Saturday, January 17, 2015

Je ne suis pas Charlie

Somali protesters chant slogans holding placards reading "I am a Muslim, and I love my prophet", on 17 January.
In Somalia, protesters held placards reading, "I am Muslim and I love my Prophet."
If I call someone a &%$#^! and he murders me, we have two wrongs:

1. It is wrong to murder.
2. It is wrong to degrade people by calling them things like a "&%$#^!."

It is against the law to murder; it is not against the law to call people names and make fun of them. But both are examples of subhumanity. Both are immoral. Both are ineffective in making this world better.

I don't think governments should try to legislate all of morality. But humane, moral, loving people should self-legislate and not participate in hate-language. Hate-language breeds hatred. (See here, e.g., as the rage-war builds - grâce Charlie...)

This is why Je ne suis pas Charlie, and Je ne suis pas Isis.
Je veux être plus comme Jésus.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Detroit News Article on Chelsea Bruck (Missing Since Late October)

Go HERE

Dallas Willard on Breaking Free from Institutional Measures of Success

Dallas Willard's interview on measuring spiritual growth among Jesus-followers is prophetic and subversive. Here are some of the things Willard says:
  • Many churches measure the wrong things, "like attendance and giving, but we should be looking at more fundamental things like anger, contempt, honesty, and the degree to which people are under the thumb of their lusts."
  • Why don't many churches measure spiritual effectiveness by these things? Because these qualities are "not worth bragging about." "We'd rather focus on institutional measures of success."
  • Not every Christian wants to be assessed by these spiritual things.
  • Many people in today's American church are suffering, especially pastors and their families, because "much of North America and Europe has bought into a version of Christianity that does not include life in the kingdom of God as a disciple of Jesus Christ. They are trying to work a system that doesn't work. Without transformation within the church, pastors are the ones who get beat up. That is why there is a constant flood of them out of the pastorate. But they are not the only ones. New people are entering the church, but a lot are also leaving. Disappointed Christians fill the landscape because we've not taken discipleship seriously."
  • Churches, and Jesus-followers, must change their definition of "success."
    "They need to have a vision of success rooted in spiritual terms, determined by the vitality of a pastor's own spiritual life and his capacity to pass that on to others. When pastors don't have rich spiritual lives with Christ, they become victimized by other models of success—models conveyed to them by their training, by their experience in the church, or just by our culture. They begin to think their job is managing a set of ministry activities and success is about getting more people to engage those activities. Pastors, and those they lead, need to be set free from that belief."

Tomorrow Morning at Redeemer I'm Preaching On...


1 John 5:14-15


Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Response to Newsweek On the Bible

I did read Newsweek's crazy-ignorant, unscholarly, hate-filled article on the Bible - "The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin." I thought about responding but I'm already doing a lot (teaching at seminary last week), and assumed scholars better than I would. And so it has happened. 

Newsweek has published a response from Dr. Michael Brown (PhD in ancient and Semitic languages, NYU). It's worth reading. Brown is a hundred times the scholar that the Newsweek writer is. Read it in its entirety and you'll learn a lot about the Bible and interpretation theory.

Here it is: "A Response to Newsweek On the Bible." And thanks to Newsweek for publishing this.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

The Performance-Driven Church Isn't Relevant


Jesus-follower and millenial Rachel Held Evans writes on why many of her her fellow millenials are leaving the Church. I'm with her on this. Evans says:


"Time and again, the assumption among Christian leaders, and evangelical leaders in particular, is that the key to drawing twenty-somethings back to church is simply to make a few style updates  edgier music, more casual services, a coffee shop in the fellowship hall, a pastor who wears skinny jeans, an updated Web site that includes online giving.
But here’s the thing: Having been advertised to our whole lives, we millennials have highly sensitive BS meters, and we’re not easily impressed with consumerism or performances.
In fact, I would argue that church-as-performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church, and evangelicalism in particular.
Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions  Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.
What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.
We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.
We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.
We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation."
To many who have left "church" the performance-driven, structured ambiance isn't relevant.

Prayer and Silence (Prayer Life)

Weed in my backyard



When he opened the seventh seal, 
there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.
- Revelation 8:1

To find a moment of silence in life is to find a pause. In a musical score a beat of silence is called a "rest."


The heavenly silence of the book of Revelation is dramatic and anticipatory. Something is about to happen. First incense, then seven announcing trumpets. Silence provides the necessary background to the heralds of God.


In prayer it is good to have a silent heart. A silent heart is an uncluttered heart. In the noiseless unclutter one can more clearly hear the voice of God. When it comes to hearing and understanding silence is good, noise is bad. 



But I have calmed and quieted myself...
- Psalm 131:2

See an artcile in the New York Times - "I'm Thinking. Please. Be Quiet." What happens to a person who lives with constant noise, such as living by an airport? A 2009 study looked at the effect of airport noise on sleeping subjects. We read:


"The findings were clear: even when people stayed asleep, the noise of planes taking off and landing caused blood pressure spikes, increased pulse rates and set off vasoconstriction and the release of stress hormones. Worse, these harmful cardiovascular responses continued to affect individuals for many hours after they had awakened and gone on with their days."


Audible assaults affect us psychologically. "A recent World Health Organization report on the burden of disease from environmental noise conservatively estimates that Western Europeans lose more than one million healthy life years annually as a consequence of noise-related disability and disease. Among environmental hazards, only air pollution causes more damage."


An incessantly noisy soul is a diseased soul. Constant noise hinders sustained thinking. For this reason the makers of our Constitution had "the street outside Independence Hall covered with earth so that their deliberations might not be disturbed by passing traffic.” 


Silence is needed to think well, and to be able to hear ourselves think. This is why libraries are silent. Silence helps us focus. 



The quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded 
than the shouts of a ruler of fools.
- Ecclesiastes 9:17

Noise wars against hearing. Listening requires the soul to pause, to rest. Silence, therefore, is needed to pray well. 

Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's Existence (Philosophy of Religion)


Monroe County Community College

I'm beginning the semester, in my MCCC Philosophy of Religion class, by presenting Anselm's famous ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE.

Here's what I am looking for students to be able to say and, even better, understand, when I question them in their 1-on-1 oral examinations.







I. State the Ontological Argument:


1. I have an idea of a being a greater than which cannot be conceived.

2. Therefore, God exists.

Or:


1. I have an idea of a greatest possible being.
2. Therefore, God exists.

II. in order to understand this argument you need to know what it means to have an idea. Every time you have an idea of something, that "something" in your mind has essential attriubutes and contingent attributes. An essential attribute is what makes that 'something" just what it is; a contingent attribute is not needed for that "something" to be just what it is.

For example: I have an idea of a triangle. This means I have, in my understanding, a 3-sided figure whose angels equal 180 degrees. Whether or not my triangle is pink or blue is irrelevant to it being a triangle. If i say, "My triangle has four sides," then I am not thinking of a triangle.

III. I have an idea of a greatest possible being. This means my idea of "greatest possible being" has essential attributes, which include: omnipotence (is able to do anything that can logically or possibly be done); omniscience (knows everything that can logically or possibly be known); and omnibenevolence (is all-good or all-loving).

Another essential attribute of "greatest possible being," for Anselm, is actual existence. Anselm believes actual existence is a great-making property; that is, it is greater to exist in reality than only in the mind.

Therefore if someone says, "I am thinking of a greatest possible being, but it does not actually exist," Anselm would respond that you are not thinking of a greatest possible being because we can think of an even greater being than the one you are thinking of; viz., one that actually exists.

IV. Anselm believes that the person who says "God does not exist" is a fool. Because in order to deny the existence of God they must be able to conceive (have an idea) of God. Once they acknowledge that they have an idea of God they are forced, on Anselm's reasoning, to affirm God's actual existence. 

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The Idea of God

Downtown Detroit, by the river

In my MCCC philosophy of religion classes I begin with Anselm's Ontological Argument for God's existence. This proves to be a cool exercise in logic and a priori reasoning, and an introduction to the idea of God. For the most part theistic and atheistic philosophers share the same view of God, the former arguing for this God's existence, the latter arguing against it.

What do we mean when we say "God?" University of Notre Dame philosopher Peter van Inwagen's "The Idea of God" is a good place to begin. (In The Problem of Evil)

We are interested in the essential attributes of the idea of God. Note we're talking about the idea of God, and not assuming the reality of God. Every idea, every mental concept, has essential attributes. As does "God."

A person

Van Inwagen writes: "By a person, I mean a being who may be, in the most straightforward and literal sense, addressed - a being whom one may call 'thou'." (20)


Jews, Christians, and Muslims think of God this way. God "cannot possibly be thought of as impersonal, like Brahman or the Tao or the Absolute Idea or the Dialectic of History or, to descend to a more popular level, the Force." (Ib.)

Everyone who prays to God understands God as a person.

God is neither a 'he' or a 'she' since God is understood to not occupy physical space. More of this to come.

Omnipotent (or all-powerful or almighty)

An omnipotent being can do anything that is metaphysically possible. Note, philosophy of religion students, that I describe the attribute of omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible. Van Inwagen has difficulties with this, and uses metaphysical impossibility instead.


This still creates some difficulties, since it is generally agreed that God cannot lie, and lying is metaphysically possible. Van Inwagen devotes a good deal of attention to this.

'Omnipotence' concerns something like this: "The proposition that God cannot do X is consistent with the proposition that God is omnipotent of X is metaphysically impossible." (25) I take this to mean that God cannot, e.g., create 'square circles' or 'married bachelors' because such things are metaphysical nonsense. As is a stone so heavy that God cannot lift, or a burrito so hot that God cannot hold.

With these last two examples van Inwagen mentions Descartes' "strong omnipotence" view. "According to this conception, God is able to do anything, including (Descartes tells us) creating two mountains that touch at their bases and have no valley between them." (Ib.) Van Inwagen rightly rejects this because it is "incoherent because ability (the concept that is expressed by sentences of the form 'x is able to do y') is no more or less the power to choose among possible states of affairs, to determine which of various incompatible possible states of affairs are to be actual." (Ib.)

Omniscient (all-knowing)

"Here is the standard definition of omniscience: A being is omniscient if and only if that being knows the truth-value of every proposition." (26)


Van Inwagen prefers this definition of 'omniscience': "A being is omniscient if, for every proposition, that being believes either that proposition or its denial, and it is metaphysically impossible for that being to have false beliefs." (Ib.) [By 'proposition' Van Inwagen means what in logic is also called a 'statement'; viz., a sentence that is true or false, a statement that claims that a particular state of affairs obtains.]

Morally perfect (perfectly good)

"That is to say, God has no moral defect whatever. It follows that he is in no way a subject of possible oral criticism." (26)


Eternal

God has always existed and always will exist. And, God is outside time altogether.


If there is a God (which, of course, I believe true) then the Internet question "If God made the universe than who or what made God?" is a logically nonsensical question, since God did not begin to exist.

On God's relation to time, a very good book to read is: God and Time: Four Views.

Immutable

"That is, his attributes and other important properties do not and cannot change." (28)


"To speak the language of metaphysics, [God's] intrinsic or non-relational properties do not and cannot change with time... nothing in God's nature corresponds to the mutability that characterizes human existence and the existence of all things present to the senses." (Ib.)

Omnipresent

"To say that God is omnipresent is, obviously, to say that God is everywhere." (28)


Also obvious is that, "whatever omnipresence may come to, it is incompatible with God's having any sort of spatial or physical structure (and hence with his being either male or female)." (29)


Theists like myself affirm the actual existence of God, with the above essential attributes defining 'God'. Western philosophical atheists affirm that by the term 'God' the above-stated attributes apply, while of course working to deny the existence of God.

Leif Hetland and Will Hart at Our Conference This Coming Summer

Going to Be Awesome!!!

The dates are June 27-July 3 (sessions start Sunday morning June 28 and end Thursday night, July 2). Our Main Speakers are:
Leif Hetland
Will Hart

(REGISTER click here)