400 years of silence

No, I am not arguing there were 400 years between the time Adam was created and Eve appeared on the scene. That would make me a sexist and unPC. But consider that from 400 BC to the birth of Christ, we have no record of God speaking to His people. Have you wondered, "why not?" I suppose some have speculated on this, but His silence is rarely mentioned or discussed that I know of. Was He just tired of dealing with rebellion or was there something going on during that time that set the stage for His next act.

In spending some time recently revisiting history, my curiosity has been awaken to some thoughts I'd like to share. You may find them irrelevant, or maybe interesting, or possibly even profound. I have become much more aware of the amazing sense of God's timing and message in scripture, so for me - PROFOUND.

Let's go back in time and quickly see the progression of human thought. For centuries mankind sought counsel mainly by "sitting next to the wise," such as prophets and sages, and probing explanations of life through mythology that developed in both eastern and western civilizations. Throughout this time there was an innate recognition of the power of life that is fundamentally identical in the individual person and the cosmos. There was a progressive focus on earth, the problems of earth, the beginning, middle and end of human life, the unpredictability of it all, and the realization we are part rational and part passionate beings. Prior to 600 BC there were deep insights into the human condition, but little critical reflection.

From 600-400 BC there was the emergence and flourishing of the Greek philosophers. Philosophy sought to deal with issues of knowledge, conduct and governance. Unlike the cumulative progress of science, abstract ideas only progress in clarity. Ignorance is not overcome, only exposed. The bottom line of philosophy is to test our most fundamental beliefs in order to get them right, recognizing that the questions necessary to "getting it right" are essentially unanswerable.

From 400 BC til Jesus, philosophy matured ushering in three prevailing themes defining thought and belief in all of the known world:
1.   nature or the natural order of the cosmos is our guide to truth
2.   how can we be sure of anything?
3.   the verdict depends on the evidence (driven by perception)

Within this context Jesus arrives. God no longer is silent. Maybe He was waiting for philosophy to fully define the Pharisees' thinking? Was Jesus teaching into a theological vacuum? Did the context of His time (which, btw, is still the context of the world) matter to what He needed to say? He says first and foremost, "repent and believe." In other words His initial position into this well established world of philosophy was, "you gotta think completely differently and trust this new pattern of thought." Jesus goes on to explain these new ideas by contrasting "nature as our guide" to the Kingdom of heaven as our guide. Further, the evidence for assurance is not how our physical senses inform us, but in trusting a faith (unseen evidence) in Jesus as the Son of God, come to earth to make us 'right' and reconcile us back to Him.

Jesus seminal teaching is often considered to be what is called the Sermon on the Mount. Here He addresses the error in four specific tenets of philosophy that dominated all human thought.

First, He reminds us of how fortunate we are as Kingdom dwellers. Contrary to Aristotle's view of human's obsession with happiness ('eudemonia') that is found in our actions and circumstances, our fortune ('makarios') is sourced in the heavenlies. We can rest in the assurance that we are absolutely destitute to provide even one breath on our own. Having our identity in Jesus rather than the prevailing norms of the cosmos relieves us of the responsibility to sustain life though our own efforts. How fortunate we are.

Second, the abundant and virtuous life is not insight but light. Life is not fulfilled through the wisdom we seek for ourselves by gaining knowledge, but that our lives themselves reflect the "light of the world" to the world.

Third, solving the chaos and destruction witnessed across history is not a human endeavor. Evil will not be abated by being smarter and answering the endless questions of philosophy, but by the preserving and flavoring nature of God's people providing salt to a fallen world.

Fourth, depending on law ('nomos') to make us right is futile. The very claims of philosophy that pursuits of nature as the guide to justice also admit this is endless. Philosophers believe that if we are making progress toward 'right', then we are OK. But they cannot be sure. Jesus reminds us that less than 100% right is the same as 'not right.' His claim is that He fully completes the law in His very person. So why not pursue Him in faith instead of principles we can glean from rational pursuit of natural order in the cosmos based on our senses?

Reading scripture in light of what happened in the 400 years of God's silence is different. New ideas about what God is saying appear. Picturing Aristotle and all his minions working diligently to orient thinking in a way that is counter to the Gospel makes the Scriptures even that much more powerful to me.

REPENT means 100% change of thinking, but
if we don't know what defines the starting point, its difficult to realize  and appreciate any change.
Where has your nature guided you? What assumptions determine how you think, feel and act? Has God been silent in your life? You may be surprised.

Pondering fodder ....

In whom we trust: the 'perfect life'

2500 years ago Aristotle established many philosophical views that have been studied, debated and honored ever since. While there are volumes to the patterns of thought Aristotle pushed forward, everything seems to flow from his concept of the 'perfect life'. The Greek word for this is 'teleos.' Basically, Aristotle saw the ultimate goal of all human beings was to follow a pattern of life that achieved happiness or what he called 'eudemonia'.


His idea of happiness or eudemonia was not the typical hedonistic view of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Aristotle's idea of happiness included living in the tension of personal fulfillment and harmony with one's community. The primary virtue Aristotle found in natural law was justice, the rights people enjoy in dealing with each other. The pursuit of happiness of all individuals results in individual and corporate 'teleos,' or the perfect life.

You probably never think about Aristotle. Most people don't. Yet, much of what influences what you think, feel, and act is described in Aristotle's philosophy of natural man. Do the words, "the pursuit of happiness", sound familiar? When asked once what was the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson replied that: “All its authority rests … on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.” (Letter to Henry Lee, May 8, 1825)

This all sounds pretty good. It seems the American dream is Aristotle's idea of 'teleos.' But, consider this:

'You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect.' Recognize these words. They are what Jesus chose to tell us about the Kingdom of Heaven as a concluding remark in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5: 48). The word for perfect is, guess what, 'teleos.'

Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus was quite aware of Aristotle since Aristotle lived 400 years earlier and Aristotle was the anchor point for Stoicism, the philosophy at this time. In fact, Augustine dealt directly with Aristotle. So did Martin Luther, and both of these loathed Aristotle. Was Jesus agreeing with Aristotle or was it more of an 'in your face Aristotle'? I wonder why Jesus made a point about 'teleos' given it was so important to Aristotle. Did Jesus give us some truth about 'teleos' that supported or contradicted Aristotle? If Jesus agreed with Aristotle, why did Jesus need to tell us about the Kingdom? If Jesus has a different view of the perfect life, why would we want to be so in tune with Aristotle?

Usually Jesus contrasts the Kingdom of heaven to life in this world, which is man's natural order. It seems Jesus wants us to see that 'teleos,' the perfect life, from God's perspective is His life in us. We just receive Jesus, His gift to us, rather than Aristotle's idea of ordering our life around pursuing some divine standard for 'teleos,' the perfect life.

It's interesting that the US has on its coin, "In God We Trust," when our Founding Fathers really mixed a little God with a lot of Aristotle. Were our founding fathers really trusting man's natural right to pursue happiness rather than the redemptive work of grace? Augustine and Luther went out of their way to denounce Aristotle in light of the Gospel. I suspect Jesus did too.

You may not ever wish to know anything about Aristotle, but whether you want to or not, he has more than adequately described our flawed human nature, which we often trust more than trusting what God has done for us in Christ. At the core of human thinking for thousands of years, the idea of the 'good life' is to set one's mind on what Aristotle called 'first things.' Its as if Jesus is saying to the ages, 'you are right Aristotle, but you have the wrong 'first things'." Maybe that's why Jesus said, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God."

Like our founding fathers, it is so easy to buy in to Aristotle. But unlike our founding fathers, we may not know it.

Seems like its worth exploring what our 'first things' are....

Take this FREE 5 min quiz to see where you stand, it'll be a good place to start your pondering
http://b4worldviewsurvey.com/

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 ......