Whence materialism?

Materialism (and Physicalism) collapse quite quickly into impersonalism.

A universe that "created itself", oxymoronic tangles aside, results in the denial of humanity as of real persons and reduces the person to a configuration of matter (atoms and photons, presumably). Not a person at all.

Yet, in this it fails to explain our transcendental conceptions and our immateriality in teleological self-consciousness that conceives of a real future. That is, a future we can reasonably contemplate and invest in by acting now. Axiological drives and indeed all metaphysics become epistemologically barren without ab immaterial grounding.

But no one lives as this is so! 

Words to use and points of departure.

In the formal addresses given in congregational gatherings (what we irrelevantly call 'sermons' in church 'services') the speaker can take the opportunity to give tips on personal evangelism and apologetics.

Here are three recent examples I've heard, with excellent springing-points for steering the conversation.

1 - This morning in our assembly the speaker, discussing Luke 16:19, etc (the rich man and Lazarus) and 1 Timothy 6:17.commented, inter alia "the Christian vision is not anti-joy or anti-material. It is anti-idolatry".

2 -  A dinner talk recently attended had the speaker sketch the rich man of the above parable (a type of fable) as one "living his best life" or "he doing him" to adopt a modern trope. But it can only end in dissolution, in death, and achieve nothing! And how does one know it is their 'best life'. It is simply unremarkable to seek self! The talk was entitled "The paradox of being true to yourself".

3 - I wrote about this one a while ago. The talk was on Luke 13:1-5. The often missed point here..no, in my hearing the perpetually missed point, is that Yeshua explains the so-called "problem of evil/suffering".

This is only a problem for non-believers, which is rarely explored with any rhetorical power: the disjunct between desire and experience show there is a problem, a big problem brought by our alienation from our Creator. It shows us the consequential state of the cosmos and who we are, prompting the only resolution of repentance (and commitment to our Creator in Yeshua -- who is the Creator incarnate).

Each of these can be used to steer a conversation and used as a springboard for some conversational evangelism: connecting the gospel with the fruitless conceptions of the world most cultures engender. 

Three types of religion

When we start to consider 'world-views' we can be met immediately with the falsehood that "all religions are the same"

 

Clouser in "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" goes a way to identifying how this is an inadequate analysis, even at the most superficial level, but Westphal is even more helpful. 

Westphal presents an interesting taxonomy of religions in his book "God, Guild and Death"  that shows that they very much are not, on their own terms, the same as each other.

Mr AI summarizes it below

"AI Overview

              

In his book God, Guilt, and Death, philosopher Merold Westphal categorizes religious sensibilities into three main classes to explain human responses to finitude: exilic, mimetic, and covenantal religion. These are structural classes of religious thought rather than rigid historical traditions.

1. Exilic Religion

Core View: Takes life in the material world to be an exile from the soul's true home.

Salvation: The process of returning to that spiritual home.

Key Focus: The divide between the transcendent/spiritual and the physical world, often viewing the latter as fallen or a place of alienation.

2. Mimetic Religion

Core View: Views life as normatively controlled by a right, harmonious relationship with nature.

Salvation: Achieved by rehearsing or participating in the origins and depths of nature, often guided by myth and ritual.

Key Focus: Cosmic order, cyclical time, and living in accordance with the rhythms of the natural universe.

3. Covenantal Religion

Core View: Adds a historical dimension to the cosmological focus of mimetic religion.

Salvation: Finds ultimate meaning in historical interactions between the divine and humanity, giving specific historical context to human guilt, death, and redemption.

Key Focus: Time as linear, historical responsibility, and moral obligations to a personal, active deity.

While Westphal uses these three categories to describe the phenomenology of religion, he also famously explored the Phenomenology of religion broadly, and examined how modern critiques of religion can function as a tool for Religious Belief.

If you are exploring Westphal's work, I [Mr AI] can:

Detail how these categories apply to specific traditions (e.g., how Christianity blends these elements).

Summarize his concepts of faith and reason.

Provide an overview of his views on the hermeneutics of suspicion (Marx, Nietzsche, Freud).

Let me know which of these you'd like to focus on! "

[end of AI]

 

Some people are faced with contention about the 'rightness' of seeking to persuade others to change religion.

Two thoughts on this:

Firstly it raises an interesting question of moral epistemology and the possible source of 'rights' along with the basis for any ethical or moral judgement, because those who would reprimand for proselytizing are themselves seeking to impose their 'religious' belief on us!

Secondly, we typically have initial evangelistic conversations that 1. seek to understand the other's belief system, and 2. seek  to explain ours. No push to 'convert at all"

Greg Koukl has two excellent books on this: "Tactics" and "Street Smarts".

 

On covenantal religions.

 

The three main ones are often said to be Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are others of course but very small. Perhaps Zoroastrianism, for example.

Islam is interesting in this category as its conception of Allah ("the god") has mimetic characteristics.

 

Allah seems to be contained in the cosmos, has physical characteristics and seems to be physically localized. His "word" seems also to be both "Isa" (the Islamic misnamed distortion of Yeshua) and the 'eternal Quran', which itself is eternally physical on tablets in 'heaven'. This latter is strange given its occasionalist references, historical errors, physical mistakes and inclusion of late Christian pseudepigrapha.

 

How this plays out

In the idea of man and the idea of of mans relation to the world. are different across the three types.

Mimetic religions have man as an integral part of the world and not substantially differentiated from it.

It is finally monastic.

Materialism/physicalism reflect this in that man is an assembly of basic particles and everything about man is founded in his material substance. Man has no more status, finally, than a rock!

Exilic religions depict man as separated from the basic IS: an impersonal undifferentiatedness. There is no innate significance to man or, it seems, the basic "IS". Man's 'object' (the worth of which fails to be established by the nature of the basic being espoused) is to be unified or undifferentiated with the basic "IS". Upon this the individual dissolves into the IS.

The contrast with covenental religions is that they set man in contrast to both the material cosmos and the separate self-existent Creator: Yahweh in both Judaism and Christianity. Fundamental to man is relationships, which are real and substantial.

Man is distinguished from both other types in a combination of his substance and his dependence. While similar materially to the cosmos is differentiated by virtue of spiritual self-consciousness that is only resolved in relationship with Yahweh through his Spirit sent by the incarnate Messiah. The Genesis creation account in chapters 1-3 illuminates this.

  

 

Why only 1 way?

At my youth group (attendee only) back last century (I love saying that), one of the other attendees asked why Jesus was the only way.She had become quite upset at the exclusivity as she perceived it that this claim seemed to entail.

All I can recall of the answer was a repetition of the relevant scriptural passage, with no further discussion, and much frustration and bemusement all around.

In later years the obvious answer has come to mind and one that reaches back into the scriptural framing of reality: Jesus, is the creator.

 

He is the "reference point" for all that exists and the integration point for we who are alienated from our creator, which alienation only he is able to overcome by giving us new life.

Nothing and no one from within the creation can resolve its final dilemma of estrangement (Romans 8:19ff), only one from without the creation.

Who do we follow?

In a Christian gathering we often declare our allegiance, our vision and our commitment in some formal manner to commence our time together (some people call this a "service"; perhaps because we serve each other as per 1 Cor 14, although gathering/assembly/meeting are perhaps better words).

We might do this in the words of the Apostles Creed, a passage of scripture, or prayer.

My favourite scripture passage is (from the Morning Prayer format):

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: but if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 St. John 1.8-9. 

Of late some Christian gatherings start with intoning an 'acknowledgement of country'. Sometimes this is given an attempt of a buffer, packaging it with some Christian niceties. But this is false as we would not do the package if we weren't really doing the AoC.

In case you don't know, an AoC is intended to 'acknowledge' Aboriginal presence on this island prior to the arrival of multi-cultural refugees from Britain in 1776 or so. Noting this is already well done and honoured in endless adoption of Aboriginal place names across Australia.

The AoC itself is a type of ceremonial paean derived from one invented in the 1970s by an Australian Aboriginal entertainer, Ernie Dingo (BTW a very good entertainer!) at the behest of, I think, of a Maori group who did historically have such a greeting.

So what does recital of these words imply when done in some association with a Christian gathering of any type, in a church publication (newsletter, website, letter) or sign?

As one of my bosses told me many years ago (she was CEO of a professional society) when a board member wanted to do something similar. The boss lady supported my rejection of the idea because "we do not split our brand". That is, we do not represent ourselves as anything but ourselves. We do not confuse our market as to who we are. No offense implied or intended, but we are who we are, not someone else.

Aside from her commercial 'nose' and loyalty to the organization, she could see the diffusion of our allegiance to our mission being implied by acquiescing to the request.

Now, what happens in a church context?

Same thing: we 'split our brand'. No longer do we meet to edify one another in the Spirit, we also meet to 'acknowledge' on political (perhaps on faux or real or misplaced compassionate grounds) a formal non-Christian, indeed pagan belief structure with practices as diachronically ungodly as the Western heritage is.

Do we acknowledge the Ancient Greeks or Romans? Caesar, even Constantine? No. What about Boadicea, Nero, or Scipio Africanus? No. These would be completely incongruent with our faith.

It also degrades implicitly the faith of Aboriginal Christians as we overturn Paul's teaching in Galatians 3:28. All of a sudden there is 'Jew and Greek'! We have injured in our words the unity of the body of Christ. We have said we meet for other than our Christian mission of making disciples. We have confused our message in our now split brand, mixed our allegiance and denied our Lord. Instead of inviting the world in, we have asked to join it!

Let's stop doing it and get some backbone when questioned. We are no longer of this world: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Christians, we are all "in Christ". Thanks be to our Lord and Saviour.

  

Conversations

In almost every congregation I've been part of, after the formal session we have coffee and buns, or similar (rarely lunch, because the NT congregational practice ain't for we moderns, it seems) and chat with each other.

Almost never have I experienced a theological or other serious topic arising in conversation.

Now when I've been in other groups: a political party, a couple of community volunteer groups, board member of a charity, even in professional contexts, the conversation is always concentrated on the activity of the group. Never idle chit-chat!

Why is this so?

Now, even at church board meetings and the like, we chat on topic!

On the up-side, maybe its because we are in some way sharing our every-day-ness with each other, like with your pals in the school playground.

Maybe its because the talk we've heard is so far from relevance to our lives there's nothing to connect with. Maybe the talk is a mere 'set-piece' like a grooms speech at the wedding breakfast (that's at the reception) and no further comment called for or even possible...

I've tried on a few occasions recently by hanging back with my own 'news' and asking what people thought of the talk, or the whole session. That usually gets platitudes (because mostly people forget the talk the instant they walk out of the auditorium).

From time to time there are real meaty conversations; but, so so rare.

Is this a mark of a deeper problem? 

Then there's the newbie.

I've been a newbie at a church gathering. I've also been on the other side.

Questions I've dealt with include:

Are you new here?

I haven't seen you here before.

Are you a Christian?

But NEVER have I heard (so this is what I say): "Hello, I don't think we've met, my name is " 'Watcher' "...then a follow up, if I need it is "What brought you here?"

This starts a real conversation, not one that requires admission that you are a newbie. Plenty of people volunteer that, but the question requires no explanatory response.

Another follow up could be "What are your thoughts about the event we've just experienced/the talk they guy/girl gave/what this crowd (or we) believes...? 

 

 

The sermon spot

If we must have the rhetorical set-piece known as 'the sermon' at least let's make it useful!

For instance, the speaker comes across Colossians 1:14 - "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." referring to Yeshua.

I heard of one speaker who did explain that "firstborn" referred to primogeniture.

 

Primogeniture is a historical system of inheritance where the firstborn legitimate child inherits the entirety of their parents' estate, titles, or royal succession, typically prioritizing the eldest son. It was designed to keep large estates and political power intact, though it has been largely abolished in modern societies in favor of equal division.

The guy did briefly mention this, and that it was a counter to Arians who claim that Yeshua is not divine.

But, how is it a counter? How does the creator-son inherit what he has created? Doesn't he 'own' it already?

 

Well, no. Satan is the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2) -- the one who sought to tempt Y to prostrate before him to gain the world, to inherit it as it were (Matthew 4:1 ff).

 

Y as firstborn to inherit must be placed in the great arc of redemption: Creation-Christ-New Creation.

 

Creator - The creation fallen under the influence of Satan - Christ defeats the consequence of the fall at the cross - Christ brings the New Creation and now 'inherits' it for all eternity! No more satanic influence.