Belief and Death

My mother, Esther Piippo, died last Saturday, November 20, 2004, at 2:15 AM. My brother Mike and I and Linda were able to be with her just before she died. She was weak and frail, having struggled with a failing heart valve, an infection that did not go away for many months, an increasing inability to eat and drink, and with that the loss of desire to eat and drink.
In her weakness she found it excruciatingly tough to even open her eyes. I asked her once, "Mom, open your eyes - it's me. I'm here with you." And just for a brief moment there was a small window of visual opportunity as she opened her eyes, saw me, and I smiled at her.
Now she is with God. Now she is in eternity. This was her hope and is mine also.
I find this hope to be real and convincing intellectually. But also, experientially it works to give me inner peace. At a time like this I see that, yes, I am a believer.
All the needed words of love were said between me and mom. No bitterness, no unhealed wounds, no regrets. This is the way it should happen and it makes a huge difference in the aftermath.
So I give a final earthly tribute to you, mom. You were a faithful wife to dad and a loving mother to Mike and me. You still are the best cook I've ever known. You turned me on to nature early, and I still watch birds because of you. Your love for music and artistic creativity hooked me on to the guitar and songwriting. Your tenderness towards this world's "least of these" was Christlike. You prayed with me and held me and loved me even when I went astray from God as a late teen. You accepted my beautiful wife Linda and loved my three boys. Now you are in eternity with dad - see you very soon...
Love,
John

Jesus the Logician

One of the many things I appreciate about Dallas Willard is his biblical integration of heart and mind. For a good example of this see his article Jesus the Logican. Here, e.g., is a nice quote from this article:
"We need to understand that Jesus is a thinker, that this is not a dirty word but an essential work, and that his other attributes do not preclude thought, but only insure that he is certainly the greatest thinker of the human race: "the most intelligent person who ever lived on earth." He constantly uses the power of logical insight to enable people to come to the truth about themselves and about God from the inside of their own heart and mind. Quite certainly it also played a role in his own growth in "wisdom." (Luke 2:52)
Often, it seems to me, we see and hear his deeds and words, but we don't think of him as one who knew how to do what he did or who really had logical insight into the things he said. We don't automatically think of him as a very competent person. He multiplied the loaves and fishes and walked on water, for example--but, perhaps, he didn't know how to do it, he just used mindless incantations or prayers. Or he taught on how to be a really good person, but he did not have moral insight and understanding. He just mindlessly rattled off words that were piped in to him and through him. Really?
This approach to Jesus may be because we think that knowledge is human, while he was divine. Logic means works, while he is grace. Did we forget something there? Possibly that he also is human? Or that grace is not opposed to effort but to earning? But human thought is evil, we are told. How could he think human thought, have human knowledge? So we distance him from ourselves, perhaps intending to elevate him, and we elevate him right out of relevance to our actual lives--especially as they involve the use of our minds. That is why the idea of Jesus as logical, of Jesus the logician, is shocking. And of course that extends to Jesus the scientist, researcher, scholar, artist, literary person. He just doesn't 'fit' in those areas. Today it is easier to think of Jesus as a "TV evangelist" than as an author, teacher or artist in the contemporary context. But now really!--if he were divine, would he be dumb, logically challenged, uninformed in any area? Would he not instead be the greatest of artists or speakers? Paul was only being consistent when he told the Colossians "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are concealed in him." (2:3) "

Mythology, "Dying & Rising Gods," and the Uniqueness of Jesus

Theolobloggy member Joe writes:

"I wanted to ask you what you thought about people who say that Christianity is nothing new in religion. I've heard people say that many religions have a "god" that comes to earth to save people, religions that are way older than Christianity. I kind of have a feeling that's not true, but I don't know how to discuss that with them.
Thanks John.
Joe"

Thank you Joe for the question.

First, we can respond to this by pointing out that Jesus is an historical figure, whereas the gods of ancient Greece and Gnosticism are not historical.

Secondly, there is strong inductive evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. See, e.g., N.T. Wright’s recent The Resurrection of the Son of God and the “Historical Jesus” section of William Lane Craig’s website.

Now note this:

• Historical arguments cannot be made for mythological gods actually dying and rising from the dead.
• Jesus, unlike all mythological figures, actually existed.
• A strong inductive argument can be made that Jesus was crucified and later rose from the dead.
• This makes Christianity radically different from mythological stories about dying and rising gods.
• Even if there was one story about a dying and rising god that had a few similarities to the story of Jesus the existence of this story would not invalidate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus any more than would the existence of an ancient story having similarities with the tragic 911 event invalidate that event's actual occurence in history.

But now, and most importantly, note also this: the "dying and rising gods" theory is outmoded and inaccurate, thereby false. Here's why:

• For a more up-to-date study of dying and rising gods see: Tryggve Mettinger, The Riddle of the Resurrection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East. Such myths are themselves suspect as regards being at all analogous to the biblical claims of what happened to Jesus.
• See David Frankfurter's (Univerity of New Hampshire) comments on Mettinger's work. Frankfurter writes: "It is precisely in this rigorous attention to differences and to the various meanings of gods' deaths and reappearances that Mettinger's work fractures the very usefulness of the category "dying and rising god." By the end of the monograph, the category emerges as a rather simplistic generalization for a very wide array of gods and a very murky range of rituals."
• In other words, the "dying and rising gods" mythology has been called into question. The work of J.G. Frazer in The Golden Bough (from which this idea came from) has been and is being discredited.
• And once more from Frankfurter: "Most recently, the historian of religions Jonathan Z. Smith and the semiticist Mark Smith have declared the myth of the dying and rising god a fantasy, the product of uncritical comparison rather than a close consideration of evidence. More to the point, J. Z. Smith has used the dying/rising god myth as an example of the kinds of errors that cripple the enterprise of comparative religion when scholars ignore the following principles: comparison must always be towards differentiation in regard to a general category ("dying/rising god") rather than in finding links across individual examples ("Osiris like Attis"); concepts of "myth" and "ritual" must be defined and regarded as fundamentally separate dimensions for narrative; one should avoid generalizing elaborate patterns across all religions; one should consider the evidence for a myth or a ritual as the product of a particular historical context, not as timeless outcrops of a widespread pattern; one should not take similarity as evidence for genealogy or influence; and finally, in the face of evidence for gods who "die" but don't "rise," one should not impose the total Frazerian pattern but accept that one transition might occur without the other."
• So - one can answer someone who still says this sort of thing by saying: There really are no clear, adequate historical antecedents to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Blessings,

John

Spiritual Coaching

For information and resources having to do with Spiritual Coaching check out my Coaching Website.

Hell

The idea of “hell” is a tough one for some people. Yet I believe the notion of hell is sensible in light of the character of God. The biblical teaching is this: every friend you have, every person you love, all those you work with, all persons in your neighborhood, from the elderly couple down the street to the baby born to the young couple next door, will one day enter into an eternity with God or an eternity separated from God. Thus every one of them needs to be saved. Romans 10:9 states, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." And Romans 10:13 says, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." “Saved” – from what? From our sins. But why do we need to be saved from our sins? Because God is holy and cannot tolerate one micro-ounce of sin.
The Old Testament expresses this idea in Daniel 12:2 – “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.”
Jesus talked about hell in Matthew 10:28, Matthew 16:26, and Matthew 25:41, 46 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." For me we have a logical argument that goes like this.
· If Jesus is God the Son, then the words of Jesus are from God and can be considered true.
· Jesus is God the Son (by His historical resurrection).
· Therefore the words of Jesus are true, to include what He says about heaven and hell.
What the apostle Paul says about hell in Romans 9:22 moves us to believe that God treats all persons with respect. Paul writes: “God has every right to exercise his judgment and his power, but he also has the right to be very patient with those who are the objects of his judgment and are fit only for destruction.” The word “fit” can be viewed as being in the middle voice form which implies personal responsibility. For example, here in Monroe when a person wants to get “fitted” for hunting they go to that incredible store Cabela’s. But there is also a lifestyle, reflected by a person’s own life choices, that “fits” them for their eternal destiny. There is, so to speak, a “Ca-hell-a’s” that “outfits” a person for eternal destruction, and there is the choice of Romans 10:9-13 that “outfits” a person for heaven by clothing them in a righteousness that is not their own. God, being a respecter every person’s choice, allows people to outfit themselves either for Him or for hell. God does not send people to hell; people choose hell and receive the results of their choice.
Note that, if there were no hell, the Cross would not have been needed. “The Passion of the Christ” would then be a nonsensical act. This is because our sins would not make a separation between us and God, and there would be no need for Christ to die to forgive our sins. This is serious stuff, because the absence of hell would mean that God tolerates sin. This is why the great theologian R.C. Sproul has written, "I can't think of anything more politically incorrect to preach in 21st century America than the wrath of God, or the justice of God, or the doctrine of Hell… I think what we face in the church today is a virtual eclipse of the character of God."
On July 4, 1854, Charlie Peace, a well-known criminal in London, was hung. The Anglican Church, which had a ceremony for everything, even had a ceremony for hanging people. So when Charlie Peace was marched to the gallows, a priest read these words from the Prayer Book: "Those who die without Christ experience hell, which is the pain of forever dying without the release which death itself can bring."When these chilling words were read, Charlie Peace stopped in his tracks, turned to the priest, and shouted in his face, "Do you believe that? Do you believe that?" The priest, taken aback by this verbal assault, stammered for a moment then said, "Well…I…suppose I do." "Well, I don't," said Charlie. "But if I did, I'd get down on my hands and knees and crawl all over Great Britain, even if it were paved with pieces of broken glass, if I could rescue one person from what you just told me."
Jesus believed in and taught about hell, and thus He crawled up that hill dragging the Cross on His back. Bill Hybels says, "Are we responsible for teaching the whole message of the Gospel of Christ? Absolutely. Anybody who doesn't, I think the Scriptures are clear, will stand accountable before God someday." You and I are accountable for teaching the whole message of Christ. Eternal destinies are at stake.(For a philosophical understanding of hell, see William Lane Craig, Middle Knowledge and Christian Exclusivism, and Politically Incorrect Salvation.

Suffering, Good, and the Glory of God

Would God allow suffering in a person’s life if it would bring glory to Him? What if my suffering would help others to find God and to know God? Let’s take this a bit further: Would God purpose suffering in my life if it would bring glory to Him? I’m asking this question because I believe it will guide us to understand Romans 8:28, which reads: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Or, as The Message puts it: “That's why we can be so sure that every detail in our lives of love for God is worked into something good.”
First, to understand this great promise we have to understand the meaning of “good.” Biblically “good” is defined in relation to the being of God. Seven times, in Genesis chapter 1, God creates and we then hear the words – “And God saw that it was good.” James 1:17 says, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shdows.” “Good” has to have a standard, otherwise the term “good” has no meaning. For example, many years ago I played the flute. I have not touched a flute in 30 years. If I played it now and someone said that I am a "good" flute player, I would say – “I don’t think you know what “good” flute playing really is. I heard Alexander Zonjic at the Monroe Jazz Festival this summer – that is “good” flute playing.” “Good” has a standard, and the source of all good on earth derives from the very essence and being of God who is, in His essence, Good.
God works all things together for “good.” This means: “Good” as understood by Him. God Himself is the greatest Good. In that earthly things are good they reflect their Creator. If our lives are “good” they give glory to God. And this means that God is working all things together in our lives so that our lives give glory to God and point people to God.
Perhaps you have heard someone misuse Romans 8:28 like this: “OK, you may have lost your job, but God has a better job for you, because all things are working for your good.” The problem with this is that it’s far too narrow and, often, it’s self-centered and even materialistic. The ultimate good is God’s glory. And God is glorified when His children live as Jesus did and attain the glory He has destined them for. God may take us out of a secure, well-paying job in order to shake us out of a materialistic lifestyle that does not honor Him, and we may never have as good a job again. Of course God can include material blessings in the Romans 8:28 promise. But it is a mistake to define “good” in Romans 8:28 by what we want. The greatest good for you is your life used by God to glorify God. To bring people to a knowledge of God. Remember that God is not working to make us “happy” but to fulfill His purposes.
Paul is not saying that all things are good. He is saying all things are turned by God for good. This does not mean that God removes all suffering. It does mean that God takes the sufferings and works them together for good, which is glorifying to Him and accomplishes His purposes. "All Things" includes the "bad things"
Would God allow a person to suffer if it gave glory to Him and accomplished His purposes? Of course. Just look at Joseph and Job and Jonah and Paul. Esther suffered, but it was for “such a time as this” (Esther 4:14). Jesus suffered. And it was all worked out to the glory of God and for our eternal good. So let us love Him! And so we will be blessed with the phenomenal promise of Romans 8:28

Tattoos: Scarification and Atonement

Tattoos are a contemporary cultural phenomenon. Cultural phenomena do not occur in a vacuum but signify underlying meanings. What do tattoos signify? Tom Beaudoin, in his book Virtual Faith, argues that tattoos signify deeper religious meaning. Beaudoin says:
"Clearly, there's an economic dimension, and there's -- we choose to say that tattoo parlors are selling a product. Clearly there's a sociological dimension, which is to say, people want to be part of a crowd, so they get tattooed, but also, I think we have to ask whether there's a spiritual dimension, and what I began to suspect -- and this has been confirmed in the last six months of touring with the book and talking with young people -- is that this experience of being deeply marked, that is the experience of being tattooed, is a religious experience, however implicit. "And so the widespread interest in tattooing is evidence of a religious impulse, a religious quest, that people are trying to satisfy through these particular, secular goods. "And I must say, as I try to explain this to people -- this is not only my idea, of course. All sorts of religious traditions throughout history have used body markings and body piercings to express religious identity, and as I discussed this with young folks around the United States, many of them do find that that explanation has resonance for them, that this was a deeply marking experience, you might say, for them, an experience of permanence in a culture of flux."
So, while many get tattoos to be "part of the crowd," others find religious meaning in being "scarified." Beaudoin makes an analogy between this and Christ being scarred for our sins. For some, it may be that getting a tattoo is a way of being wounded for transgressions.
My own feeling is that there is a lot of woundedness in America that comes from our increasingly parentless generation and the accompanying feelings of betrayal and rejection. I meet the parentless generation weekly and see their wounds. Scarification as a way of atoning for the sins of others thus is a sad signifier of a particularly painful time.

Middle Knowledge, God's Foreknowledge, & Human Free Will

The doctrine of Middle Knowledge (MK) is today especially presented by philosopher William Lane Craig. Historically the MK position is attributed to the 16th-century Counter-Reformation theorist Luis de Molina. After him, the MK position is also called Molinism.
The basic problem MK addresses is: How could God know all things while at the same time persons make truly free choices? More than this, can God purpose and create things that must come to pass AND retain free will in persons so that persons are responsibloe for their choices? This is possible, say Molinists, if God has "middle knowledge."
What is MK? MK is this: God knows not only what "shall come to pass, he knows what would have come to pass if he had chose to create any other world - that is his "middle" knowledge" (from Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views, eds. James K. Beilby & Paul R. Eddy). As William Lane Craig writes, "By employing his counterfactual knowledge, God can plan a world down to its last detail and yet do so without annihilating creaturely freedom" (Ib., 122).
Now this sounds like a contradiction. Not so, say philosophical Molinists.
One key to understanding MK is to understand "counterfactuals of creaturely freedom" (CCFs). CCFs are "If... then..." statements. Such as: "If John (in certain specified circumstances) were faced with the choice between X and Y, John would choose (either X or Y)." This "If-then" statement is a "counterfactual." Because, if it is true that, given the specified circumstances, John choose X, then the statement "If John were faced with the choice between X and Y, John would choose Y" is counter to the fact that John would actually choose X.
Now the question is: Are there true counterfactuals? The Molinist assumes there are. Is this assumption logically contradictory? The Molinist shows how it is not. Therefore, it is logically possible that there are true counterfactuals. God, knowing all truth. therefore knows counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.
So, what's the point of all this? If there are true counterfactuals and God knows the truth of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, then we have a logically possible situation where God foreknows all free choices humans will make. Thus divine foreknowledge is not incompatible with human freedom.
The logical implication of this is that because God has MK, God can create a world where His purposes can best be accomplished. In doing this God does not "force" persons to choose what He wants, thus persons have free will.
Finally, note this: the Molinist is not obligated to argue for the truth of MK. The Molinist is proposing a model where it makes logical sense to say both that God foreknows all human choices and humans make such choices freely.

The Plausibility of Life After Death

What happens when we die? There are two options:
We cease to exist
We continue to exist
If there is no God, it is difficult to believe that, after death, we continue to exist. Indeed, atheism implies the end of personal existence upon death. This is because life after death requires a supernatural event. There is nothing in nature that suggests persons continue to exist after dying. Continued personal existence after death is non-natural. On atheism there are no non-natural events. This is called “methodological naturalism” or “philosophical naturalism.” The methodological naturalist finds the idea of heaven absurd. But of course. Such an idea is absurd on the assumption of atheism.
But if there is a God, then continued personal existence after death is possible. It is possible if by “God” we mean an all-powerful personal being who created and sustains all there is. God, on this definition, is able to perform non-natural acts. Continued personal existence upon dying is then possible. It is certainly sensible, and far from absurd. Such an idea is plausible on the assumption of theism.
The answer to the question of life after death begins and ends with the answer to the question: Does God exist?
It is reasonable to believe that God exists.Therefore it is reasonable to believe there is life after death.

Ontological Dichotomies

The deeper you go inside a person the more universal is their experience. Deep inside the human heart, persons are all the same. In my years of spiritual journaling and responding to more than 400 Christian leaders from around the world, as well as from my own studies, I have identified 7 ontological dichotomies that are cross-cultural, cross-temporal, and cross-gender. For example, every person struggles with Affirmation vs. Rejection. All persons have a need to be accepted. By somebody or by something. The Ultimate Acceptor is God, and until we find the unconditional love of God we search for God-substitutes.
Therefore it does not matter what a person's exterior appearance looks like. Because the deeper we are allowed to go inside every person, the more we deal with the same things.