HOW TO MEET JESUS

 How does a person meet Jesus?  As a Christian, I tend to think that I own the market on selling Jesus.  Indeed, different Christian denominations tend to have proprietary ways to ensure that the outsider is included in salvation: a person must affirm a traditional creed, or come to the altar and recite the Sinner’s Prayer,” or be baptized, or speak in tongues, or pass a catechism, etc.  It is easy to fall into thinking that outsiders cannot come to know Jesus and the grace of God apart from a particular method.  We tend to pass over texts in which, after stating that God does not show partiality (Rom 2:11), Paul argues that even Gentiles who do not have the Law sometimes do that which shows the Law is written in their hearts, the means by which they will be assessed by God (2:13-16).  They may regarded as circumcised (sign of God’s covenant people) of heart, a characteristic for which they receive praise from God (2:26-29).

More directly, Jesus tells us how people encounter him.  When people have practiced righteousness toward their neighbors, it is Jesus they have fed, clothed, and visited (Matt 25:31-40).  Jesus tells us how all of the law and commandments (by which the community of faith obediently responds to relationship with God) are fulfilled by loving God and loving one’s neighbor (Matt 22:37-39).

So, by loving one’s neighbor, one encounters Jesus?  Yes, Jesus says that.  Remarkedly, I have never heard that proclaimed at an evangelistic meeting.  However, loving one’s neighbor is one way of seeking God, even if the person does not know she/he is seeking God.  Of course, I agree that Christians should encourage other ways of seeking and knowing Jesus: worship, prayer, meditating on Scripture, etc.  However, I should never disparage the person who is meeting Jesus by loving their neighbor.

Lord, bless those who are coming to know you by loving their neighbors.  Help me not to hinder them but rather to help enrich their knowledge of you.  Amen.

THEOLOGICAL RAMBLING: DEMERGENCE FROM GOD?

[I suppose this post’s thought does not count as a “devotional,” but it moves me to worship.]

Fun Thought Twister (explained below)
The Christian thinker said, “I entrust myself to God, but I do not believe God exists.”  Hint: there is a point here about our human comprehension of God’s existence.

Thesis
The beingness of the created world “demerges” from the beingness of God with the result that creation has limited, but shared, dimensions with its Creator.

Brief Background*
Going back to Thomas Aquinas, Dominicans held that God’s beingness was only analogical to human beingness; they are not the same.  Moreover, because of human’s different beingness, true knowledge of reality depended on revelation from God.  A perceived problem with this position is that God becomes too transcendent to be even spoken about.  Going back to Duns Scotus, Franciscans in response posited that God’s beingness is the same as that of the created world but that God was infinitely greater.  Though Duns Scotus should not be blamed – his thesis was quite complex – modern epistemology and skepticism about God in the West developed out of this concept of same beingness.  As a result, it became claimed that true knowledge of reality could be gained by observing nature alone empirically.  This trajectory eventually led to agnostic/atheistic claims that if God cannot be proven empirically, there is no God.  Or, in a different way, one of my colleagues states, “Since there is no such thing as disembodied agency [he is assuming empiricism], there can be no God.”

Thesis Developed
First, I accept the notion of panentheism, that our cosmos is “in” God while yet being distinct from God.  (See posts of Nov. 1, 2023; March 14, 2024; and April 24, 2024.)  Second, emergence, as a concept that I want to turn round, takes place within our cosmos, more complex systems emerge from less complex ones.  (One could think of self-consciousness as an emergent property, and perhaps even the ability to be conscious of God’s Presence as emergent.)  Third, although String Theory has nothing to do with theology – it is not science proving God – it is intriguing to me that such mathematicians posit nine or even twenty dimensions beyond that of our empirically knowable dimensions.  Putting the first and third notions together and reversing the second, leads me to the thesis that the created world “demerged” (to coin a word?) from the Creator, such that our cosmos has fewer, albeit shared, dimensions of some sort with God.
           Like Aquinas’s position, then, our restricted dimensionality means that empirical observation alone cannot truely lead to understanding reality; revelation is ultimately needed.  However, like Duns Scotus’ position, God is not completely transcendent; we share dimensions with God, something that allows us as embodied creatures to be touched and moved by the Presence of God.
            I will have to give this more thought and am certainly open to critique; however, for now this thought leads me to marvel at a Creator who is so otherly transcendent and yet concomitantly immanently connected to me.  Moreover, this God condescended to become enfleshed in our limited dimensionality so that we could know God better.  Breathtaking.

Praise you Lord Most High!  I do not understand, but I bow in marvel and amazement.  Amen.

Fun Thought Twister (explained)
The Christian thinker recognizes that one cannot simply equate our limited human notion of “exist” or “beingness” with God, but yet personally/relationally knows the reality of God and is moved to entrust oneself to God.
-----
*First, I am addressing a complex theological conflict that is beyond my expertise.  Second, such conflicts often arise when followers of sophisticated thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus miss the original subtlety of those thinkers and see the other party’s God language as leaning toward error.  I imagine that had the two great thinkers met, they would have worked out a language comprise that would have satisfied them both.
----
P.S. (10/29/2024) Having a dog might help me.  A dog would look attentively and lovingly at me while I ramble.

GOD DOES NOT OVERPOWER, BUT EMPOWERS1

The Bible portrays God as one who graciously and relationally empowers, not as one who autocratically overpowers.

Background:
From the beginning, God empowers rather than overpowers.  One should read the opening Genesis texts as ancient Near Eastern nature-of-life, explanatory texts, which are often based on common, phenomenological observations, but which have been rewritten from the Israelite, God-given worldview.  [Note: The most beneficial reading, then, is to observe what the Israelites, who were late comers to the ancient Near East, changed.]  The texts are not to be read as the literature of modern science.  Still, there are a couple of interesting texts in which an ancient concept about the natural world is significant for today:

“And God said, ‘Let the land produce [a command form] vegetation…’” (Gen 1:11).
“And God said, ‘Let the land bring out [a command form] living creatures…’” (Gen 1:27).

The notion is that the land had been equipped and empowered to be an agent in the procreation of life.  I am not interested in relating this concept to modern biological constructs of how life originated.  Also, on a phenomenological level, one can see how people observed plants sprouting from the ground.  However, I am intrigued by the theological notion of the natural world being empowered by God to cooperate in procreation rather being than overpowered.  That is because this concept is especially true of humanity created in the image of God (to represent God)² and commanded to be fruitful and to share in the ruling creation (1:27-28).

A second “creation” text, which begins at Genesis 2:4, reveals how humans – Adam himself coming from the “dust” of the ground (2:7) – were to care for the land in companionship (2:8,15,18,20b-24).  However, it also explains in narrative form how such divine empowerment became – and continues to become – corrupted when humanity no longer serves its Creator but rebels in desire to usurp God (the temptation of 3:4).  The result is that sin/chaos encroaches on both realms: not only does human procreation becomes laborious and the equal partnership between Eve and Adam broken, but also the ground becomes “cursed” so that working it become laborious; and, to it humans return as they experience their mortality (3:16-19).

Application:
To be honest, I would like for God to overpower the world of nature, as well as those with whom I live in tension, and, sometimes, even myself.  I want a smooth, non-laborious life.  I tire of the struggle.  However, the character of God’s sovereignty (kingship) is not that God overpower and control the natural world to do all that it does.  The natural world, an interplay of order and chaos without which life as we know it would not exist, generally “takes its course.”  In the same way, God does not overpower us such that we must do God’s will.  Rather, God desires that we willfully obey God as our Creator and King, something that begins to take place as we “seek God.”  It is then that God empowers us to face the labors of life and our mortality.  That is all I need.  That is the foundation of contentment.  That is the ground of hope – that which I do not see, but that of which I am certain (Heb 11:1).³

Jesus, I cannot manage in this life that you have entrusted to me without You.  I do not ask that you remove the labors of life for me.  I ask that you empower me to serve you faithfully throughout the labors of life that you might be glorified as Creator and King even to the end of my labor.  Amen.
-----
1. This concept ties in with the previous devotion, “God Is Not to Be Found in the 'Why? but in the 'Where?' (Oct. 14, 2024)
2. See entries on the “image of God,” Feb. 1, 2024, Oct. 3, 2024.
3. See entry on Hebrews 11:1, Sept. 13, 2023.

 

GOD IS NOT TO BE FOUND IN THE “WHY?” BUT IN THE “WHERE?”

In the midst of desolation and destruction, personal or widespread – I am in western NC where Hurricane Helene caused much devastation – God is not to be found in responses to our questions of “Why?”  It is poor theology to seek to provide the answer.  God is found when we ask God, "Where are you?"

Doctrines of the sovereignty of God frequently miss the biblical teaching behind the human images of God as King and Sovereign.  In the culture of the ancient Near East, a king was never responsible FOR everything that happened in his domain.  Rather, a king was responsible to respond TO what happened in his domain.  The ideal king would work for righteousness and justness within his domain.  That is what biblical authors would have had in mind when using kingship images for God.

Theological traditions that define “sovereignty” abstractly have missed the intention in the biblical texts.  They end up with a God who is responsible FOR everything that happens.  They fail to recognize the interplay between order and chaos that exists within all humans and within our natural world.*  Given that false assumption of abstract “sovereignty” wrongly puts Christians in the position of trying to answer “Why?”  The answers are always shallow and facile, even when they merely say, “It is for the greater good” or “It is part of God’s plan.”

Perhaps it would help to address a much-misunderstood text that people attempt to use to answer the why question, Romans 8:28: “And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28 NET).  There, Paul is speaking of the call of all Israel – and for him, including all Gentiles in fulfillment of the promises to Abraham – who have actually responded by “loving God,” a statement of true seeking and relational dependence on God.  Such people now belong to the new era of life in the Spirit.  Paul can look teleologically on the scope of creation in bondage toward the eschatological (end-time) hope in the newness of all things, including the people of faith who are being conformed to the image of the Son (v. 29).  As such, Rom 8:28 never answers the “why?” of the moment.  It expresses confidence in God who is transforming lives and who will ultimately redeem all of creation.

            Moreover, when we ask the where question, we are not to ask our neighbors, “Where was God in this?”  That is really another form of the why question.  Rather, we are to ask God directly, “Where are you?”  That is when we begin to seek God.  Even when we are angry.  That is when we existentially, experientially begin to open ourselves to God.  That is when God begins to conform us to the image of the Son.  I firmly believe Jesus’ words:

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you.  For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matt. 7:7-8, NET)

Even in the midst of panic attacks, when I felt abandoned by God, God’s Presence was there.  I testify to that.  As part of this testimony, I share the following song as a prayer.

"In the Night Your Song is with Me"#
(Based on Psalm 42)

In the night your song is with me.
When the darkness engulfs my soul.
As the waves crash down upon me.
I will believe that I am not alone.

These are the things I will remember.
When it seems me you have forgotten.
When my soul knows not where you are.
I will believe that I am not alone.

When my heart is downcast in me.
And I want to meet with my God.
As my soul pants for the Water.
I will believe that I am not alone.

In the night your song is with me.
Faintly through roar of the waves.
I hear it dimly through the terror.
And I know that I am not alone.
-------
*Answers to theodicy (why there is human and physical “evil”) are complex.  Let it suffice to say that Genesis presents from the beginning a state of humanity and nature that exists within an interplay of order and chaos.  In this state, we are to learn to depend on our Creator.
#A friend recorded for this for me.  (My friend, Mike Rayson, a gifted musician, died recently.)  If interested, here is a link to the music on SoundCloud:  https://on.soundcloud.com/mpcRn1BNyePggiJz6

MINIMALISTIC THEOLOGY AND THE IMAGE OF GOD

 I said something a couple of days ago that would certainly get me shunned in some Christian circles.
Backdrop:
I had been thinking again about being made in the image of God.  (See “Created in the Image of God: Forgotten Aspects,” 2/1/2024.)  So, that was on my mind.  The main thought is that all people, male and female, are to be God’s representatives/regents, bringing order into chaos as God did in creation and continues to do.
Story:
I was working side-by-side with a wonderful, gnarly old guy with a braided gray beard named Tom at a rescue supply center.  (We have been hit hard by Helene in western NC.)  Tom works at the center regularly as a volunteer to help families who need food.  It quickly became clear that Tom had had too many bad experiences with religion in general and Christians in particular.  So, he had a “question” for me – more like throwing down the gauntlet.  Our conversation bobbed and weaved around the general issues of theodicy: Why would a good God make a world that has disasters as well as evil people, including Christians?  Why then believe there is a God?  I spoke about God being relational and the need to seek God, about God entering human suffering in Jesus, etc.  He was not ready for any of that.  At one point I mentioned that the commandments are summed up by, “Love God with your whole heart… and your neighbor as yourself.”  His reply was that he could not love a God he did not believe in, but he did love his neighbors.  I put my hand on his shoulder, looked him in the eyes, and said, “Whether or not you believe in God, when you love your neighbor, you are being God’s representative and that makes you my brother.”  He nodded.  There was peace.
------
Lord, thank you for people like Tom who is serving as your representatives even when they do not know it.  Please forgive me and the Church for our failure to attract people like Tom to Jesus.  Please draw him and all estranged people, people made in your image, into your Presence.  Amen.

THE SUFFICIENCY OF JESUS

 Just a brief thought.  In my devotions today there was a quotation “He asks too much to whom God is not sufficient.”*  Yes.
      I have commented before on poor billboard theology, “Jesus is the answer to all your problems.”  No!  Jesus neither solves nor takes away the problems of life.  He walks with us through them – sometimes carries us through them.  That is the sufficiency of God.
     The composer of Psalm 73 gave his testimony at the temple about how threatening it was to his faith to see unrighteous people boast about their violence and prosperity while he practiced righteousness and suffered (2-14).  But when he encountered the Presence of God (17) his perspective changed.  To paraphrase him: “When I saw past my bitter ignorance, I realized you are always with me holding my hand!” (21-23).  Rather than having all problems solved, he states, “My flesh and my heart will fail.  God is the strength of my heart and my security forever” (26).  That is to say, “God is sufficient for me!”  When I am discontent, I am the one not clinging to the Presence of Jesus.
      Lord, when I face the problems of life, open my eyes to see that you have me by my hand.  Amen.
--------------------
*Taken from Baillie, A Dairy of Private Prayer, Day 25, who quotes an unnamed source.

Dogs, Evolution, and the Body of Christ(1)

I watched an animal show with one of my grand-daughters recently.  It stated that dogs evolved from wolves.  That is an outdated genetic distinction.²  However, the point was that domesticated dogs proliferate our world while wolves do not.  The reason is not due to survival of the fittest, but due to survival through cooperative relationships that happened as dogs became domesticated.  Interestingly, cooperation is actually found on many levels of biological organization down to single-cell organisms that join together for greater survival.  It is one explanation given for the emergence of the specialization of cells in multi-cell organisms.  In evolutionary biology, a cooperator is someone who pays a cost for another individual to benefit.³  

This biological notion of cooperative relationships at a cost to the individual got me thinking about this principle is true for the Body of Christ along two lines.  As is well known, Paul uses the body metaphor quite seriously.

¹² Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ….¹⁵ Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. ¹⁶ And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. ¹⁷ If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? ¹⁸ But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be….  God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, ²⁵ so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. ²⁶ If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.  (excerpts from 1 Cor. 12:12-26 NIV).

The first point, then, is that we are called to pay a cost not to think of ourselves first, but to “have equal concern for each other” (12:25).  Our gifts, talents, time and effort are not first for ourselves, but first for the purpose of serving the Body of Christ.  The Church does not thrive by capitalistic principles or by operating on a business model.  It runs by cooperatively submitting oneself and one’s abilities to service in the Body.  What would that look like for me?  What would that look like in my local church?  

My second thought was that the growth of the Body of Christ through evangelism also should operate by cooperative relationships that come at a cost to the individual.  Is not that what Jesus was indicating when Jesus called his disciples together and said:

⁴²  “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ⁴³ Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:42-45, NIV)

 When Christians become slaves to all people, they are creating cooperative relationships at a cost to themselves for the benefit of others.  That is when people are attracted to Jesus and the Body of Christ grows in number.  I wonder what that would look like for me?  I wonder what that would look like in my local church?

 Is it not interesting that the principle of cooperative relationship that promotes the thriving of life from the lowest biological level to the most complex, is also true spiritually?
-----------------------

¹ In order to make a comment on evolution in a “devotion,” I will quality where I stand based on the history of the issue of science and the Bible.  When Darwin’s theory of evolution was presented, some of the best British Bible scholars and theologians, had no problem with it (e.g. B.B. Warfield, James Orr).  In their understanding of biblical inerrancy and reliability, which undergirded classical evangelicalism, the Bible was not to be read as a science text.  Some of them went on to write essays on returning to the fundamentals of the faith, essays that led to the start of Fundamentalism.  (So, too, the late Billy Graham said that if God used evolution as a mechanism in creation, it would not threaten the purposes of Scripture.)  Ironically, “creation science,” which seeks to read the Bible scientifically, was birthed in the 1920’s when Fundamentalists ignored their own founding essays and formed a strange alliance with Seventh Day Adventists who wanted to defend the visions and teaching of Ellen White on creation with “science.”  I agree with Warfield, Orr, Billy Graham, and a host of good Bible scholars that the Bible, specifically the introductory Genesis texts, should not be read as science.
² Dogs were once classified as Canis familiaris and wolves as Canis lupus, but now dogs are recognized as within the same species, Canis lupus familiaris.
³ Martin A. Nowak, “Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation,” Science, Vol. 314, Issue 5805 (Dec. 8, 2006): 1560-1563.  *https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279745/