That’s news for me. Makes me pause and reflect on what I knew about him. My old pastor started to warn me about him 20 years ago. Apparently he fell out of favor with the tribe and I then noticed he was running side gigs outside of church business.
Biblical Economics?
Kind of like Paul’s view of economic justice being both fairness and desert 
One thing that comes to my mind about some of the mystic concepts in pantheism such as god is in all and transcends all is something I’ve mentioned before.
In Hebrew the same word for spirit is also used for wind and breath. The spirit of God is also the breath of God and is also the wind of God. The spirit he breathed into us is the wind he breathed out across the waters separating them and it’s the wind that not only animated the golem, but also brought life to all other animals and makes the leaves dance in the wind.
I’ve had a look and it is certainly a means to improve one’s efficiency, although ChatGPT doesn’t provide sources and when you ask, it tells you virtually to visit a library. I will probably use it to save time at least.
Thanks!
Interesting that you assume that I have nothing to do with reality. I lived in the Far East as a child; I have served in active service; I emigrated to Germany; I was a lay preacher there, then I became a nurse primarily in geriatric care with a lot of people approaching death. I became a manager and later a regional manager and finally successfully retired. It feels like a lot of reality.
Oh, that’s nice! I’ve heard it tell that he has many friends, and that he came to preach the gospel to the poor; to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
He told the story of a man who confessed his faults and was laughed at by the pious of his age who sought to expel him from the synagogue. Jesus says that the man who confessed left justified, but the pious did not, “For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled …”
But that is the very point! Words are metaphoric by nature, so too the words of the Bible. the terminology never fits, is always inappropriate when speaking of the Ineffable.
Or maybe words are best employed when held loosely as in poetry, allowing the ineffable to shine through our translucent glass with intrinsic meaning. It can never be cashed out as cold, hard facts.
This reminds me of something I heard in a course in classical apologetics about the analogical use of language.
Regarding the ineffable nature of God, I delight in the mystery of God being ultimately and coequally unified and diverse.
@MarkD may remember the first time I brought that up in an early conversation and it’s pretty cool how that messes with Hegel’s dialectical philosophy
Since I felt it necessary to say that I wasn’t engaged in a group discussion with those whose outrage toward anyone with different beliefs makes gracious dialogue impossible, I should also make it clear that any other thoughts you may have on any of these points would very much be of interest to me - as would the thoughts of anyone else capable of respectful dialogue with people whose beliefs may differ with their own.
Then it’s smarter than I thought!
I was talking about the experienced reality of God’s providential interventions into the lives of his children, wasn’t I, including mine. More here.
I.e., we can know nothing true about God and we are free to make any conjecture that we like. It’s time to shake the dust off my feet.
Rob,
Mark has shared quite a bit from IM with me over the last year, and a lot of it has be great. Your post is very long, and I won’t be able to address even half of it right now, I’m sure.
You’re digging into the area now that, honestly, is often hard for me to accept, if consider at all. I do appreciate IM’s emphasis on the reality of the sacred and the value of it. And I think his points about God being beyond the limits of our comprehension is invaluable. While I value doctrines about God, I think it’s also important to recognize that we can’t possibly know, much less include in our doctrines, all that there is to know or understand or experience about God.
I am much more cautious, though, about seeking wisdom about God very far afield.
Often when IM gets to the sacred, I feel lost in the words. Lost in metaphor (all the way down) to the point where they feel meaningless.
I agree that in general we don’t value enough the importance of recognizing that and what we don’t know. I guess noticing that there are gaps or holes, much less recognizing where those holes are.
There’s more to talk about, but that’s all I can find time for right now.
This is an important first step after having been steeped in Bible study, which was also important for me, coming to the point where we have to acknowledge that, for all we have learnt, God remains so much the Other, that we realise that we know little of what God is, or does, or thinks, and we confess our separateness, the gulf that is between us. And we even confront an awful, intimidating side of God for which there were no songs I could sing.
In my case, after successfully starting to preach in a lay-organisation, and even being asked to preach in other communities, I started late in life in nursing. I was convinced that I had a calling, and the very first day on the ward, I was given some of the patients that were almost intensive care, and I saw the condition in which people can find themselves. I had to care for patients with dementia and hear the tragic stories of wives and husbands who were also churchgoers, and deal with it. All my words of faith dried up. I couldn’t say anything that would be consoling for them, and I cried in my prayer.
I looked for answers, and I spoke to preachers and pastors, evangelists, and counsellors. I was struck by the silence, by the speechless lost faces who told me I had chosen a “hard way,” and didn’t know what to say except that I was “very brave – I couldn’t do it!” It seemed that the whole range of tragedy knocked on my door, mocking me and my previous confidence. Yes, I read Job, and the feeling of insignificance came over me, asking how I could doubt in the sight of creation, but my story didn’t yet have a happy ending.
I read other authors than those my community had suggested, in particular those who had experienced the same struggle, and cried the same tears. I came across a priest of the Catholic church, who wrote a psychological interpretation of some of the stories, but was very concerned with the broken-hearted, and I found some solace in his teaching. He pointed amongst other words of Jesus to Matthew 25 and the separation of the Sheep and the Goats. “For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger, and you invited me in, I needed clothes, and you clothed me, I was sick, and you looked after me, I was in prison, and you came to visit me.” He ends with the statement, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
I began to see the divine in all those sufferers, in all their suffering, and asked why? My answer was that he is in our midst, in you and I, “he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” And he does this, “so that we would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him.” He is with us in our time of trials, and it is then that we seem to be on a knife-edge and we either choose to find him or do not. The faithful didn’t know that they were serving him, theirs was just spontaneous compassion. The unfaithful ‘gave him nothing to eat, gave him nothing to drink did not invite him in, did not clothe him, and did not look after him.’
I realised that we can’t know, we can’t differentiate, we know nothing. All we can do is act in the sense that we are all his children, and the least - that is the needy, are a test of our faith. But this was what I also discovered in numerous traditions, because I asked myself, are they not also his children? I found how spontaneous compassion was universal in the spiritual teachings, and so I started looking at what they said. I discovered, that just as my emigrating to Germany helped me see England more clearly, becoming familiar with the beliefs of people in the countries I visited help me see Christianity differently, and realise, somewhat like Isaac, who discovered at the well of Rehoboth that “the Lord has given us room” to work in, or Jacob, who discovered that God was not restricted to his tribe, that I had been thinking too small.
So, perhaps that helps you to see how someone can venture forth and discover, “Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.”
I note that remarks concerning theology appear from time to time on this site, and a a few short comments may be of interest. Theology discusses God and humanity and includes arguments that may be constructed (via speculative philosophy), on matters pertaining to conceptions of God. The following summary is fairly typical …“theology may deal with dogmatic ascertains, or may be natural theology, or consist of arguments about God. Such activities include writings ranging from the Trinity, the incarnation, the making of man, and so on (e.g., ranging from Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Aquinas, to the 20th-century theologians, such as Karl Barth). Theologians have endeavored to construct theology as a science that radically differed from the natural and the human sciences because its ultimate subject, God, was not accessible to empirical investigation.
Concerning God and the creation (general revelation), natural theology/philosophy has proposed views that: (1) God acted as He willed to gift the Universe and is actively engaged in the creation, and (2) God established immutable laws which are etched on all things, and He ensures these are maintained in the creation. Both views are interesting, but debates currently focus on the notion of laws of nature, which may become entangled with the Law of God. For now, it is enough to state that the fact of God as Creator establishes a reality concerning the Universe. The Faith teaches that God created all from nothing and he sustains all things (creatio ex nihilo). The Universe includes matter, energy, space and time; all are knowable to human beings (intelligibility of the Universe). God is not subject to anything in His creation, and it is a gift. However, it is important to note that God is Sacred and Holy, while human beings are not. It is this separation between the holy and the sinful that underpins all discussions regarding human knowledge, including that of the creation.
This distinction between the sacred and humans (we sin in some manner) can make discussions complicated, although I feel that we have to consider the subjective in such cases.
Interesting. Up briefly between sleeps. So will think on this more later.
Which is why such an attempt is flawed as a “science.” Theology relies on religious texts, traditions, philosophical reasoning, and faith-based insights to explore questions about the divine and the nature of God. It is not rooted in empirical observation, experimentation, or the scientific method, which are the hallmarks of natural and human sciences. So, the “science” of theology is a form of literary commentary, at best involving philosophical and ethical reflection, rather than empirically founded, and requires the ‘leap of faith’ to become life forming.
The theological reflections are linguistic by nature and as we may acknowledge, language is restricted unless through some poetic attempt, it manages to transcend, which should be a common understanding in theological discourse. Because the divine and spiritual realities are beyond the scope of ordinary human experience and language, poetry, metaphor, and symbolic language must be employed to capture aspects of the divine that are difficult to express through straightforward, literal language.
It is this distinction between the sacred and the secular that is disturbing, because I would look at the sacred as the “presentation” and the secular as the “representation.” Amongst the multitude of species that have populated this planet, we see such a diversity that it could be seen from a utilitarian perspective as a number of wasteful experiments. Alone from the fact that we are the latest species to dominate the planet, we assume that we are the “crown” of creation, and sure enough, we have identified above all consciousness and awareness, expressiveness, and imagination as supreme attributes. But thousands of years ago, humankind saw our consciousness as a representation of the supreme consciousness, or as the representation of a divine attribute in flesh and blood.
This means for me, that mankind is a representant of the divine in carnal form, “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” (Psalm 82:6) But we die, because we “judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked” and do not “defend the poor and fatherless” or “do justice to the afflicted and needy.”
Rulers or judges in Israel were referred to metaphorically as “gods,” because they have divine-like roles, but the psalmist questions the unjust and corrupt practices of these rulers, asking how long they will continue to make biased and unfair judgments. The psalmist sees the duty of rulers and judges as “gods” to protect and seek justice for the vulnerable members of society, including the poor, fatherless, afflicted, and needy. Through their ignorance and moral blindness, these rulers have, by their actions disrupted the proper order of the world. The psalm concludes with a plea for God to arise and judge the world, for God is seen as the ultimate ruler who will inherit all nations and bring justice to the earth.
Jesus quotes the scripture, because his calling is, as representative of the ultimate ruler, to correct that and restore the proper order – and consequentially, his followers will do the same. ‘Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.’ This means for me that in following his example, according to Christ’s teaching, we become representatives of the divine too.
By doing the opposite, what the psalmist calls “setting the foundations of the earth out of their course,” we step out of this role.
Well I think the upshot is that theology is how people have tried to consider carefully just what to make of our relationship to God as the ground of being and source of the world as we know it. It feels as though it should matter and that, as a relationship, respectful approach matters too. To call it a science does suggest proceeding cautiously to build up an understanding from known elements to less obvious elements and on as far as possible, but that does tend to bring up the red flags. What we deem most certain at the start, while that is what fits our limited human perspective best, may keep us from drawing nearer to the source on His terms. But put that aside. Assuming good intent, let’s assume there is room for more than one approach.
It is certainly a gift but it is at least possible that the gift arose more from the result of God pursuing His own fulfillment in the way of an artist rather than as an engineer with an eye to fulfilling the needs of its intended recipients. Maybe not but that is what feels more intuitively likely at the start as I see it. This is not to suggest that divine intent is simply hedonic. Acting to fulfill values is also a source of fulfillment and I suspect values matter very much to God. I am just leery of viewing the universe as narrowly focused from its inception on one species which wouldn’t emerge until billions of years on. I believe that the web of life in its entirety is pleasing to God and we would be more worthy of esteem ourselves if it was clear that it mattered to us as well.
I tend to see ‘laws’, natural and otherwise, as descriptive rather than as prescriptive. My working title for an account of creation would be “God Finds A Way” to indicate that as the void became filled in and chaos settled into patterns, a zillion interactions had to be resolved, and were. But not by divine decree but by divine recognition of qualities which would foster beauty, goodness and truth. As I see it, the result should be thought of more as a seamless flow that creates as a river produces a landscape rather than as an assembly line along which God’s orders are carried out.
That depends if values are arbitrarily set by God or if values in part constitute God. I don’t think values are in any way arbitrary so whether God is in accord with values by His nature or by inclination I do think he is subject to value. So perhaps He is willingly (perhaps even enthusiastically) subject to values. That we have a choice in such things marks us as less perfect.
We have that capacity just as we have the capacity to always choose our own counsel over divinely provided insight. Indeed the subjective is where sin arises but also much good. Thanks again.
I take your points regarding values and esteem; just to keep with the theme of theology and how we may speak regarding God, theologians discuss general and special revelation; for the present discussion, it is sufficient to note that we would respond spontaneously, instinctively, to revelation, and subsequently we may decide to consider and reason regarding the experience. This argument may be developed into a major premise that equates revelation of the meaning of God with the meaning of life (i.e., gives our life meaning). Briefly, such meaning is the goodness that God provides to life. This goodness is synonymous with the Holy Spirit. Reason may respond to revelation rather than synthesise (or contrive) an idea of revelation. In general, I believe such a respond is via the ideal (not to be confused with idealism). Any reasonable person may respond to revelation in this manner. Some may communicate this ideal in almost illiterate ways, while others may communicate this ideal with great elegance. The response of reason, nonetheless, is of the same content, which can be summarised by the love that fills the heart, soul and mind of the person, in response to the revelation of God. The response of reason to revelation is thus life-giving. This includes the response to scripture as the Word of God, which provides an increased awareness of God and includes the goodness that results in life from God. Such a response is due to the Holy Spirit guiding reason rather than a scholastic analysis of words (such activity may occur afterwards). Freedom is the framework for the possibilities of goodness to reason on an individual level and on the social level (thus general possibilities). Revelation of God is not coerced, is founded within the goodness of life from God and is comprehended within such goodness.
In the context of my remarks, goodness, truth, and beauty are universal and thus if religion conforms to these values, I believe humanity would respond by embracing these - while any with a contrary response would be recognized as such by us.
Iain McGilchrist discovers his hypothesis about the hemispheres in the Midrash:
McGilchrist, Iain. The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World (p. 1898-1900). Perspectiva Press. Kindle Edition.
I am sitting in the shade of some trees waiting from for Lia to catch up on a very warm day when there is little wind and temperatures expected in the 80’s on the coast here in San Francisco. Your passage has entertained and satisfied during my rest.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.