As an evangelical Christian I sometimes feel like a bit of an oddity because, unlike many other evangelical Christians, I have no problem with science. I like science. I think science is useful for understanding our universe. I don't believe that any scientific theory threatens my belief system in any way.
I think most Christians, even a lot of evangelical Christians, feel the same way. The problem is that we don't express our beliefs as often or as forcefully as Christians who oppose science. Today I'm going to begin to explain my position and why I feel that it's well justified by both scripture and by experience.
The obvious thing to do would be to talk about evolution and the book of Genesis, but I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do it, first of all, because that's a topic that deserves its own post. The second reason I'm not going to do it is because, while that's the hot button issue in our culture right now, that's not really what this debate is about.
At its heart this debate is really about the sovereignty of God.
For a Christian that's the only question that matters in this debate. Is God still in control or not? For some reason people seem to believe that every time scientists invent some new theory to explain how the universe works, God looses some of his power. As though scientists are somehow gaining mastery over the universe merely by understanding it.
The first thing we need to understand is that God is in charge of completely natural processes. The Bible says that he created everything and that he sustains everything. If the universe behaves in an orderly fashion according to scientific principles, it's because God made it that way. In fact, it shouldn't be surprising that it works that way because God is a God of order.
The other reason that people might think that science impinges on God's sovereignty is because scientific theories define what is and isn't possible. This is a more serious concern, especially if you believe that God can work miracles, which I do.
It's this second consideration that prompted me to write the post, Science as a Worldview. In that post I make the claim that, while science is a reliable source of knowledge, it isn't the only source of knowledge. Along with that I would also say that, while the universe usually conforms with known scientific theories, it doesn't always.
Some might argue that because I don't believe that science is always true I don't really believe in the scientific method. It's true that I don't hold scientific claims to be absolutely true under every circumstance. But I do believe that science does provide an explanation for how the universe typically works. I think this knowledge is still invaluable, even if it's not true in every single circumstance.
In any case, scientific knowledge doesn't require absolute belief. In fact, science wouldn't be able to progress if scientists weren't allowed to question accepted scientific theories. The fact that people are allowed to question science is possibly its greatest strength.
There is, of course, much more to be said about this topic. In future posts I'll be talking more about science and miracles. I'll also talk about evolution and the book of Genesis. Please leave a comment if you'd like to hear more about either of those two topics, or if you want to respond to what I've written so far.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Importance of the Kingdom of God
I've written a post previously asking the question, "What is the Kingdom of God?" Today's post is going to be about why that question is central to Christian theology.
First and foremost, the Kingdom of God is important because it is central to the message of Jesus. As I've already mentioned, Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God more than any other subject. When Jesus preaches good news to people, he's preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God.
(If you don't believe me, go to Bible Gateway and search for "good news". Every time the words appear on Jesus' lips he's either preaching the good news of the kingdom or he's quoting a passage from Isaiah about the Kingdom of God.)
That right there is fairly significant. Most people know that Christians are supposed to evangelize. Some people even know that evangelism means telling people the good news. In Jesus' case, good news meant good news about the Kingdom of God. We don't usually think of evangelism as telling people about the Kingdom of God, but it's pretty clear that Jesus thought of it that way.
The second reason it's important it is the first thing that Jesus tells us to pray for. When Jesus teaches his followers how to pray, he gives an example prayer that we call the Lord's Prayer. As you can see, in it, the first thing he prays for is for God's Kingdom to come. And Jesus' early followers probably prayed like this several times a day.
The third reason it's important is because Jesus tells us that our first priority should be to seek the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells his followers not to worry about food or clothing. He tells them to seek God's kingdom and let God take care of the rest. This is a bold teaching that really underlines how important the Kingdom of God really is.
The Kingdom of God is important because, as Christians we are called to tell people about the Kingdom of God, pray for God's Kingdom to come and seek God's Kingdom ahead of everything else. In other words, the whole Christian life revolves around the Kingdom of God. If we have a flawed or a deficient understanding of God's Kingdom it impacts everything we do as Christians.
That's why I think it's important for believers to think about what the Kingdom of God truly is. More than anything else, it's the one concept that shapes the whole religion.
First and foremost, the Kingdom of God is important because it is central to the message of Jesus. As I've already mentioned, Jesus talked about the Kingdom of God more than any other subject. When Jesus preaches good news to people, he's preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God.
(If you don't believe me, go to Bible Gateway and search for "good news". Every time the words appear on Jesus' lips he's either preaching the good news of the kingdom or he's quoting a passage from Isaiah about the Kingdom of God.)
That right there is fairly significant. Most people know that Christians are supposed to evangelize. Some people even know that evangelism means telling people the good news. In Jesus' case, good news meant good news about the Kingdom of God. We don't usually think of evangelism as telling people about the Kingdom of God, but it's pretty clear that Jesus thought of it that way.
The second reason it's important it is the first thing that Jesus tells us to pray for. When Jesus teaches his followers how to pray, he gives an example prayer that we call the Lord's Prayer. As you can see, in it, the first thing he prays for is for God's Kingdom to come. And Jesus' early followers probably prayed like this several times a day.
The third reason it's important is because Jesus tells us that our first priority should be to seek the Kingdom of God. Jesus tells his followers not to worry about food or clothing. He tells them to seek God's kingdom and let God take care of the rest. This is a bold teaching that really underlines how important the Kingdom of God really is.
The Kingdom of God is important because, as Christians we are called to tell people about the Kingdom of God, pray for God's Kingdom to come and seek God's Kingdom ahead of everything else. In other words, the whole Christian life revolves around the Kingdom of God. If we have a flawed or a deficient understanding of God's Kingdom it impacts everything we do as Christians.
That's why I think it's important for believers to think about what the Kingdom of God truly is. More than anything else, it's the one concept that shapes the whole religion.
Monday, October 12, 2009
What is Knowledge?
This is a question that is easy to ask, but can be difficult to answer. In order to answer we need to understand what it means to say that we know something. This study is called Epistemology. If you're not up for reading a long Wikipedia article, this comic also offers a pretty good explanation of epistemology.
If you'd read either of the two links you would know the most common answer. Knowledge is, "Justified, true belief." When we say that we know x, we mean that we have good reason to believe that x is true. There are some problems with that answer, but it's a good start.
The nice thing about this definition is that it's simple. We all know what beliefs are, and I think we all know what truth is. The interesting question is, what counts as a justification? How do we know that our beliefs are justified? That's the question I'm interested in answering.
First of all, there are some beliefs that seem to be self evident. These beliefs don't have a clear justification. These beliefs are our basic assumptions about how the world works. Some of these beliefs can be almost invisible. They're so basic that it doesn't even occur to us that they might be questioned.
For example, most of the time we assume that our memories and our sense perceptions are accurate. We know that at times both can be deceived, but under normal circumstances we don't need to provide an explanation for why our senses and our memories can be trusted.
Another example is logic. If you've taken a logic course, then you've probably been taught that logical arguments are truth-preserving. Most people accept that that is true without the need for any further justification. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how someone would provide further justification for that belief.
The interesting thing about this first class of beliefs is, just because something seems self evident to us doesn't mean that it actually is self evident. If you and everyone around you shares a similar belief system then it is natural to assume that those beliefs are self evident. For this reason I think it's good to interact with people with radically different beliefs. They keep us honest and force us to examine our beliefs.
Of course, most of our knowledge isn't self evident. Most of our beliefs require some form of justification. Loosely speaking, these justifications can come in one of two forms.
First of all, some of our beliefs are justified logically. We start with those beliefs that we consider to be self evident and we use some form of logical reasoning to discover additional truths.
Secondly, some of our beliefs are justified by experience. Assuming that we can trust our perceptions and our memories they can be a rich source of knowledge.
In practice, most of the things we know represent a synthesis of our basic assumptions, our reasoning ability and our perceptions. All of these factors come into play when we talk about what we know.
The problem is that these are complicated issues and we don't all address them the same way. The result is that two different people can end up having very different beliefs, even if they're both very smart and they both think things through very carefully.
What about you? What assumptions do you make about the world? What roles do reason and experience play in shaping your beliefs?
If you'd read either of the two links you would know the most common answer. Knowledge is, "Justified, true belief." When we say that we know x, we mean that we have good reason to believe that x is true. There are some problems with that answer, but it's a good start.
The nice thing about this definition is that it's simple. We all know what beliefs are, and I think we all know what truth is. The interesting question is, what counts as a justification? How do we know that our beliefs are justified? That's the question I'm interested in answering.
First of all, there are some beliefs that seem to be self evident. These beliefs don't have a clear justification. These beliefs are our basic assumptions about how the world works. Some of these beliefs can be almost invisible. They're so basic that it doesn't even occur to us that they might be questioned.
For example, most of the time we assume that our memories and our sense perceptions are accurate. We know that at times both can be deceived, but under normal circumstances we don't need to provide an explanation for why our senses and our memories can be trusted.
Another example is logic. If you've taken a logic course, then you've probably been taught that logical arguments are truth-preserving. Most people accept that that is true without the need for any further justification. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how someone would provide further justification for that belief.
The interesting thing about this first class of beliefs is, just because something seems self evident to us doesn't mean that it actually is self evident. If you and everyone around you shares a similar belief system then it is natural to assume that those beliefs are self evident. For this reason I think it's good to interact with people with radically different beliefs. They keep us honest and force us to examine our beliefs.
Of course, most of our knowledge isn't self evident. Most of our beliefs require some form of justification. Loosely speaking, these justifications can come in one of two forms.
First of all, some of our beliefs are justified logically. We start with those beliefs that we consider to be self evident and we use some form of logical reasoning to discover additional truths.
Secondly, some of our beliefs are justified by experience. Assuming that we can trust our perceptions and our memories they can be a rich source of knowledge.
In practice, most of the things we know represent a synthesis of our basic assumptions, our reasoning ability and our perceptions. All of these factors come into play when we talk about what we know.
The problem is that these are complicated issues and we don't all address them the same way. The result is that two different people can end up having very different beliefs, even if they're both very smart and they both think things through very carefully.
What about you? What assumptions do you make about the world? What roles do reason and experience play in shaping your beliefs?
Monday, October 5, 2009
The Eschatology of Star Trek
Talking about the eschatology of a show like Star Trek is silly for two reasons. The first reason is that eschatology is normally a religious term and Star Trek isn't exactly religious programming. The second reason is that eschatology deals with serious beliefs about the future and Star Trek is a work of science fiction whose purpose is to entertain.
That being said, I'm going to do so anyway. The first reason is because, as I said in my post about eschatology, I think that the term can reasonably be applied to any beliefs about the future that affect how we live our lives in the present. The second reason is that, while Star Trek is a work of fiction, in many ways it represents Gene Roddenberry's vision of what life in the future would be like. The third, and most important, reason is because it's an interesting thing to think about.
I think we can talk about the eschatology of Star Trek in terms of a few major claims that the show makes about our future. The first claim I want to talk about is the claim that technology will one day solve all of our problems. This claim is common in a lot of science fiction writing. This sentiment is best expressed by the maxim, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Out in space there are still problems, but even those are often solved by the correct use of their technology. The shows and movies make it clear that on Earth, problems like violence and poverty have been solved centuries ago. The message is pretty clear. If we want to make the world a better place, we should invest our time and energy into developing new sciences and new technology.
The next claim is one that comes up less often, and they aren't always consistent with it, but it sometimes get mentioned that within the Federation they no longer use money. This is likely related to the first point. If technology has eliminated all of our problems, including scarcity, then it makes sense that traditional economic models would all be out the window.
Of course, when they say that in the future we won't be using money anymore they're making a significant statement. The implication is that Capitalism is a flawed economic system and someday we'll realize that we're better off without it. The present day implications of this belief are a little less clear, since there aren't ever any detailed discussions about economics in the twenty-fourth century. At the very least, though, it seems to suggest that our current economic system is flawed and that we should be looking for a better alternative.
The last claim I want to talk about is that in the future most people won't take religion seriously. This isn't true of the original series, but in Star Trek: The Next Generation it's pretty clear that religious beliefs like Christianity are viewed as backwards superstitions. Some people may hold on to beliefs because of tradition or to provide moral guidance, but nobody seems to believe in a God who answers prayers.
When religion comes up, the main characters will often say that the people of Earth used to be religious, but they have since outgrown such silly superstitions. The implications of this belief are pretty clear. Gods and spiritual forces don't exist, and the people who believe in such things are irrational. Furthermore, society will be better off when no one takes those kinds of beliefs seriously anymore.
It's an interesting view of the future and when I was growing up I tended to agree with it. Obviously my views have shifted quite a bit since then. Watching Star Trek these days is interesting because it shows me how much my opinions have changed over the years.
I'm interested to hear what you have to say. What do you think of Star Trek's vision of the future? How does it line up with your beliefs about humanity's future?
That being said, I'm going to do so anyway. The first reason is because, as I said in my post about eschatology, I think that the term can reasonably be applied to any beliefs about the future that affect how we live our lives in the present. The second reason is that, while Star Trek is a work of fiction, in many ways it represents Gene Roddenberry's vision of what life in the future would be like. The third, and most important, reason is because it's an interesting thing to think about.
I think we can talk about the eschatology of Star Trek in terms of a few major claims that the show makes about our future. The first claim I want to talk about is the claim that technology will one day solve all of our problems. This claim is common in a lot of science fiction writing. This sentiment is best expressed by the maxim, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Out in space there are still problems, but even those are often solved by the correct use of their technology. The shows and movies make it clear that on Earth, problems like violence and poverty have been solved centuries ago. The message is pretty clear. If we want to make the world a better place, we should invest our time and energy into developing new sciences and new technology.
The next claim is one that comes up less often, and they aren't always consistent with it, but it sometimes get mentioned that within the Federation they no longer use money. This is likely related to the first point. If technology has eliminated all of our problems, including scarcity, then it makes sense that traditional economic models would all be out the window.
Of course, when they say that in the future we won't be using money anymore they're making a significant statement. The implication is that Capitalism is a flawed economic system and someday we'll realize that we're better off without it. The present day implications of this belief are a little less clear, since there aren't ever any detailed discussions about economics in the twenty-fourth century. At the very least, though, it seems to suggest that our current economic system is flawed and that we should be looking for a better alternative.
The last claim I want to talk about is that in the future most people won't take religion seriously. This isn't true of the original series, but in Star Trek: The Next Generation it's pretty clear that religious beliefs like Christianity are viewed as backwards superstitions. Some people may hold on to beliefs because of tradition or to provide moral guidance, but nobody seems to believe in a God who answers prayers.
When religion comes up, the main characters will often say that the people of Earth used to be religious, but they have since outgrown such silly superstitions. The implications of this belief are pretty clear. Gods and spiritual forces don't exist, and the people who believe in such things are irrational. Furthermore, society will be better off when no one takes those kinds of beliefs seriously anymore.
It's an interesting view of the future and when I was growing up I tended to agree with it. Obviously my views have shifted quite a bit since then. Watching Star Trek these days is interesting because it shows me how much my opinions have changed over the years.
I'm interested to hear what you have to say. What do you think of Star Trek's vision of the future? How does it line up with your beliefs about humanity's future?
Monday, September 28, 2009
What is the Nature of Scripture?
I've already mentioned that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. Today I would like to take some time to talk about what I mean by that. I want to talk about the nature of scripture and the role that God played in its creation. This is an important question to consider because how we believe divine inspiration works can have a big impact on how we interpret the Bible. Without a good understanding of what we mean by "divine inspiration" it's impossible to understand how a divinely inspired text aught to be read.
I think that most people, by default, hold a view that I like to call the stone tablet theory. The term comers from the book of Exodus, in which God gives Moses a stone tablet with the Law of God already written on it. The stone tablet theory is the assumption that the whole Bible was written this way. The idea is that the whole Bible is a message directly from God to humanity. It's truths are timeless and universal, and it's human authors are mere mouthpieces who faithfully pass the message, exactly as they heard it, to us.
I don't mean to say that the Bible isn't a message from God, or that we aren't meant to understand it. I simply want to say that the reality is somewhat more complicated. The Bible actually consists of several books written over a span of more than a thousand years. The books are written by many different authors using several different styles, and the books are written for different groups of people. Most importantly, none of the books in the Bible are written specifically for 21st century Americans.
All of these factors affect how we read and understand the books of the Bible in some way. When I say that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired I mean that the original message and meaning of every Biblical text was given by God. The key to interpreting scripture is to understand what a text meant when it was originally written. Once we have determined the text's original meaning, to the best of our ability, we can then try to apply that meaning to our own lives. But if we skip that first step we risk missing the meaning of the text altogether.
Not only will we miss the original meaning, but our reading will be affected by all of our assumptions about what the text should mean. These assumptions will skew our reading of the text in subtle ways. In the end we will have the impression that we understood the text perfectly when, in fact, we may have completely misunderstood the text. This is a serious concern for those of us who consider the Bible a holy text. If we are committed to living our lives according to what the Bible says, then we should be just as committed to making sure that we understand it correctly.
This also means that we should be careful not to accept other people's interpretations of scripture at face value. If someone presents us with an interpretation of scripture we've never seen before, we should check their work. We should try to understand how they've arrived at their interpretation. At the very least we can screen out the more ridiculous interpretations this way.
I'll write more about how to interpret scripture in the future. For now I want to ask, what is the most obviously false interpretation of scripture you've heard?
I think that most people, by default, hold a view that I like to call the stone tablet theory. The term comers from the book of Exodus, in which God gives Moses a stone tablet with the Law of God already written on it. The stone tablet theory is the assumption that the whole Bible was written this way. The idea is that the whole Bible is a message directly from God to humanity. It's truths are timeless and universal, and it's human authors are mere mouthpieces who faithfully pass the message, exactly as they heard it, to us.
I don't mean to say that the Bible isn't a message from God, or that we aren't meant to understand it. I simply want to say that the reality is somewhat more complicated. The Bible actually consists of several books written over a span of more than a thousand years. The books are written by many different authors using several different styles, and the books are written for different groups of people. Most importantly, none of the books in the Bible are written specifically for 21st century Americans.
All of these factors affect how we read and understand the books of the Bible in some way. When I say that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired I mean that the original message and meaning of every Biblical text was given by God. The key to interpreting scripture is to understand what a text meant when it was originally written. Once we have determined the text's original meaning, to the best of our ability, we can then try to apply that meaning to our own lives. But if we skip that first step we risk missing the meaning of the text altogether.
Not only will we miss the original meaning, but our reading will be affected by all of our assumptions about what the text should mean. These assumptions will skew our reading of the text in subtle ways. In the end we will have the impression that we understood the text perfectly when, in fact, we may have completely misunderstood the text. This is a serious concern for those of us who consider the Bible a holy text. If we are committed to living our lives according to what the Bible says, then we should be just as committed to making sure that we understand it correctly.
This also means that we should be careful not to accept other people's interpretations of scripture at face value. If someone presents us with an interpretation of scripture we've never seen before, we should check their work. We should try to understand how they've arrived at their interpretation. At the very least we can screen out the more ridiculous interpretations this way.
I'll write more about how to interpret scripture in the future. For now I want to ask, what is the most obviously false interpretation of scripture you've heard?
Monday, September 21, 2009
How to Disagree Respectfully
Today I'm going to talk about American politics. Now, honestly I don't like to talk about politics. Political conversations deal with complex issues that people often feel passionately about. As a result political discussions can quickly turn ugly. In fact, that's what I want to talk about; how to keep political conversations from turning ugly.
For those of us who are Christians, I believe that in any conversation we should try to show respect to the people we're talking to. This is an important rule to keep in mind when we talk about politics because often times, when these sensitive issues come up, we feel that it's more important that people agree with us. I've seen so many people, Christians included, talk about politics in a way that is disrespectful to their political opponents. So today I'm going to talk about how to be respectful when having political conversations. This post is aimed at Christians, but I think other people might find the advice to be helpful as well.
First of all, don't say things like, "I don't believe he's really a Christian." This statement is usually directed against politicians (like President Obama) although sometimes it is directed against groups of voters (like people who opposed Prop 8 in California). As a politically liberal Christian, this is an issue I can relate to. When George W. Bush was in office I often felt this way about some of his policies. One time I remember complaining with a friend about President Bush and the friend simply said, "Yeah, but he's still family." I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, that as Christians we are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that you can't criticize people who claim to be Christian. I think it's okay, and even healthy, for us to talk about how we think Christians should behave. We can say things like, "I don't think Christians should support Roe v. Wade." I have often said that I don't think Christians should support torture. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but there's a world of difference between saying, "I don't think Christians should support gay marriage," and, "If you voted against Prop 8 then you aren't really a Christian."
The key difference is that when you say that someone who claims to be Christian isn't really a Christian, you're passing judgment on them. You're saying that they're either a liar or a hypocrite. But passing judgment is God's job and not yours. God can see a person's true character, but you can't. He's the one who gets to decide whether or not someone is really a Christian, not you.
This brings me to my next point, which is, don't say things that aren't true. This seems like it should be a no-brainer, but in today's society it's not as easy as it seems. There are many questionable or unscrupulous news sources that will pass along information that is misleading or just plain false. This is easy to solve, though. Just spend a little time on Google and fact check your sources before you use them in a political debate. This way you're not embarrassing yourself or passing along bad information.
The last point I want to make is this: when in a political debate, talk about facts that can be verified, rather than opinions that are unverifiable. For example, I recently saw a discussion online where someone said that they didn't believe Obama was Christian because he seemed too arrogant. This was frustrating, because not only did they claim that Obama was not a Christian, but their reason for doing so was entirely subjective. To me Obama seems like he's a pretty humble considering that he's the leader of the free world. He certainly doesn't seem any more arrogant than the last President.
When you limit the discussion to verifiable facts, it's a lot easier to establish a common ground. When you decide to argue about things that are entirely subjective, usually there isn't any common ground. Without a common ground the argument often degenerates quickly. Unless you want to throw insults at the other person, your only real option is to just agree to disagree.
Hopefully some of you found this guide helpful. Does anyone else have some suggestions for how to have more polite political conversations?
For those of us who are Christians, I believe that in any conversation we should try to show respect to the people we're talking to. This is an important rule to keep in mind when we talk about politics because often times, when these sensitive issues come up, we feel that it's more important that people agree with us. I've seen so many people, Christians included, talk about politics in a way that is disrespectful to their political opponents. So today I'm going to talk about how to be respectful when having political conversations. This post is aimed at Christians, but I think other people might find the advice to be helpful as well.
First of all, don't say things like, "I don't believe he's really a Christian." This statement is usually directed against politicians (like President Obama) although sometimes it is directed against groups of voters (like people who opposed Prop 8 in California). As a politically liberal Christian, this is an issue I can relate to. When George W. Bush was in office I often felt this way about some of his policies. One time I remember complaining with a friend about President Bush and the friend simply said, "Yeah, but he's still family." I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, that as Christians we are brothers and sisters in Christ.
Now, I'm certainly not saying that you can't criticize people who claim to be Christian. I think it's okay, and even healthy, for us to talk about how we think Christians should behave. We can say things like, "I don't think Christians should support Roe v. Wade." I have often said that I don't think Christians should support torture. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but there's a world of difference between saying, "I don't think Christians should support gay marriage," and, "If you voted against Prop 8 then you aren't really a Christian."
The key difference is that when you say that someone who claims to be Christian isn't really a Christian, you're passing judgment on them. You're saying that they're either a liar or a hypocrite. But passing judgment is God's job and not yours. God can see a person's true character, but you can't. He's the one who gets to decide whether or not someone is really a Christian, not you.
This brings me to my next point, which is, don't say things that aren't true. This seems like it should be a no-brainer, but in today's society it's not as easy as it seems. There are many questionable or unscrupulous news sources that will pass along information that is misleading or just plain false. This is easy to solve, though. Just spend a little time on Google and fact check your sources before you use them in a political debate. This way you're not embarrassing yourself or passing along bad information.
The last point I want to make is this: when in a political debate, talk about facts that can be verified, rather than opinions that are unverifiable. For example, I recently saw a discussion online where someone said that they didn't believe Obama was Christian because he seemed too arrogant. This was frustrating, because not only did they claim that Obama was not a Christian, but their reason for doing so was entirely subjective. To me Obama seems like he's a pretty humble considering that he's the leader of the free world. He certainly doesn't seem any more arrogant than the last President.
When you limit the discussion to verifiable facts, it's a lot easier to establish a common ground. When you decide to argue about things that are entirely subjective, usually there isn't any common ground. Without a common ground the argument often degenerates quickly. Unless you want to throw insults at the other person, your only real option is to just agree to disagree.
Hopefully some of you found this guide helpful. Does anyone else have some suggestions for how to have more polite political conversations?
Monday, September 14, 2009
What is the Kingdom of God?
It is an easy question to ask and a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Of all the topics Jesus touched on, he talked about this one the most. So it's not surprising that how we, as Christians, answer this question can have a profound impact on our theology. How we understand the Kingdom of God impacts our understanding of God, the gospel, eschatology, faith, politics and a whole range of issues. So, how do we answer this question? Today I'd like to talk about a few of the most common answers to this question.
First answer: The Kingdom of God is a political kingdom. According to this view, the Kingdom of God is a place where God exerts his power and authority, either directly or indirectly. A common aspect of this view is the expectation that God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. This is a view that often motivates Christians to seek political power. Interestingly, this view was also foremost in the mind of Jesus' original audience and many of Jesus' teachings are meant to address this viewpoint. Jesus wanted his followers to understand that the Kingdom of God is not primarily a political Kingdom.
Second answer: The Kingdom of God is a religious group. People who hold certain beliefs or identify with a certain religious group are members of the Kingdom of God. This group might be large (everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God) or small (everyone in my particular sect). Either way, in this view, the emphasis is on evangelism and conversion. If the Kingdom of God consists of everyone who belongs to your religious group, then you want to bring more people in so the Kingdom can grow. This view also tends to place an emphasis on the individual. The Kingdom comes one person at a time as people convert, so individual decisions to believe are important.
Third answer: The Kingdom of God is a moral condition. In this view, the Kingdom of God consists of people who do what God wants them to. In this view, the emphasis is on people's behavior. This usually means that you want people to uphold some kind of moral code. This code can be simple, like, "Love God and love one another," or it can be very complicated with a lot of seemingly arbitrary rules, like, "Women must wear hats." In either case the goal is to convince people to uphold this moral code. This is also pretty individualistic, although the moral code usually addresses how we treat others, so it's less individualistic than the previous answer.
Fourth answer: The Kingdom of God is a social condition. In this view, the Kingdom of God consists of people treating each other fairly. This is similar to the theory that the Kingdom of God is a moral condition. To explain the difference, let me tell a story. Imagine that a dictator of a small country is oppressing millions of people. One day, the dictator sees the error of his ways and decides to stop oppressing all those people. If the Kingdom of God is a moral condition, then the dictator entered the Kingdom by acting morally. If the Kingdom of God is a social condition, then his formerly oppressed subjects entered the Kingdom because they're now being treated fairly. In contrast to the earlier views, this view is pretty collective. It is also a view that is mostly concerned with the condition of the world.
Fifth answer: The Kingdom of God is a spiritual outpouring. The Kingdom of God is the place where God's Spirit resides. In this view the Kingdom of God is characterized by the work of the Holy Spirit. This can include things like signs and wonders, miraculous healings, people speaking in tongues, and other strange phenomena. It can also include more subtle things like feelings of joy or an awareness of God's presence. This view tends to emphasize experience over reason and, from the viewpoint of outsiders, is one of the strangest.
Considering each view on its own, I think it's pretty clear that none of them offers a complete picture of the Kingdom of God. Most Christians hold a view that is a combination of the above views. For example, groups like the Moral Majority hold a synthesis of the political view and the moral view. They use political power to try and elect representatives who will legislate their moral code. Liberation theology, on the other hand, represents a synthesis of the political view and the social view. They seek political power to correct social injustice in the world.
This week, I'd like to ask two different questions. If you're a Christian, what view of the Kingdom of God do you think best reflects your views? If you're not a Christian, which view seems the most reasonable (or the least crazy)? I look forward to your responses.
First answer: The Kingdom of God is a political kingdom. According to this view, the Kingdom of God is a place where God exerts his power and authority, either directly or indirectly. A common aspect of this view is the expectation that God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked. This is a view that often motivates Christians to seek political power. Interestingly, this view was also foremost in the mind of Jesus' original audience and many of Jesus' teachings are meant to address this viewpoint. Jesus wanted his followers to understand that the Kingdom of God is not primarily a political Kingdom.
Second answer: The Kingdom of God is a religious group. People who hold certain beliefs or identify with a certain religious group are members of the Kingdom of God. This group might be large (everyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God) or small (everyone in my particular sect). Either way, in this view, the emphasis is on evangelism and conversion. If the Kingdom of God consists of everyone who belongs to your religious group, then you want to bring more people in so the Kingdom can grow. This view also tends to place an emphasis on the individual. The Kingdom comes one person at a time as people convert, so individual decisions to believe are important.
Third answer: The Kingdom of God is a moral condition. In this view, the Kingdom of God consists of people who do what God wants them to. In this view, the emphasis is on people's behavior. This usually means that you want people to uphold some kind of moral code. This code can be simple, like, "Love God and love one another," or it can be very complicated with a lot of seemingly arbitrary rules, like, "Women must wear hats." In either case the goal is to convince people to uphold this moral code. This is also pretty individualistic, although the moral code usually addresses how we treat others, so it's less individualistic than the previous answer.
Fourth answer: The Kingdom of God is a social condition. In this view, the Kingdom of God consists of people treating each other fairly. This is similar to the theory that the Kingdom of God is a moral condition. To explain the difference, let me tell a story. Imagine that a dictator of a small country is oppressing millions of people. One day, the dictator sees the error of his ways and decides to stop oppressing all those people. If the Kingdom of God is a moral condition, then the dictator entered the Kingdom by acting morally. If the Kingdom of God is a social condition, then his formerly oppressed subjects entered the Kingdom because they're now being treated fairly. In contrast to the earlier views, this view is pretty collective. It is also a view that is mostly concerned with the condition of the world.
Fifth answer: The Kingdom of God is a spiritual outpouring. The Kingdom of God is the place where God's Spirit resides. In this view the Kingdom of God is characterized by the work of the Holy Spirit. This can include things like signs and wonders, miraculous healings, people speaking in tongues, and other strange phenomena. It can also include more subtle things like feelings of joy or an awareness of God's presence. This view tends to emphasize experience over reason and, from the viewpoint of outsiders, is one of the strangest.
Considering each view on its own, I think it's pretty clear that none of them offers a complete picture of the Kingdom of God. Most Christians hold a view that is a combination of the above views. For example, groups like the Moral Majority hold a synthesis of the political view and the moral view. They use political power to try and elect representatives who will legislate their moral code. Liberation theology, on the other hand, represents a synthesis of the political view and the social view. They seek political power to correct social injustice in the world.
This week, I'd like to ask two different questions. If you're a Christian, what view of the Kingdom of God do you think best reflects your views? If you're not a Christian, which view seems the most reasonable (or the least crazy)? I look forward to your responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
