Category Archives: Human Experience and Theology

Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (Part 2)

03 Friday Jun 2022

Posted by in Apologetics, Comparative Religion, Elitism, Fear, God, Government, Hebrews, Human Experience and Theology, Incarnation, Jesus, Transhumanism

≈ Comments Off on Transhumanism, Near Death Documented Consciousness, and the Afterlife (Part 2)

Tags

, , ,

The World Economic Forum’s Eugenics and Ramifications

Listen to the Text of this Article

The WEF’s infatuation with transhumanism partly lies in its deep eugenicist ideological matrix. They recently claimed that their elitist group will be the ones intelligently designing humanity, advancing humanity’s evolution. They go so far as to directly dismiss the Divine as the Intelligent Designer, naming themselves as sovereigns in His place. Yuval Harari, much the prophet for the World Economic Forum, clearly articulated this in his January 25th, 2018, presentation at the WEF annual meeting, in a speech called “Will the Future be Human.” Perhaps one of the challenges of discussing this prophet’s narrative (Harari is a bit infamous for a work he put out called New Religions of the 21st Century) is the vast domains of knowledge needed to interact with this thought. These domains include eugenics, A.I., transhumanism, evolution, naturalism, Darwinism, economics, resource management, the nature of life (or better, bio-ontology), nature of humanity, metaphysics, God-world relationship, and, in some respect, cosmology. We cannot discuss everything here, but we can go through them one at a time. Eugenics typically involves a racial focus, a desire to “purify” the human species of undesirable traits. The World Economic Forum evidently thinks that humanity itself is problematic, of whatever race or sort. This is novel eugenics, one that we should call anti-life eugenics: for my DC comics fan, this is a kind of anti-life equation (Darkseid is obsessed with eliminating freewill, which in that DC universe equates to being “anti-life.”). There is a certain cynicism that may think, “well humanity will kill itself anyway, the WEF is just advancing that eventuality,” especially in light of the wars, genocides, and weapons of mass destruction the 20th century produced.  This thought provides no illumination of the good humanity does and is capable of, and such a thought would belong to a person who would be among the ranks of the WEF’s eugenicist ideology. There is an opaque connection here with nihilism, which is the subtle, indirect, direct, or tendency towards destruction or facilitating it.

Thus, clarifying, the WEF’s transhumanism is recreative, at least I believe they would see it that way; it is a eugenicist cleansing to bring forth, as Harari puts it, “non-biological life.” Cast down human life; raise up cyborg or A.I. life from the ashes.

Nevertheless, this sort of eugenics is also genocidal, even if the WEF and its advocates opine that what they want is to move humanity into its next evolutionary step, akin to how Neanderthals were eliminated so that more advanced forms of Homo Sapiens could thrive.

We have now branched neatly into the domain of ethics or morality, and we will discuss that in the future. Big questions about God, humanity, humanity’s role in the cosmos, what it means to be human, the morality of eugenicide even if done with the best of intentions, and how this vision of the future contrasts with God’s metanarrative for humanity. A few closing points that will extend and summarize what I have discussed herein.

  • WEF transhumanism takes, extends, but modifies the Darwinian principle of natural selection, which is itself a kind of “naturally embedded eugenics.” The WEF believes in the notion of survival of the fittest, but they want to take the reigns from nature in order to make themselves the architects of eugenicized humanity, of digitalized or cyborged Sapiens.
  • WEF transhumanism believes in a modified “Intelligent Design,” which typically means that God designed humanity and the world in remarkably precise ways to fit, operate, and create a plentitude of unities among diversities. The WEF modified form means that “enlightened humans,” those sufficiently illuminated, will be the futurist intelligent designers of this renewed humanity, of cyborgian/digitalized humanity. Who are these humans? The cohort that is the World Economic Forum’s true believers; they will be the little “g” gods who will play the role of intelligent designers, crafting a digitalized, futurist destiny for humanity.
  • This anti-life eugenics entails destruction of old humanity, of that normal biological sort that claims it is made in the Imago Deī (Image of God). I should be more careful here: it is unclear if the WEF wants all humanity’s biological restrictions removed. It might be better to call their futurist vision for humanity “anti-standard-humanity.”

The WEF has a eugenicide agenda, but it entails the destruction of old humanity to bring on this new futurist humanity. This genocide is more likely of the omissive kind; either adapt with humanity’s futurist, non-biological destiny or be excluded from all means of livelihood. Genocides are often thought of as brutal campaigns of death and slaughter for the unworthy, for the unbeliever, blood spilling everywhere. What we have learned since the Great Bioweapon Undertaking of 2020 (the Covid-19 pandemic) is that the globalist elites desire to structure disasters, then be the ones who offer the solutions, so that humanity will willingly accept their guidance. With sufficient fear, many humans will give up everything for security. Of course, you might think, “I would not,” and that is well and good, but the trouble is that these “crafters of disaster” only need a majority to advance their agenda. Once the majority agrees to ever greater degrees of surveillance and compliance, the globalists only need to bind that compliance/surveillance to someone’s ability to buy or sell. Once this is done, it will be ever more difficult to survive without submission to that system. Ergo, those who will not comply will be marginalized, and they will have to decide (and convince their loved ones) whether to accept the WEF’s futurist cyborgian destiny for themselves and their family or to descend into obscurity in some apocalyptic, likely pre-industrial, very discomfortable, living situation.

The other big “God” questions have to do with the divinization, at least in their own minds, of the WEF cohort, albeit in the little “g” gods sense. Is the removal of “the biological (body)” from humans a discontinuing of the human species? If so, and I will speak from my orthodox Christian position here, would the sacrifice of Jesus the Christ “count” for “non-biological” humans, if we can even still call them humans? The Book of Hebrews offers this:

“Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore, he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. Because He Himself was tested by what he suffered, He is able to help those who are being tested.”

Hebrews Chapter 2

Specifically, the WEF wants to remove the “flesh and blood” of humanity, either more or less, although we should lean to the “more” side since “uploading” is part of their emphasis (= fully digitized human consciousness). The consequence of Jesus’ appropriation of “flesh and blood,” the purpose for which He did it, was the freeing of humans from death and the devil. Jesus “had to become like” humanity “in every respect.” The biological composition of humanity is integral to its essence (or ontology); would disembodied digital “ex-humans’” consciousnesses still be salvageable by Jesus, the Christ? This text is famous in Church History, the Church Fathers creating this maxim from it:

that which is not assumed is not saved”

St. Gregory Nazianzen’s Letter to Cledonius

What does this mean? That the sacrifice of the Christ only applies to the form of humanity that He took up through the incarnation: which is, normal, biological humanity. It might escape out notice, it nearly did mine, but it is not unimportant that the “removal of life” historically means the onsetting of death, life-less-ness. The Hebrews text above notes the mission of this Christ was to remove the power of death. Is the digitalization, the removal of “biology,” of “life,” from humanity the codification of a near immortal reigning of death? Is Harari’s phrase, “non-biological life,” a euphemism for “life-less” or “death-ful.” If this too sloppily put? Certainly, prolonging consciousness would entail a major, or even dominate, feature of what it means to be alive. Has anyone seen the Matrix? Has anyone been in the Warhammer 40k lore? In almost all cases where the “machinification” of humanity is imagined, it is centered on images that are instinctually repugnant to our aesthetic faculty (P.s., I have an objective, historical, view of beauty, where it is not in the “eye of the beholder”). Why should this be the case? These questions set the stage for our next article. I have much to consider as I hope you do as well.

Prime Theologian

Trinity and the Family Analogy

27 Wednesday Jan 2016

Posted by in Adam and Eve, Christ and Culture, Expecting Parents, Gender Issues, Homosexuality, Human Experience and Theology, Pregnancy and Theology, Trinity, Trinity and Pregnancy

≈ Comments Off on Trinity and the Family Analogy

The Trinity is a rational doctrine, which can be understood by selecting facets of one aspect of a creature, another facet from creation, and yet another from somewhere else in this world. Then, the necessary step to make it “rationally conceivable” is joining these disparate features from within creation and seeing them together. I am not advocating that the Trinity can be divested of its mystery, but I am contesting the notion that the doctrine of the Trinity is absurdity or inherently contradictory.

With this said, Genesis 1:27 – 28 and Genesis 2:24 point out that God’s self-chosen analogy for Himself is the human family. We first find that both “male and female” constitute the “Image of God” (Imago Dei). These two, who constitute God’s image, are to “become one flesh,” which is an activity representative of the “Image of God.” Yes, sex is representative of God although sadly bastardized into a solely unclean thing in our culture.

Man and woman produce offspring: this child is the active union of the mother and father. Moreover, children exhibit characteristics of his/her parents whether or not he/she has ever met his/her parents. Nurture is not the source, therefore, of a child’s likeness to his/her parents; nature is. Striking indeed is that a woman and a child share the same space while the woman is pregnant with the child. The father, of course, is manifest in the child as well since his very being (genetics) comprises this child together with the wife. So what do we have? We have one person, the child, who is of the same nature as the parents (genetics/biologically), one person (child) sharing the same space as another person (mother), and, lastly, the mother and child are distinct persons.

Thus, in the very being of the child, the father and mother are present, both biologically and in character traits — although it will take many years to see this clearly. A pregnant woman might be the best analogy for the Trinity, requiring the least amount of adaption.

The Trinity is three distinct Persons who completely share the same “divine space,” and who are one in nature; a pregnant woman represents two distinct persons who share the same space (not completely though), and who are one in nature with even the third person (father) represented.

Conclusion: God self-chosen analogy gives the best representation found in a singular place, and that analogy is male and female involved in the procreational process, i.e., sex.

Dr. Scalise

Battling Depression and Suicide: God’s Will and Desire for You can help

20 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Application, Christian Ministry, Human Experience and Theology, Spiritual Warfare

≈ Comments Off on Battling Depression and Suicide: God’s Will and Desire for You can help

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Recently, in our house church meetings, we have been discussing what God’s will is for us. There are a number of things that we could say on this subject, yet one thing God wants you to know is that He desires you, wanted you, and values you. Before I get into this, first let me say that I don’t want to create any cheap myth that just believing one thing, even when it comes from God’s very will, will solve depression or suicidal tendencies. This surely is not the case as the professional health-fields devoted to treating these issues show. God might be able to do a miraculous fix in independent cases: granted. Much of life, infected by sin, disbelief, and hostile spiritual powers, does not play-out in unending miracles; we indeed should pray for them while availing ourselves to the other sources God has lovingly provided in health, prolonging life, and mental wholeness practices.

What we do know about ourselves as humans is that our overall health owes to a myriad of reasons, influences, and practices. Correct belief, and trust in that belief, is one reason or influence that God has given of which we must integrate into our daily thinking habits. With these things said, let’s look at my translation of Revelation 4:11.

“Worthy you are our Lord and God to receive glory and honor and power because You Yourself created all things and because of Your will they exist and were created.”

If your in a bad bout with depression or fighting suicidal thoughts, Rev. 4:11 is a rescue rope. First, notice the “You Yourself created . . . .” This, seen clearly in the Greek, emphasizes God involvement in the creation process. It is not that God was hesitant or had to create you as though He were motivated by something other than Himself. No, indeed, the “You Yourself” shows us that not only was He involved in creating you, but He was heavily invested in creating you. Let your heart and mind drink deeply from this truth, and believe it, and go on believing it. Your worth is deeply important to God, enough for Him to be involved in a particularly attentive way in creating you. Second, God’s will is sometimes understand in a distant or unaffectionate way; the Greek term, thelēma, however, shows great affection, and can be translated as “want” or “desire” to illustrate this warmth. God desires that you “exist” and “were created.” In the instant you became alive, God’s desire was for you. You were “born” from God’s desire. The horrors we see and experience in this world as a result of man’s malice against man and demons’ malice against both man and Creator has infected all things with corruption, but God the Redeemer and Physician desired you be created. We must battle in this war torn world, both spiritually and physically, but the rescue rope of God’s desire for you sings and dances over you (Zeph. 3:17) a never-ending melody of God’s affectionate want to create you and His current desire He has in you because He wills that you exist. With God, good desire precedes our life, is in our life, and is with us after this life. God desires you live, so turn to this rescue rope and live. There is much more work to do towards holistic mental health thereafter, but God is the Rescuer, whose ability never falters.

Dr. Scalise

Appearances of Evil: Ephesians 5:3 & 1 Thessalonians 5:22

19 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by in Biblical Interpretation, Christian Ministry, Exegesis and Interpretation, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Appearances of Evil: Ephesians 5:3 & 1 Thessalonians 5:22

Tags

, , , ,

Appearances of Evil

Ephesians 5:3 &1 Thessalonians 5:22

I think Eph. 5:3, “But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints” (all Translations are mine unless otherwise indicated), could be one of the texts for the cliché about Christians not have an “appearance of evil.” The phrases, “or any” is literally from the Greek, “and all impurity.” I suppose, then, the question becomes named by whom? Of course, “immorality” and “greed” are quite narrow in their meaning but “all impurity” does look to be a catch all “heart” category in terms of the corruption found therein. The term, “impurity” is akatharsia (ακαθαρσια) meaning “uncleanliness” but can be translated as “immorality” but here, since a more specific term for immorality is on the list, it is more likely, especially with “all” attached to the front (all impurity), emphasizing the preconditions for an actual action of immorality. It is the filth, “uncleanliness,” in a man that is the problem. This term is used by Jesus in the Gospels in an interesting comparative text, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” (Mt. 23:27: Italics and Bold mine). Now that I see this comparison and notice that the Eph. 5:3 list does include a non-sexual sin, namely, “greed,” I doubt if the emphasis is on “uncleanliness” as sexual immorality and, instead, emphasizing more broadly, like Jesus, the state of corruption in a man, likely pointing to what both greed and sexual sin have in common, namely, covetousness. In both Matt. 23:27 and Eph 5:3 the phrases are the same in the connection between “all” (Gr.: pas) plus “uncleanliness”. Therefore, greed and sexual immorality are concrete “fruit” of the inner corruption of “all uncleanliness.” This text is not so much concerned with the worry of looking like we are doing evil so much as it is concerned with the heart-mind condition leading to actual acts of evil. This teaching has as a long and abiding foundation in the 10th commandment: “You will not covet . . .” which centers on the the inner attitude of coveting rather than “just anything evil.”

The other text that could be translated as the “appearance of evil” is 1 Thess. 5:22: “Abstain from every appearance/form of evil.” Most modern translations opt for “form” because the word itself has as its central meaning, “that which is seen,” i.e., “from every seen form of evil.” In other words, we have here a confusion of different English meanings for the word “appear,” that is, there is more than one way to understand it: the word is equivocal, having more than one meaning. What the Greek text has clearly in mind is not “what might appear evil” in the sense of “appear” meaning “what might suggest evil” or “what might be confused with evil” or “what might look like evil.” The Greek word, eidos, means what is concretely seen: a clear form, and in this case, a notable form or concrete practice of evil. This is especially clear when compared to some other places in the NT this term appear. Luke 9:29 is the narrative about Jesus’ transfiguration, “As he was praying, the appearance of his face was transformed, and his clothes became very bright, a brilliant white” (Bold and italics mine). This text is not using the term eidos (appearance) to say that Jesus’ face “might suggest transformation” or “might be confused with transforming” or “might look like it transformed.” Indeed, for something “to transfigure” is precisely for it (Him, in Jesus’ case) to change. Literally from the Greek, its says, ” . . . the form of his face became different (or “another”).” In another text after

Jesus is resurrected, it states, “And his appearance was like lightning . . .” (Bold and italics mine). I think this text is noteworthy because Matthew felt the need to add that little word “like.” If “appearance” were to mean “what might look like evil,” in the sense of “what might be confused with evil” or “what might suggest evil,” as noted formerly, then why would Matthew feel the need to add that little word “like” to clarify that Jesus was not made (in the form of) of lightning? The addition of “like” moves “appearance” away from its typical meaning of “what is concretely seen” towards a metaphorical meaning: “what is seen looks like lightning.” In the same way, then, in 1 Thess. 5:22, if the meaning was abstaining “from everything that looks like evil” would we not expect, then, the addition of the word “like” (Greek: hōs)? For further verification of this usage of the word, that is, having the meaning of “what is concretely and clearly seen,” also confer John 5:37, Luke 3:22 (another example of “like” added), & 2 Cor. 5:7. This is every example of the word in the NT, all meaning, “what is concretely seen” with two examples of “like” having to be added to move its meaning towards “looks like” and away from “what is concretely and clearly seen.” Finally for a comparison and to answer a discernible objection, 2 Tim. 3:5 says, “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (Bold and italics mine). “Appearance” here is morfōsis, not eidos.

B. T. Scalise
Copyright, Wild-Theology, © Brian Scalise 2014

Theology of Zombies: Part II

19 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by in Human Experience and Theology, Satan, Spiritual Warfare, Theological Interpretation

≈ Comments Off on Theology of Zombies: Part II

Tags

, , ,

A theology of zombies can also be derived from how Scripture generally treats the wicked. One of the most notable ways is in its depersonalization of evil persons or a person. Before turning to two notable examples of this in Scripture, We must recognize that Zombies are also humans who have been depersonalized. They are humans with little more than their instinct for survival intact, which removes the rational, moral, and spiritual capacity of humans.

Although the name “Lucifer” or “Satan” takes on the force of a name, both are only titles, not a personal name. Lucifer means son of the dawn and Satan means accuser or adversary. We do not know Lucifer’s real name; but for someone to lack a name is already for them to be depersonalized. In contradistinction to this, we would note that the saints in the Book of Revelation are given another name written on a pearl. Rather than having their name taken away, they get another one: this is personalizing.

Second, the rich man in Luke 16 in the story Jesus tells about the rich man and the poor man Lazarus is never named. Notice that Lazarus is named and he is together with Abraham on the happy or paradise side of Abraham’s bosom. The rich man is just the rich man. This is a depersonalization.

There is another verse that just came to mind: “there is no peace for the wicked” (Isa. 48:22). Whoever these individuals were is no longer what is relevant for their future identity. They are grouped together and simply termed “the wicked.” Communal identity is important, but it is a dark day when communal identity is all we have. The darker still the worse that community identity treats us, that is, what that communal identity stands for.

Scripture, then, lays a basis for understanding depersonalization as part of the process of becoming evil or wicked, and so we see that the idea of zombies moves in the same direction. The more depersonalized a person becomes, the more wicked they are.

Dr. Scalise

Theology from Dogs

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Theology from Dogs

Tags

, , , ,

Theology is our thinking and reflecting on what God has revealed about Himself. The most important commands are to “love the LORD your God with all your heart . . . soul . . . and mind” and to “love your neighbor as yourself.” We derive the equally important truth from these commands that the life lived well is one lived for relationships, and the healthier the relationship, the higher we experience the highest good in life (i.e., love). The way dogs relate to us help us to understand the type of energy we should put into relationships, and not into the rather non-relational activities. Dogs might seem lazy in some ways, but the majority of them liven right up when it is time to be social, to greet, hang out, and appreciate others. It is true that we might rationalize this as being no more special than an animal’s basis instinct. Basis instinct in dogs — the communal animals they are — need not be reduced to this stultifying scientific opinion, however. There is much to be learned from the way a dog uses its time, energy, and attention. Dogs are partial illustrations of the second command even if not having all the faculties human possess with which to relate. Dogs bide their time and energy until it is time to put those into a relationship with others. How much can be learned from this illustration? Moreover, dogs show by the way the use their energy, time, and attention that relationships are what they value most — even if this is no deeper than their instincts it can still act as an example for us.

Given the great joy dogs bring people, it would not be strange if the Father of lights and who give all good gifts gave the companionship of dogs for us to enjoy. Let us not only enjoy them, but learn from them about the inherent importance of relationships.

Dr. Scalise

Can questioning your faith be fulfilling God’s command?

14 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Difficult Texts, Exegesis and Interpretation, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Can questioning your faith be fulfilling God’s command?

Tags

, , , , ,

Since God speaks in His word, we believe that St. Paul was writing at the behest of the Spirit’s voice. Often people of faith feel that they have betrayed God or the Faith because they doubt or question what they believe. Certainly, there are good reasons for thinking this, but to feel this way without also knowing the good we do in our questioning is unfortunate. 2 Corinthians, one of Paul’s Epistles to the Christians in the Greek city of Corinth, was dealing with a body of believers who were growing in discord with St. Paul. There were false teachers and persons among them that were “poisoning the well,” creating doubt about St. Paul’s character, ability, and motivation. Paul then writes 2 Corinthians to this group with the hopes of reestablishing the rapport he once enjoyed so that these “untrue persons” causing trouble would not succeed in derailing the Corinthians from their faith in God. Near the close of this Epistle, St. Paul writes:

“Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test.”

Much could be said on these two verses, but I want to focus on the first two commands: “Examine yourselves . . .” and “Test yourselves.” To question yourself to see if you hold to the faith (. . . to see whether you are in the faith”) is fulfilling a biblical command or God’s command. The doubt we might feel or the questions we pose — which we could be shamed for in our communities of faith — should not be greeted by others as patently or clearly sinful or worrisome. Indeed, we may be fulfilling what God commands in 2 Corinthians 13:5 – 6 by this very questioning. It is a striking fact that failure to question one’s faith would be disobedience to this explicit biblical command. It is clear that someone’s doubt or questioning of the faith could evoke worry from us; and it is equally as clear that in some cases or in some ways it should. Nevertheless, it should evoke genuine joy in their fulfilling of God’s command. There is a careful balance that must be struck in communities of faith where persons are truly doubting and questioning. On the one hand, we must care for them in great concern to guide, help, and point to the “right” direction — assuming we have it ourselves. On the other hand, we should be inspired and glad for their questioning of their faith in accord with what God commands.

To question may be an indication of God’s activity in your life, not the absence of it.

Dr. Scalise

Entitlement V

26 Tuesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christ and Economic, Christ and the Politico-Economic, Economics, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Entitlement V

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Selfishness is concern for self to the detriment of others.  Not all entitlements spring from selfishness.  With this said, my comments that follow zone in on those that do spring from selfishness.  To receive entitlements is really to take from others.  Note that I said “take” and not “receive.” There is no “giving” in this type of system. Entitlement states, “I deserve so someone take it from others and give it to me.”  Robin Hood is the hero of the poor: take from the rich, give to the poor.  The question for the poor is what attitude should I have?

This is a heart matter for a strong and tough person, a trusting and committed person.  These poor must to strong and tough because they are often exploited and they know it; they are also trusting and committed because they entrust themselves to the Lord Jesus and remain committed in that trust.  For these poor to refuse the entitled attitude of “I deserve it” they can look to the OT example of negative rights, as I noted in my earlier post on entitlements: what they might say, then, following this OT example, would be, “those rich will not (are not entitled) to oppress us.”  This brings in another set of people (the rich) and only seeks to remove the oppression done to the poor but does not seek to take things from the rich. Simply, the rich will not take from the poor and the poor will not take from the rich.

The OT clarifies, “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must judge your neighbor by righteousness” (Lev. 19:15; translation mine from the Hebrew, italics mine).  Look at how close Jesus repeats this Levitical principle but in different words: “Do not judge according to appearance but with righteous judgment you must judge” (Jn. 7:24).  Notice all the negatives (nor, not, neither) and how Leviticus and Jesus disavow judging people according to their socio-economic status.  Instead, both Yahweh (in Leviticus) and Jesus (in John) juxtapose their disagreement with this judging according to appearance (poor or rich or simply how someone looks) with how to judge properly, that is according to righteousness.  Of course, we must know what “righteousness” is to know how to judge.  It is clear from Scripture that righteousness, tsideqah in Hebrew, points to the teaching of the Law, the Torah, and also to Jesus’ complements to it.  And here, to avoid controversy, let’s assume that “righteousness” focuses on the moral elements in the Law and in Jesus’ teaching.  

But, if we look at people’s conformity to Jesus’ teaching and God’s law as the standard by which we judge, we do not simply see someone’s socio-economic status and conclude that they are entitled or disentitled.  We neither see the rich and say, just because they are rich, that they should give their wealth away (disentitled to their wealth) nor do we see the poor and say, just because they are poor, you should be entitled to more wealth.  And remember to be entitled (to other people’s stuff) implies taking from someone else, which then implies some measure of force.  

What is particularly dangerous about entitlement is that those who have this entitlement attitude understand themselves as holding the moral high ground.  But not having stuff and thinking you should have it and wanting someone to take it implies immorality, both in the force necessary to make this occur and in the envy that undergirds it. Simply “not having” does not produce moral currency (to put them on the high moral ground) that sets someone above “those that have.”  Look what comes together in this thinking: “I deserve, someone take it and give it to me, and having the moral high ground justifies coercion, force, or even violence.”  Following the example of our Lord Jesus, it is obvious that having the moral high ground does not put one in a position to take or engender an attitude of taking but, rather, to give and engendering an attitude of giving.  Jesus holds the absolute highest moral high ground there is.  Yet He deprives Himself of that lofty purity to come to earth to give Himself, making others pure: “He became poor so that we might become rich.”  

B. T. Scalise

The Church’s Rushed Openness in the Way of Intimacy

22 Friday Nov 2013

Posted by in Christ and Culture, Christian Ministry, Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on The Church’s Rushed Openness in the Way of Intimacy

Tags

, , , , , ,

Pastors, Christian Leaders, Professors,

We must stop rushing openness and intimacy in the church.  Human relationships go through a natural process during which we reveal ourselves more and more to those we know.  God does this too.  He did it over centuries and millenia during the writing of the Scriptures; God was slowing revealing Himself incrementally.  Jesus, too, revealed Himself to His disciples slowly over three years.  Why, then, do we promise people openness and transparency as an almost immediate expectation if people will visit our church? Why do we push those in our churches to feel as though they should be the warmest and most open people when visitors meet them? Or like the first night of the small group, each one in the group is expected to share their life story. We promise those who are visiting our churches that they will be greeted in warmth, in openness, and in love, to paraphrase one recent church advertisement I heard. I like these and think these sound wonderful, at least in theory.  But relationships don’t work like this and if we consider how Yahweh and Jesus incrementally revealed themselves in their relationships to those closest to them we will find that we are not mimicking either Jesus or Yahweh by rushing openness.  A large aspect of relating is gradual revealing and it is by this revealing that we cultivate intimacy.  But why is it that it feels so artificial when there is no gradual revealing but just a rushed open box? That rushed openness we expect out of our people creates the artificiality.  Friendship is childlike, it just happens organically and certain persons gravitate more towards some than others, but this “natural gravitation” does not prevent the general cultivation of love towards those who are not naturally attracted to one another.  Instead there is a particular love to those we reveal ourselves to and a general love in the Spirit for those who worship the Lord Jesus: we are one with them even if I don’t know them personally.

So this is the irony, in the church’s hasty desire to cultivate intimacy and openness among its members, the church is undermining the very foundation of that priceless intimacy: that is, a gradual process of persons coming to know one another through gradual revealing to one another.

Our churches should have authentic persons.  Forcing openness too quickly creates artificiality.  We must be true to Christ and true to one another.  God revealed Himself to us gradually and we are knowing Him more and more gradually through time as we relate to Him.  Rushing openness in those we oversee is intuitively unnatural, unlike how God revealed Himself, and stands in the way of intimacy.  Let us put on Christ and follow in His example, knowing we have come to know Him but that we incrementally know Him more, and so reveal ourselves as others reveal themselves to us, naturally, discerningly, and in its own time, not forced, not out of season.

B. T. Scalise

Reflections on Love

10 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Human Experience and Theology

≈ Comments Off on Reflections on Love

Tags

, , , , , ,

To love is to allow choice.  Whether our understanding of God leans more towards sovereignty or freewill, most will agree that Adam and Eve had a measure of freedom that we today do not (likely) enjoy.  But what we no doubt have in common with Adam and Eve is the human situation: namely, we all have been in relationships where we are not given freedom by those overseeing us or relating to us.  To this we respond with frustration and usually the intuition that this “just isn’t right.”  Few would say that those who “control us” also love us. And even if we are convinced that this “controlling person” truly does love us, we will likely have to explain to others and carefully emphasize that that person does love us despite their inclination to try to control.  So what does this intuition and need to explain point to? That control is inherently unloving.  This is a strong statement but should this be doubted just remember, why that feeling that we need to explain how this person does love me although they (try to) control me.

For those of us focuses on God’s sovereignty in our theology, note that this intuition is not nullified by supposing that God controls and rules all things.  First, professional theologians who lean calvinistic—but not all see it this way—have developed what is called compatibilistic freedom.  There are two versions of it (and maybe more in more technical theology): 1) that we truly make choices and we would not make choices otherwise than the ones we make and 2) that we truly make choices but we could not make choices other than the ones we make.  Both of these ways of seeing freedom are a far cry from what most intuitively think freedom is.  The point of this paragraph is that even sovereignistic theologians have felt the strength of this intuition—and know  (appearance of) the implied ability humans have to make choices demonstrable in Scripture—to such a degree that they have attempted to “make compatible” freedom with sovereignty.

Therefore, that attempting to control is unloving stands across a great span of theological opinions. What we have done here is begin our theologizing (thinking about God) with our human experience.  So now, let’s take our human experience and bring it into conversation with Scripture: we are not trying to make Scripture support the point above so much as trying to find if Scripture does support it.  If control is inherently unloving, the Genesis narrative surely makes it look as though God gave Adam and Eve choice, even set things up to guarantee it.  God comes and goes (walking with Adam in the cool) and so is not “overbearing” by making His presence known at all times—even though He could do this should He have wanted to. Then, the garden is set up with options: so many trees to pick to eat from with God saying, “You can eat of any tree of the garden . . . .” This, of course, implies true choice, what philosophers call significant freewill. But the options are not limited to merely choices that would not risk relationship with God—said differently, not limited to merely good choices.  This is where I’ll speculate a bit: God is the author, yes, very definition of the Good.  Thus all things good are in the domain and rule of God.  Should God have limited Adam and Eve’s choices to merely good ones, this would have been a control designed to guarantee their compliance with His worship, without them even knowing that they could not worship Him.  Thus God also offered and set up an option of evil, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Yes, God even permitted a tempter to enter humanity’s world: the devil.  God offered choices among the trees, offered choices between good and evil, and allowed an evil being to make evil’s case, to sell rejecting God, to show that there was really a choice whether to remain with God or not. With this said, the Genesis narrative poses circumstances that show design concerned with freedom of choice; and it is this freedom of choice He gives that is part of the foundation for humans to love.

Among human relationships, we must always ask, “Who am I trying to control?” “Am I telling myself that I am controlling for their good?” “Couldn’t God say this by setting up the garden with only good choices?” “And if God allows humans to have sweeping freedom in the garden, how can I steal freedom from another person—after all, if anyone has the right to control, it would be God not me?” The more we try to control, the more difficult cultivating love in our relationships will be.

B. T. Scalise