Natural Theology

 "theology or knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation."

 

Why should this topic matter to you? 

Good question. You might answer that it doesn't matter to you, or you don't find it interesting. You may find yourself curious about this topic, and not really know why. You may have heard this term used before by a pastor or bible teacher and you didn't really understand it's relevance.  

There may be some other reason you do or do not wish to learn more about natural theology. I encourage you to at least ask and answer the above question. Then you can quit reading or read on based on your answer.

The first point I'd like to make about natural theology is that concern for it is at the heart of Luther's reformation movement. It's an over simplification to think Luther was only rebuking the Pope, the practice of indulgences and the Catholic church's view of confession. Natural theology grew precipitously from Thomas Aquinas until Luther and more surprising to me, has dominated Protestant orthodoxy since.

The second point I'd wish to offer you is that natural theology is birthed and shaped in human nature. If you believe the doctrine of total depravity (as Luther did), then you would agree with me that "if something I think comes naturally to me from my observations, then it is not what God is saying to me." Luther believed that unless something is revealed to you by the Holy Spirit, it is not of God. In Luther's view, Paul was expounding a revealed theology and discounted a natural theology. This is best represented in Romans 8 where Paul is unpacking the idea of "walking according to the Spirit" vs. "walking according to the flesh (human nature)." Some things that come naturally to us is reciprocity, justice, producing outcomes, linear progression, transactions, "trust but verify", being a good person, coping with stress, courage (response to fear), and many other influences we rarely regard as problematic to grasping the Gospel of Grace.

The third point I have found fascinating about this topic is how much Paul's message to the church is a rebuke of Greek philosophy, which came before Christ, and how much Aquinas, as the first western Christian philosopher, based his theology on Aristotle with a nice spin from the Bible. Using cause and effect models and assuming man has the ability to reason God from what he/she observes comes straight from Aristotle and thru the medieval Scholastics exemplified by Aquinas. 

The last point I'll make here (but in no way is the end of this discussion) is that seeking the moral high ground is not what Jesus claims for us in the Gospel. Building a just society flows from mankind's natural obsession with justice and not from Jesus' teaching on righteousness. Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. I'll leave this here since I've blogged often on Christian morality as an oxymoron.

While there are volumes written on natural theology and I could certainly expound more in this blog, I'll end by saying this, 

much of the struggle Christians have on topics such as election, righteousness, suffering, forgiveness, the Trinity, created in the image of God, “free will,” repentance, heaven and earth, civics, economics, prosperity, and such is because natural theology is so prevalent in sermons and bible teaching, even of the most fervent evangelical churches.

You may not know any more about natural theology or its risks than you did before this blog. If you made it this far you should certainly make a point to study this topic until God's grace overwhelms you with how this thinking separates you from Him and makes your testimony off target. My biggest concern is how natural theology may be the root cause or core influence on why church is more of a giant therapy session than worship of the King, why there are many joyless Christians, and why many young Christians abandon their faith as adults.

That's all  ....    

weaponizing "misinformation"

 

Today I heard a news account where Harvard had dismissed a Republican US representative from some Board for spreading "misinformation." Further, students petitioned Harvard to revoke degrees from US Senators who had questioned the results of the 2020 Presidential election. Raising questions about the legitimacy of the election is considered an act of "spreading misinformation." Taking away or "cancelling" those who are spreading misinformation is necessary to maintain democracy, such people claim. But, is this movement gaining momentum today simply a weapon some are using to silence views or ideas that they oppose? Is this actually a threat to democracy?

Are the people in this cartoon being influenced by misinformation? They certainly didn't understand the information they were given. The sign is factual, but the people seem to be misled. Should the makers of the sign be banned from society for misleading the people? What goes on in the world of information? This bog is not at all about the election, but using the context of how people have responded to make a much broader and profound point about society.

Let's look at what "misinformation" is, and then see if it is not a subtle movement of the culture to cancel Christians who walk by faith. You might think I'm intoxicated by conspiracy theories, but hang with me and let's see.

The 1828 Webster dictionary defines "misinformation" as a false account. The definition has been upgraded to include the caveat of "with an intention to mislead." So, today not only does misinformation attempt to advance ideas that are not true, there is a questionable motive attached to the action of spreading the misinformation. By adding motive, those who want to use "misinformation" to control others are not as interested in the issue of truth. They now wish to minimize or eliminate the influence of those who have motives that they judge as intentional deceit.  

This subtle change in the meaning is profound in its implications. Seeking truth has always been a process of challenging untruth. This has never threatened democracy at all but has served to advance the freedom of sharing perspectives so that the right view can be uncovered. This is democracy at its best, according to our founding fathers. 

Today, weaponizing "misinformation" to silence those whose motives are in opposition crosses the line and begins to destroy democracy, not protect it. However, if you are a Christian, there is a greater issue or concern with the advance of "weaponizing misinformation."

This now becomes another tool for the culture to assault people of faith. You see, faith by its very nature is truth that cannot be defended by what we observe. Enemies of God used to try and debate truth questions, such as does God exist? Notice that this type of historical debate has achieved desired results so it isn't of interest anymore to those opposed to God. They have a new approach to discrediting Christianity.

When the motives of Christians are seen as ways to sway the political thinking of liberals, then Christians are viewed as intolerant, elitist, and even unjust. Their message to the world is considered misinformation. Their presence in the world is cancelled. This happens not because of any debate on truth, but because evangelicals' goal is to deceive people as to who and what they should trust.

Faith becomes misinformation.  The world doesn't need to prove the things of God to be untrue. To persuade people to trust something they cannot see shifts control to "those evangelical Christians", who are mean and ugly to others.  The thinks that when Christians use their faith for political purposes, they are deceiving people of the right path their life should take.

Teaching our young people proper Christian worldview and theology is not a bad thing to do, but it's shooting at the wrong target. Weaponizing misinformation doesn't care about truth anymore. While it may appear to attack key tenets of democracy, it is actually the newest form of the ageless fight human nature has against its very Creator. Imagine that! 

Ponder not what you see, but what you see it is .....   

"it's not enough"

My granddaughter Holli did a college writing assignment at Belmont last year. It was an insightful assignment to describe how Hallmark Christmas movies "glamorize" popular ideas, but not always correctly. Topics like grief, love, relationships, angels, Christmas, etc. are often presented in "feel good" ways that miss subtle issues of Christian truth. I offered her a perspective on this assignment that seemed to help her write a very nice paper. Today, I saw another example. Makes for a good blog. 

I'm watching a Hallmark Christmas movie. It's a typical tear jerker. The storyline is a teenager whose family suddenly finds he has a serious heart condition that is threatening his life. He is given only days to live without a transplant. No donor is found. He is getting worse. The mother is an active Christian who relies on her faith. The father has indulged his wife's faith and doesn't typically rock the boat. 

But crisis can change normal family dynamics.

As their son's condition worsens, the wife and mother prays more. The husband and father just hurts more. The son has another heart attack and the doctors give them little hope. The son now only has 24 hours at best unless he gets a heart transplant. No donor has been found. 

You can imagine the plot line from here. After all, it is a Hallmark movie. What caught my attention is not the story as it unfolds, that's pretty predictable. It was the response of the parents at the point of little hope their son will survive. Their response was likewise predictable, and its this predictability that is worth noting.

The mother (wife) said to the father (her husband), "all the tears, all the prayers, all the faith - it wasn't enough." In desperation the father leaves to be alone. He goes to the chapel to make a deal with God. He prays, "I'm willing to believe, please help my son."

These are very typical responses. That's why they show up in a Hallmark movie. These ideas appeal to "good people." So, what's the problem? Why blog this?

Many Christians have as their "go to" Bible verse, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." I just heard a leading Christian teacher and writer reference this verse and then share how he applies it. He, too, sees this verse similarly to these parents in the movie. Trust for them does not eliminate fear and anxiety. Trust is more like the remedy to the stress of fear and anxiety. BUT, scripture tells, "do not fear" and "be anxious for nothing." Why? Fear and anxiety comes to us as circumstances don't meet expectations. Too often Christians see this verse as a circumstantial based trust. It is a trust that God will ultimately deliver desirable outcomes in difficult situations. This view is pervasive among Christians. 

The problem is that too often Christians "lean on their own understanding" of trust."

Biblical trust is source based, not outcome based. In other words, to "trust in the Lord with all your heart" is never strengthened or weakened by what happens in life. Godly trust is a complete vulnerability to God because of who He is, not what we see He does. If Godly trust produces no fear, no anxiety, then why do we need a remedy for fear and anxiety? 

When Jesus says, "Seek first His kingdom and the righteousness you have because of His approval of you and all things will be added to you," What are "all things"? You think He is speaking of your circumstances. He has just got through referencing the blessings (fortune) of the beatitudes. All the provisions and privileges of His eternal realm, not the material benefits of a finite and temporal world. He tells His disciple Thomas, "you believe (trust) because you see, blessed are those who believe (trust) but do not see."

The Hallmark movie glorifies a faith that "needs" God to act a certain way. God needs to do what we think He should do. This is a "feel good" error. God desires for us a faith that does not need Him to "verify."

We generally know this in our head, but our fallen nature can lead us astray. When our natural biases affect our soul, we miss His Kingdom.

No cause, just effect ...

 Built deep within the human condition is the idea of cause and effect. Have you noticed whenever something happens in the world the media immediately starts "guessing" what caused it to happen? Aristotle's model of causation is fundamental to reasoning. Thomas Aquinas used this model in his famous proof for the existence of God.

Maybe every effect in our lives doesn't have a cause. That idea kinda blows the mind, doesn't it?

There's evidence of this everywhere, however. Just open your eyes.

Yesterday I was going to play golf an hour away. It's something I do regularly, so it's fairly routine. This time there was an "effect" I can't explain. I was heading to get into the car. RANDOMLY I saw the garbage needed to be taken out. Since we are in an apt right now, I must take it to the dump in the car as I leave the complex. I usually put it in the back seat for ease of access. BUT, this time I had the RANDOM thought that the bag was a little messy. So, I went to put it in the trunk. As I opened the trunk, guess what? NO GOLF CLUBS!

 After a brief moment of panic, I remembered I had left them at the AU Club when I played Wed. Why had I not put the clubs in my trunk as I have every other time? What caused the effect of no clubs? RANDOMLY I had received a text from my cousin about having dinner at the club that night. So, I put my clubs at the bag drop and went in to make a reservation. My whole routine after golf had been affected by RANDOM events. 

Where was the cause for no clubs in my trunk on Fri morning? Had I not decided to take the garbage, had I not decided to put garbage in back seat, had I not put clubs at bag drop instead in my car after golf, I would have arrived 1 hr away from home to play golf with NO CLUBS, an effect with no cause.

Just the previous night my son had given me an account of how he tried to make a last minute change of QB's on his fantasy football team. He went into the system to put Tannehill in place of Carr. Tannehill was playing Thursday night so it was a last minute decision. As he was making the change, his daughter RANDOMLY called. He got distracted. He forgot to hit "save." His attempt to change QB's didn't happen. As he starts to watch the game, Tannehill is on fire. Bang, bang, bang, completion after completion and then a TD. My son is feeling great until he notices Carr is still in his lineup. "What happened?" he thought. Then he remembered he must have forgotten to hit "save" when he made the change, an effect with no cause. To make a long story short, that was it for Tannehill that night. He ended up doing nothing more and had the worst game of his career. My son's thwarted attempt to play Tannehill worked best for him. Randomness worked against his plans FOR his benefit.

How often do things like this happen in life? Over and over it seems. Positive effects in our lives from RANDOM events. 

Yet, the human condition cannot handle randomness. We must have a cause for every effect.

Sometimes the effects of RANDOM events are not positive for us (or it seems). We then feel guilty or look to blame something outside ourselves. 

This may be the source of mankind's natural tendency to misunderstand Sovereignty? Sovereignty is effect without cause. Now, that' something to ponder ....
 

and the problem is ...

One of the problems many educators face is, "how do we teach kids to solve problems?" Critical thinking is at the top of the list in qualities businesses are looking for in new hires. Its been quite common in my work with students and employees to help them learn to solve problems rather than treat symptoms. Obviously, this is what we want from medical physicians when we are sick. Don't just give me something for the fever, get rid of the infection.

This is not new. Over 2500 years ago when the Greeks began the work of philosophy, they were trying to solve three problems. These were

1.  the problem of knowing (how do we know what is?)

2.  the problem of behavior (what is the right thing to do?)

3.  the problem of governing (how do we treat each other?)

Since 400 - 500 BC, humans have relied on the findings of Socrates, Plato, and especially Aristotle for the ways in which we should solve these three problems. First, we know "what is true" by reasoning what we see. This is the basis of science and works fairly well with knowing the physical world. There has been serious disagreement over the years about how we reason truth about invisible objects. Science evolved to support knowing the world we see. Scientific inquiry then became the way to try and solve the problem of knowing what we cannot see. For instance, Thomas Aquinas, the 13th century Christian philosopher, used Aristotle's model of reasoning cause and effect to prove how to know that God exist.  

From Aristotle's work on "knowing" came the idea of virtue, universal principles we can reason about the right way to be and do. Be fair. Be kind. Be courageous. Be free. and so forth. This solves the second problem, "how do we behave?"

The problem of governing became one of ethics and morality. There are universal codes of conduct that we can reason from observing the world over time. These suggest the best way for society to operate for the benefit of all its occupants. Those in charge of others should be moral and expect all other citizens to be also. Government should put into law these principles. Much like Aquinas, the founding fathers of the US took Aristotle's model and applied an assumption that God's Word provides a script for moral governing. Thus, the third problem was solved for the US by the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

The prevailing notion that the US is a Christian nation was established and has been the basis for political advocacy of evangelical Christians ever since. Christians push forward the idea of Christian morality and values. But, is this how Jesus advocated solving these three problems?

It might be noted that we have no recorded words from God between the time of Aristotle until Jesus came to earth. Four hundred years of God's silence. Aristotle's views ran rampant. Why?

Suddenly Jesus appears. Jesus arrives on earth and teaches about God's Kingdom. Of course there is a lot to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. However, one thing He did was to give a totally different view of solving these three problems than Aristotle and his cohorts did. I find the Sermon on the Mount to be a fairly direct rebuke of Greek philosophy. 

What are Jesus' answer to these three problems?

1. How do we know? Jesus uses a different word for knowing than the philosophers used. Jesus spoke about "knowing" without observing physical evidence, gnosis. This involves revelation. Words given to us from an unseen source outside ourselves.

2. What should we do? Instead of virtue, Jesus spoke about faith. That is, trusting what we receive from this unseen source of "knowing." Acting on the unction of the Holy Spirit is Jesus' answer to the second problem, not an internal drive and set of principles to pursue virtue.

3. How should we treat each other? Jesus advocates humility and service. Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. Seeing the provisions and privileges of the Kingdom of Heaven is God's way to work in unity to glorify Himself. Seeking the rights and rewards of a "proper" or lawful path in the physical world is what mankind inherited from Adam.

Jesus did not bring a new set of problems to solve. The Greek philosophers and all that followed from them, including many Christian philosophers, had the right set of problems. Jesus brought a totally different way to solve them. Repent, metanoia, is a call to this different way to solve the same problems.

That is what it means to "be not conformed to the ways of this world (solving problems like Aristotle), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (solve problems like Jesus)."

They don't teach critical thinking like this in school I don't believe ......  

Good leaders do what?

During these politically divisive times, one of the major ways people attempt to degrade Trump is to accuse him of being pathetic, if not absent, as a leader. His opponents claim he is the "worst President (leader of our nation) in history." Now, this blog is not about politics and certainly not about Trump. It's about what we can learn to recognize and to be an effective leader.

At the center of the criticism is Trump's results in controlling infections and deaths from CV-19 along with an equally critical view of his handling the economy. When looking at a single result to determine the merits of a leader, we miss the complexities in which any leader must lead. For instance, most sensible people, when not being seduced by politics, understand that aggressively shutting down social activity to halt the spread of the virus simultaneously destroys the economy. On the other hand, if commercial activity were allowed to continue as usual (and the US had a great economy going into the virus period), then the virus would likely have dire consequences on public health.

Putting various biases of Trump aside, what would a good leader do? Pick one outcome and let the other create a disaster? If so, which one?

When I was a young man, just getting started in my career, I witnessed something I will never forget. I worked at Vanity Fair (the garment company) as a systems analyst.

There was an interesting business problem Vanity Fair was trying to solve. If they dyed big batches of cloth, the dying and finishing productivity was good, but in-process inventory in sewing plant was too high. To reduce the problem with inventory in sewing, they would dye smaller batches. But then, productivity in the dye plant would suffer.

This went on and on for months and I watched. Being a math geek I pondered, "why don't they optimize the conflict instead of bouncing back and forth trying to accomplish a single objective?" I was getting my first taste of what it meant to balance two significant opposing forces. I was beginning to see what leadership was and was not.

Today I heard financial analysts interviewing business people about the Presidential debate. The mostly liberal media were trying to corner successful business people to support their claim, "Trump is a bad leader and bad for our country." Ironically, the first person they interviewed was Robert (Bob) Johnson, the founder of BTN.

BTN is the first successful TV network designed for Black Americans. Bob is black. Bob is very successful and respected by all business professionals. What do you think he said about Trump and leadership?

Basically he said that the true test of a leader comes from how he/she deals with trade-offs between two conflicting and difficult outcomes. No leader wants people to die, as they have with CV. Nor does a leader want the economy to tank and create hardship for many.

His focus on evaluating a leader is not picking one outcome and judging whether it alone should have been better or worse. He said the leadership issue should be more about how the leader addresses the trade-offs between two opposing forces. 

In other words, how a leader balances and finds the best middle ground determines a leader. In the case of Trump, Johnson knows how Trump is trying to deal with the trade-offs. It may not be perfect. No one can agree what is the right trade-off. But Trump is predictable in seeking trade-offs, and that is what counts in business.

You can agree with Johnson or not on Trump vs Biden, but his point about leadership is important. In fact, I pondered the very same thing 50 years ago and felt the same way.....

Can you be reasonable?

We look at each other and "demand" that others be reasonable. This is how we know what is true, who is right, what is fair. A conclusion is "valid" only when it passes the test of reasonableness. Whether in marriage, as parents, in business, and especially in the public policy arena, we accept what is reasonable and we reject what is not. That's what we do without much consideration of what we are doing.

Did you know that the criteria of "being reasonable" is at the core of philosophy and is one of the major areas of contention between Martin Luther, the author of the Protestant Reformation, and Thomas Acquinas, the first Catholic philosopher. 

The ability to reason was advanced by Plato and Aristotle as the main facility humans had that animals did not. Being able to experience via physical senses multiple data points in the world and inferring a moral principle from this data is innately human. Acquinas believed that by following Aristotle's model of cause and effect we can reason that God exist. Luther took exception. He believed human reasoning could not determine matters of faith. Evidence of God cannot be confirmed through physical senses.   

You may not ever think about what it means to be reasonable, but you build your life on being reasonable all the time. You demand it of others. Isn't that interesting? Yet, you may not even understand whether you or anyone else is actually being reasonable. What is reason based on? If you wish, we can explore what it means to be reasonable. You never know what you might find.

What is reason? The 1828 Webster dictionary says reason is the basis by which we reach or justify a determination or conclusion. In this sense, everyone is reasonable in that they have a way to judge or determine what they conclude. However, is everyone's reason really reasonable?  

Let's examine this question by breaking the process down to its two components: 1) the starting point and 2) the thought path or logic used to get from the starting point to the conclusion.

There is a field of study for the second component, the logical pathway to conclusion. For instance, there are accepted paths of logic, such as "if A = B and B = C, then A = C." There are aspects of the logic process called fallacies, which is drawing a conclusion that violates laws of logic. You can accept these laws or not, but most scholars of reason would agree on the ways in which logic works. Often, if a thought path adheres to the rules of logic, we would agree the conclusion is reasonable. This is what Aristotle and Acquinas basically do. They apply accepted paths of logic to observations to determine what is true.

So, why did Luther vehemently disagree with Aristotle and Acquinas. Luther pointed to the problem of the starting point. In other words, regardless how logical your path is, if you start at the wrong place, your conclusion will not be reasonable. The starting place for Aristotle and Acquinas was never at question by them. They assumed every human has the same built in core assumptions that make them human. This is what psychology and philosophy has spent thousands of years studying.

Luther claimed that this natural human assumption starting point for reason is flawed. This issue of a flawed starting point is found in the doctrine of Total Depravity of man that came with the fall (Adam and Eve's misstep). Luther believed that humans cannot reason things of God because their logic starts from a place that leads them away from God. Luther believed that revelation not reason is the way man concludes the ways of God. Jesus said that he reveals truth, implying man does not find it on their own from observing the world.

Going back to the meaning of reason, which is simply a pathway to reach a conclusion, I agree with Luther's reason that humans cannot be reasonable. They can be logical but they have a flawed starting point. 

However, I have reasoned that humans can be reasonable if the process of thought and emotion follows basic principles of logic applied to an unflawed starting point. My reasoning finds that the starting point is what Luther calls faith. Humans have been given the ability to think and feel about the revealed faith they have received. This is the work of the transformed mind. It seems this is what the historical debate between faith and reason is missing. 

Therefore, I encourage you to refrain from trusting reason from the wrong starting point, but also do not reject the idea of reason when it is logic applied to the right starting point. 

We claim our judgments are reasonable. We demand that others be reasonable, or we reject their judgments. Being reasonable is not so simple, maybe even impossible for some. Yet, I find it reasonable to ponder, "can you be reasonable?"