God’s Good Chaos

Faith & Science Conversation
42

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Mervin… when I write, I don’t beat around the bush, I get right to the point—there’s no tangle in my words. Considering that the earlier part of my life wasn’t involved in academic affairs, It’s understandable that I don’t write a higher level. However when I express myself, my message get across clearly enough. With all the writing I have done here at BioLogos there hasn’t been any incident, (that I’m aware of) where my point wasn’t sufficiently understood.

When you write things such as;

You should be aware that it can be interpreted as creating an atmosphere of doubt and cynicism among readers. In any case, I don’t think philosophers and scientists would agree with you on this negative approach to knowledge. So if you believe I tangled your words out of place maybe you should be more careful with the intention that is portrayed behind those words—those intentions are evidence of motive. Also, we all have a message to push when we engage in dialogue on a forum like this—you are no different. I felt you were going against the grain of the message Tim Reddish was presenting which I regard as evident truth. If your message is opposing a message of truth—what do you think that tells others about your person and motives?

You’re not entirely sure what web I weave here sprinkled through with scripture? It’s already been spelled out clearly enough—logic, reason, rationality, and, a knowledge of nature and scripture. Oh, let’s not to forget, lots and lots of critical thinking. There’s nothing more to it than that.

If Jesus Christ is your chief cornerstone I wouldn’t want you to run away from that—God forbid! My message to you is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass…” (Revelation 1:1) If you are a servant of Jesus Christ you should already be aware of who I was referring to that you run away from. Don’t you read the scriptures, have you no knowledge of prophecy, and do you not know what time it is? I’m not sure?

You said, “Bring on or fret about what floods you will… come hell or high water.” I presume you don’t take the end times scenario (clearly presented in scripture) seriously enough. John writes, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Revelation 1:3) Although these words were pertinent to those of the first century, and also for those in subsequent centuries, they have major implications for our present time. The “floods and hell or high water” that we are told we will experience in these last days was clearly expressed by Jesus to His disciples in the first century. However, these events were further developed and presented by John in the book of Revelation. Of course, the prophecy of the book of Revelation requires deep understanding and interpretation to be taken into consideration with the major prophecies of the prophets Daniel and Ezekiel—these prophecies are interrelated with one another.

In your writing, it seemed like you were being skeptical of humankind coming to an understanding of all things—I believe it is in our capacity, for we were created in the image of God. You used the term “Promethean arrogance” to express our volition for attaining infinite knowledge. Since this volition for attaining infinite knowledge is what drove Jesus to travel for it, I made the connection with Jesus. Maybe it wasn’t your intention for your words to be connected with Jesus, however, you should be more careful in your speech. If things don’t cause you any loss of sleep, then, you shouldn’t fret over them right?

I bid you well Mervin.

43

Well – despite my lack of complete understanding of what all you’re driving at, thanks for your patient reply.

You wrote:

You should be aware that it can be interpreted as creating an atmosphere of doubt and cynicism among readers. In any case, I don’t think philosophers and scientists would agree with you on this negative approach to knowledge.

I think, rather, that I am being pragmatic about the extent we can expect human knowledge to expand into under the powers of investigation granted to us (including science). If our knowledge ever is complete, it will be a gift of God, perhaps bestowed upon our new bodies. But prior to then I can only make conclusions based on what history and scriptures teach. We see our knowledge expanding in amazing ways, but as a counter to those who are always getting excited about every new development and choosing to see that as shrinking or even disappearing gaps, I see instead, gaps that are expanding as fast or faster than our positive knowledge. We also learn from scripture that God’s ways and thoughts are high above ours (Isa. 55:9) – as much as the the heavens are higher than the earth in fact!

Hence, I will defend this “more sober” approach as the more accurate view. It need not be seen as cynical – but realistic, rather. And I don’t see how it pushes against Mr. Reddish’s essay of asserting that God has even chaos (“good chaos”) under His dominion. I may not be fully in line with that theme on other grounds and so am provoked to further thought about it --so I appreciate what Mr. Reddish wrote. But I don’t see it as an issue in yours and my exchange here.

You think I’m not excited (or worried) enough regarding Jesus’ return? You may well be right. Many of us do need to cultivate more eschatological passion (are those last two words even permitted to be used in the same sentence? :smile: ). Here too, I see sobriety as a valuable commodity that others might also need to pursue a bit more. In Mark 13 we read Jesus warnings to ‘be on guard’. But part of what Jesus is warning us to be on our guard about is those who excitedly see “Messiah” or “end times” fulfillments written in everything. We are warned not to chase after them. All those things will (and have been) coming as birth pains, to be sure. Perhaps these can be seen as the theological equivalent of the chaos that Tim writes of in the material sense. We are not to be surprised or theologically carried away by it. That’s a big part of what motivates my response here.

44

@Tim_Reddish,

I just got around to reading your essay on order and chaos in the Bible. It was very good.

I have been thinking about this issue also, but in different terms. For me the issue is best defined as change (chaos) and stability (order.)

It has been clear to me that the Bible is about both change and continuity, and to understand it, Reality, and God, we need to understand both. Those who claim nature of Reality is change, Science for the most part, are partially right, but basically wrong. Those who claim that the nature of Reality is stability are partially right but basically wrong. One could say that the nature of Reality is continuity, but that is because continuity combines both change and stability, chaos and order.

I guess I really do not like the word chaos, like the word random, if they mean inherently unstable and disordered. Life is not disordered, but it is not determinant. We must make choices, some against our apparent self interest to bring proper order to our lives and to the universe (the Kingdom of God.)

The world today is at a place where humans are basically in control. That does not mean that God is powerless, to the contrary, but if we continue to work against God we can destroy ourselves and our habitant. I am ashamed to day that most of God’s people seem to ignore this fact.

If you are interested I more of my thoughts on this topic I refer you to my paper, God and Freedom posted on Academia.edu.

45

Thank you for your thoughtful response and for bringing your paper to my attention.

As you say, words have connotations and nuance which can be both helpful and distracting. Obviously, from the perspective of this blog posting, part of the issue is one of balance. Christians traditionally emphasize divine ordering in creation (Gen 1), and rightly so, but disorder (change) must not be overlooked—as, in my view, it is also divinely mandated.

You also touch on a raw nerve when you mention humankind’s abuse of “power” and “control”, both in relationship to each other and to the world God created.

46

@Tim_Reddish

Hi Tim… In regard to your answer to the resurrection are you precisely suggesting that the Biblical story is meant as symbolic—as in the case of [Jesus taming the storm] is symbolic of [God taming Chaos]? If this is the case, it would explain that what you mean here with the words “glimpses of the future” is referring to Christians “waiting on” the second coming of Jesus, the Messiah, “realized in the present” with the reincarnation [resurrection] of Christ today.

Tony

47

@Tim_Reddish

With your statement here should it be concluded that you hold to the position that God (Creator of the Universe) cannot be “vindicated or incriminated” for [acts of nature] having potential good or bad for creatures? (I understand that this question can be “played around with” endlessly) into a topic in itself—a defense of God in the face of evil (natural evil in this case)—and I do not want to take up that complex topic here either. I would be more than content with a simple yes or no answer.

Tony

48

Tony: I have found N T Wright’s Surprised by Hope most insightful in this regard. I do believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and that the nature of that body is a foretaste of what is in store for those who are “in Christ” (as St Paul puts it), or those who Christ deems to be his “sheep” (as a gospel writer might put it). So Christ’s resurrection body is a real glimpse of a new (future) physicality, in which case Christ’s resurrection is significantly more than mere symbolism. If one elects to interpret the nature miracles in the same light, then they also “re-present” a glimpse of that future reality, when the reign of God comes in all its fullness (and where “chaos” is defeated). There is graphic symbolism here too, of course, but that is because I regard God’s mighty acts (“miracles”) as signs (i.e. physical events having profound theological meaning). In this I find C S Lewis’ idea of such events as “myths that actually happened” helpful.

1 Like
49

No, I don’t think God is to blame—but I hate trivializing “sound bites” for what (I think) is still a complex theological and pastoral issue, even if philosophers can sleep easy at night!

You have given me food for thought is suggesting “God cannot neither be vindicated nor incriminated”…

50

@Tim_Reddish

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, Tim. I haven’t yet read N T Wright’s Surprised by Hope—perhaps one day. However my own personal experience with the divine has led me in a different direction regarding the resurrection. The post I began, here in the forum, titled, “The Talpiot Tomb Discovery—Does it Destroy the Physical Resurrection of Jesus Story,” illustrates my position on the issue—it discusses an alternate approach to the mainline perspective of the Christian narrative. Yes, we all wait for God’s reign to come in all its fullness where “chaos” is defeated. What a marvelous time that will be! I envision the misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and disconcerting theories in relation to Biblical exegesis as a major part of the defeat of that untamed “chaos” that you refer to in your essay. As you said, “This portrayal of chaos as a turbulent sea, or personified as a monster that no one other than God can tame.” Depictions of Revelation come to mind here! In regard to God’s mighty acts (miracles) as revealed in scripture I believe some are symbolic, but then again, as C S Lewis’ idea of “myths that actually happened,” others may explained through an investigation into parapsychology (the branch of psychology that deals with the investigation of purportedly psychic phenomena, as clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, telepathy, telekinesis, and the like.)

Pertaining to the question of theodicy and that you think it’s a “complex theological and pastoral issue,” I understand, if not only because my own attempts at convincing others of my unorthodox views is problematic indeed. Thank you for considering my sleep status state.

By the way, I’m glad I gave you some food for thought–you certainly have given me some as well.

Tony

51

@Tim_Reddish

First of all and very important when you speak of Christians emphasizing “divine ordering,” I would say that Christians traditionally do so not because they are followers of Christ, but because of their traditional Greek philosophy.

Greek thought was anti-change. Being is static. The Greek God is unchanging. Perfection is stasis. On the other hand the Bible is based on Covenants, which change from the Old to the New. This is hard for some theologians to accept. for God does not change, but humans do and so our relationship to God does too over time.

Christianity is the only faith I know that accepts change as good. Islam does not and this is the basis for the serious confrontation between the West and Islam. Of course not all changes are for the good, but Christianity maintains that changes are inevitable and can be managed for the good.

Islam is based on a Book, the Quran, that Muslims believe is truly the Absolute Word of Allah, and thus cannot be changed or even translated out of its original Arabic. The Quran and Islamic law, the Sharia, which was codified long ago cannot be changed and are designed to prevent change.

If God were truly absolute, evolutionary change would be disorder, But God is not Absolute. Evolutionary change is not disorder, but God’s dynamic order that God uses to shape the universe. Christians believe that God is Love, which is not static, but dynamic. God purpose for the world as a habitat for humanity is both present and future. It is dynamic giving us the opportunity to participate in our own ecological, social niche.

God’s freedom is real freedom giving humans real choices in how to live our lives. A life that is predetermined is no choice, but a life where the choice is only right or wrong is not much of a choice. However generally speaking God gives us a multiplicity of choices and allows us to be in a positive relationship with God regardless of which vocation we choose to follow. It is more how we live our lives, rather than within what vocation we choose to live our lives.

I would say that this does not mean that God does not have a specific plan for our lives that God would prefer for us to follow, but God is able to accommodate us as long as it does not go against God’s general calling to love God and others as ourselves. God is very flexible in how God carries our God’s Will.

God does not believe in progress, that all change is good. On the other hand God has created world where change is inevitable and has given us the ability to manage change to make a better world. On the other hand many people in the US at least have given up on progress and see all change as bad. Even though they might try to justify this stance using the Bible, I see it as turning against God, Who created this world, against themselves who God gave responsibility for this world, and against the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God has given us the gifts of life and freedom. We are not really free to refuse to use these gifts to help others.

1 Like
52

@Mervin_Bitikofer

I believe everything I’ve stated so far has expressed well enough my thoughts. However, if there is still something that is not sufficiently clear and coherent, let me know what it is—I will make sure to elucidate to get to the heart of the matter.

For starters here, let’s go back to where you made the statement;

In my posts I may go on certain tangents with my ensuing replies, but these brief tangents quickly get to their end points and are a pertinent factor for grasping the overall essence of my perspective. Accordingly, my ensuing replies in this thread were based on justifying my position that the concept of God [Elohim] as (the eternal animating force) does not leave most/all of Christian orthodoxy behind—Here, I should make clear that what I mean, in this case, by “Christian orthodoxy” is what I believe to be the true [Judeo-Christian orthodoxy] of the first century, as opposed to the “Christian orthodoxy” of the Roman Catholic Church which rose in the proceeding centuries and was passed on, though the schism, to the Eastern Orthodox Church, to Protestantism, and to all her 42,000 daughters. So, to repeat again, my point being that the concept of God [Elohim] as (the eternal animating force) does not leave behind most/all of [Judeo-Christian orthodoxy] as practiced by Jesus and His first century followers. The personal God of the true Judeo-Christian tradition is Yahuwah [the I, the I am, the Higher Self] who speaks to His people through dreams, visions, and trance states (the prophets). Prayer is a self-suggestion (so to speak) to Yahuwah who resides within the subconscious mind. Think about it—as a child you woke up in the morning and asked God [Yahuwah] to watch over you and keep you safe through the school day. You asked Him, " Lord, keep me safe on the way to school and back," and “if that bully at school provokes me, help me to stand up to him and to respond to him in the appropriate manner that he leave me alone,” and you begged Him, “Dear God, please give me the strength to ask the gorgeous girl in the third row to the movies on the weekend.” Somehow, God watched over you and helped you through all these circumstances, events, and desires. Today, as adults, many of us don’t think anything of it, and our lives just go on—the internal mechanisms of our psychological makeup are set on autopilot and our daily lives are run at a subconscious level. Now, most of us can say, “God was with me all along and I knew nothing of how close He really was.”

Pragmatism, in the philosophical sense, sees the practical consequences of our investigations as constituting the essential criterions in determining meaning, truth, and value in our world. Without the inquisitive mind there will be no “gift of God” bestowed upon us—new bodies or not. Making conclusions based only on what history and scriptures teach will only get you so far. It is the original thinkers among us who use the creative capacity that we are endowed with to dream and envision the future that move beyond the ordinary orthodox doctrines that lead to nowhere and push the limits and boundaries of knowledge and technology. It’s incomprehensible for me that you see expanding gaps in our knowledge, considering the leaps and bounds that modern science has progressed to. Sorry, I don’t accept your expanding gaps rhetoric—this is what I meant by your atmosphere of creating doubt and cynicism.

Perhaps God’s ways and thoughts are high above ours, as much as the heavens are higher than the earth—in the way that Yahuwah [the I, the I am, the Higher Self] is higher than the physical “I.”—The physical “I” being Freud’s ID (instinctive desire). In this way… yes, God’s ways and thoughts are high above ours. However, God [Elohim] (the eternal animating force) does not have any thoughts—not in the sense that we understand the term “thoughts.” Just as gravity does not have any thoughts but “knows” that it must draw things toward itself, God [Elohim] does not have any thoughts but rather, generates cosmological constants which are held in memory of some kind. And no, I am not down playing, or disrespecting the Divine Entity that produces all the beautiful and wonderful things of the world as well as all repulsive and disagreeable things of the world because of this view. If I am right, and I believe that I am, I am but disclosing the truth of the matter. This view is in agreement with “God’s Good Chaos.”

I agree with you and consider it necessary to have a “more sober” approach to these issues, but that doesn’t mean disregarding competing ideas, especially ideas that not only sound “more plausible” than orthodox ideas, but that are actually more logical, rational, and realistic.

I believe they are—the “eschatological passion” is everywhere you look on the internet. It’s even Biblically approved;

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” (Joel 2:28-29)

Very well put Mervin however, you must surely be aware of the Prophecy of the Popes by St. Malachy—Not to minimize, of course, the omen of world events.

53

@Tim_Reddish

I understand that you were busy over the holiday, but I hope you will take the time now to respond to my last comment.

I am writing this so you can have some time before Brad closes comments on this blog.

54

To be honest, I did not feel the pressing need to reply as (a) I agree with much of what you wrote—although I would not express it quite like you did, and (b) it overlapped with my previous blog on “Learning from History” and the ‘conversations’ that followed.

There is a difference between Classical Theism with its traditional emphasis on divine immutability, etc., which, as you say, was strongly influenced by Greek philosophy. Trinitarian theology is explicitly Christian and has had a resurgence in recent decades, with its strong emphasis on relationship. Relational theism supports libertarian free will, openness, and a God who is dynamically involved in the world and in his ongoing covenantal relationship with us.

55

@Tim_Reddish

Thank you very much for your agreement. We need to support each other as well as criticize one anther in this crazy mixed up world. Indeed I find your thoughts bright and refreshing as opposed to confusion usually found on the internet and in current books.

With that said I would like to point out some things that have helped me, and might help you and others to pick our way through this quagmire. I try to differentiate between theology (Christianity), science, and philosophy, while others debate Christianity and science.

Philosophy deals with world views, how we understand reality. Sadly Philosophy has become identified with only one Western worldview, Western dualism. Scientism or the New Atheism has endeavored to repudiate Western dualism for monism based on matter/energy. Theology has been left to defend Western dualism, which has many flaws, and no real fixes.

The real problem is that monistic materialism is a serious disaster, while Western dualism is less of a disaster, but not a solution. The only way to fix the problem is to find a new solution that works at least reasonably well, which is exactly what theologians, philosophers, and scientists seem opposed to trying. They are opposed to try a new model of reality that goes outside the box in a way that is not outrageous even when they are building on an existing model of the Trinity.

My friend Thomas Jay Oord bases his Relational Theology on Love, rather than the Trinity, thus preserving Western dualism in form and practice!

P.S. Because relational theology is covenantal, it does not support libertarian free will.

56

This topic was automatically closed 4 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.