So What?

What have they done with Jesus?

What have they done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History - why we can trust the Bible is a book by Ben Witherington III.  I've just finished reading it; it is worth a look if you are interested in the authority of the New Testament.

This book could have been written from a conservative perspective, as its aim is to defend the authenticity of scripture.  Witherington argues those closest to Jesus (his mother, his brothers, Peter, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the beloved disciple and Paul), knew him well and the New Testament can be traced to their witness. They are the texts written closest to Jesus' time and so our most reliable sources.  Witherington uses modern critical approaches and I think he makes a persuasive case.  

Certainly, I have grown impatient with much modern critical work on Scripture, not because I disagree with it particularly bu it seems too often to start with presuppositions that themselves need examination.  

So, Witherington argues there are no grounds for the distinction between the Jesus of History and Christ of Faith, many claim to find in the New Testament.  These early witnesses experienced both.  They saw no distinction between them.  Jesus was both a man they had known and the Son of God.

This of course does not apply to Paul, who never knew Jesus the man.  But Witherington shows there is no significant difference between Paul and the others.  Where there were differences they were over incidental matters, such as circumcision.  James was not one of those who insisted on the Gentiles adhering fully to the Torah and agreed with Paul, the relatively mild injunctions to have nothing to do with pagan temples.

(I suspect these injunctions to keep away from pagan temples are an unfortunate source of Christian homophobia.  What seem to be condemnations of homosexuality are actually condemnations of pagan religion.)

One last thing, Witherington presents a fascinating theory as to the identity of the beloved disciple.  I've no idea whether he is right but it is an interesting proposal and there seems to be substantial evidence in its favour.

Rocking the Foundations of Authority

I found an article by Slavoj Zizek in the New Statesman, dated 5 April 2010 (I'm somewhat behind in my reading).  Incidentally this is the annual God issue; according to the editor, sales always increase for the God issue.  Make of that what you will!

Zizek's article is called Soul of the Party.  He aims to show how Paul (shown preaching in Athens from a cartoon by Raphael in the Sistine Chapel, and used to illustrate the article) used religion to rock the foundations of society.  I have referred to some of the new takes on Radical Paul, particularly the works of John Dominic Crossan and Timothy Ashworth.  Zizek is a communist and so in the eyes of some he cannot be a real Christian.  I addressed this in a recent post. I intend to read his book The Fragile Absolute: Or, Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?

Here are a few quotes from the article.  I hope Zizek won't mind me quoting him, he phrases things so well and it would be a pity to lose what he says.

Fyodor Dostoevsky was aware of how God gives us freedom and responsibility - he is not a benevolent master steering us to safety, but one who reminds us that we are wholly unto ourselves.

We are freed in Christ to become more truly ourselves.  Too often the churches insist on moral rectitude, close to the law that Paul argues has been superseded.   Our faith should free us to become perfect, it does not force us into a mould determined by the authorities (religious or secular). Of course, they are threatened by this and so the Christian is anything but steered to safety.

... a God who wholly "became man" ... and who not only "doesn't exist" but also himself knows this, accepting his erasure, entirely passing over into the love that binds members of the Holy Ghost ...

I suppose the atheists will object to this; obviously it is a logical contradiction.  To me it is a re-statement of the incarnation - we cannot know God, except through Jesus.  There is a sense in which God does not exist because God cannot be known to us except through Jesus.  What can a God who does not exist do but send his Son?

For this reason Christianity is anti-wisdom: wisdom tells us that our efforts are in vain, that everything ends in chaos, while Christianity madly insists on the impossible.  ...  This is why Paul said, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise" ...  We should take the term "wisdom" literally here: it is wisdom (in the sense of "realistic" acceptance of the way things are) that Paul is challenging, not knowledge as such.

I think this touches the root problem with atheism.  It is close to the truth, as it rejects false images of God.  But it ends up saying that what is given is all there is.  For many people this is unacceptable - it is the argument of the Lord of the Manor and the wealthy in all times and cultures.  We cannot change things?  Oh, yes?  When Christians buy into the way things are, in effect we are atheists.

"For struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against leaders, against authorities, against the world rulers ... of this darkness, against the spiritual wickedness in the heavens" (Ephesians 6:12) Or translated into todays language: "Our struggle is not against concrete, corrupted individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification that sustains it".

I'm sure this is right.  It is our faith in human institutions, including the church, which undermines faith.  This is why violence is not appropriate for Christians, violence identifies the wrong enemies.

Theology and Science: A New Cosmology?

All civilisations have a cosmology.  I've mentioned this before and noted the Christian faith has recognised several radically different cosmologies, eg first century Palestine, Medieval Catholic, Newtonian and modern.

The problem is, of course, our modern cosmology is rather difficult to understand and so many theologians have ignored it.  They prefer the certainties of Newton's mechanical cosmology, even though it drains life from the faith.  (Leaving aside the intellectually deprived ravings of the creationists and those who favour even earlier cosmologies.)

The new cosmology offers opportunities for Christians because it relates the observer and the observed.  It embeds us in the material world and at the same time transcends it.  It allows for the possibility of a spiritual dimension to matter, which should take us away from the sterile dualism of spirit and matter that has plagued Christian history.

It's odd because so much of our theology denies dualism.  We are invited to understand Jesus as both human and divine.  Matter and spirit are seen to be joined in a seamless whole.  Surely this story tells us something of our own nature? 

And we have the dance of the Trinity, that holds us face to face with something beyond the spirit matter dualism of our sterile dreams. 

So, why do some Christians insist matter is somehow bad?  Why all the hang-ups about sex?  Partly it is to do with economics and human exploitation but at a deeper level it is disgust with matter.  And yet the invitation has to be to embrace life.  If God could live fully as a human, so must we.

Theology and Science: On the Nature of Spirit

Dark matter and dark energy make up 96% of the universe.  So, is God in the dark matter or dark energy?  Well, whatever the truth, it is not true to say there is nowhere in the universe for God to be found.

The problem is, of course, theologians will tell you God the creator is not in the universe; that would be to confuse the creator with the created. 

Perhaps we can search outside the universe?  String theory has 10 dimensions.  Plenty of room for God there, outside the universe as we perceive it.  I'm simply showing it is not illogical to believe in God, there is no evidence for God in any of these places.

For the atheist there is only matter, no spirit.  For the theologian too often matter is inferior to spirit.  This is the old gnostic heresy and is still prevalent amongst many Christians.  Let's look at the theology.

God loves matter.  God is the creator and holds matter in existence - this is part of our foundational belief.  Furthermore, the Christian believes God became incarnate in human flesh. 

This means, whilst the scientist might look for God in dark matter or other dimensions, the Christian seeks God in the stories of Jesus and his followers.  God is not out there somewhere but close by, albeit hidden.

Maybe God is out there somewhere but essentially the God out there is unknowable.  If we want to know God, we must look to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  This is the only way we can know anything of the nature of God.

Why is God hidden?  Because God is in the here and now.  God inhabits the world of our senses but is found only by accident, by glimpses or revelations.  No-one can produce proof or be categorical; God is revealed now and then, here and there.  All stories are part of a greater story, all words part of a greater conversation.

Theology and Science: On the Nature of Matter

It is interesting the new atheists know so much about matter.  It seems all human experience can be accounted for by matter alone.  It is interesting that matter, which is perceived, accounts for consciousness, that perceives.  It is sort of counter-intuitive - but then that's the nature of faith. 

But how do we know what we know about matter?  We perceive it through our senses.  We see it, hear it, feel it (when it falls on our foot), smell it and taste it.  So, obviously we know all there is to know about matter.

Except that some animals perceive aspects of matter we can only glimpse through our machines.  Ultra violet?  No problem.  Magnetic and electric fields?  None at all.

Our senses have evolved through human evolution.  It is possible to perceive matter in other ways.  If electric eels could describe matter, what would they perceive, that we don't?

The problem is, we don't know what we don't perceive.  Our senses are a gift because they filter out what is distracting - we pick up only that which is important to us (or was important during human evolution).  If our senses picked up everything, it would be a confusing meaningless morass.  And our senses are only part of the story; what they pick up is interpreted by the brain. 

Apparently the image on our retina is upsidedown, compared with what we normally perceive.  How much of what is coherent about the world, is the interpretation laid on the world by our brains?  Most of what we perceive hangs together and our science depends upon this.  But how can we be sure that the picture of reality we see through science is all that is there?

It hangs together and I'm in no way suggesting we can know nothing of reality.  Our senses filter what is there, they don't fabricate it, at least not usually.  The results of experiments are corroborated by other scientists.  There is consistency.

Perhaps quantum mechanics makes little sense because science has been able to pierce beyond the veil of the senses.  Perhaps it gives us a taste of what we would find, were we to perceive all things.

There is another thing we can rely upon and that is scientists are in conversation with matter.  Through science, human consciousness has entered into conversation with the universe.  Ask matter and it responds.  Sometimes it needs close interrogation but as we question, our understanding deepens.  As far as we can tell, the predictive power of science is firm.  

I do wonder.  All that dark matter and dark energy.  We can't perceive it - apparently it is all around us and passes through us all the time.  What secrets does it hold?  Perhaps all manner of things the atheist would rather deny.  Or perhaps there is no dark matter or dark energy - consensus has yet to be reached.

Is Christianity a Materialist Faith?

I've been involved, albeit  peripherally, in a debate about the relationship between psychotherapy and the Christian faith.  It is on the Premier Christian Radio site and as usual the discussion took some unintended twists and turns.  This one included a fascinating discussion about materialism. 

It started as one of those futile exchanges between atheists and Christians about which has caused most violence.  This can get a bit futile as neither side is prepared to accept the other's examples or that all people are prone to violence.

I read this exchange and remarked that the word materialist was being used rather indiscriminately by the Christians to mean in effect atheist (and so the sole cause of the worst of twentieth century wars and persecutions).  I pointed out some Christians are materialists; on reflection I meant Christianity is a materialist faith.

I don't mean materialism in the sense of individuals who care solely for consumer goods and the accumulation of wealth.  Also, I do not mean the philosophical position taken by many atheists that there is a material world that is solely responsible for everything we know.  Consciousness itself cannot be accounted for by matter alone.

I mean there is no distinction, from where we stand as human beings, between matter and spirit.  This is not a denial of some sort of spiritual reality nor is it a refusal to accept the findings of modern science.

It seems to me the doctrine of incarnation is essentially materialist.  God loves matter.  We believe God creates matter and why should God bother if it is evil?  It is the Gnostics who had a dualist view of matter and spirit, where matter is bad and spirit is good.  The Christian Church has always rejected this view, arguing that Jesus is God incarnated as a full human being. 

This puts Jesus, and therefore God, into a unique time and place.  Our faith is still one of here and now, rather than in heaven or the hereafter.

The Liberation Theologians in the 1970s were inspired by elements of Marxism, and found his dialectical materialism is at root a means to interrogate the here and now.  They found, as Christians have found time and again throughout their history, that it is the poor who suffer.  They were rejected by church and state because they sided with the poor.  They pointed out inequalities are anathema for God, and their Marxism was therefore used against them.

So, yes the Christian faith is materialist, unlike atheism which is not noted for its solidarity with the poor.

Theology and Science: The Big Bang

Let me illustrate what I meant in my last post.  To understand Schrödinger's cat, you need to understand something about Erwin Schrödinger's wave function.  Those of you who are confused about these things need not worry; I don't understand them either. 

The wave function is a mathematical equation with more than one solution.  So, let's assume there are two solutions for the sake of argument.  They are solutions to the possible states of a subatomic particle.  The equation tells us how many states the particle might be in and what those states are.  When we observe a particle, take a reading of its current state, we will get one of the states the equation predicts.  The point is that the act of making an observation determines the state of the particle.  The particle is not in that state until we observe it; all the possible states are ... well ... possible!

Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of this principle.  The cat is in a box with some radioactive material which has a 50% chance of decaying in 30 minutes.  Should it decay, it triggers a capsule of cyanide to break and the cat dies.  You open the box after exactly 30 minutes.  Opening the box causes the wave function that determines whether the radioactive material decays to collapse, so that one of the 2 outcomes becomes a reality.  The question is whether or not the cat is dead or alive during the 30 minutes before the box is opened.  Apparently, there is no answer, the cat is neither alive nor dead.  If you open to check you immediately collapse the wave function and the cat will be either alive or dead.

The important point is that observation determines the state of the cat.  Indeed at the subatomic level nothing can be determined without observation.  All subatomic behaviour is indeterminate without observation.

This is interesting because it is like what I have been saying in my other blog about conversation.  The scientist is in conversation with nature.  You make an observation and nature responds in some way.  Usually at our everyday scale of things, we don't observe the paradoxes of subatomic physics but we are changed ourselves by the observations we make and indeed, our observations can change the observed.

The Big Bang might seem at the opposite end of the scale to subatomic physics but the thing that exploded followed the same rules as subatomic particles.  Indeed it seems they have a wave function for it.  Manjit Kumar in 'Quantum: Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality' writes on page 357, '- what act of observation could possibly bring about the collapse of the wave function of the entire universe?'

For any theologian this is a fascinating question.  I would certainly argue, theologically, the universe is held in existence by the presence of God.  So, the answer to this question is easy for the theologian.  I would argue this is a good example of an opportunity to demonstrate belief in God is not irrational.  However, we need to approach this argument with extreme caution ...

The observant reader will have noted my quote from Kumar above begins with a hyphen.  How many readers wondered what went before?  Here is the beginning of the sentence: 'The many worlds interpretation allowed them to circumvent a problem to which the Copenhagen interpretation had no answer -'

There are multiple interpretations of indeterminate quantum behaviour and what might look like a problem for one is circumvented by another.  Granted the word 'circumvent' implies the many worlds interpretation does not necessarily disprove God's role, I think it does what I suggested and allows us to argue our faith is rational but not that it is true.

With this, I think we should be satisfied.  We should be satisfied with rationality, understood as consistency with some interpretations.  It allows us freedom to choose how we visualise God and we should be satisfied with that - but there is of course much more to be said.

Theology and Science: Why Bother?

I've never understood the fuss about science and theology.  I don't see why either needs to compromise.  We need to understand the methodologies of both and apply them with respect for each other.

At one time, it was suggested they are two independent magisteria.  I don't see the need to go this extreme.  If we argue the two methodologies are entirely independent then we are saying neither is relevant to the other.  It is better to understand neither has authority over the other and to encourage conversation between them.  They are different worldviews that complement and critique each other.  They cannot be independent.

Their methodologies, properly understood, do not necessarily undermine each other.  Theologians sometimes do not appreciate scientific method.  In principle, any scientific theory is open to modification.  This cannot mean there are no certainties.  Richard Dawkins makes the case that theories, such as the theory of evolution, are not in any way provisional.  I think he is right.  Any future changes to our understanding of evolution will build upon modern evolutionary theory, rather like the way Einstein's theories of relatively built upon Newton's work, in the sense that Newton's theories became special cases of a theories with wider applicability.

Equally, some scientists think theology is about what we believe.  It seems the object of theology is to produce some formula to explain the truth about the universe.  I can't deny some theologies attempt to do this.  But it is a profoundly mistaken approach.  Complete certainty cannot be achieved through theology any more than it can through scientific theory.  The aim of theology is not to bolster belief but to challenge it, by explaining the hope that is within us.  

My aim as a theologian, therefore, is not to demonstrate the truth of claims about God.  It can't be done.  We cannot possibly know the entirety of God's relationship with humanity.  My aim is more modest but I still maintain, important. 

I aim to demonstrate it is not irrational to be a Christian.  Those atheists who use science as a means to critique Christians, maintain faith is somehow irrational.  We do not have objective information but an imaginary friend in God or Jesus.  My aim is not proof but to demonstrate our faith should be taken seriously and treated with respect.  

I do not want to use the findings of science to bolster faith because science itself develops to different rules and so what supports a faith view today might undermine it tomorrow.  Rather the two need to be engaged in dialogue.  My hope is the lives of all involved will be enriched through respectful dialogue.

God's Passion for Beetles

Last week I attended our circuit local preachers' refresher course.  We have these once a year and we are expected to attend as one of our commitments as preachers.  This year I organised it.  Last summer, I met a new District Chaplain for the Arts, who is now the District Venture FX Pioneer Minister.  Also I asked our circuit Mission Enabler to help lead the day, about creativity in worship.

This is my contribution of a piece of writing for use in worship.  It is pretty much as I delivered it on the day - it would benefit from some polishing and if I get around to a second version I shall share it here.  It is based on the opening verses of John's Gospel and I have written about them before  (exactly 18 months ago!).  It is also based upon the story that when the biologist J B S Haldane was asked about creation, he replied God must love beetles!

It all started down the pub.  Look at this, said God, taking a gulp of Crudgingtons 6X.  He produced his prototype - I call it an atom - I've ideas for loads of different models and I'm going into mass production soon.

And I, said the other, am going to keep an eye on things, give them a nudge now and again.  It'll be brilliant what these atoms can do.  What about you?

Me?  I'll dance - through time and space - and watch and listen, inspire and create.

The next time they met, she said - the things I've seen!  You must love beetles and stars and grains of sand; parasitic wasps and neon lighted jellyfish in the ocean's darkest depths.  I've watched planets form, fish crawl from the seas, dinosaurs live and die - but not lose hope, they turned into birds!

You ain't seen nothing yet, said God, ordering another round.

Soon, she saw others who saw things as she did, who also watched and listened and danced and created; who set things in order and analysed and invented.  They were brilliant in their own way - brilliant and sad, wise and dangerous, comic and tragic.

Don't you think they need help, she asked?  I'm onto it, said the other, with some trepidation.

Faith and the State

The Multifaith Chapel and Library meets three times a month at the Burngreave Ashram  on Spital Hill in Pitsmoor.  This eclectic group of 'believers in just about everything (including nothing)' meet to compare notes.  The three meetings are on consecutive days and at lunchtime on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.  I suggested we tackle the topic of 'faith and the state' and of course I have now discovered I will be away for all three meetings.  So, I have been asked to prepare something for them to read.

The problem is, of course, I have no recollection of what it was we were discussing when I suggested this topic, so I will raise a few issues and hope the conversation sprouts wings.

My first point is about secularism and I think applies to all faiths.  To be secular is not necessarily to be against religion.  It is to believe faiths, as institutions, have no business running countries.  Generally, throughout history religious people, imposing their morality on the state, have not been terribly successful (sometimes successfully terrible).

The reason for this is the claim that certain actions are ordained by God has a tendency towards infallibility.  If God has ordained such and such behaviour, what do we do with those who disagree?  They are obviously against God and so cannot be good people.

The issue is one of accountability.  People of faith can be involved in legislation because in democracies their beliefs are subject to debate.  All is provisional; if we don't like them we can vote them out.  To remove a Catholic because we disagree with his or her politics is no attack on the Catholic Church. 

So, from a general observation, applicable to all faiths, to a focus upon Christian faith.

What we forget, perhaps because our churches want us to forget it, is that the early church was a political movement.  It was a movement against the Roman Empire and was persecuted for that reason.

Christians became church once Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire.  Before that, although perhaps trends were towards institutionalisation, the Christians were more like a movement.  People who were identified as opposed to Emperor worship, were united by faith in Jesus, who had shown the way of opposition through the cross.

His conquest of death meant his followers had no fear of death and so had the courage to stand up to Rome in its more tyrannical periods.  Their aim was not power but to carve out a place for an alternative to empire.

Since then, there have been many movements of Christians.  Some relate to the state by supporting it, some attack it, creat alternatives to it, learn to live within it, contribute ideas to it, become obstacles to progress ...

This may seem random and perhaps it is ... but it is important to see what unifies them all.  The Spirit uses churches to introduce what is new into the world not by force but by example.  When we complain of secularisation, meaning change, too often we forget the source of those changes.  Because Christians have an uneasy relationship with the state, they are pre-eminent amongst those who contribute new ways of doing and being.

It is the conversation between state and church, which leads to change in both institutions - or should do if only people were not so entrenched in their views.  Life in a multi-faith nation, introduces new voices to this conversation.  As we learn to collaborate, new possibilities will open up for all of us.