"Shema, Yisrael..."
It's taken me a lot longer to get around to writing the follow-up post to "Thoughts on 'Biblical Epistemology'", than I thought it would. And at this point, I think I'm writing this more for my own sense of closure than any other reason. When I wrote the last post, I said that my motivation was to show bible-believing (aka Evangelical) Christians how the bible clearly shows that voluntaryism (free market anarchy) is the best political view to have. But now, I just want to put a stake in the ground where I stand-- which is far away from Evangelicals, and far away from atheists and agnostics.
For well over 20 years, probably almost since the time I started really thinking about God in earnest, I have felt a kind of split within my own mind, a seemingly irreconcilable conflict. On the one hand, I belonged to (was "nestled in", might be a better way of putting it) a community of Christians whose belief in God and in his chosen savior Jesus filled them with joy and hope. I loved to sing for over an hour every Sunday, and forget everything else, and bask in the sense of the wonder and beauty of God. We sang many songs that came from Jewish prophetic writings, like this one from Zechariah:
"The Lord your God is in your midst,
the Lord of Hosts who saves.
He will rejoice over you with joy.
He will renew you in his love,
He will rejoice over you, with shouts of joy."
Just remembering that song brings tears to my eyes, and there are so, so many others. My point? Just that I have been experiencing God's real presence when among Christians, all my life, and I still do.
On the other hand, I have always been a keen observer of nature, a lover of logic, an avid reader of scientific texts of all kinds. As I learned more and more about what scientists have discovered, and the process of developing scientific theories, I began to wonder more and more about all the "supernatural" things we read about in the bible. Looking back, I can't remember when I first thought there might be a conflict between modern scientific knowledge and the miraculous stories of the bible, but quite smoothly I think I developed two "buckets" or "compartments" for my mind: one for religion, and one for science. As long as I was enveloped fully in my Christian community, and had very limited exposure to people who didn't believe the stories of the bible were true, I was able to negotiate living in my "religious mind" when at church, and in my "scientific mind" when, well, studying science at school. The "two minds" pretty much left each other alone.
When I was about 24, the doctrinal system of Evangelical Christianity started to lose its integrity in my mind. I had the basic problem of "come on, how could a person walk on water, and why would God even give someone the ability to do that?" etc. etc. etc., but I also was starting to struggle with more abstract "theological" concepts, such as "one God, three persons". This struggle got very intense, with my desire for logical harmony and consistency warring against my "moral" sense that I should "just believe it". I was convinced, from hearing it over and over and over again, across the years, from all sorts of people, that to attempt to understand God was hubristic and perverse. Finally, that year, I just removed my need to understand-- by stopping my participation in the activities of Christians. This was the fall of 1995. For the next four years I attempted to define myself outside of Christianity, and failed.
In the fall of 1999, after a string of soul-shaking events, I gave up the struggle to understand-- by acknowledging that I needed to participate in Christian community, and accepting that "perfect" understanding was not a prerequisite for coming to church. However, I never regained the anthropomorphic understanding of God the Father that I had begun to shed in 1995, and in some ways I felt that I was "in the closet" theologically, and that I was a "liberal in Evangelical's clothing". But-- the crazy thing was, I had tried to go to "liberal" churches, during my wandering period, and it just didn't work for me! I wasn't really a "liberal"! Ack! What was I, anyway? Why couldn't I just play nice?
When it was pointed out to me, earlier this year, that governments are unable to exist without violating the most basic moral principles, I turned to the bible and then, realized that the answer had been there all along.
If you read the gospels of Jesus-- what he said, what he did, how he was killed, and how his followers continued on after him, and line it up against the Hebrew scriptures, you realize what he was really about. He preached the kingdom of God, which means, really, the reign of God. Jesus said a number of things that were confusing, about his relationship with "God" or with "the Father", but he really did not refer to himself as a king, at all, until his confrontation with Pilate! And he did not offer that answer on his own, but rather in answer to Pilate's direct question to him, "You are a king, then?" Pilate asked it that way, because he was not at all getting the sense, that Jesus was promoting himself as a king of any sort. Jesus' answer was, basically, "Yes, sort of, but not in a way that you can understand."
And now, to the point of this post! Jesus referred to his return, to his "coming in glory, on the clouds". We are told that he was "taken up to heaven", while his disciples watched. Jesus talked (a little) about the "end times", and about a "day of judgment", and of course, about eternal paradise and eternal torment. But why was he killed? I maintain that it was because of how he was upsetting the order of the day, by what he said and did, and by what just naturally seemed to happen to the people who gathered around him. And the people who killed him were the ones responsible for maintaining that order.
In my last post, I tried to point to a concept given by Paul in Romans 1, which is that God can be understood by "what has been made". The comments made on the post all said, in one form or another, that knowledge about nature should be "subject to" or "guided by" the knowledge we have from the bible. In the weeks since I wrote that post, I have thought it over, and I realized that the distinction between "general revelation" and "special revelation" is a red herring.
"Historical" or "orthodox" Christianity takes as a bedrock presupposition that there are two worlds, one "seen" and one "unseen". (It is found in the very first sentence of the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty; maker of heaven and earth; of all that is seen and unseen.") It underpins so many doctrines and beliefs, that it is almost unthinkable to question it. But I don't question it-- I simply deny it. And, I also refuse to accept the label of "atheist" or "unbeliever". I am a steadfast follower of Jesus. I strive to follow in his steps, and to proclaim the kingdom of God, which is here, and is here now. It has always been here, and now! Jesus' uniqueness is that he was the first to realize this fact, and to refuse, unflinchingly, to refrain from acting on the realization.
Anyway, what happened, very early on in the history of Christianity, is that after Jesus kept not returning... and not returning... and not returning... the question of an actual "kingdom" was pushed neatly and comfortably into the future, to "the end of time", when Jesus would return, as king over all things, and all people (most especially, all the ones who had refused, up to this point, to acknowledge his lordship) would suddenly submit to his kingship. And the persnickety Jews, who never could get over their insistence on an actual king to rule over them righteously, were hit so hard in their homeland during the late 1st and early 2nd centuries A.D., that they ceased being a distraction from the new community of (mostly Greco-Roman) "Christians" who were more concerned with preparing people's souls for the "life to come", after death.
I don't believe in two worlds, a "physical" one where "matter" exists, and can be seen and tested, and a "spiritual" one, where "spirits" exist, and where people "go" when they die. And I don't think the Jews really believed in two worlds either, until a few centuries before Jesus, when they began to be exposed heavily to Greek philosophy, in which a dualistic view figured importantly. I even think that Jesus himself was limited in the way he could express his revelations to those around him, by the dualistic views that held sway among the pious Jews of his day.
There. I've said it. I fully realize that many people do not think it is possible to be a follower of Jesus and not believe in two separate worlds, but I say that it is possible, because I don't believe in two separate worlds, and I am a follower, and a lover, of Jesus. People may assert with very strong emotions that a Jesus who didn't do "miraculous" things, is a weak and powerless and pallid and despicable Jesus. And that people who believe in such a Jesus think that he was "only" a moral teacher, and that such a Jesus is utterly unable to save us from anything. They may assert these things, but that doesn't make them true.
"Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One."
For well over 20 years, probably almost since the time I started really thinking about God in earnest, I have felt a kind of split within my own mind, a seemingly irreconcilable conflict. On the one hand, I belonged to (was "nestled in", might be a better way of putting it) a community of Christians whose belief in God and in his chosen savior Jesus filled them with joy and hope. I loved to sing for over an hour every Sunday, and forget everything else, and bask in the sense of the wonder and beauty of God. We sang many songs that came from Jewish prophetic writings, like this one from Zechariah:
"The Lord your God is in your midst,
the Lord of Hosts who saves.
He will rejoice over you with joy.
He will renew you in his love,
He will rejoice over you, with shouts of joy."
Just remembering that song brings tears to my eyes, and there are so, so many others. My point? Just that I have been experiencing God's real presence when among Christians, all my life, and I still do.
On the other hand, I have always been a keen observer of nature, a lover of logic, an avid reader of scientific texts of all kinds. As I learned more and more about what scientists have discovered, and the process of developing scientific theories, I began to wonder more and more about all the "supernatural" things we read about in the bible. Looking back, I can't remember when I first thought there might be a conflict between modern scientific knowledge and the miraculous stories of the bible, but quite smoothly I think I developed two "buckets" or "compartments" for my mind: one for religion, and one for science. As long as I was enveloped fully in my Christian community, and had very limited exposure to people who didn't believe the stories of the bible were true, I was able to negotiate living in my "religious mind" when at church, and in my "scientific mind" when, well, studying science at school. The "two minds" pretty much left each other alone.
When I was about 24, the doctrinal system of Evangelical Christianity started to lose its integrity in my mind. I had the basic problem of "come on, how could a person walk on water, and why would God even give someone the ability to do that?" etc. etc. etc., but I also was starting to struggle with more abstract "theological" concepts, such as "one God, three persons". This struggle got very intense, with my desire for logical harmony and consistency warring against my "moral" sense that I should "just believe it". I was convinced, from hearing it over and over and over again, across the years, from all sorts of people, that to attempt to understand God was hubristic and perverse. Finally, that year, I just removed my need to understand-- by stopping my participation in the activities of Christians. This was the fall of 1995. For the next four years I attempted to define myself outside of Christianity, and failed.
In the fall of 1999, after a string of soul-shaking events, I gave up the struggle to understand-- by acknowledging that I needed to participate in Christian community, and accepting that "perfect" understanding was not a prerequisite for coming to church. However, I never regained the anthropomorphic understanding of God the Father that I had begun to shed in 1995, and in some ways I felt that I was "in the closet" theologically, and that I was a "liberal in Evangelical's clothing". But-- the crazy thing was, I had tried to go to "liberal" churches, during my wandering period, and it just didn't work for me! I wasn't really a "liberal"! Ack! What was I, anyway? Why couldn't I just play nice?
When it was pointed out to me, earlier this year, that governments are unable to exist without violating the most basic moral principles, I turned to the bible and then, realized that the answer had been there all along.
If you read the gospels of Jesus-- what he said, what he did, how he was killed, and how his followers continued on after him, and line it up against the Hebrew scriptures, you realize what he was really about. He preached the kingdom of God, which means, really, the reign of God. Jesus said a number of things that were confusing, about his relationship with "God" or with "the Father", but he really did not refer to himself as a king, at all, until his confrontation with Pilate! And he did not offer that answer on his own, but rather in answer to Pilate's direct question to him, "You are a king, then?" Pilate asked it that way, because he was not at all getting the sense, that Jesus was promoting himself as a king of any sort. Jesus' answer was, basically, "Yes, sort of, but not in a way that you can understand."
And now, to the point of this post! Jesus referred to his return, to his "coming in glory, on the clouds". We are told that he was "taken up to heaven", while his disciples watched. Jesus talked (a little) about the "end times", and about a "day of judgment", and of course, about eternal paradise and eternal torment. But why was he killed? I maintain that it was because of how he was upsetting the order of the day, by what he said and did, and by what just naturally seemed to happen to the people who gathered around him. And the people who killed him were the ones responsible for maintaining that order.
In my last post, I tried to point to a concept given by Paul in Romans 1, which is that God can be understood by "what has been made". The comments made on the post all said, in one form or another, that knowledge about nature should be "subject to" or "guided by" the knowledge we have from the bible. In the weeks since I wrote that post, I have thought it over, and I realized that the distinction between "general revelation" and "special revelation" is a red herring.
"Historical" or "orthodox" Christianity takes as a bedrock presupposition that there are two worlds, one "seen" and one "unseen". (It is found in the very first sentence of the Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty; maker of heaven and earth; of all that is seen and unseen.") It underpins so many doctrines and beliefs, that it is almost unthinkable to question it. But I don't question it-- I simply deny it. And, I also refuse to accept the label of "atheist" or "unbeliever". I am a steadfast follower of Jesus. I strive to follow in his steps, and to proclaim the kingdom of God, which is here, and is here now. It has always been here, and now! Jesus' uniqueness is that he was the first to realize this fact, and to refuse, unflinchingly, to refrain from acting on the realization.
Anyway, what happened, very early on in the history of Christianity, is that after Jesus kept not returning... and not returning... and not returning... the question of an actual "kingdom" was pushed neatly and comfortably into the future, to "the end of time", when Jesus would return, as king over all things, and all people (most especially, all the ones who had refused, up to this point, to acknowledge his lordship) would suddenly submit to his kingship. And the persnickety Jews, who never could get over their insistence on an actual king to rule over them righteously, were hit so hard in their homeland during the late 1st and early 2nd centuries A.D., that they ceased being a distraction from the new community of (mostly Greco-Roman) "Christians" who were more concerned with preparing people's souls for the "life to come", after death.
I don't believe in two worlds, a "physical" one where "matter" exists, and can be seen and tested, and a "spiritual" one, where "spirits" exist, and where people "go" when they die. And I don't think the Jews really believed in two worlds either, until a few centuries before Jesus, when they began to be exposed heavily to Greek philosophy, in which a dualistic view figured importantly. I even think that Jesus himself was limited in the way he could express his revelations to those around him, by the dualistic views that held sway among the pious Jews of his day.
There. I've said it. I fully realize that many people do not think it is possible to be a follower of Jesus and not believe in two separate worlds, but I say that it is possible, because I don't believe in two separate worlds, and I am a follower, and a lover, of Jesus. People may assert with very strong emotions that a Jesus who didn't do "miraculous" things, is a weak and powerless and pallid and despicable Jesus. And that people who believe in such a Jesus think that he was "only" a moral teacher, and that such a Jesus is utterly unable to save us from anything. They may assert these things, but that doesn't make them true.
"Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is One."
Labels: bible, Christianity, dualism, Evangelical, Jesus, Judaism, science, supernatural
posted by Joel GL at 9:34 PM
7 Comments:
I bet you feel better now that you've said it aloud :).
However, if, in beginning, God created, wouldn't that also mean he created time, which would not necessarily separate worlds into a physical and spiritual, but add a dimension of travel that could be described as "the spiritual world?" I did not really realize that I did not hold the idea of two separate worlds in my head until reading this caused me to mentally go over what I personally believe. God the creator, creating time, can do many things that we, being created inside time. Remembering the "miracle categories" from school, I can see how there really is no difference in any of them, and God could have simply been manipulating Time, for most.
I do not understand how people can say you are not a Christian if you do not believe doctrine XYZ. Well, I guess I can, I have been there; however, the Bible never says "believe in baptism" or thou shalt not be saved. It says to believe on Christ. As long as you are trusting in Him for your salvation...
ah, there I go. :) My can of worms:
I understand that Christ was ultimately killed (albeit temporarily) by the State: a hideous organization originally created in opposition to God.
I do not believe that Christ simply came to free us from this organization, but to free us from our sin, by paying our penalty for us. I am not certain what your belief concerning this is. The State, being a creation of man(influenced by satan perhaps) in opposition to God, holds no authority. Hmm... this puts a whole new perspective on the temptation of Christ though.......
Kudos. Interesting post. I remember the supernatural stuff being drilled into us in catholic school and I just did not buy it. Everyone else either did or they didn't challenge it, so neither did I, except for one time I put 'love', 'Jesus' and some other religious keywords randomly into the blanks on a religion test - and still got 44% right.
Parents had to sign every test so I was conditioned to keep my protesting under wraps after that. ;/
Abbie-
Thanks for your thoughtful comments! It is extremely encouraging to see at least one Christian engage what I've said, and start to turn it over and see what the implications are.
I fully admit that I have not presented a "philosophy" here. It's more like Martin Luther's "Here I stand!" I'm saying "this is where I'm operating from, because it's who I *am*." It's taken me until almost 40 to have that kind of chutzpah. Because I know for a fact that I can be a friend to people who hate religion, and I can be a friend to people who love it. As long as the former are people of integrity, and as long as the latter fully understand that throughout all history, God has commanded us to do right--NOW. And that he has never been about "theology". Just as "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath", so it is with theology and doctrine. "If your [theology] causes you to sin, throw it away." :-)
One difference I have with you, at least so far, is that I feel no need to accommodate, or find a way to explain, the reports of the miraculous in the bible. Unless you also want to explain the miraculous reports in Islam and Mormonism and elsewhere, why bother with ours? The miraculous is not something we have to wrestle with, in our daily lives. It don't find that believing in or not believing in say, the feeding of the five thousand, changes the priorities of a single one of my days. Except insofar as *believing* it tends to *harm* my sense of relationship with Jesus, rather than *enhance* it.
Ok, so I lied. It does matter. :-) I feel alive as a Christian now that I don't try to believe that the miracles actually happened, whereas before, I was confused, demoralized, guilty, paralyzed and lonely. Lonely, because I didn't have my *real* Jesus to keep me company, and inspire me, day by day.
Yes, this means you have to read the bible differently. Sometimes it makes reading the bible more difficult, but I am willing to pay that price, for the sense of real excitement I have now, the joy of living that I have now. The ability to talk about Jesus with enthusiasm. For the feeling that I really know what I'm talking about now, and for the experience of seeing people listen attentively to what I have to say.
Oh, one more thing-- I do believe it is possible that Jesus did a good deal of real healing, but again, I don't struggle over the question of how. I am vaguely aware of "healing arts" (Reiki? that sort of thing) that exist outside of Christianity. I believe there are people who have a remarkable ability to focus energy and accomplish remarkable things with their skill.
But the bigger point about Jesus, to me, is that people had to *want* something, and that when people had what he called "faith", he was very pleased. I think this "faith" has virtually nothing to do with what modern Evangelicals mean by the term.
You've brought up several things in this post that I've never considered, but I'm glad they've been brought to my attention. But I'm very confused by a lot of it and I would really like to understand---and I can't cover it all in one comment.
You've said you don't believe in two worlds, all right, but do you believe in a spiritual realm at all? And if not, then who is God to you? And what, then, do you make of verses such as Ephesians 6:12, which says, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms."
I'm not trying to argue or convince you otherwise, I'd just like to know more about what you've mentioned already and where your beliefs come from.
(Feel free to respond via email or Facebook as well.)
Emily-
First of all, thanks for commenting! I'm afraid that there is no way around the confusing aspect of this, because so much of our understanding of everything hinges on whether or not we believe in an "incorporeal world".
I'm glad you brought up Ephesians 6, because I actually have a post in draft status right now, on that very scripture. So I'm not going to hold forth too much on that, here in this comment.
There are a variety of ways in which I could try to explain my understanding of the phrase "spiritual realm". One analogy would be, the world as viewed by the eyes (which operate using light in the "visible spectrum" of wavelengths) versus what we "see" using an infrared camera. So- imagine a room with no windows, and no other way for light to enter, with 5 living human beings seated around the room. If you were standing in the room, near the door, your eyes would not detect the people. But if you had gear that could pick up infrared radiation strapped to your head, you would see them quite clearly.
Do you see what I mean? There were two drastically different *experiences* of reality, but there was only *one reality*. And that was only an analogy. I think that there are ways of "seeing" reality that we would call "spiritual". We are told that "God is a spirit" (don't remember the reference offhand)-- so, when you perceive God's presence, you are using "spiritual perception".
I still will finish my "flesh and blood/present darkness" post, but let me give you a quick preview. Another sort of cliched way of saying this grander-sounding statement in Ephesians 6 is "Hate the sin, love the sinner." It's just amped up to include "everything"-- the whole epic battle that we are engaged in.
For us voluntaryists, it means this: we hate, and are bitter enemies of, the "spiritual power" that drives the world to senseless violence and then makes people call it good. We want to *destroy* that power, *eliminate* it entirely. But President Obama, himself, is *not* that power, not himself. There may be moments when that power has more control over him, than other moments, but *he* is not our enemy.
But that "power", I contend, is *not* a "shadow-person", a denizen of "another realm". It is not a "sentient being", I guess is how I would say it. It is *real*, but it is not *another person*, exerting influence over Obama, whispering in his ear, giving him tips on how to better enslave America.
Anyway, I should leave it to the other post, to say more about that. As for where my beliefs come from... hm. They come from my observations over the course of 38 years, and my processing of those observations using fundamental logical laws. These "observations" include my direct reading of the bible, teaching I've heard about the bible, thoughts from others on the bible, as well as my knowledge of a number of other texts that have been handed down through the ages. They include everything my five senses have taken in over the course of my life.
We all have the same ability to acquire knowledge and process it logically, but we aren't all exposed to the same experiences, so we don't all have the same knowledge. And for various reasons, we don't all subject our experiences to logic, to the same degree. This results in a delightfully diverse world of belief and opinion. :-)
But how do I support my view *biblically*, you are wondering? Well, I have said before, in the post immediately preceding this one. We learn fundamental things about God by observing what God has made. We should apply what we learn in this manner, to the bible, and to all other "religious texts".
Your last comment helped me understand what you were saying... It was one of those, oh! now I get it, moments.
I don't feel the need to accommodate anymore(since becoming an anarchist anyway)... I tend to say, yeah, it happened, and then much later read something that makes me say, I guess it could be that way. :)
Stephen Hawkings writings are one of those things I read. :) Reading what you wrote kind of set of bells in my head, reminding me of things I've read and getting some dots connected. :)
I like the idea of "if your theology causes you to sin, throw it away." If only more people lived like this.
Post a Comment
<< Home