wishing and hoping

When you base your thoughts, emotions, and actions on "hope", what do you assume will happen? Are you just optimistic that things will work out for the best if you can just persevere? Maybe you are sure that the future will work in your favor and you just need to hang in there til then? There is a possibility that "hope" is a certainty that today is 'perfect' for you because your circumstances are not what makes your life abundant and virtuous.



Most Christians understand that Biblical "hope" refers to assurance or guarantee. When you read verses like this, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead," are you hearing about assurance of a future of what WILL BE or a present certainty of what is? Is God telling you in His Word "what you experience today is not the end of His story" or is scripture saying, "what you are experiencing now is His story?"

The assumptions you make about "hope" will determine in a large part how you think, feel, and act each moment of your life. The assumptions you hold dear about "hope" will largely impact what you know about the abundant and virtuous life.

Wisdom is not easy. Often it is uninvited, awkward, intrusive and disruptive. Too often we avoid the tough reflection of our assumptions. This leaves us pretending that life works in a way it really doesn't.

How do you pin point your assumptions? How do you scrub through your thoughts to locate uncertainty about what you really believe?

Before you have a view, you have core assumptions, beliefs you hold dear that you never question that come b4worldview.

b4worldview, a Chrsitian education organization, now has a brief quiz or a survey (36 questions taking 5 mins) that you can take as a checkup, like an x-ray of your soul and IT'S FREE.

go to http://b4worldviewsurvey.com/  and GET STARTED, there's no better time than now.

What are you sure of? How do your assumptions really affect you? Be careful, finding out may make you a bit wiser.

BTW, the next verse reads, "to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

The hope you have is both providing for you in the moment and reserved for you in the future.

WHAT A DEAL God has for YOU. 

Now that's worth pondering ......

revelation about revelation

In much of my work over the past few years I have been trying to understand and then explain the 2 kinds of knowledge, eido and gnosis. If you haven't been keeping up, eido knowledge is what we know through our senses. Often this is called "head knowledge." Gnosis on the other hand is knowledge we gain in ways other than through our senses. It is the common notion of "heart knowledge."

The reason this has interested me is because the secular thought leaders starting with Aristotle and continuing on for 2500 years in his tradition see knowledge as primarily, if not exclusively, eido. In other words, our senses are the most trusted source of knowledge.

Yet, the word for knowing in the Bible is more often gnosis. Further, there has been very little discussion among Christian thinkers about gnosis, mainly because Gnosticism is a philosophy that distorts God's view of the material and spiritual world. Nevertheless, gnosis is quite apparently important in the Bible and so, we must take the word seriously.     

While eido knowledge takes precedent in formal secular thinking, it is not offensive for everyone to recognize that sometimes they just know what they know. They cannot prove it through observation but in their gut, they know. They would be comfortable claiming, "I know this in my heart." This may suggest that gnosis knowledge is, in and of itself, not a Biblical only idea. It is a form of knowledge that exists in all human experience.

The challenge becomes how to explain what it is and how we get it. The first question, what is it, is easier to answer. Some call gnosis knowledge intuition, instinct, conscience, or just plain gut. This has especially applied to studies of decision-making.

The second question, where does it come from, is not so simple or clear. There are basically two possibilities. We either generate from within, through internal processes, knowledge we do not get through external sources, or the knowledge is revealed to us supernaturally from a source outside ourselves. Most people favor what psychology has found - that ideas "bubble up" from the sub conscience within us. I recognize revelation is less accepted in secular thinking since human nature is oriented toward self sufficiency. Revelation is more mysterious and for some, too religious.

My understanding is that the bible emphasizes gnosis knowledge over eido and revelation from God as the mechanism by which we get gnosis. The Incarnate Jesus claims He only knows what to do or say based on what God reveals to Him. Jesus tells Peter that 'this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood (human means), but by my Father in heaven." Romans 8 provides the multiple ways the Holy Spirit bears witness to us. Its clear the Holy Spirit is revealing directions to Philip concerning the Ethiopian eunuch. And so on ....

Maybe it does not matter how revelation occurs, just that it does. I generally think about revelation as a transaction, a process by which God hands off to me info. Revelation then is knowledge I don't have but given to me supernaturally at times that I need it.

I was reading Augustine's "the Confessions" recently. He says this, "when we learn things that are not imbibed (taken in) through the senses, but are known directly inside the mind, as they are in themselves, without intervention of the senses, we are collecting by means of our thoughts THOSE THINGS WHICH OUR MEMORY ALREADY HELD, but in a scattered and disorderly way." 

If Augustine has it right, all knowledge we need from God, gnosis, is in our minds somewhere. God has put it there from the beginning. Our focus is not to get more, but to iron out the scattered and disorderly form in which it resides.

This may seem academic and trite to you, but it is extremely freeing to me that I am not at the whim of what God chooses to tell me and when, He has already told me everything. This gives me a whole new perspective on being "scattered brain.

I can ponder that with excitement ....   

contingency or necessity

Today I saw something that may not have grabbed anyone's attention. If so, the only response may be, "oh, how cute." It was a young boy, about 5 or 6 years old, running his figures though his mom's hair as if he were brushing it. It got my attention. I watched for a few minutes. He was doing this so naturally. His mom didn't seem to even notice, although I am sure she was soaking it up.

Was this young boy "choosing" to enjoy his mom this way? Did he feel a duty or responsibility? Was this something he had been told is a way to love his mom? I doubt it.

In his treatise "The Bondage of the Will," Martin Luther is trying to explain something really difficult for us to understand theologically. Maybe it takes a simple picture like this young boy loving his mom is an unspectacular but amazing way.

Luther explains the difference between contingency and necessity. Contingency is a setup where actions by A cause a response by B. Necessity is when the mere presence of A results without even thinking the response of B. You might say, "what's the difference?"

In cases of contingency the actions of A are designed (act of the will) to influence the motivation of B. Here, the will of A is limited (in bondage) to how A thinks he/she can get B to happen. In the case of necessity, the response B is automatically connected or naturally flows out of A. Here the will of B is constrained by the inherent conditions of A's will.

Luther is not rejecting that all people have a "will." After all, the "will" is a part of each human's psychology. The very meaning of motivation is that we "choose" what we try to do. But what Luther is explaining is that this "will" we have is ALWAYS constrained by something. There is a long list of influences on our will that we are not even aware of, such as personality and culture.

In the case of the Christian the constraint on our will is the Father's love. We, like this young son, naturally and without options (necessity), direct our affection and actions toward the Father. This is not a contingent relationship, where we must do A to get B response from God. But rather a relationship of necessity where our response to God is not choosing out of our own options. The will of the Christian is under the Sovereign will of the Father. That's what Sovereign means. Luther believes that to see our will as "unbounded" is to deny the very essence of God as Sovereign. We can only really "know thyself" when we know the limits of our will and the limitlessness of God's.

In my Southern way, the young boy "can't not" stroke his mother's hair. His actions flow from a will that is a natural consequent of his love for his mother. His actions are by necessity what they are.

This is what Luther means by "the bondage of the will."

Since human nature sees everything through the lens of exchange, or cause and effect thinking, we cannot understand our will within the context of the love of a Sovereign Father unless the bondage of our flesh on our thinking is broken by His will.

Transformation starts with pondering what a Sovereign Father really means ..... 

shame or share

Being accepted by others demands that we cling tightly to the status quo. As long as we follow the rules and stay within our comfort zone and capabilities, we cannot go wrong. We can avoid being seen as abnormal or weird. Is this lure of the "way things are" wrong? Isn't this the safest place we can be to avoid shame and blame?

Staying within everyone's expectations is what keeps us legitimate or acceptable, which is one of the strongest human needs.

This may have been where Timothy was in his soul (thinking, feeling and acting) when Paul chose to write to him. Paul challenged him this way, "stir up the gift of God which is in you." The words "stir up" literally means "fan the flames." Give air to smoking embers that will fade away unattended. This was a call for Timothy to move beyond status quo. To move beyond his comfort zone and his reasonable competencies. Paul recognized that Timothy's risk was to see his purpose through his own eyes, not God's. Our human nature welcomes a purpose that is natural for us, that fits our needs to be safe and applauded in others' eyes. Paul reminds Timothy that God "saved us and called us to" purposes that rely on His power given to us. God's will for us is not that we hold back in fear of shame but move forward in thanksgiving to share.

Sharing in God's economy is not what we typically think of. Its not the usual idea of giving from our resources. We are likely to view giving from our abundance and giving within our natural capabilities. This can be what some call, "the weakness of the soul." Sharing is drawing on what God gives us we don't already have or can't get on our own. Sharing is trusting that God has chosen us to act on His behalf in a special and unique way with no sense of how others will judge us. Sharing is a supernatural giving that comes by faith (unseen evidence) in what God invites us to do.

I know in my own life I can get like Timothy. I can be more concerned with what people think about me than how God is urging me on. I can have little pity parties when nobody notices my effort and sacrifices. I can be demoralized when others are getting credit in self serving ways. I can feel alone with God, outside of people's praises, left only with His ideas for me. I can hold back my efforts because I fear the shame that others will misunderstand and criticize me for venturing out in "strange ways."

I think Paul wrote to Timothy so I could listen in. I need to remember that I too can find that I prefer to sit quietly, hold back, and avoid the shame others may see in me rather than relentlessly sharing the gift God put in me through His power.

When you think of your "weaknesses the soul", what do you tend to ponder?   

 

"The Divinity of Number"

In the search for some reverent notion beyond ourselves but resisting the idea that it is God, there is a philosophy in which the divine is mathematics. Yeah, it's true.

"Ewwww," you say, "I hate math."

You may just check out now and decide this blog is not worth your time. I can see that. But you don't have to love or even understand math to see how this philosophy has influenced human thinking for 3000 years. It may even explain why you think as you do now.  Maybe why you may agree with friends and family on ideas about God - deep down the lack of physical evidence may make your faith (unseen evidence) difficult to rely on. After all, the divinity of number is quite rational and can be compelling. In fact it has for a long time and here is the reason why.

It started way back around 500 BC with a guy named Pythagoras. Some say he is the first philosopher and influenced the theories of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Here's his view of reality. All natural objects that exist are created by the power of formal mathematical relationships, which are abstract, immutable and eternal. Reality as we know it is created out of something it that is not material, but an architect for all that can be known as material. The abstract idea upon which all reality is constructed is "number." Note a right triangle is governed by properties Pythagoras found that existed n the abstract. We call it "the Pythagorean theory." 

Music, geometry, physics, chemistry, the human body, etc. are all based on formal relationships abstractly conceived. Mathematics predicts, predates and in fact creates all natural existence. The math for everything man has discovered in the natural world existed before the object existed. Since number has such power, it is in a sense "divinity," something reverent, respected and to be worshiped. This philosophy claims the cosmos (physical universe) is authorized by differential equations that are disinterested in its existence, an impersonal creator bound by reciprocity. 

"Sin" occurs when the harmonic rational relationship of abstract entities is violated by natural forces. Sin is the awful sound of playing the wrong note in a musical performance or obesity that abuses the body's natural order. BTW, earthquakes, floods, forest fires, tornadoes and the like that we may consider evil are not sin, according to "the Divinity of Number," because these outcomes are created by mathematics to restore equilibrium.

Opposing philosophies, such as those of Aristotle, take the opposing idea. Naturalists believe that the physical world is what is real and the abstract ideas just represent, not cause, natural relationships that exist. Mathematics has been created by man, not the creator of man, to explain what is observed as real in the natural world.

In either case the defining theme of mathematics, whether creator or explainor, is the "=" sign. All natural phenomena exists in equilibrium. Characteristic of all relationships is ultimately "the equation." Nothing personal. Whether reality is in the natural world or in the abstract, human nature assumes a nonnegotiable requirement for explaining anything is the presence of equilibrium.

Now can you begin to see why the Christian faith, based on unseen evidence of redemption, is outside of human rationale. The Gospel is rational for sure, but a different kind of "mathematics." Grace violates the requirement for equilibrium. Grace governs relationships beyond material things. The laws of natural world is maintained by mathematical equations, BUT the relationship He has with you and me is different. Jesus emptied Himself of his privilege to be equal with God.

Grace is a disequilibrium and defines the eternal characteristic in which anything can only be "real," containing qualities bestowed on it by a Sovereign Creator.  

The only number we need to grasp is 3 to worship the eternal Divine. The Trinity is a number that defies natural mathematics and causes us to endlessly ponder ......   

The case for "evil"

Eventually every serious person must decide what they are going to do with questions about "evil." For thousands of years this has been one of the core issues about life itself. You can read what the ancient philosophers wrote, early Christian writers like Augustine, all the way up to modern day thinkers and you'll probably still be confused. It is often mentioned in the Bible, so we know its important. But when asked, and we will be if not already have been, "what is evil and why does it exist?", what can we really say that satisfies the one who asked? Maybe even satisfy ourselves!

I do not by any means in writing this blog assume I have the answers once and for all. This blog is merely how I have condensed very difficult treatises on "evil" by very smart people for a very long time. I have tried to do the "heavy lifting" for those I love and who might want to know my point of view. So here it is:

The idea of "evil" can only be understood in light of "good." We must also deal with the philosophical question, "what does 'exist' mean? There really is no way around being a little philosophical. After all, philosophy is just the way we think about things. So if you ever think about "good and evil", you are practicing philosophy.

Our natural tendency to think about the word "good" is to equate it with what's beneficial or favorable, especially to the experience or the way we view the outcome. In this way, "good" is the quality associated with the object, not the object itself. To say a person is "good" is to describe the person. It is the person that exist, not "good." The fact that we experience the person in a certain way is meaningful, but it is not "good" that has form and substance, it is the person. In this way, "good" does not exist as an object but merely qualifies the experience or observation of the object. 

In the Biblical context "good" is still understood as the quality of the object, not the object. Yet, it has a very different meaning. An object is "good" not because of extrinsic benefit but because of the intrinsic nature of its creator. You have likely heard me explain the Biblical idea of "good" this way, "a pie is good not because of its benefit to me, but because of the qualities of the baker." So the object, in this case the pie, is good because of the pie's intrinsic qualities granted to it by the creator of the pie. In either meaning of the word "good", the pie is the object, not the quality (good) of the object. The pie exists, "good" describes something about the pie that exist.

Since "evil" is generally viewed in a spiritual or moralistic context. We must use the Biblical idea of "good" as our basis for what is "evil".

So, does evil exist? I would say no. It cannot "exist" because it has no form or substance and is therefore not an object, either observable or abstract. Like "good", "evil" can be used to describe an object, such as an evil person or an evil act. St Augustine said it like this, "either the evil we fear exist or our fear itself is the evil." Assuming the later Augustine rejects the notion that "evil" itself is an object, but rather fear (an emotion which exists) is the object and that "evil" is simply a quality of the object we call fear.

Then when we see "evil" as a qualifier of an object and not the object itself, we do not have the irreconcilable issue of "how can a good and powerful God create evil?" Augustine goes through an elaborate dialectic to conclude "evil has no being." He defended this by concluding that "You (God) have made all good things and there are no substances that You (God) had not made." Augustine goes on to confess, "I was seeking the origin of evil, but seeking it in an evil way, and failing to see the evil in my own search itself."

This is a great warning to all of us, it certainly was to me. We cannot answer philosophical questions under the "weight of carnal habits." Augustine realized that pursuing the questions of "evil" like the world did had been the problem. He confessed "above my changeable mind soared the real, unchangeable eternal truth .... indeed did I perceive your invisible reality through created things." To heed Augustine's conclusions in my words, "don't try to find a place to paint in open spaces left by others, switch to the right canvas, or don't try to swim better than others in the wrong pool, get in the right pool."

So, where did the quality come from that objects can possess and why would God allow it if He is all powerful? To answer the first question let's go back to "good." In the Biblical notion of 'good" it is a quality of the object. In this case to say anything is "good" is to say that it has the quality of its Creator, in this case God. So something is "good" (in the Biblical sense) when it embodies the very nature of God. So, "good works" are those things we do that are intrinsically God. They may or may not seem to benefit us or anyone we can notice. In fact we may observe the very opposite. But "good works" are "good" because they are done out of the very heart of God.

That would mean that "evil" occurs in an object when its intrinsic qualities do not contain those of God. Another way to say this is that an object is "evil" when it is absence the qualities of God. Why then would God ever allow an object He created to not have His nature? This answer is found in the very idea of the Fall, of Adam and Eve's rebellion, where they preferred to be God themselves. Evil is the way we describe any object that has declared its independence from God. It is not that evil is some object that has invaded the world or your life, but that evil is the description given to anything that operates with a will apart from God. Anything seeking its own glory is considered to be evil.

Why does God allow anything He created and has the power to control to operate outside of His will? Now that is a tough question, way more difficult than "the case for evil." I will leave that in the "too hard pile" and the subject of a future philosophical discourse.

That's why we will forever ponder on this side of eternity .....   

Trust in the ...

This verse from the Bible is the favorite of more people than any other verse I know. This verse can really direct your thinking and feeling unlike most any other verse. So, it's probably worth a little pondering. Like

what is trust?
what are we really trusting "in the Lord" for?
what is the "heart"?
what determines our "own understanding"?

That probably pretty much covers it, don't you think?

"Trust" is willful vulnerability. It is the act of choosing (your will) to give up control (becoming vulnerable) to someone because we believe they will not take advantage of us in their actions.

So, "trust in the Lord" is choosing to give God control. That means we don't keep any influence or interest in the outcome. Its for God to decide. It is totally up to Him to decide.

"The heart" is an interesting thing to ponder. "The heart" is our basic, core assumptions that lay deep down in us that we never question but use to prove everything else. There are really only two orientations of the heart and a Christian can have either. One is the set of assumptions that relate to our fallen human nature. This influences us to see everything through the lens of equitable exchange. So, if we trust with all of our heart and our heart is a function of our human nature, we would see that we are trusting that God is really good at equitable exchange. If we do our part, He is obligated to do His. That is what our heart would tell us. It is our motivation to read the Bible more often and pray longer, harder, deeper, louder, with more skill and sincerity, etc. and we can trust God to do His part.

That's where "lean not on your own understanding" comes in.

A transformed heart is a heart that is no longer ours. It has a different set of assumptions, deep down in the soul. These core beliefs are the "mind of Christ." They tell us that God is Sovereign and He willfully does what He does according to His promises, not as a duty in exchange for our admirable actions. Sovereignty means that He acts independently of what we do, and that His purposes are what determines His actions, not outcomes that we think we need or want.

To "lean not on our own understanding" then means
Our view of the situation typically requires a solution that is circumstantially beneficial to us while God's view of the situation requires a solution out of His Sovereignty, mainly that His glory be revealed.

To "lean not on our own understanding" is not what we may typically think it means. We often think we must just quit trying to make sense of the outcomes in our life and accept what happens. What we must do is realize it is our own understanding of God that is wrong, not our misunderstanding of the circumstances. He does not function on equitable exchange like everything else in our world does.

We can read this verse "til the cows come home," but if we don't get that "all of our heart" is the problem. We can trust as hard as we like but we are prone to a heart that can only make sense of things through equitable exchange. We can accept and accept outcomes but eventually are likely to become very disappointed in what happens in our life. We can over time think that God cannot be trusted. He is either not capable or He doesn't care.

We are good Christians so we know in our head this is not the case, so we keep thinking - persevere, keep it up, "trust in the Lord with all your heart." We are left to ponder - maybe we are not doing it right or trying hard enough. The problem for us is that the wrong heart makes trusting futile. We are trusting, really hard, very sincerely in the wrong view of "the Lord."

Realizing our heart is likely not really trusting that God is Sovereign and good, but actually trusting that God is the "great trader", is why we must not "lean on our own understanding."

Now, maybe you knew all of this all along, that's fantastic.

Whether you knew this before or its a new perspective for you, its is always worth some pondering ...