How NOT to Handle Conflicts in the Church: the Nesotrian Controversy

For my more academic-loving readership, here is the most recent paper I wrote for my Master's class. It chronicles in brevity the controversy surrounding fifth century Bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius and his interlocutor, Cyril of Alexandria. What we see is a sad story of Christians abusing theology and arguing semantics in order to serve their egos and political position.

 On Nestorius

            When considering controversies in Christian history, one that may stand out against the multitudes as more poorly handled than most is the Nestorian controversy. The storm surrounding the teachings and espousals of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople from 428 to 431 A.D., was a cloud of miscommunication and hidden agendas. We see clearly in the story of this theologian, deemed heretic, a marked turn from early Christendom in which the meek and marginalized were striving for Christ-likeness and towards a more imperial approach in which rival centers of Christian thought in Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople were vying for political influence. It is in this context that Nestorius becomes the hub of a Christological conundrum[1].

Nestorius’ Dangerous Ideas

            While Nestorius’ most controversial teachings center on the nature or natures of Christ, the phrase that set fire to the prepared pier of tension between the Alexandrian and Constantinople sees was theotokos, or God-bearer. It was the title that had been utilized in the western church for Mary, mother of Jesus. For Nestorius, this phrase loomed too closely to making God out to be a lesser being than orthodox Christianity taught and, zealous as he was against heresies, he honored his nickname, “Firebrand” by taking up theological arms brazenly[2].

            The most distinctive characteristic of Nestorius’ Christology is his emphasis on the distinct qualities of Christ’s nature or person. While he utilizes different language than what had been decided upon at the first ecumenical council, his intention was never to make Jesus out to have two different natures; only two distinct natures. One particularly problematic issue with this highlighting was that it was incredibly difficult for Nestorius to explain exactly what he meant. This was due to his having to explain his terminology along with his belief and this did not bode well with those who were comfortable with the earlier established linguistics. Another concern of his opponents lay within the idea that Christ could not reconcile to God what he did not take on and so if he was not truly human in the fullest sense, he could not truly restore humanity. This, in hindsight, was not what Nestorius was saying, but the aforementioned breakdown of communication inhibited the circumvention of controversy on this point. So, his accusers claimed that he essentially did not affirm a real incarnation. Thus, we see the early church divided, not over beliefs, but mere linguistics and pride[3].

Nestorius’ Interlocutor

            Now, we turn our focus to the man who became the main opponent of this Bishop from Antioch: Cyril of Alexandria. In order to truly understand why Nestorius ended up classified as a heretic and Cyril is memorialized as a church father, we must give a look at both men together. This is because many of their actions and the decisions they made were all in the context of striving for a greater influence in the wider church and in asserting themselves as the greater theologian and authority. Also, it has been noted by several historians that both bishops were similar enough in temperament that they likely would have had difficulty getting along regardless of linguistics and theologies.

            Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria from 412 to 444 A.D., was a self-proclaimed peace-lover regardless of the ruthlessness with which he took on Nestorius. As far as we can ascertain from his own writings, he sincerely believed that he was protecting not only orthodoxy but the church itself by wrestling through this Christological controversy. Herein lays some irony as both men claimed in their respective writings to be willing to lay down their life for truth and orthodoxy. Truly, it was Nestorius’ innovative streak that offended Cyril; new language in Christology debates meant new problems and it seemed unwarranted and dangerous to the Alexandrian[4].

            It is commonly agreed on that Nestorius’ greatest downfall was his over-estimation of his ability to explain himself and thus maintain pull in political circles. Couple this with his abrasive and somewhat cold personality and he is left with many personal hurdles to overcome in order to get his ideas heard. It was this tendency toward hard and fast statements that led him to refute the title theotokos in the first place, thus opening himself up to misunderstanding and misconstruction. In all fairness, he did not simply say that this title was inappropriate, but offered a couple of viable alternatives. His first, Christotokos seemed acceptable as he felt it was more specific to the event; namely the birth of Christ. The second, anthropotokos was even less well received than his first suggestion, but seemed right to him as it was the man himself whom Mary bore and not the metaphysical God in his divine essence[5]. Tragically for Nestorius, he gained almost no stage to defend himself.

Questionable Proceedings

            True to form, it was Nestorius’ idea to have a sit-down with Cyril and other leaders in order to hash out the details of their respective Christologies[6]. What he failed to realize was the political wit of his opponent. Prior to the meeting of the council, Cyril sent a packet of Nestorius’ teachings to Roman Pope, Celestine I (422-432) for consideration[7]. As a result, the council was moved from Nestorius’ region in Constantinople, where he would have found some support by mere association to Ephesus, the legendary retirement place of Mary, mother of Jesus. One can see how this was not going to go well for the one who seemed to hold a low view of the virgin mother[8].

            After receiving the packet, Celestine I, assuming he was being asked for a ruling and not merely his opinion, enlisted the help of John Cassian who was also a supporter of Cyril. Clearly at a disadvantage, the council convened under Emperor Theodosius II in Ephesus. Unfortunately, Nestorius’ supporters were slow coming and after tarrying for a few weeks, the council proceeded despite objections from many attendants. Not surprisingly, Nestorius was deemed wrong and, almost as if to add insult to injury, Cyril was charged with the task of carrying out the excommunication orders. When the Nestorian proponents finally arrived and discovered the ruling, they assembled their own council and deemed it the true gathering, the outcome of which was the excommunication of Cyril. Nearly as quickly, Cyril and his supporters met again and condemned the participants of the pro-Nestorius council and reaffirmed their initial ruling. Embarrassed, Theodosius II had both Cyril and Nestorius arrested and ordered to reconcile[9]. Once again, Cyril proved himself the more cunning of the two and Nestorius was indeed condemned to exile in 430 A.D. and officially banished in 431 A.D.[10]

Reflections on Nestorius

            From his exile, Nestorius wrote a thorough espousal of his beliefs entitled Proceedings of Heracleides by which he clarified some of the ways that his opponents committed themselves to destroy him by way of an elaborate straw-man fallacy[11]. Still, he was never again influential in Christian circles.

            So what can be said of this once prominent church leader who ended alone in exile? Mostly that it is a terrible thing when theology is utilized to realize political endeavors. Also that what is at one time deemed heresy may resurface again in the mouths of those who may advocate the view with more clarity as can be seen in the Protestant aversion to referring to Mary as the theotokos. In all things, this is a story which contemporary Christians must look at in all its bareness; though there was theological progress made it was at the expense of community between Christians. Let the future church be diligent against such tragedy.

References

Ferguson, E., Woodbridge, J. D., & James, F. A. (2005). IV. The Second Phase, 381-433: Nestorianism. In Church history (pp. 258-261). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

González, J. L. (1987). The Nestorian Controversy and the Council of Ephesus. In From the beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon (pp. 353-367). Nashville: Abingdon Pr.

Hall, C. A. (2002). Christ Divine and Human. In Learning theology with the church fathers (pp. 83-90). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Hart, D. B. (2007). The Formation of Orthodox Christology: The 'Mother of God' In The story of Christianity: An illustrated history of 2000 years of the Christian faith (pp. 94-96). London: Quercus.

Hurley, P. J. (2012). Informal Fallacies: 3.2 Fallacies of Relevance. In A concise introduction to logic: Using traditional logic (pp. 89-90). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Litfin, B. M. (2007). Cyril of Alexandria. In Getting to know the church fathers: An evangelical introduction (pp. 239-258). Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

Sheppard, J. (2005). At the Crossroads: Midieval Contributions. In Christendom at the crossroads: The medieval era (pp. 5-6). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

---

[1] (González, 1987, pp. 353-367)

[2] (Hall, 2002, pp. 83-90)

[3] (Hart, 2007, pp. 94-96)

[4] (Hall, 2002, pp. 83-90)

[5] (Hall, 2002, pp. 83-90)

[6] (Litfin, 2007, pp. 239-258)

[7] (Sheppard, 2005, pp. 5-6)

[8] (Litfin, 2007, pp. 239-258)

[9] (Sheppard, 2005, pp. 5-6)

[10] (Ferguson, Woodbridge, & James, 2005, pp. 258-261)

[11] (Hurley, 2012, pp. 89-90)

Thanks for reading! Have you ever experienced such division in the church; that is, division over semantics and not beliefs? Do tell! Let's all resolve to prize community over being right.

Pax,

The Dread

3 Things I Learned While Moving

Ok, so it has been a week or more since I last posted and prior to that, I had been posting every couple of days. My apologies to my handful of followers ;-) I know this was important to you.

At any rate, the reason for my silence has been that we've been moving to a different house (same city) and that kind of messes with your writing schedule.

What happened was that on a Monday, we found out that we needed to move by Friday. So, Monday was taken up with paperwork and formalities, Tuesday I had to work (I substitute teach, so my schedule is fairly volatile) and so we really moved in three days. If you've ever had to move much, you know that this was a crunch. I counted while talking with a great friend of mine during one of our many trips in the truck and I think I've moved houses or cities something like 8 times before I graduated high school and then another 7 times after. Needless to say, I'm getting good at this. Unfortunately, virtuosity in moving all of your worldly possessions does not ease the stress and frustrations that come along with it.

Here's what I learned this time around:

1. Practicing Grace is Hard
 I know this comes as a surprise, but having grace in stressful situations is hard. All sarcasm aside, I think it is a little silly how, when life is comfortable, we have no problem talking about how Christians ought to have grace in conflict, but at 12:30 am after a long day of moving, wrangling children and dealing with financial strain and after your spouse has spent 8+ hours at work, on her feet, talking with clients all day....grace is a little more difficult to demonstrate and even harder still to talk about. As soon as that grace word is out, I'm instantly convicted of my short temper and harsh responses to innocent questions. But! This is where one really discovers if grace is a part of ones daily language and rhythm or if you (like me) have been doing more lip-service than practice.

2. Given Enough Space and Time, People are Gatherers.
 I'm not a hoarder. In fact, I personally love to live simply and not have random things just laying around. For example, my wife will attest to the fact that I do not now (and probably never will) understand the complex purposes of the "throw pillow". It is an intellectual conundrum; a mystery really. But even given my aversion to collecting junk, it was incredible to find how much stuff we had collected. See, we moved from a 5 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2 story house into a single-level, 3 bedroom, 2 bath house. The drastic change in available room forced something that has probably been the most refreshing: Purge. Just to give you a taste, we gave away something like 6 bags of toys in great condition, 4-5 bags of quality clothing/coats, sold a weight machine and couch among other things...It's just incredible how much we had and didn't need. I think that this one is simply a reminder to me and whoever wants to accept it to be conscious of what we have and what we need. I believe everyone can probably give away more than they do. I know this is generally true of how I have been living.

3. People Will Surprise You
I know that this seems pretty much like common sense, but it was an incredible week in which more than once, I had a handful of guys ready and willing to do some heavy lifting (talking about lifting an outdoor play set up and over a 7 foot fence) at something like 7 pm (for those readers that are not in Kansas, this is well after the sun has gone down). It was not only incredible that people were willing to do this, but who was willing to do this. I've known a couple of these guys less than a year and hung out with others maybe twice in the entirety of our acquaintance. Still, many stepped up to help unexpectedly. I don't want to spend too much time on the counter-point, but there were also many I thought who would make last week easier who, in fact made it more difficult or didn't show at all. Now, I'm not angry with or bitter towards any of these, mind you. People have lives and things come up, but it was surprising nonetheless. The take away on this point is that all humans are somewhat inconsistent -- for better or worse -- so we ought not hang too much on our expectations and learn to be flexible, grateful and forgiving in all situations, especially stressful ones.

That's not nearly all of what I experienced in the last week and I wish I could show it all to you, but it would be too much for a blog. Instead, let me encourage you with this:

What Got Me Through
 The one thing that carried me during the most stressful week of 2014 thus far was the practice of finding space in the chaos. I'm talking about internal space; room in my inner man where I could breathe deep, remember that Christ is my sustenance and press on. Life will be surprising, trying and bountiful; what we have to do is remember that relationships hold more value than anything else and that one relationship -- with God -- can make crucible events in life into more than just painful episodes.

Can you relate? Tell me about it in the comments!

Pax,
The Dread

A Christian Take on Divorce

So, this is probably one of the most personal blog postings I’ve ever written; time to be bare. 

I come from a family with divorced parents and while I’ll not bore you with the details of being a problem-child due to my grief, suffice it to say that this event characterized much of my formative years. The reason that I bring this up is because I think that in Christian circles, it’s tempting to regard such topics with latex gloves on; that is, we talk about messy situations in sterile terms and I don’t think it’s always helpful. On occasion, such as now, it’s ok to look at the thing for what it is. 

I talked with my father on the phone this afternoon and he disclosed to me some of the “behind the scenes” goings on in his personal life from around the time of his divorce from my mom. This was hard. I’ve heard most of it before because my dad has always been remarkably honest with me, but this was difficult to hear now because it was the first time that I had ever approached the issue as a Christian leader. I called him, you see. I told him that I was struggling with this idea of divorce and how to approach it as a Christian with influence. Not because I'm having problems with my marriage, though I'd be lying if I said that the word has never come up in the heat of argument, but because the topic was weighing heavy on my mind. So my question to him was essentially “What did the church do that was effective/ineffective in your life when you were the one who was doing wrong that allowed you to continue to grow in your faith? How should Christian leaders treat divorcees?” 

His words cut me deep because they were raw and honest. I’m a well adjusted adult now, but somewhere deep down, there is a little boy who still grieves the loss of a life once cherished. What was incredible was how he was able to talk to me in a way that allowed me to talk the answer out of myself. 

Be Christ.

It seems simple, but the one thing that he communicated that was vital to his spiritual life at the time was a small congregation that he was a part of for a short time and a few Christian men in his life that gave him room to continue to draw near Christ. In his words:

“I never wanted to leave God. I knew I was doing wrong, but the choice had been made.”

Amidst a flurry of emotions and confusing feelings, this space created by a few men who verbally acknowledged their disagreement with his choices and yet showed grace anyway, made all the difference.

For some odd reason, I had a hard time holding it together during this phone call. I’ve long since forgiven both of my parents for the divorce and yet in discussing God’s grace in that context, I couldn't help but tear up.

As Christians and especially as Christians with sway, we need to lead with this: Christ loved the lost. Christ died for the confused who didn’t know what they were doing. And if Christ did that for them, I need to do that also. I need to crucify that part of me that is hurt from my parent’s divorce and thus wants to hold back grace. I need to shower forgiveness and give people room to continue to work out their faith while they work out their lives.

This is a blog for me. Mostly. But I think there’s a message here for all Christians; a challenge to show Christ in messy and painful situations. In this way, we join Jesus’ martyrdom for the Kingdom; we die to ourselves and our personal issues in order to shine the light of the Kingdom of forgiveness; the Kingdom of love; the Kingdom of God.

Pax,

The Dread

Don't be Stupid, Don't be Dangerous

Tonight I went to get a tattoo…

It’s kind of a story, but the short of it is that the artist was ill and so he left early and so I ended up sitting around for 3-4 hours and NOT getting one. But! There is a bright side to this story and so I thought I’d share it with you…

I have several ideas for tattoos all of which I may eventually get. As of now, I have approx. 10 depending on what you count as “1”…

But tonight as I went in to get one, I was undecided walking through the door. Thanks to my long wait, I had plenty of time to think about what I wanted. Now, if you know me personally, you know that 4 hours sitting in a chair is not really boring to me. It’s more like “me time”. I am very much an introvert and so just being alone for a while was nice. In fact, I didn’t even really get on my phone. 

The design I decided on will complete the inner portion of my left arm half-sleeve. What’s currently there is a piece for my second son and a sugar skull; both of which are kind of in the traditional tattoo style. So, in keeping with that theme, I decided on doing a serpent and a dove (neither pictured) in the same color scheme and style. The serpent and dove are a  play off of Matthew 10 when Jesus tells those he sends to be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” or, as the message version puts it “be as cunning as a snake, inoffensive as a dove”. And this got me thinking…

Are we, who are called to ministry in whatever form, wise as serpents and harmless as doves?

I fear the reputation that we get is often the opposite.

Too often Christian leaders are guilty of being as cunning as doves and as harmless as serpents…

Have you ever seen a dove in real life? When I was a kid, we bird-sat for some friends and they had a dove.  The one thing I remember about that bird was that it was stupid. I mean bad. It would let you hold it but would make the most irrational decisions. Like flying into the window or fan…it survived :)

Have you ever come across a serpent in the wild? Growing up in western Kansas, it was no joke when you heard a rattle while walking through tall grass. I spent a portion of my childhood in a farm house (though we didn’t work the farm) and my siblings and I spent much of our time outside. I distinctly remember watching out for snakes as I knew the potentially deadly repercussions of carelessness.

I guess my point with this blog post is simply that I, as a Christian with influence, want to be sure to keep the combination correct: wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove. 

It’s interesting that without the animal symbolism, that doesn’t sound weird: be wise and harmless. I feel like most people would say “yeah, wise and harmless, those seem to go together”. Somehow, though, it doesn’t seem to be the common worldview where I’m from. Most people who are deemed “wise” are often proponents of violence in some way or another. There’s food for thought. 

So, the bottom line is this: let us self-examine regularly. Are you being the correct combination of serpent/dove? Or are you being stupid and dangerous with your words and ideas. Not trying to attack people, but let’s be careful with the roles we’ve accepted in life.

Post your thoughts to the comments!

Pax,

The Dread

Church Music

Today I have a topic to think about and you all get front seats to this thought storm; here goes:

As one who was brought up in church, I got involved with worship music somewhere around 8th grade. Since then I have been a part of music teams as they transitioned from "traditional" (whatever that means) music to more "contemporary" (again, that's pretty non-descriptive) music. I've also had the incredible experience of playing a role in re-building a worship music program from the studs. Along with all of that, I've studied for a worship music minor (that I decided to drop my senior year of my undergrad college experience) and have studied theology, philosophy and church history intensely for going on 4 years now.

I preface this post with some of my credentials in order to say that I have probably spent more time thinking about how we as western, American, Evangelical, Protestant, mostly modern Christians worship today than your average Christian.

Qualifying statement: This does NOT in any way make me a better Christian, person, etc. but it does make me more likely to have made some observations that others may not have come across.

While there are several different aspects to our worship which I could comment on, I  don't intend this blog to be an all inclusive thought project, so let me establish some parameters:

1. I want to begin by delineating between what I'll call a "private worship life" and a "corporate worship life". There are many nuances here, but I'm going to use these broad categories in order to remain focused.
2. I have no intention on attacking any practice currently in place. Over against any hard teaching, I only want to flesh out some of my recent observations and reflections, so please try and take this for what its worth and if you don't like it, ignore it.
3. While there are many many ways that Christians have worshiped throughout the life of the Church and stretching back into our Jewish heritage, I will only be speaking of things that are relevant to my western context because that is where I have personal experience. Also, this lets me off the hook for having to do research just to write this blog.

ok, I think that's most of it, pressing on...

Today, I want to assess how we choose which songs to play at church. Now, while I think that there are many issues with how we do church (everything from over-emphasizing Sunday worship to marginalizing congregation participation and beyond, but that's a bit outside the established parameters), I think that if we accept the generally established music utilization in our Sunday gatherings, we ought to give due diligence with what kind of music is played.

Before getting too far in to what songs we choose, I think that it would be good to put some preliminaries out there about our Sunday worship:

1. I think that it is most correct to approach Sunday for what it is; specifically, it is a corporate worship gathering. This means that, against our current culture of hyper-individualism (no citation, sorry), we should spend this time coming close to each other. We often fail on this point and it is evidenced in many ways, some of which are how we tend to sit only with our family and often not right next to anyone else if we can avoid it. By way of example, I remember getting a bizarre look when I sat next to a guy who was not a family member and I didn't leave a space in between us... man-law violated, I know. But we should not shy away from this nearness; we are part of the body of Christ and no hand would try and shy away from its fingers.
2. Closely related to the above, this is specifically NOT individual worship time. My interior life is maintained daily so, I should not feel the need to hijack this time to selfishly serve my lacking spiritual life. We are gathered for each other as much as we are gathered for ourselves...perhaps more. There are many implications of this that I encourage all to think about, but there you have it.
3. As much as our culture has made this a "show" in which only a few men (rarely women) are highlighted an given the stage, we are all to engage which is not the same as saying "we are all to sing along". No, instead, we should feel that the service would not quite be the same if we were gone; that kind of impact. Maybe this happens behind the scenes like in giving the preacher/teacher or band leader feed back, but however it occurs, we ought to feel some ownership of this time.

So, with those preliminaries out there, we turn our attention to the music itself. I think that there are many things to be conscious of, not only as music leaders but also as elders, leaders, worshipers and members of the body who are being asked to sing the words on the screen week in and week out. The qualifiers that I'll list below for songs are not meant to be all-inclusive and they certainly are my opinions, but I think that they transcend music style preferences and volume of music etc. So, to be more pointed, my opinions here have little to do with what kind of music is being played or how its played, but they are focused on the content of the songs. Lets begin:

1. Our music should be theologically sound. While you may be tempted to say "duh", we often don't put songs through the ringer. I think far too often we gauge the value of a song based on the feeling we personally get or the response of the crowd without very much thought given to the truth or context of our words. Without pointing to specific songs (because I do care about offending people and their song preferences), some problems that come to mind are like using the word "lord" without acknowledging that this isn't simply an interchangeable name for "God" or "Jesus", but is instead a title that reflects a relationship that may or may not be real for everyone in the congregation. Another issue may be in using metaphors with no explanation. This is one that happens with hymns often (i.e. what's an Ebenezer? Does everyone in your congregation know that? Is it a good metaphor for our current context?). We ought to be theologically thoughtful.
2. Our music should be corporate in voice. Again, we're discussing corporate worship settings, so I believe we should more or less stay away from songs that are heavy with "I", "me", "my life", etc. to the exclusion of more corporate language like "your church", "the bride", "the kingdom", etc. When we fail to avoid those songs, what happens is that we perpetuate the selfish, hyper-individualization that our culture pushes that prizes our individual comfort over community. This is starkly anti-Christian. Now, I should say that those songs often elicit worship because we connect to them more easily and, as a song writer, I have myself written songs like that, so I think there is value in them. I only want to say that their proper place is in our private lives, not in a larger communal setting. Sadly, this may mean re-vamping most churches musical libraries; but I think it's worth it.
3. Our music should teach. I feel like it is more or less irrefutable that music teaches. This is why everyone was mad at Eminem when I was kid. Ironically, he said in a song "music can alter moods and talk to you..." and here, I have to agree. Music is so much easier to remember than oral, written or rote-memorized teachings. With that in mind, I think that we ought to be careful what kind of things our songs teach. Not just theology, but in building a picture of God, we ought to take care. I believe that our mental picture of God's character is probably the single most important part of our worldview and as such, we ought to be careful what kind of mental picture we are painting. Are we perpetuating the butler God? Are we perpetuating the tamed and cuddly Jesus? Are perpetuating the angry, warrior God? The cosmic vending machine? a deist or heretical picture? I know this can seem like a slippery slope, but we ought to seriously ask these questions of the music that we're asking people to sing.

Those are just three things that I think about when thinking about songs we sing in church. I hope that discussion opens up in the comments section or through different social media venues. Most of all, I hope that this lands in front of church leaders. When I began to first think of myself as a Christian leader, I was terrified for several reasons (among which was not feeling qualified). Since then, I have more confidently come to terms with that role, but the one thing that has not left me was the urgency of the office; that is, the seriousness and eternal implications of what I may teach people. After all, who wants to go swimming with cement shoes...or a mill-stone around the neck...At any rate, I fear that the consequences could be dire if we mislead people with the music we put in their mouths. God will move regardless of our foolishness, but we should still honor the call we've answered.

I'm sorry if I offended. Truly, my goal with this entire blog is simply to better the church and provide space for me to work out my own beliefs and in that context, I thank you for following along. I would only ask, if you were offended, that you ask yourself why. Furthermore, feel free to open it to discussion; often we learn best together.

pax,
The Dread

Brief blog

So I've been neglecting this blog recently...no excuses here.

Honestly, I've had plenty of topics on hand that I hope to flesh out soon ("hope" being the operative word there), but life has once again sped up with the Spring (and hopefully my final) semester of grad school bearing down on me. So in the mean time, I'll try to get out some brief thoughts.

1. Oh be careful little Christian what you say

Sometime in the near future, I hope to get out a well thought out and reasoned "top 10" list of Christian-y phrases that get under my skin. This idea started out as a vent-session, but I quickly realized that it may be a timely post as new generations are starting to come into leadership. Besides, who doesn't like a good "top 10" list? I know I do. Bottom line, it's always good to think well about using phrases that have been handed to you from our Christian sub-culture (some quick examples are "Our Lord", "love on you..." and "you've just gotta have faith"). Most if not all of these traditional phrases have some grounding in Scripture and mean something, but many rarely think about what exactly that meaning is and if they're using it in the right context. Think about it.

2. Create! Do it!

Perhaps it's because I am sincerely an introvert (not a shy one, mind you) that I find it so spiritually refreshing to be alone. Regardless and without any citations, it's been found that quiet time is sorely missed in our American culture (not to the exclusion of other cultures, but I'm writing from experience here). What has been most rewarding about the time I can steal to myself (usually before anyone else wakes up in the morning) is the creative energy it yields. Now, I know that not everyone is a musician, painter, etc. but we all are creative in some way or another. Whether you tap into that creativity or not is a totally different topic. Truthfully, it's healthy for the soul. Create. do it.

3. Get out there and move

While I have no intention of turning this blog into a fitness blog, I am wildly passionate about health and I find the human body fascinating. The romantic in me must fight using annoying phrases like "we're God's masterpiece" (well, I guess resistance is futile), but truly I believe we are. What's more, is that I think the mind/body dichotomy is not as clear cut as tradition has lent. I think that the areas in which our mind and body interact are much more closely related and so as much as we should be careful what we think and say, we should also not forget to do. Get moving. It's good for you.

Okay, those were a few short ideas that have been rattling around in my head. Feel free to comment on any/all of them in the comments below!

Pax,
The Dread

Arguing God: Worth It?

What follows is one of my Grad school papers, so apologies up front if it comes across as highly academic; it is. :-)

            In theology, it is not uncommon to ask oneself why it is valuable to posit arguments for the existence of God. “Surely God can prove himself if he so chooses”, one might say. Still there is a long legacy of these arguments and it is their perpetuation which merits some attention by modern philosophizing believers.

How Do You Know God?

            In order to discover the value in arguments for God’s existence, it is first helpful to make some observations about how one comes to know of God. First, a distinction must be made in general: all ways that people claim to be able to know that there is a God eventually distil into one of two ways of knowing. Either knowledge of God is learned or else it is directly experienced.

            In regards to learning, we can see that there are many world religions and traditions within them that claim to yield belief in God. In Christianity, specific, there are formal arguments that have been handed down by theologians and philosophers throughout history. One such argument is the teleological argument which claims that there must be a God because all creation seems to be moving toward a designated end. Another is the cosmological argument which points to the idea that there must be a source for nature and that all matter and energy originated somewhere. Arguments such as these have been handed down throughout the years without abandon and seem to be very convincing for some[1].

            The second and arguably more controversial way we know of God is through experience. The trouble with pointing to experience as a way of knowing God is that it is logically irrefutable (that is, no one can say you did not experience what you claim to have indeed experienced) and it is highly subjective (specifically, the individual’s interpretation of perceived experiences play a huge, uncontrollable factor). Thankfully, there are recorded experiences that can be looked to for comparative purposes in order to discern what is normal and what is novel. Still, experience has been one of the main ways that people tend to claim to know God.

 One famous example of this is transmitted through literature to us from famed philosopher, Rene Descartes. In his mediations Descartes essentially proposes that we can know that God exists because we exist; thus, our mere pondering is proof enough[2]. Another well known example comes from the darling of Evangelicals, C.S. Lewis who pointed to our intrinsic awareness of morality as proof of a higher power; namely, God[3]. Both of these examples take the human observation of reality to be quite authoritative and, while one could argue their validity, it is undeniable that the tradition of looking inside oneself for an answer to the question of God’s existence is well established in human thought.

The Worth of an Argument

            In order to proceed and answer the question of whether or not it is a worthy venture to develop arguments that attempt to convince people of God’s existence, we must realize that apologetic reasoning of this kind falls in the category of “learned” means for knowing God. This is so because sophisticated reasons are unlikely to simply fall into a person’s experiential world without being planted there by some means of education. So, when we look at apologetics and question the validity, we need to look at the value of tradition.

            The passing down of knowledge and culture is essential in the human experience. As foundational as traditions can be, we must also understand that ideas that are rooted in identity are the kinds of ideas that people are willing to die for[4]. Christianity especially is guilty of this charge as it was founded on a martyr and has a lifestyle of martyrdom built into it. So when we ask about logical arguments, we cannot sell short their powerful application.

            Furthermore, it seems to be that if some people will resist belief in God on the grounds that there are logical problems, then it follows that some will embrace theism if said problems do not exist. Therefore, it is reasonable to attempt to dissolve cognitive dissonance for people as a means of transmitting belief in God. This logical truth provides some cause to continue to develop apologetics. Still, it must also be said that arguments for God’s existence do best when they take on an inductive form and when they have an additive effect; that is, it has not been necessarily proven that God exists and it is rare that someone is convinced by only one argument. Finally, a person must be willing to accept the premises necessary for logical arguments to gain ground and if they refuse on principal, then it is pointless to continue any form of argumentation[5].

            One final thing can be said about the value in arguing for God’s existence with non-believers and it is this: It is true that many people are driven away from a theistic stance because of professing believers and not because of Church doctrine. I personally have had long conversations with people in which I try to debunk misconceptions of theism. One such person is a childhood friend of mine whom I will call Todd.

            Todd was raised in a physically and emotionally abusive home by legalistic parents, one of which hailed from an atheistic background and the other from a fundamentalist background. What’s more is Todd’s long experience with his neighbors who are professing Mennonites – supposedly one of the most pious denominations of Christianity. Sadly, Todd not only had witnessed these Mennonites stealing from him but also wild parties and rumored orgies. All of these experiences totaled up a much distorted picture of the Christian God in Todd’s mind. When I decided that it was time for me to leverage my lifelong friendship with Todd against his disbelief it began in the form of me inquiring about his logical reasons for doubting Christianity.

            Not surprisingly, Todd’s biggest hindrances to belief were rooted in the duplicity and perceived inconsistency of the “Christians” in his life. Along with not wanting to associate with hypocrites, Todd struggled with theodicy; after all, if God was good, why was he allowed to be marginalized his whole life? My point in disclosing Todd’s case to the reader is not to merely point to the reality that people have logical issues with theism, but to also relate that I utilized my formal education in arguing on God’s behalf in concert with my own experiences in order to help Todd begin to traverse his swamp of cynicism and jadedness towards theism and Christianity.

            Had it not been for the apologetic arguments for free will and ecclesial doctrines that were settled by much philosophizing, I would have had little to point to during my conversations with Todd. The value of intellectual pursuits in regards to discovering God is immeasurable because of the pay out; namely, the soul of a lost brother or sister. To this end, we must use all means necessary and there are few means as powerful as that of human reasoning.

Concluding Thoughts

            It is part of a Christian’s duty to attempt to spread the Kingdom of God via the good news of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. To do this, we must understand that we will face opposition and it will rarely come in the form of people attempting to discredit our experiences. As previously stated, that is an impassible mountain to traverse because the slopes of it consist of subjective interpretation. Therefore we must be prepared for any and all logical conundrums that might exist for the sake of the gospel of Christ and the mission of the Ecclesia.

            Like the parable of the prodigal son, we must be aware that people who have ran from God, believing that it is reasonable to do so, need guidance to come to the realization of the mess and depravity to which they have run and the logical validity of returning to the Father. Utilizing the traditional arguments of the Church must never take a backseat to the experiences of Christians; instead, we should strive to open the eyes of the unbelieving heart to the reasonableness of God.

References

Baird, F. E. (2011). Rene Descartes: 1596-1650. In From Plato to Derrida (pp. 400-404). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Evans, C. S., & Manis, R. Z. (2009). Classical Arguments for God's Existence. InPhilosophy of religion: Thinking about faith (pp. 96-97). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Lewis, C. S. (2001). What Lies Behind the Law. In Mere Christianity (pp. 23-25). San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

McGrath, A. E. (2010). Science, Religion and Proofs for God's Existence. In Science and religion: An introduction (pp. 61-65). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Moreland, J. P., & Willard, D. (1997). Apologetic Reasoning and the Christian Mind. InLove your God with all your mind: The role of reason in the life of the soul (p. 154). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

---

[1] (McGrath, 2010, pp. 61-65)

[2] (Baird, 2011, pp. 400-404)

[3] (Lewis, 2001, pp. 23-25)

[4] (Moreland & Willard, 1997, p. 154)

[5]  (Evans & Manis, 2009, pp. 96-97)