terms would be the Greek <i>archon</i>: a ruler, boss or governor. One in command. We don't have this in the church. The closest thing might be overseer (elder) or the modern invention 'pastor'. 'Minister' is the best general term, and I think 'Senior Minister' is OK: senior servant, like your Butler at home.</p><p>The Senior Minister is the one who coordinates the service of the other ministers (both paid and volunteer).</p><p>In our church we have Organizers (who help the Coordinator), Convenors of home study and prayer groups, Ministry Assistants and Helpers (who attend to practical aspects of service).</p><p>But, I'm still groping for the word that is short snappy and to the point.</p><p>Moderator, as in some denominations; I think is a better term than president or chairman, so it might be useful.</p><p>For the local church, the general term I like, if 'minister' is inappropriate, ambiguous or confusing is Steward. A steward is used in secular connections, but ours is different. Instead of a youth group volunteer 'leader', who I would call a 'ministry assistant', but that is too clumsy for easy conversation, there would be stewards. 'Counselors' might also work, based on the term in summer camps; although this might be confused with therapeutic counselors. Organizers might also do the job.</p><p>But not 'Leader'. Ever!<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-79085496888526301872024-02-05T18:17:00.003+11:002024-02-05T18:36:06.557+11:00How to teach theology<p>Only based on my experience, I doubt that most churches teach any theology. What theology people pick up would be by their private reading, so that could go anywhere, or by osmosis in their local church.</p><p>Osmosis is not the most efficient way!</p><p>But teaching theology would sound onerous to many church <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2024/02/who-is-in-charge.html" target="_blank">stewards, moderators, teachers</a> and congregations. It has to be made relevant. And here's how.</p><p>One of the teaching segments of the year, perhaps aligned with Lent, or a school term, or for a couple of months after Trinity would be dedicated to 'theology'. The other 'terms' if you follow the school year, might be one OT, one NT and one contemporary life, for example, with Advent taking us up to Christmas.</p><p>Here's how the theology program might work: by using the main questions other religious approaches ask of Christian faith:</p><p>It might be the most common questions asked or claims or objections made by:</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Muslims</b></h3><p>1 Is the God Yahweh of the Bible the same as the god Allah of the Qur'an?</p><p>2 How can God be 1, yet 3, simultaneously?</p><p>3 How can God have a son?</p><p>4 Where does Jesus say 'I am God' in the New Testament?</p><p>5 Who is greater, Jesus or Muhammad?</p><p>6 Was Jesus ever crucified?</p><p>7 Which is the real religion of peace? Christianity or Islam?</p><p>8 Doesn't the Qur'an claim the Bible is corrupt?</p><p>9 We have an original Qur'an, so why can't you find an original Bible?</p><p>10 Because Islam is growing faster and stronger, won't it defeat Christianity?<br /></p><p>See <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/PfanderFilms/videos" target="_blank">these videos </a>for answers.<br /></p><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Jehovah's Witnesses</b></h3><p>See 3, 4 and 6 above.<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Modern Spiritualists </b>(the average person)</h3><p>1 Aren't all religions really the same/teach the same thing?</p><p>2 Everyone is good, deep down.</p><p>3 Isn't trying to do the right thing good (enough)?</p><p>4 Isn't the Bible just a collection of myths and legends?</p><p>5 Isn't God really the universe and in us all?<br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Modern atheists/materialists</b>.</h3><p>1 Isn't <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-3-mysteries.html" target="_blank">matter, energy and space</a> are all there is, and all there will ever be. <br /></p><p>2 See 1-4 for Modern Spiritualists<br /></p><p>and, of course the</p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>7 basic questions of Christians</b>.</h3><p>1 Why do you attend church?</p><p>2 Why do you read/believe the Bible?</p><p>3 Why do you believe in God?</p><p>4 Why are you/what is a Christian?</p><p>5 Wasn't Jesus just a great teacher, like other famous religious figures?</p><p>6 How can a good God permit evil and suffering?</p><p>7 Doesn't science disprove the Bible?<br /></p><p>(See an earlier version: <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2021/08/5-basic-questions.html" target="_blank">the 5 basic questions</a>.)</p><p><br /></p><p>In answering the questions, the basic theological themes of the Bible could be explicated.</p><p>Then the Apostles creed might be worked through, units of the questions that changed church history, as a bonus political history and the church might also be examined.</p><p>Ideally, each talk ( 'sermon') would have an accompanying article for people to study and perhaps discuss in their discipling group. <br /></p><p>All interesting!</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-60656582796987256612024-01-31T19:39:00.005+11:002024-02-05T18:00:22.152+11:00How are you at sales?<p>Not selling?</p><p>I'll bet you are!</p><p>I'm thinking of clergy and volunteer ministers at church. You know, the ones who look after '<a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/09/only-if-you-are-in-in-crowd.html" target="_blank">pastoral' care</a>, and seek to support those in some particular need.</p><p>A common question I've heard, and indeed, one I have asked as well is: "How can we help?" or "What can we do for you?"</p><p>Now, this is the sort of question that was perhaps learnt from poorly trained retail sales assistants. These are the poor souls who approach the customer on entering their shop and ask...one of the two questions above.</p><p>Bad sales technique, bad technique for those 'selling' their pastoral support services.</p><p>What is even worse is the implicit superficiality or disrespect, or disdain, in some cases, this shows for the person asked.</p><p>I'm not going to tells sales assistance what to do...they can pay for their own training, but church ministers (of whatever stripe) can do better.</p><p>Our job is to know people, to 'relate' to them, to understand who they are and from that be able to suggest areas of service.</p><p>We need a conversation, not a one-liner 'I'm off the hook now, because I've inquired after their welfare.'</p><p>We can use the normal conversation.</p><p>-- Hello, how are you/how are things going at the moment?</p><p>[answer comes back]</p><p>-- It sounds like you have a few challenges/frustrations/worries/burdens/loads/things on your mind [pause for response which may or may not come].</p><p>-- Could I drop in to have a coffee with you at home? I'll bring the coffee!</p><p>OR</p><p>-- Let's go inside [there should be nooks in the <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/02/what-to-we-call-our-buildings.html" target="_blank">eccleseum </a>for quiet chats]...or elsewhere.</p><p>During this visit your job is to get to know the person's current challenges, objectives, hopes and desires and to bring to them both the succor of our Lord, pastoral care, and identify any practical care that the church is able to provide. Let them know what the church can do and if necessary what community services might also be available.<br /></p><p>I know people vary in their opinions on this, but I don't think I'd reflexively offer to pray for them, either on the spot (certainly not on the spot, despite some evangelicals and Pentecostals loving to do this), or remotely. A Christian should expect another Christian will naturally pray for them, particularly when expressed need is discovered. No need to say; sounds empty IMO.<br /></p><p>On this score, while imperfect, I aim to pray for all those whom I've spoken to at church through the following week.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-73331804688594562662024-01-27T23:08:00.005+11:002024-01-27T23:27:05.171+11:003 theological planks in Genesis 1<p>NT Wright, while making an admirable contribution to NT theology (thus his name, I guess!) has spoken, albeit briefly on his reasons for his view of an evolved 'creation'.</p><p>While the literature is full of sound (IMO) defenses of the nature of the text of Genesis 1-3 as narrative, and its general reasonableness (with the vehemence of the modern world in opposition being more to do with its doctrinaire naturalism than any real substantive objections), theological discussion of the creation is rare. There is a theology that does emerge from Genesis 1 and cannot emerge from a-historical, analogical, metaphorical or fantastic (as in fantasy) views of the text that needs discussion.<br /><br />It revolves around three major points:</p><p>1--God's creating in natural days (expressed in similar form to Numbers 7:12ff) shows him to be acting directly and concretely in space and time, with the only mediator being his Word. He does not distance himself from the creation, nor use the creation itself as some sort of intermediary; which would invite worship of the creation rather than the creator; he connects himself to it and values it ('very good')<br /><br />2--God's creating in natural days shows in real concrete terms that he is present and active in the space-time he created for us to be his image-bearers in and be in communion with him, but is not captured within it. This sets the context for the theophanies throughout the Bible, the work of the prophets and the Incarnation. God is not the deist figment, isolated from the cosmos, nor a Neo-platonic left-over disdainful of the material creation. Rather, he rejoices in it!<br /><br />3--He creates by word: the creation is shown to actually have real propositional content and reflects this in the rational causality of the work over the 6 days. This shows the creation cognate with our own propositional capability and gives us confidence in our ability to 'rule' over the creation and as we come to know it to express that knowledge propositionally: in 'words' by which we communicate. This also gives us confidence that we can gain real knowledge of the real concrete creation, because it was directly made by the real concrete (not abstract, platonic, deist or pan-everythingist) god as were we in his image: like him. Naturalism, as Plantinga argues, cannot provide this type of confidence.</p><p>Over all Genesis 1 (and on to 3) sets the frame of reference for our knowledge of ourselves, the creation, our Creator and the inter-connections between then. It cogently grounds theories of knowledge, of being and of ethics and places them in the nature of God who is love, who is communicative within the god-head; and with us, and who only gives truth. It avoids the arid dead end of pagan philosophical speculations that either place god within the cosmos, merge god into it impersonally, or remove him from it deistically or in a mute spiritism. It gives us real confidence in the real world as cognate with our experience of it.<br /><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-32505651296184856672024-01-25T14:00:00.004+11:002024-01-25T14:01:33.970+11:00The 3 Mysteries<p> In a wonderfully succinct <a href="https://youtu.be/LMT15LKWE8Q" target="_blank">conversation (clip) </a>between Roger Penrose (mathematical physicist) and Bill Craig (philosopher/theologian) three great ontological mysteries are discussed:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>The physical world is so extraordinarily precise in its mathematical descriptions (I would add that it is extraordinary in that it is inherently contingent)</li><li>Conscious experience arises in a material world: some arrangements of material (humans, maybe the 'higher' animals), and not others (rocks) are self-aware (and can communicate meaningfully with others).<br /></li><li>The ability to use our consciousness to understand and comprehend mathematics and its extraordinary 'deep' ideas which are far from (and independent of) our experience, but nevertheless cohere with our experience of the physical universe and exist (abstractly) independently of it.</li></ol><p> For Craig these metaphysical questions arouse the ancient philosophical problem of 'the one and the many'. That is, what is the underlying unity of these three seemingly disparate realms of reality: the mental, the abstract and the physical.</p><p>These realms are so different, so causally unconnected, yet they come together in our experience, one has to wonder as to the underlying unity that brings them together.</p><p>The abstract realm cannot be the source of the mental or physical, because it has no effect on anything. For instance, the number 7 as a number, a concept applied to a quantity, is causally effete: it affects nothing physically </p><p>Could the physical realm? But it doesn't give rise to consciousness: it is not able to explain either the mental, or the abstract. It doesn't explain intentionality (the about-ness of our mental states) which no physical object has. Nor is it able to explain itself. It is contingent. It is incapable of grounding logical and mathematical truths, and is plausible finite.<br /></p><p>Nor can the abstract realm...it (the mathematical realm) is characterized by necessity--its logically necessary truths--and its plenitude; the infinitude of mathematical objects.</p><p>What about the mental?</p><p>We know that mental causes have physical effects in our brain-states and actions: one can will to arise from a chair or to speak.</p><p>Some philosophers regard the abstract realm as ideas in the mind of the beholder (I tend to disagree, as they seem to be part of the 'deep' structure of reality, but neither physical or mental).</p><p>Either way, no human mind can be the source of these realms, only engage in aspects or reflections of them because we are contingent and finite.</p><p>The mental realm is plausible the domain of an infinite (limitless, self-existent) consciousness. A mind that has created the physical and underwrites the abstract (without being Platonic) and is necessary.</p><p>This gives an underlying unity to the tripartite metaphysical that we live in and affirm.</p><p>This is a philosophical perspective, rather than a religious one, except Judeo-Christianity, or more strictly Christianity, which understands a necessary creator who experiences personhood (diversity of mind) it himself (is triune), does not need the physical or abstract realms and is external to the tripartite world and independent of it.</p><p>We know that minds can design things, and the view that there is a limitless mind who has designed the physical world on the mathematical blueprint, that it had in mind has a long philosophical history-- back to Philo of Alexandria, who said that the intelligible world, the intelligible cosmos exists in the Logos (Philo says 'mind of the Logos') and is instantiated in the physical world. QED.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-66780845106301066252024-01-22T12:16:00.003+11:002024-01-22T12:16:55.788+11:00Let's do theology!<p> My letter to one Del Hackett:</p><p>I've much appreciated your "Is Genesis History" series. It has given me a
lot of philological and diachronic information that ties quite nicely
with empirical studies of the natural world, showing their general
consistency with the Biblical data.<br /><br />While it is good and proper
to make the case for the historical nature of the Genesis account, there
must be a theology, indeed, a philosophy, that flows from it, because
Genesis 1-3 provides the frame of the reality we experience and are
bound to. Thus, rather than a mere recital of events, these events tell
us many things, but in the numerous sermons I've heard, live, and
on-line, this area is not explored. Thus we have no theological insights
to bring to those who deny the direct historical language of Genesis,
or the sceptics who side-line it completely as fictional, or fantasy,
when it provides the basis for deep understanding of life, the universe
and everything.<br /><br />The theology itself needs to be explored!<br /><br />Christian
theology is not just built on the biblical text, but on the history the
text details. God's acts have all occurred meaningfully in space and
time in the domain in which we exist and worship Yahweh. This is the
very point of the creation account. Unlike the other religions, which
locate themselves within the cosmos in some way: impersonal or not,
spiritual or material, and generally monist in conception, the creation
account shows the holiness (separateness, independence, and aseity) of
the creator and that and how he 'relates' to us.<br /><br />For instance, in
the NT, we don't just discuss the historicity of the resurrection of
our Lord, but we explore the theology that this opens up. What theology
does the creation account open up? <br /><br />This is important because
from its basis we have the means of arguing the nature of the created
world, us and God against what must be the only alternative: views that
are derived in the world from pagan philosophy. Indeed, even in the
church the dominance of neoplatonic thought looms large, as the creation
account itself is 'platonized' and placed in a different abstract
domain, while the nostrums of materialism are taken as determinative of
real history and therefore set the bounds for the reality of human kind
and life.<br /><br />The events of the creation week demonstrate God's
nature, showing what it is that mankind is like. They show us the basic
nature of reality in the revealed nature of God in his actions. The days
of creation provide the frame of reference for our understanding of
God, reality and ourselves.<br /><br />In fact, what is believed about our
origin, the origin of the cosmos, sets the basis for our understanding
of reality as a whole, it is the final point of reference for everything
we experience and know. Yet, in the materialist framing, we cannot be
sure of any knowledge at all, as Plantinga points out in his
naturalistic argument against evolution. Nor can we be sure of who we
are, as perhaps Kant, if his views are to be accepted, would suggest,
with transcendence severed from the phenomenal world.<br /><br />In brief, I think the following topics are addressed in the creation account:<br /><br />Firstly,
it shows that in creating in normal days as they are calibrated and
defined, that the creation occurs in history; it is not detached from
time or place like a fairy tale. It is done in the flow of history that
we stand in.<br /><br />It follow from this, that God, while transcendent is
also present and directly active in the creation; he is close, and
creates in love 'with his hands' as the Psalmist (Ps. 8) writes; for
communion with his creatures. This sets the context for all the
theophanies including the incarnation, and the revelation through
history and prophets. It also shows that nothing but his word stands
between him and we his creatures!<br /><br />God creates by word: he shows
that the creation has propositional content, is orderly, and with
rational causality; unlike the mad 'creation' by pagan gods with utterly
irrational a-historical 'causality' that destroys any hope of an
understandable world for mankind's stewardship.<br /><br />That the creation
is by word and orderly encourages us, as his image bearers (that is, we
communicate propositionally and have personal agency) that the cosmos
is amenable to study from which we gain understanding and knowledge (cf
Proverbs 3:19, 20).<br /><br />We learn for the creation, as being in Gods
image, that our words and actions, our relationships and ambitions, have
real significance, and our words can have substantive meaning. This
grounds our theory of knowledge (epistemology), or understanding of
being (ontology), our understanding of ethics (our meta-ethical
structures) and our basic need for community to function within.<br /><br />From
this we acknowledge the dignity of every life, the difference between
man and animals, man and plants, etc, and we know that God is not
removed from or indifferent to the material world. He created it as a
real place for us to know and enjoy him within.<br /><br />We also know that
the creation is rationally and reasonably done by God who does not
deceive, but reveals. It is a designed cosmos, so we can be confident
that it is explicable, we have reasonable faith that it has constants of
state and uniformity of causality, but in an open system; thus modern
science is possible and arose on the basis of such confidence. The
'gaps' invite study, not resignation to 'God just does it'.<br /><br />But
for those theologians who tell us that the creation account does not
represent concrete reality and God has not his word as the intermediary
between him and his creatures-in-his-image (cf John 1: 1-3, 10 and
Colossians 1: 16, 17, Hebrews 1:2, 2:10,11:3) but his creation stands
between us, none of this flows. They have typically put the creation in a
Schaefferean 'upper storey', a Platonic mystical abstraction, or an
Aristotelian impersonal, undisclosed 'mover'. Whichever way, they have
disconnected the creation from God, denied his word is active in our
material world, and lent towards Gnosticism's despising of the material
cosmos and man's created physicality. They open wide the door for
worship of the creation (evolution, theistic evolution, spiritism,
Eastern mysticism) which is what we see today.<br /><br /></p><div>In the final
analysis, without the foundation of a realist creation, as set out in
the Genesis account, one cannot have a Christian theology of creation,
but a pagan one. Nor can we have a philosophy of reality that will be
fruitful in the real world. Either we end with a deist uninvolved god,
or a monist 'god' who is merged indistinguishably into creation; neither
representing the God who is not silent and who speaks in the Bible. The
one who created us for true relationship with each other and with him.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-35937684225914910192024-01-14T15:07:00.003+11:002024-01-14T15:07:29.212+11:00Cursed ground?<p>In the Fall passage: Genesis 3:14-19, it is interesting to note that neither Adam or Eve are cursed. Eve's child-bearing and relationship to Adam are 'down-graded'. But this is not a specific curse! The ground that Adam has to work is 'cursed'. Things won't be proper any longer.</p><p>But, Adam is not cursed! What does this imply?</p><p>I suggest that one implication is that his imageness is not impaired! He remains, with Eve, in God's image. So he remains one who has meaningful decision-making power? His commitments are significant because they emanate from an image-bearer? His propositional capability remains credible and real, congruent with his life in the creation.</p><p>Perhaps this renders the Calvinist doctrine of 'total depravity' not so total after all!<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-81655944345230616352024-01-09T22:16:00.003+11:002024-01-09T22:16:52.376+11:00What good the Bible?<p>The Bible is usually noted for its three basic controversial ideas--first, there is a God. Second, He so loved the world that He took human
form and was called Jesus; he was then crucified so as to succumb to sin of and resurrecting give new life to those who believed in Him.</p><p>These three ideas are central, but it inter alia contains other gems. The first meets Satre's observation (or is it a claim?) that 'no finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point'.<br /><br />The Bible locates this infinite reference point in God, opening to us at once some of the great, and long struggled for, in some cases, features of Western thought. These are the conspicuous other gems derivative of that one:<br /><br />The equality of all men qua men, at least before the law, but also ethically and with equal dignity.<br /><br />Perhaps also a robust epistemology established by the grounded reality of the creation. It's opening passage gives the material world and human discourse a status that is elusive for animists, Eastern monists, and indeed, strict materialists. It has made modern science possible with its open invitation to explore the cosmos in its foundational propositional rationality (that is, God spoke and it happened, and no dream time serpent involved; rational causality with propositional identities is applied to the real world). Thus it has opened the possibility and indeed the fact of the cosmos being available for investigation and this to produce knowledge.<br /><br />It also locates an ethical substrate in what is (God, I mean), not in a Foucaultian power play or mere genes to be truncated by a humean guillotine. Ethics has meaning and it is not socially derived and therefore not amenable to the manipulation of either the powerful or the noisy.<br /><br />Finally for here, it invites us to both the caution of humility and the joy of this wonderful world (albeit much marred by human rejection of the creator) where art, music, and simple good fun are really there, and really substantially enjoyable; and were compassion is a true movement of the soul and not a transiently convenient play of the genes.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-35084978161368791912024-01-09T16:03:00.002+11:002024-01-09T20:14:44.347+11:00The Bible and its Credentials<p> Many new Christians, if they have not had the benefit of formal instruction through the catechism, creeds and the Bible are probably at a loss as to how to both read and explain the Bible; they would be flummoxed by any question that either challenged or simply inquired as to their attitude to the Bible.</p><p>There are two limbs to this issue:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Is the Bible reasonable?</li><li>What is the Bible all about?</li></ol><p>There is also a third issue, not quite about the Bible, but about the reason for one's commitment to its message and response in faith to Christ <br /></p><p></p><p>Voddie Baucham has recently released a couple of videos that help here: about the <a href="https://youtu.be/5-r2qqLNETo" target="_blank">Bible </a>and <a href="https://youtu.be/5-r2qqLNETo" target="_blank">belief</a>.</p><p>I'll summarize them in case the videos disappear.</p><h4 style="text-align: left;">The Bible</h4><p>Briefly, Voddie says:</p><p><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" dir="auto"></span></p><blockquote>I choose to believe the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies, and claim that their writings are divine, rather than human, in origin.</blockquote><p>Voddie then goes into detail about the history of the text. <br /></p><p>Reliable collection of historical documents; written in plain narrative with minimal elaboration. 'Flat prose' I call it.</p><p>Luke's opening is the benchmark for the NT texts: it is about seeking objective events and their consequences. </p><p class="chapter-1"><span class="text Luke-1-1"></span></p><blockquote><span class="text Luke-1-1">Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,</span><span class="text Luke-1-2" id="en-NASB1995-24896"> just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,</span> <span class="text Luke-1-3" id="en-NASB1995-24897">it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write <i>it</i> out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;</span> <span class="text Luke-1-4" id="en-NASB1995-24898">so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.</span></blockquote><span class="text Luke-1-4" id="en-NASB1995-24898"></span><p></p><p></p><p>The books, apart from perhaps Revelation, are written within the reasonable span of life of likely eye-witnesses and others with contemporaneous contact with the events.</p><p>The earliest extant manuscripts we have are very close to the times of their subject, much closer and in greater number than any other ancient document of historical significance.</p><p>Was the text of the Bible, particularly the NT, corrupted?</p><p>Unlikely. The corrupters would have had to have corrupted over 6,000 separate manuscripts across Asia Minor, the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean region. They would have to have coordinated this across space and time, left no trace on the parchments and other forms of record, and made no ripple in the church and its documents. All so improbable as to allow us to safely dismiss the notion out of hand.</p><p></p><p></p><h4 style="text-align: left;">Belief</h4><p>Is our faith in the text's message (as well as the text itself) reasonable?</p><p>Yes, for a few reasons.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.str.org/w/naturalism-bumping-into-reality" target="_blank">Greg Koukl </a>puts it;
it is the story of reality; the best explanation for who we are, our
dilemma and our relation to the world around us. It's the story of
reality!</p><p>The expansion of each of these themes is essential, of course <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/11/do-you-integrate.html" target="_blank">Here's a start</a>.</p><p>The requirements made of us for faith are alarmingly generous and require nothing of us but 'yes' to Christ's offer signified in repentance. The natural response to this is, of course to seek the company and society of other believers, to seek to introduce others to Christ and to give reasons for the faith that we have: rational reasons, reasons that work objectively in the world.</p><p>And, "science"? Does it disprove the Bible? Well, no. Science depends on events that are observable, measurable, repeatable. It doesn't apply to history. What applies here is reasonable evidence, the witness of 'eye-witnesses', external corroboration of events, reliability of the text, as per above, the pattern of foretold prophesies, and its information that defines the human condition, shows our connection to our creator, and all without imposing impossible demands; but faith in Christ.</p><p>Most people who regard 'science' mean, of course, evolution 'disproving' the Genesian account of creation. But this 'science' is the back projection of a materialist/naturalist conception of reality. Nothing to do with science; everything to do with the preconceptions and assertions of naturalism.<br /></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-23842583899205837032024-01-07T21:49:00.002+11:002024-01-09T22:11:05.332+11:00Two books?<p>When the discussion turns to the Bible and 'origins' one often years the claim that God has spoken in two books: the Bible, that's a real book, and the 'book of nature'. That's not a real book, its an analogical book.</p><p>The two books theme has been used by some very famous people, but it's not helpful, not good and...not even right. In fact, it's so bad as to be not even wrong, to borrow a criticism attributed to Wolfgang Pauli when asked to comment on science so bad that it 'was not even wrong'.</p><p>How can this be?</p><p>Let's start with the first book: the Bible, the real book. It is full of words. In the original manuscripts the words are there, penned by people whom the Spirit had infused so what was written was the word of God, while retaining the spark of individuality that comes with any writer. </p><p>The words of scripture are congruent with the word spoken in power recorded in Genesis 1 and mentioned by Christ (Mark 13:31, for instance).</p><p>Schaeffer discusses the word, the propositional, contentful, communication of God to man, his creation in <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/12/schaeffer-and-trinity.html" target="_blank">The God who Is There and Who Is Not Silent</a>. This word mediates the relationship of God and mankind. It is the word by which we make the response of worship to God, our creator, redeemer, saviour.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/ZyMmxuhMJbw" target="_blank">Peter Jones </a>says, there are only two religions. The worship of God, the creator, and the worship of the creature (which is every other religion, so called).</p><p>When the 'book of nature' is conjured up, the wonder of God in creation is not read through the actual word of God, but is placed in a separate category, almost, in some cases, a separate ontological category, in a separate reality from the Word of God. In this category, the creation is identified with only the words of man in a concrete sense; and these are not inspired by God, but are framed and modelled by man's 'world view'. This is often not founded on God's actual real word, but on words that start from the view that their is a 'neutral' place of only 'nature' and man.</p><p>There is in this maneuver the potential to split worship and this second book, so called, the analogical book, usually supplants the words of God culminating in worship of the creation, not the creator as his word takes second place as to the all important grounding definition of our frame of reference by which we see connection between creator and creation. No longer is this his word, but what men say about the creation!</p><p>There is only one book. The Bible, by which we are guided into all truth; including the truth of a real world that is amenable to intelligent inquiry because it is intelligently created by the God who speaks and who gave us that ability.<br /></p><p><br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-76329386479278894112023-12-13T18:00:00.002+11:002024-01-07T21:26:42.670+11:00Schaeffer and Trinity<p> In <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/he-is-there-not-silent-francis-schaeffer/" target="_blank"><i>He is There and He Is Not Silent</i></a>, Schaeffer makes the remark:</p><p></p><blockquote>Every once in a while in my discussions someone asks how I can believe in the Trinity. My answer is always the same. I would still be an agnostic if there was no Trinity, because there would be no answers. Without the high order of personal unity and diversity as given in the Trinity, there are no answers. (p. 288 Crossway compilation)</blockquote><p></p><p>I have puzzled over this. Why would there be no answers?</p><p>I asked a friend who knew Schaeffer well, who answered:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>You are not the first to scratch your head about this claim, and I
myself find it quite strange and do not claim to be able to interpret it
for you, or to believe it myself.</p><div></div><div> I have
asked him to explain it and heard others do the same. I think the main
thing in his mind was that he saw in the trinity that neither unity nor
diversity, neither the One or the Many, was ultimate and so would
obliterate the other. They were both anchored in the transcendent God.
He saw secular philosophy as unable to resist getting pulled into one or
the other of these dead ends -- of only unity (Parmenides) or only
particularity (Heraclitus). I certainly see his point here because
neither of these dead ends allows any serious understanding of the
complexity and wonder of the human condition. But I can't help wondering
if there was no trinity, whether I might be more likely to be a Jewish
theist than an agnostic, but that question would be in practicality, so
highly subjective as a counter-factual puzzle.</div><div><br /></div><div>
It all seems a tricky question to say what part of Xn truth, if
removed, would make me abandon my faith, maybe not always helpful --
although Paul said it about the resurrection of Jesus. I heard Schaeffer
also say that he could not be a Christian if God had not himself shut
the door finally on the ark at the start of the flood. He felt that
to ask Noah to do it would have been too cruel and inappropriate, given
what would happen to everyone else who was not in the ark. On the other
hand I asked him once if he were to ever have macro-evolution
demonstrated to have been true beyond any doubt, would he leave his
faith as a result? He said, "No, but I would have to rethink a great
deal."</div><div><br /></div><div> To get back to the trinity, but
leave Schaeffer's discussion, I found Tim Keller's insight intriguing
when he said that only if God is trinity can love be part of his
character, i.e. who he is intrinsically. If God was only One, there
would have been no one for him to love unless it was someone whom God
had created. If God was only One, his main attribute of character would
have been power -- who might have chosen to do loving things, but they
would be arbitrary and not grounded in his being and he might have
easily done the opposite.</div></blockquote><div></div><div>There are few useful thoughts here, and I think he's spotted the nub of it: Who God Is is immovably basic to what is independently (and self-existentially) that is, necessarily, real.</div><div> </div><div></div>What then is the Triune God?<ul style="text-align: left;"><li>He is demonstrably personal</li><li>He communicates: the three persons of the trinity are in constant communication for the other: communication and relationship are basic. It is also real, significant and true.<br /></li><li>There is inherent diversity and unity, inescapably, as per my friend's observation.</li><li>God's acts flow directly from who he is, with no other reference.</li></ul><div> Solo gods, Monist gods and Monist non-gods have none of this, and leave man's 'mannishness' ungrounded, arbitrary and finally insignificant.</div><div><br /></div><div>What about Yahweh in the OT? Is he not a 'solo-god'? After all, he says he is one and there is no other.<br /></div><div> </div><div>I think not for a couple of reasons.</div><div> </div><div>He interacts with the creation, in relationship: Genesis 3:8, for example; Genesis 1 itself hints at Trinity: God who speaks, the Word which (who?) creates, the Spirit who 'hovers'. Even if I am wrong, this doesn't seem like a 'solo-god'.</div><div><br /></div><div>The theophanies throughout the OT suggest God in some form, often human, in his creation. Again, not triune per se, but not 'solo' in our terms here either.</div><div><br /></div><div>What the Trinity does bring is grounding of communication, of community, of fellowship, of love, in what is basically so. Everything, including our existential questions and dilemmas is resolved, finally, in this.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>So our echo of these acts of love and fellowship as beings in his image are real, and join us to him in sharing this reality. Our love is significant and not derivative: of 'nature', of material, of an arbitrary and not essential act of God. Our decisions, communications, community are real and a basic part of us. The only real questions as to our 'meaning' our significance and the moment of our communication have answers. What is life about? It is about love in fellowship with our Creator. But it is also about doing real things in the real creation which itself has substance as the field of our fellowship with God.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>And our creator does not 'need' us, because he had these characteristics prior to creation and did not need a creation to exhibit, generate or reify them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Monists (whether impersonal spiritists, materialists or solo-god-ists) have none of this, because, everything finally is the same. There is no real connection or movement of mind. There is no final significance possible and any personal solo-god depends on the creation for realization of anything inter-personal (that is, if person-hood in this landscape is really real). Against this, our creator God is utterly independent of creation; it was made not for him, existentially, but for our Lord in which we are to enjoy him forever.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The real three-in-one God is not thus bound.</div><div><br /></div><div>By the way, <a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/he-is-there-not-silent-francis-schaeffer/" target="_blank">my link </a>to Schaeffer's book, is not a blanket endorsement of the Gospel Coalition. I reject a number of points of their theology.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://www.paul-gould.com/2014/03/19/aquinas-schaeffer-nominalism-the-demise-of-the-western-world/" target="_blank">Another article </a>on Schaeffer's philosophy.<br /></div><div> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-12148505683860688982023-12-06T13:41:00.005+11:002023-12-13T11:39:02.844+11:00I believe in science<p>From time to time you may meet a non-believer who stoically claims to not be 'religious' because they 'believe in science'!</p><p>(This is often punctuated with the triumphant superiority of an exclamation mark!)</p><p>And, this is just what we want to hear.</p><p>Here's the pattern of your response, something along the lines of:</p><p>Oh, and is that claim itself a scientific statement? Can you prove that you believe in 'science' when most scientists over history have been mostly wrong?</p><p>You can also explore why they believe in science, when they have to trust in the ability of human reason to provide a valid means of reliable inquiry into the world outside of the person inquiring.</p><p>That is, what is the basis for confidence in a chance assembly of molecules having any reliability in assessing the nature of other chance assemblies of molecules, both of which have no external source of person-hood: it must be merely an epiphenomenon of matter?</p><p>It is very bold to make such a claim that your brain, the result of chance constrained only by reproductive success is useful for anything more than reproductive success.</p><p>See:</p><p><a href="https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/plantingas-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism-707" target="_blank">Reasonable Faith's article</a></p><p><a href="https://www.bethinking.org/atheism/an-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism" target="_blank">Bethinking's article</a></p><p><a href="https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/plantinga-s-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism" target="_blank">Craig at Biola's blog</a></p><p><a href="https://creation.com/epistemic-abyss-naturalistic-evolution" target="_blank">Doyle's article</a>. <br /></p><p>Now, on the other hand, we <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/12/science-and-christian-faith.html" target="_blank">Christians have complete confidence </a>in the rational accessibility of the natural world. The creation account in Genesis 1, and it's NT follow-up in John 1:1-3, 10 provide the basis for such confidence.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-20617678151154144402023-12-03T13:35:00.005+11:002023-12-04T10:13:54.743+11:00Chris Tomlin Wrecks Christian Theology<p> Now that's a title to attract clicks!</p><p>The lyrics in question are (from <a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=chris+tomlin+amazing+grace+%28my+chains+are+gone%29+lyrics" target="_blank">Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone)</a> ):</p><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span></span><blockquote><span>The earth shall soon dissolve like snow</span><br aria-hidden="true" /><span>The sun forbear to shine</span><br aria-hidden="true" /><span>But God, who called me here below</span><br aria-hidden="true" /><span>Will be forever mine, will be forever mine</span><br aria-hidden="true" /><span>You are forever mine</span></blockquote><span></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>They aren't Christian!</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>Well, maybe I'm reading too much into them, but they strike me as having a definite neoplatonic flavour (neoplatonic eschatology is not a Good Thing!).</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>The earth shall not 'soon dissolve like snow' and the sun forebear to shine.</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>And the following lines seem to envisage a disembodied 'heaven'.</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>No, not Christian.</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>God promises a New Heaven and a New Earth! We will be embodied with 'spiritual bodies'.<br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>Revelation 21.</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>The story of the Bible is the re-creation of the world where we his people are finally conformed to his image and Christ's triumph over sin is consummated.</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span> </span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>The New Jerusalem comes down from heaven to earth as the great marker of renewal! <br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>We will be forever his!</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span><br /></span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>Perhaps we should sing;</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span></span></div><blockquote><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>The earth shall soon dissolve like snow</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>as God makes all anew</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>and we shall live before his face</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>and always know his joy</span></div><div class="ujudUb WRZytc"><span>and always know his joy. <br /></span></div></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-19095753002130904272023-12-02T11:07:00.002+11:002023-12-02T11:07:30.964+11:00Science and Christian faith?<p>Common detractions from Christian faith in relation to science is that faith prevents science.</p><p>Not so.</p><p>John Lennox has a <a href="https://youtu.be/jUpep7UjIZE?si=Zr8aGiB_m0VX0asE" target="_blank">great video on this</a>.</p><p>In brief, because the cosmos has its source in intelligent cause: the agent being the Creator, of course, we are confident it is purposeful and efficient: in short, designed.</p><p>Thus exploration of it will bear fruit in real knowledge and we are confident to embark on exploration of anything and everything knowing that we will gain objective, true knowledge of the structure, operation and purpose of that thing.</p><p>Our faith in (natural) science arises because of our confidence in an external creator of a uniformity of natural causes in an open system (Schaeffer's term in his trilogy).<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-80972105826061082062023-11-20T22:13:00.006+11:002023-11-21T16:39:36.578+11:00Other religions: let's be practical!<p>All religions are basically the same?</p><p>Bob Ackroyd at Brunsfield Evangelical Church <a href="https://youtu.be/ktJPaFEHibU?si=mboZPGVlmmpYArhR" target="_blank">explores the practicalities of this</a> and I've discussed <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/11/all-religions-are-basically-same.html" target="_blank">an approach </a>a little while ago.<br /></p><p>All religions are the same in that they all ask four basic questions:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>How does your belief inform where you come from (the origin of man)</li><li>Where you are going (post death?)</li><li>Why you are here (existential definition)?</li><li>What's right, what's wrong? Why (meta-ethical epistemology)? <br /></li></ol><p>A great basis for a conversation: you listen to them, maybe they will ask you your views. See where it goes.</p><p>Two questions I would either add or substitute are:</p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Who are we? </b>(aiming to get to Schaeffer's point about the 'mannishness' of man: i.e., in God's image)</li><li><b>Why do we suffer? </b>(On the premise that ALL religions are about the problem of man's suffering and pain.)<br /></li></ol><p>Look out for putative resolutions of these questions that deny obvious reality, the reality of the human dilemma: man is both great and cruel, has joy and suffers, or seek the resolution in man either individually or collectively, on a 'try harder' basis, or an 'it doesn't matter' basis...and how would either help when they are within the very system that is the product and source of the dilemma!</p><p>The resolution has to come from without and has to be final: it cannot be part of an infinite regress of causes.</p><p>It cannot be contained in the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system, but can only be in a system that is open to resolution from without, from not where the dilemma and its discontents arose and are hosted.</p><p>Indeed, as Schaeffer tells us: there are only
two religions (and our discussion with the 'omni-religious' should have
this back of mind}: paganism: the uniformity (or not) of natural causes
in a closed system, and Christianity: the uniformity of natural causes
in a fallen but open system: open to the creator, the eternal,
self-existing, communicating person.</p><div><br /><br /></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-49288168770221231922023-11-18T09:58:00.002+11:002023-11-18T09:58:57.506+11:00Beware the deist 'god'.<p>A recent comment on an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bomvGAcZeM&t=4221s" target="_blank">NT Wright video</a> on his new book The Heart of Romans:</p><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">NT talks in many lectures about us having 'platonized' our eschatology, and I guess he's on the money in some areas of church practice; I'm happy to say that I remember from my teenage years a vague belief in the new creation. I think the Apostles creed might have had a part to play in that.</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">But where we have as a church madly platonized is in the creation doctrine. When NT talked about the ease with which the deist caricature of God had headway, it occurs to me that the description of creation in Genesis 1 is from the get go the antidote to deism.</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">Tom talks about God's domain (heaven) and our domain (earth) coming together, but he seems to slip over the fact that the great initial conjunction of heaven and earth is in the creation. Not a platonic or figurative creation, but a real concrete creation. This itself underlines and honours God's creation of a material cosmos with earth in it. In fact, we seem to have an almost Gnostic fear of a concrete creation located in history in connection with our history by the work being done by the Word at a tempo marked by the days which mark our lives.</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">This is perhaps the first move of communion: God shows that he is present and active directly in the world he has made for his creature as the place of communion of they with him and in the concrete terms of the world that he made concretely for that very purpose (concrete as opposed to figurative or conceptual or idealist).</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">The glory of communion of creature and creator comes to its apogee and tragic nadir in Genesis 3:8: God seeking to join communion with his creatures in his image (and thus enabled to commune with propositional content) and finds the opportunity dashed by their rejection of the opportunity.</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">I think this approach to Genesis 1 is not fundamentalist, but the most exciting; spine tinglingly full of joy and the portent of much greater to come. It is consistent with the God who made the material creation to take joy in it and celebrate that by creating in the terms of the creation and by his direct word. Thus, while not fundamentalist, the creation should bear the marks of this creation...as against a deist 'creation' where 'god' is remote, or an evolutionary 'creation' where 'god' is merged into the creation, panentheistically and almost 'paneverytingistly' to use Schaeffer's aptly coined word.</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">Being in his image, we also create by word. Only, as material creatures we use our hands to deliver the idea we have: our word made material while God's word made flesh!</span></div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"></span> </div><div style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;"><span class="style-scope yt-formatted-string" style="background-color: #f5f7fa; color: #010101;">Thus the 'days' constitute the frame-of-reference for our concrete congress with God, and his direct (by Christ) participation in his creation. They contextualize all subsequent contact between God and man: the theophanies, the prophets, 'miracles' and the incarnation, in our world marked by a uniformity of natural causes in an **open** system, to again borrow Schaeffer's term. </span></div><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-2091682570225074592023-11-17T21:54:00.005+11:002023-11-18T09:56:31.565+11:00Do you integrate?<p>The French philosopher Sartre is reputed to have claimed that with out an infinite reference point, man is doomed to absurdity, or words to similar effect.</p><p>Absurdity comes from both the grandeur and wretchedness of man being equally terminally inconsequential and without any final significance.</p><p>For Sartre, Camus and the rest of the existentialist cheer squad, even the 'integration' that might come from some decisive existential gesture was hollow, because one would never know if any particular act or experience would be that consummating event. Ironically, the individual, in this scheme, is left to 'faith' in the ultimate event being an obtainable experience to (self) actualize one's life. Futile!<br /></p><p>Francis Schaeffer* resolves man's humanity in the word 'mannishness': his being god-like in a material cosmos as having personhood, of being able to communicate and come to personal encounter with another, with the ability to understand himself and his setting in rational propositional terms, at least to some degree.</p><p>The dilemma of man (not his absurdity), comes in his failure to live fully as a human, a person in the image of his maker, the creator God, but to have features of this in his grandeur: however marred, his creativity, his joy in others, his loves, compassion, and humility, disrupted at every point by the inversion of his humanity: his cruelty, selfishness, conceits of wisdom and understanding that alienate man from man and man from maker.</p><p>Why cannot we be our own 'integration' point? Is this not the mature, wise man at ease in his own being?</p><p>In a world conceived in purely material terms, no integration point is available, because all reality is finally materially determined and oblivious to personhood. It is contingent and reality and our place in it can only be framed as dependent on a prior cause...and prior causes go all the way to a meaningless actual infinite chain of causes, with no identifiable actual cause, or to an explosion of what amounts to dust. All that sits beneath a stream of contingencies is more contingency; nothing that is necessary, or independently real.<br /></p><p>A disintegration point that is illustrated in this conception in every man whose life is a brief tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing between two piles of worm dung (Shakespeare: Macbeth).</p><p>In a world conceived as an impersonal (spiritual) monist illusion, the infinite regress disappears into a nullifying absorption into the 'great' one of what amounts to a nothing machine.</p><p>So the soul can find no base, no connection with what is truly real in either.</p><p>As Sartre said, the integration point must be infinite, perhaps meaning self-existent or it is nothing but more of the same; it must also have a personal basis, or our personhood is reduced and Shakespeare again sees the pointlessness. In Othello: "it is a silliness to live when to live is torment; and then have we a prescription to die when death is our physician."</p><p>Our creator is our integration point, or rather we integrate properly in our human calling in Christ, enlivened by his in-dwelling Spirit to grow into life in companionship with our creator.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p></p><p>*Schaeffer, The Trilogy; <i>The God Who is There</i>, <i>Escape from Reason</i>, <i>He is There and is not Silent</i>.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-9255815704951929252023-11-12T21:56:00.005+11:002023-11-14T21:39:15.549+11:00Now, just who did make God?<p>In a video shown at church this morning, promoting children's camps, we saw one boy enthuse that he was able to ask interesting questions such as 'who made God'.</p><p>Firstly, it's good that he could ask that question in confidence of being taken seriously, perhaps not so good that maybe he didn't think he could ask it at his church.</p><p>When one is asked this question, the reflexive reply might be 'No one 'made' God, he has always existed.' or 'Only entities that had a beginning need a cause, God does not have a beginning'.</p><p>But a better way would be to ask questions. This demonstrates that you want to engage with the person, and gives you more information about their thinking behind their question.</p><p>On the surface the question seems to contain an assumption or two: that god is contingent, first off. That is, he depends upon something/one else for his being. This would imply that he is a denizen of the world, the cosmos, that we know. This is the mistake made by the Russian cosmonaut who reported that he didn't find God when in orbit around Earth. The other possible assumption is that the very idea of 'god' is made-up, a human invention. This produces the typical unbeliever's view that we made God in our own image.</p><p>Now, the ancient Greeks and Romans certainly fell for that error; their gods are very human like. But the God who speaks is very much not so. Just check the demands in the beatitudes!</p><p>So our questions can explore the questioner's understanding of God.<br /></p><p></p><p>Questions you might ask could be:</p><p>What would be able to make god?</p><p>When you say 'god' what do you mean?</p><p>How would you characterize 'god': i.e., what is 'god' like, in your estimation? <br /></p><p>If someone made god, then who made that someone?</p><p>Why would you think that God needed to be 'made'?</p><p>The strategy is to find out if they think 'god' is an invention, a entirely contained by the cosmos, that he is a type of creature...and is thus the result of an infinite regress, or an epiphenomenon of material.</p><p>For most people, consider that the questioner is, at least, an unconscious modern materialist, and probably evolutionist, or perhaps, again unconsciously, a 'paneverythingist' (as per Schaeffer in He is There and He is Not Silent). That is, with a vague belief that the universe is 'god', or 'god' is an undefined and probably impersonal spirit, such as would represent the 'karma' belief of Hindus.<br /></p><p>Most people, and I think, even some Christians, hold that (material) reality is characterized by a uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. However this fails to explain man, the universe and its form (and intelligibility). It fails as a basis for real knowledge of any kind.</p><p>Christian faith invites us to the world created by the creator: God who is love. Here we have the uniformity of natural causes in an open system in a limited time span.</p><p>The God who is there made the universe, with things together, in relationships. Indeed, the whole area of science turns upon the fact that He has made a world in which things are made to stand together, that there are relationships between things. So God made the external universe which makes true science possible, but he also made man and made him to live in that universe. He did not make man to live somewhere else. So we have three things coming together: God, the infinite-personal God, who made the universe, and man, whom he made to live in that universe, and the Bible, which he has given us to tell us about that universe. There is a unity between them.</p><p>(Schaeffer, He is There and He is Not Silent, p, 329 in the Crossway compilation, vol. 1)<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-86235626669505588422023-11-09T10:48:00.004+11:002023-11-12T19:36:11.585+11:00What's the greatest question in Christian 'Leadership'?<p>I was invited to answer this question by an e-mail from a Bible school I had attended.</p><p>Here is my answer:</p><p></p><p></p><div>My greatest 'leadership' question is why has the church followed the world in its obsession with 'leadership'?</div><div class="yj6qo ajU"><div aria-expanded="true" aria-label="Hide expanded content" class="ajR" data-tooltip="Hide expanded content" id=":1z4" role="button" tabindex="0"><img class="ajT" src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" /></div></div><div class="adm"></div><div><br /></div><div>The scripture calls us to SERVE. Our leader is the Holy Spirit!</div><div><br /></div><div>We
need to revive the notion of ministry and ministry as support of the
discipleship of others, of each other! We have grown a flabby church
with insufficient dedication to reading and understanding the scriptures
in private devotion and study, insufficient emphasis on the service of
all believers in their congregations to each other and insufficient
application to our daily routines and behaviour.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>The
notion of 'leader' passivates the average Christian and offers a mantle
that many rightly eschew. What we need is to train Christians for their
ministry: be it teaching, preaching, evangelism, administration, etc.
and to take responsibility for the application of those gifts.</div><div><br /></div><div>For
those who are younger or less mature, the title 'leader' is an
invitation to pride, if not hubris. One has to ask, if one is a leader,
who are the followers? Do the followers then defer to the leader for
their own spiritual responsibilities?</div><div><br /></div><div>What we
must do as the church is train our brethren in their own growth in
faith, in study of the scriptures, in application to reading of fruitful
Christian literature (at the maximum level of their intellectual
capability) and in serving each other in grace and humility (Phil. 2:3,
4). We must also train in communicating the gospel: Koukl's books <i>Story
of Reality</i>, <i>Tactics </i>and <i>Street Smarts </i>are good resources (I add, even
though I diverge from aspects of his theology).</div><div><br /></div><div>BTW,
for some background, I have served churches over the decades in
administrative committees and as a full time administrator of a medium
sized church in Sydney. In my prior professional life I have worked as a
senior executive responsible for a budget in excess of $1b (billion). I
have served both my employer(s) and my team(s) by building up people to
develop their own capability and in taking responsibility for (the
management triad): clarifying the mission, providing resources and
developing capability: of the team and its individuals.</div><div><br /></div><div>If anything, this 'triad' is perhaps the nub of taking a role of responsibility for the work of a (any) group!</div><div> </div><div>That's the answer.</div><div> </div><div>As an addendum I note that it has taken a scholar in management to put his finger on the problem. Henry Mintzberg, who may or may not be a believer, complained about the obsession with leadership rather than, as he puts it, '<a href="https://mintzberg.org/blog/communityship" target="_blank">communityship</a>'. <br /></div><p>Second addendum: in the church I worked for we avoided the term 'leader'. We had 'convenors' for home study groups, 'coordinators' for various outreach ministries, 'organizers' for others. Some groups had ministry team members, helpers, facilitators, workers, arranger, moderator...and so on.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-31252276358892416942023-11-05T17:40:00.010+11:002023-11-05T17:56:08.951+11:00All religions are basically the same!<p>You may have often come across this claim, or indeed, even made it yourself.</p><p>Firstly, no they are not. But there's a more important point of departure: all religions seek to make sense of the world, or our human life in the world. In the terms of that 'making sense' they all seek to deal with the same thing. This they have in common.</p><p>What is this 'same thing'? It is what I (after <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/search?q=schaeffer" target="_blank">Francis Schaeffer</a>) call 'the dilemma of man'. In Schaeffer's terms this is the fact that mankind shows both grandeur and degradation. He is noble and cruel, selfish and selfless, proud and humble. A mix of opposites, one in denial of the other.</p><p>How so?</p><p>How so also man seeks community but lives in alienation, is material, but personal, is personal but finite, contingent, yet hopes for what is beyond the present.</p><p>How do religions seek to resolve these tensions, if not conflicts?</p><p>They do it through their concept of the independent ground of our being, or of reality: personal or impersonal, material or spiritual, contingent (and then, what truly constitutes the ground) or necessary (self existent), and how does this resolve the dilemma: confrontation, ignoring, neglect, negation, or dissolving, or a true resolution that takes the arms of the dilemma and brings them into a final cohesion?</p><p>Then, what is the locus, or domain, of the resolution? Is it within or beyond the life-world or the cosmos that is our denominating constraint? Does it conceive the 'system' that hosts the dilemma can also host its resolution, or does is see the resolution coming only from outside or beyond the system that hosts it?</p><p>These questions, give us a means of dimensioning the means of resolution that a religion proposes.</p><p>Does man contain the means of resolution; which on the face of it seems absurd as the illness cannot contain the cure (homeopathy aside), or must it come from outside man? And who or what is 'outside man, and the system which hosts, contains and embraces him at every existential point? Or is Sartre and crew right in their despair of resolution, leading to resolution only in the work of power over others, while there is no real power over self?</p><p>Finally: the results of any proposed religion need to be considered against its proposals. Do they work? do they seem to work? Can they work? </p><p>Do they even deal with the real reality, or deny it, reduce it, or set it to one side?</p><p>All worthy points of discussion.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/80110" target="_blank">Schaeffer in his famous trilogy </a>argues: only the 'religion' of the incarnate creator: Yeshua the Nazarene, the Christ, brings this resolution.</p><p>It takes seriously the world, it structures the personal, it knows the dignity and degradation of man and confronts it head on with the need for and gift of new life, Not a thing of us alone and by our own efforts, but be the gift of fellowship with God in Christ, his Spirit come within to grow us into new creatures to live in a renewed creation and so to enjoy him forever.<br /></p><p>It comes from outside our Life-world, from the personal-infinite self-existent creator who knows us intimately and takes our significance, dignity and degeneration from being like him seriously.</p><p>See the <a href="http://anglicansonline.org/basics/catechism.html" target="_blank">Anglican Catechism </a>or, for a much better statement of our purpose, the <a href="https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/shorter-catechism/" target="_blank">Westminster Catechism</a>, in its beautiful opening: </p><p><b>Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?</b></p>
<p>A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]</p>
<dl><dd>[a]. <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Ps. 86.9" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps.%2086.9">Ps. 86:9</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Isa. 60.21" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Isa.%2060.21">Isa. 60:21</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Rom. 11.36" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Rom.%2011.36">Rom. 11:36</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="1 Cor. 6.20" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1%20Cor.%206.20">1 Cor. 6:20</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="1 Cor 10.31" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/1%20Cor%2010.31">10:31</a>; Rev.<br /> 4:11</dd><dd>[b]. <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Ps. 16.5-11" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps.%2016.5-11">Ps. 16:5-11</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Ps 144.15" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ps%20144.15">144:15</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Isa. 12.2" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Isa.%2012.2">Isa. 12:2</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Luke 2.10" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Luke%202.10">Luke 2:10</a>; <a class="rtBibleRef" data-purpose="bible-reference" data-reference="Phil. 4.4" data-version="kjv1900" href="https://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Phil.%204.4">Phil. 4:4</a>; Rev.<br /> 21:3-4</dd></dl><p></p><p>(apart from that I'd be wary of its Calvinism).<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4571540971816936224.post-49298951530112803322023-10-25T20:40:00.010+11:002023-11-05T17:43:37.892+11:00Other religions!<div>We are often asked about 'other religions' with respect to either 'salvation' (however this is conceived in made-up religions) or moral performance: being a 'good' person (notwithstanding that Yeshua has pointed out that no one is good but Yahweh). </div><div><br /></div><div>Our reflex is to attempt to discuss the exclusivity of Christ, but often without knowing to start with him being Creator (Colossians 1:13-17ff).</div><div><br /></div><div>Another way to approach this question is to have a 'grid' by which to talk about the other religion in terms of its structure of reality.</div><div><br /></div><div>This grid has 3 elements, or dimensions of consideration for any religion:</div><div><br /></div><div><h3 style="text-align: left;">The centre or 'What/who is god?'</h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3></div><div></div><div></div><div>This is the religion's 'centre', generally it is expressed in its conception of deity: for instance is it personal, or localized in a person who might or might not exhaust the deity (thus, Jesus localizes deity, but does not exhaust it). Is the deity communicative: is the communication propositional and thus congruent with our propositional capacity? Is the deity non-propositional, or non-pesronal, such as would be typical of Eastern religions. or even non-existent, as in Buddhism?<br /></div><div><h4 style="text-align: left;"></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;">The deity or 'Where is god?'</h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"></h4></div><div><a class="gmail_plusreply" contenteditable="true" id="plusReplyChip-0">Flowing on from the centre of the religion is the characterization or </a>the place of deity. Is god contained by our general ontological framing, or external to it? On the surface, a deity-concept that is 'contained' by the context that 'contains' or grounds us, is within the system that hosts the dilemma of man (man's' dignity and his corruption being the joint bounds of man's experience of life). On the face of it, not a very encouraging conception.</div><div> </div><div>Or is the deity outside of our life-world, to borrow a term? That is, outside 'the world'. As an example, the typical ancient pagan gods are within the world and seem to be contingent, much like flawed super-men. Some pagan gods are identical with the world but manifest in 'spirits' of place and dynamics (e.g. weather gods). Where the god is is the foundation, along with the 'centre' for understanding the connection, if any, between god and man.<br /></div><div><h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;">Discontent and its Resolution</h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3></div><div></div><div>What is the fulcrum by which the resolution of the dilemma of man: or, as some may like to put it the 'problem of evil' (although the 'problem' goes far deeper than the superficiality of its typical expression). Is it the content of man's actions or is it external to man's actions?</div><div> </div><div>This may obviously be a question that springs from the Bible; a Judaeo-Christian question, but still worthwhile: does man 'save' himself?. Does the cosmos 'save' him - or bury him, as in popular atheism?. Does the deity who is still within the 'system' 'save' him, but then, how? Or is saving, or the means of resolution of the dilemma, from without the 'system'?If it is not external to the system, then it must explain how a profoundly corrupted whole system can in any way be the source of the dilemma that is created within and configured by that very system.<br /></div><div><h4 style="text-align: left;"></h4><h4 style="text-align: left;">Man's connection with reality</h4><h4 style="text-align: left;"></h4></div><div>How is man connected to the external reality in his full personhood: How does the religion connect man's inherent telos (we cannot but think of the future in some way, as the future is always there as the next thing to do and every next thing subsequently in pursuit of our ambitions) with his contingent state? This is about purpose and its ground. How does man's life revolve about what does not exist: the future and his ambitions for it.</div><div><br /></div><div>And then, what is the character of man's dilemma the tragedy of his greatness and his foulness which dogs us all and is inescapable historically and existentially.<br /></div><div> </div><div></div><div>No final answer can come from within the creation, from a non-person, and without relationship, connection and a basis in the real. Denial of the real, which some religions use as their ontological escape hatch, is a vain option.<br /></div><div></div><div><h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3><h3 style="text-align: left;">The world thus connected to</h3><h3 style="text-align: left;"></h3></div><div>What is the world that we can make sense of it in some way, or us in the world who want to and seek to make sense of it: of our relationships, of our whole 'life-world' (a useful term without wanting to import all of Husserl's ideas and those he influenced)? </div><div><br /></div><div>Where does our interaction come from, what is it, and how do we think we can trust it?<br /></div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>The start of analysis of how other religions deal with the concrete facts of the dilemma and its existential tensions is set in this grid that seeks the structure of other religions on these three pivots.It provides a starting point for inquiry and perhaps creates a path for coming to grips with the nature of the 'program' of the religion under consideration.</div><div> </div><div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Or in other words</h3></div><div></div><div>In brief we might inquire into:<br /></div><div></div><div></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>What is God?</li><li>Where is God?</li><li>Who is man?</li><li>Why is man?</li><li>What is the problem?</li><li>Why is the problem? </li><li>What is the solution?</li><li>Why would we care?</li></ul><p>See <a href="https://churchandme.blogspot.com/2023/11/all-religions-are-basically-same.html" target="_blank">another way of putting this</a>. <br /></p></div><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0