Thoughts on Trees

I really like trees. Growing up in rural New England, nothing is more ordinary than trees, but I'm still not tired of them. It might sound sappy to say this, but trees just look more beautiful to me with each passing year. I look up at their twisted branches and feel a quiet joy. The sky and the ocean have the same effect.

Richard Dawkins said in The God Delusion, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I don't believe in fairies myself, but I do believe in angels, demons, and a God who is unseen, and of course those are the beliefs Dawkins is really going at here. He's saying we shouldn't need to resort to belief in anything supernatural (or "extra-natural") in order to fully appreciate the world around is. To an extent, I think he's right. Clearly, people are capable of appreciating nature without considering it the product of a Divine mind. However, I would say those who do so are appreciating the signifier while missing out on what the signifier signifies. It's like opening a book and saying, "Can't we just appreciate the shape and arrangement of these squiggles without insisting that they mean anything?" We could, but we'd lose a lot.

Do trees signify something beyond what they are, or are they simply trees? Do they mean something, or are they just aesthetically-pleasing squiggles?

The naturalist analyzes the squiggles with discipline and thoroughness. He knows precisely what they are comprised of, how old they are, and how frequently certain patterns tend to occur. But he doesn't think the squiggles are actually words.

It is interesting to me that the Bible describes God as speaking the world into existence. If the universe is what the words of God look like, then perhaps naturalism is the philosophy of analyzing the squiggles while refusing to accept the possibility that they are actually words. Like missing the forest for the trees, it's missing the words for the letters. And when you miss the words, you lose the plot.

The skeptic retorts: Prove it! Show me that there are more than just the squiggles! Those of us who claim to see more than squiggles struggle a bit here. We point to the beauty and order of the arrangement as evidence that the squiggles are actually words, but the skeptic protests that we know so much about the composition and arrangement of the squiggles that the assumption that they are actually words is unfounded. Those of us who believe reply: we know the squiggles are words because we know the language! But how do we know it? Maybe its innate. Or maybe it was taught to us. For the naturalist, either possibility is proof that we are deceived (in the first case we're deceived by our genetics, in the second by misleading socialization). For the rest of us, though, we hear the words when we see the squiggles, and their arrangement persuades us that a story is being told. Most of the time, that is good enough.

To Wait or Not to Wait?

This is a paper I wrote for my Ethics class at seminary last semester. We were supposed to pick and analyze an ethical dilemma the Church faces today. I chose pre-marital sex. This is an issue I feel pretty strongly about, but please know my intention is not to condemn those who disagree with me. 

True Love Waits: God's Design or Outdated Cultural Ethic?

For the last 2000 years, the general consensus of the Christian Church has been that sexual intimacy ought to be reserved for marriage. As one first-century Christian is said to have written, “[Christians] share their table with all, but not their bed with all.”¹

Three of My Favorite People

Over the last two years or so, I've discovered the joy of listening to good podcasts - great content and totally free. It's awesome. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a huge fan of music, but some of the podcasts I've found are so enjoyable I've almost stopped listened to music in the car entirely.

Here are my top three people to listen to:

Tim Keller

Tim Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and the author of the best selling book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. His church has been enormously successful with one of the least churched segments of the population - young, urban professionals - and I think I can guess why: Keller knows how to communicate. He is precisely the sort of preacher the Evangelical world needs more of: humble, engaging, Gospel-centered, wise, insightful, and capable of integrating Biblical study with a healthy awareness of history, philosophy, sociology, and pop culture. If anyone got into my car when I was listening to Tim Keller, I wouldn't feel the least bit awkward about allowing the podcast to continue - not because he compromises on communicating hard truths - but because he does and he's so good at it. You can find more than 60 of his sermons in iTunes if you search for the Timothy Keller Podcast.

Peter Kreeft

When I listen to this man speak, it's as if liquid-joy is being poured into the cup of my soul. Kreeft is a 75-year-old professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King's College and the author of more than 35 books (I've read two, "The Journey" and "Love is Stronger Than Death." Both were excellent). He grew up in the Dutch Reformed tradition and received his undergraduate degree from Calvin College, but he converted to Roman Catholicism before he graduated.

There's so much I love about Kreeft. I love that he's a professor. I love that he's a charismatic. I love that he appreciates C.S. Lewis and Tolkein. I love that he's a surfer. Most of all, I love that his talks always manage to awaken my sleepy love for God.

Kreeft has a way of showing how Christianity makes sense and how it satisfies our deepest longings. He is, like Keller, incredibly insightful and a brilliant communicator. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a regularly updated podcast but he does have quite a few talks available for download on iTunes. His "Happiness" talk, an examination of the beatitudes, is one of my favorite messages of all-time, and his quirky lecture, "If Einstein Had Been a Surfer," is truly mind-blowing. I hope he stays healthy and active for awhile yet.

Justin Brierley

Brierley is the host of "Unbelievable?" on Premier Christian Radio in the UK, a program that seems tailored-made for people like me. Every week, Brierley raises an issue relevant to the Christian worldview and hosts a discussion on that issue. Usually the discussions are between Christians and non-Christians (i.e., "Where did the universe come from?," "Is it possible to have meaning without God?" "Do Angels Exist?," "Do Demons Exist?," etc), but sometimes the conversations focus on intra-church issues (i.e., "Women in Leadership?," "Was Jesus a Calvinist?," "Theistic Evolution?," etc). The show has been on for about five years and I only discovered it a couple months ago, but during that time I've listened to more than 40 episodes. Only about 200 more and I'll be all caught up.

Seriously, though, I think I will end up listening to all of them eventually. I spend enough time in the car and I enjoy them that much. The content itself is obviously a big reason, but Brierley deserves a lot of credit. He manages to keep order during potentially volatile discussions and he's aware and intelligent enough to ask consistently good questions. He's also unfailingly polite and kind, which is absolutely essential in this type of ministry. I'm so thankful for what he does.

One thing "Unbelievable?" has proven to me, though: British accents always make people sound more intelligent. You can even say wacky things with a British accent and sound reputable. I wonder if British people feel the same way about their own accents?


What do you guys like to listen to?

Living Buddha, Living Christ: Ch 4d

Late in this chapter, Hanh describes authentic teachers as those who have the capacity to "give birth to a disciple." He says that we are all spiritual descendants of the teachers who preceded us, and then he adds, "I try to practice [Dharma] in a way that allows me to touch my blood ancestors and my spiritual ancestors every day. Whenever I feel sad or a little fragile, I invoke their presence for support, and they never fail to be there." I was surprised by this. Don't Buddhists believe in reincarnation? If so, how is it possible for one to invoke the presence of blood ancestors? Aren't those blood ancestors now living as other beings?

When Hahn talks about the Dharma, it reminds me of the way Jews talk about the Law. He says, "The Dharma is our island of refuge, the torch lighting our path. If we have the teaching, we needn't worry."

Living Buddha, Living Christ: Ch 4c

Hahn quotes a Buddhist proverb: "He who has arrived from suchness, remains in suchness, and will return to suchness." He describes "suchness" as "a Buddhist term pointing to the true nature of things - of ultimate reality. It is the substance or ground of being, just as water is the substance of waves." He adds, "we have come from nowhere and have nowhere to go."

In the Christian worldview, we have all come from a Divine, eternal personality - not nothing. This Divine, eternal personality is the antithesis of nothing. The Christian worldview says that after death we will encounter this Divine personality in a deeper way, and that the meeting will either yield great joy or great suffering. This is, of course, very different from the idea that we have "come from nowhere and have nowhere to go."

What does Hahn mean when he says we have come from nowhere and have nowhere to go? Why does he think this is true? On the contrary, I think the world demonstrates a natural teleology - that is, it appears to be the result of a plan. In other words, it appears to be the product of will and intention - not nothing. Why should we believe that we came from nothing and will return to nothing? On what grounds? I think the natural evidence swings more in favor of the idea that we came from something, not nothing, and given the fact that the evidence swings that way and that the belief that we "came from nowhere and are going nowhere" can have dangerous, nihilistic implications for morality and society, why would I choose to put my faith in it?

Next, Hahn spends some time talking about the Buddhist perspective of human nature. He says that Buddhists believe that every human being has the potential to become a Buddha - that is, every human being has the ability to become enlightened, blessed, happy, mindful, compassionate, etc. He also says that all human beings have negative seeds within them - seeds of hatred, anger, ignorance, intolerance, and so on - that can only be transformed by touching the qualities of the Buddha. He says that this is very similar to Christianity, because Christians believe the Original Sin can be transformed when one is in touch with the Holy Spirit.

I think there are some similarities between Hahn's view and the Christian view, but there are differences as well. The Christian, like the Buddhist, believes that human nature contains "good seeds" and "bad seeds." Christian doctrine says that we are made in the image of God (the good seed) but we are also fallen and corrupt (the bad seed). However, the difference is that the Christian perspective of man sees the bad seed and the good seed as being fused together all the way down to the very core of the person. In other words, even the best of human actions are said to be tainted by impure motivations. The bad seed is inextricably tied up with the good seed, and it is only through realization of the presence of the bad seed and dependence on the mercy of God that the good seed triumphs.

Living Buddha, Living Christ: Ch 4b

Continuing in Chapter 4...

Hahn says, "I think it is important to look deeply into every act and every teaching of Jesus during His lifetime, and to use this as a model for our own practice." I agree wholeheartedly, but how is Hahn "looking deeply" into the life of Jesus? He must be examining a written account of Christ's life, but if he is doing this, what account is he using? If he is using any of the Biblical accounts, he should not downplay the significance of Christ's death and resurrection, because those are central themes in the accounts. Hahn says, "...studying the life of Jesus is crucial to understanding His teaching. For me, the life of Jesus is His most basic teaching, more important than even faith in the resurrection or faith in eternity." I agree that studying the life of Jesus is crucial to understanding his teaching, but if we are using the Biblical accounts as our means of learning about the life of Jesus we cannot downplay the fact that Jesus laid down his life as a ransom for sinners. Hahn's tendency to downplay Christ's death and resurrection is troubling to me.

Living Buddha, Living Christ: Ch 4a

Chapter Four: Living Buddha, Living Christ

This is, by far, the longest chapter up until now. Lots to think about.

Hahn begins by distinguishing between the historical Buddha/Jesus and the living Buddha/Jesus. He says that the historical Buddha was born in Kapilavastu and died in Kushinagar, but the living Buddha - the Buddha who transcends all ideas and notions - was never born and never died. Similarly, he says, the historical Jesus was born in Bethlehem and was crucified upon Golgotha, but the living Jesus existed before the creation of the world and lives beyond the crucifixion.

Living Buddha, Living Christ: Ch 3

Chapter 3: The First Supper

Hahn begins this chapter by recounting an incident that took place at a conference on religion and peace. He says a Protestant minister approached him and asked if he was a grateful person. When Hahn said he was, the minister said, "Since you do not believe in God, you are not grateful for anything."

I hope the minister wasn't as curt as Hahn recalls, because I do think he had a point worth making. As I said in my last post, "If the world around us is not the byproduct of God, any gratitude generated by our mindfulness will be homeless; there will no one to thank." Of course, we will always be able to feel gratitude toward other human beings, but when Hahn talks about mindfulness, he's talking about something that leads to gratitude for the things that only God can take responsibility for (i.e., the ability to draw another breath or the capacity to enjoy the taste of food - even existence itself).

Living Buddha, Living Christ: Ch 2

Chapter Two: Mindfulness and the Holy Spirit

In this chapter, Hanh draws comparisons between the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Buddhist concept of mindfulness.

I found this chapter very interesting because the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is something I've had to think about a lot. Last year I gave a seminar at our Winter Conference on the Holy Spirit, and last semester I spoke on how to make Spirit-led decisions at our movement's weekly meeting. I've also done some research on (and had personal experience with) the charismatic movement. After all this, I still find the role and operation of the Holy Spirit to be one of the most mysterious things about Christianity.

Living Buddha Living Christ: Chapter 1

Ch. 1: Be Still and Know

In this chapter Hanh explains what he believes are the foundations for good interfaith dialogue and securing peace in the world. He starts with a significant claim:

"People kill and are killed because they cling too tightly to their own beliefs and ideologies."

I understand what he's getting at here - he's saying that if we believe we are right and that everyone else is wrong, we are more likely to demonize those outside our group and treat them with contempt. Therefore, if we want to eliminate man's inhumanity to man we need to become less attached (and less certain of) our beliefs.

Living Buddha, Living Christ; Part 1

Before break, my Buddhist friend John and I traded books to read. I gave him a copy of Tim Keller's The Reason for God and he gave me Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh. I've decided to journal my thoughts on each chapter.

Thich Nhat Hanh was born in 1926 and is still an active Buddhist monk, teacher, author, poet, and peace activist. According to a quote from The Washington Post on the book's back cover, Hanh's message is that "peace, love, and compassion are central to the teachings of Buddha and Christ, and people of both faiths should be tolerant of one another." From what I know of Buddhist ethics, there is a significant amount of overlap with Christianity (as there is with most faiths), but there are some significant distinctions as well. I'm interested to see how much the book acknowledges these distinctions and, if so, whether it tries to resolve or dismiss them.

One thing that intrigues me is a quote on the back from Catholic writer and activist Thomas Merton. Merton says, "Thich Nhat Hanh is more my brother than many who are nearer to me in race and nationality, because he and I see things the exact same way." I don't know a lot about Merton, but I know a lot of Christians who admire his work. At one of my favorite blogs, Internet Monk, his name is mentioned frequently. He's a guy who is admired, read, and quoted by people who take the Bible seriously. If Hanh sees things the same way as Merton, I'm sure some of the Christians who admire Merton would admire Hanh, too. This makes me very curious about what Hanh has to say.

Introduction

The intro to the book (not written by Hanh), says that Hanh "does not take the easy way out of ecumenical discussion by ignoring disagreement." Hanh "expresses deep respect and appreciation for many elements of Christian tradition" but he "also points out elements of Christian tradition that foster religious intolerance and have led to religious hatred."

Hanh, the intro says, disagrees with John Paul II's affirmation that "Christ is the one mediator between God and humanity." He responds, "this statement does not seem to reflect the deep mystery of the oneness of the Trinity. It also does not reflect the fact that Christ is also the Son of Man. All Christians, while praying to God, address Him as Father. Of course Christ is unique. But who is not unique? Socrates, Mohammed, the Buddha, you, and I are all unique. The idea behind the statement, however, is the notion that Christianity provides the only way of salvation and all other religious traditions are of no use. This attitude excludes dialogues and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination. It does not help."

I agree with Hanh that a theology of exclusivism can lead to religious intolerance and hatred. However, we need to recognize that it is impossible to avoid exclusivism altogether. An exclusivist is someone who holds that one particular perspective is correct, and the inclusivist does this, too. The inclusivist believes that all people who believe that there is only one path to salvation are wrong. Therefore, the inclusivist is also at risk for being intolerant or hateful toward the exclusivists, just as the exclusivist is at risk for being intolerant or hateful toward the inclusivists and/or other forms of exclusivism.

Hahn says that an attitude of exclusivism "does not help" in interfaith dialogue, but interfaith dialogue is not really interfaith dialogue if the faiths are not being truly represented. The fact of the matter is that traditional Christianity looks to the Bible as a primary source of spiritual truth, and within the Bible St. Paul writes the exact words that Hanh criticizes John Paul II for: There is but one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus (1st Timothy 2:5).

If Hanh is saying Christians must abandon the idea that Christ is the one mediator between God and man, is he also saying that we must abandon the idea of Biblical authority? Hanh says that he likes the idea of the Trinity, but the concept of the Trinity is derived from the Bible. If Hanh wants us to reject certain ideas in the Bible but embrace other ones, to what authority do we appeal in choosing between the ideas?

For the Christian, of course, Hanh's downplaying of Christ's uniqueness sounds warning bells. Yes, all human beings are unique, but Christian doctrine has always taught that Christ's uniqueness transcends all other uniqueness. He is not just another color in the box of crayons. He is the manufacturer of all the crayons.

However, I appreciate that Hanh appeals to more than just the ideal of religious tolerance in rejecting Christianity's exclusivism. He also appeals to ideas within Christianity. If God the Father and God the Son are one, he says, then doesn't the statement that "there is but one mediator between God and man - the man Christ Jesus" fail to acknowledge that oneness? In other words, if Jesus is God and Jesus is the mediator between God and man, doesn't it then follow that God is his own mediator? If God is the mediator between Himself and man, doesn't that mean that God could be speak to the world through many different words and concepts besides just the one we refer to as "Christ"?

I think there are several problems with this argument. As I already mentioned, it borrows a concept from Scripture (the Trinity) as the basis of its argument but then undermines that concept by using it to argue against the authority of Scripture. As C.S. Lewis would say, it is an argument that "saws off the branch on which it sits." The other problem is that it fails to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity does say that God the Father and God the Son are both God, but that doesn't permit us the freedom to substitute one name for the other - particularly in the case of 1st Timothy 2:5. I think Paul's point is not that God is His own mediator, but that the only way we can really know God is through God as expressed in Jesus Christ. There is but one mediator between God and man - and that mediator is the man from heaven who suffered and died on a cross. If we want to know who God is, we must have an encounter with this man.

I also think Hanh is wrong to suggest that one who affirms Christ as the only mediator between God and man must necessarily believe that all other religious traditions are of no use. Even though I think we lack clarity in our understanding of God apart from Christ, and even though I think Christ's sacrifice is necessary for the salvation of any soul who ends up saved, I wouldn't go so far as to say I think that all other religious traditions are of no use. I believe many other religious traditions contain truth. I think that wherever there is truth, goodness, and beauty, the Spirit of God is involved, and no truth, goodness, or beauty is of no use. However, I don't think there is any other person or religious tradition in which "the fullness of God" has been revealed apart from Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9).

The writer of the intro agrees with Hanh's inclusivist perspective because of her "exploration into the earliest history of Christianity." In 1947, she says, a large collection of ancient Christian gospels and other writings were found in Upper Egypt. These were gnostic writings - books apparently salvaged from the library of the earliest Christian monastery in Egypt after the archbishop of Alexandria ordered the monks to destroy all books he deemed heretical. One of these supposed Gospels - the "Gospel of Thomas" - dates twenty years before any of the New Testament gospels were written (according to Helmut Koester, Professor of New Testament at Harvard University). These books view Jesus "as one through whom the divine was manifested and through whose example and teaching one can hope for similar enlightenment." In other words, they teach a version of Christianity and a perspective of Christ that seems quite in line with Hanh's.

The intro writer goes on to quote passages from the Gospel of Thomas, arguing that Jesus did not teach that he was the "only begotten Son of God" (as John later insisted) but that "we are the children of God."  The Gospel of Thomas, she says, tells of a Jesus who said we need to look inside ourselves - not beyond ourselves - for enlightenment.

So, what is the traditional Christian supposed to make of all this? Is the Gospel of Thomas really older than the Biblical gospels? Does it really quote Jesus accurately? If not, why did the writer attribute false quotations to Jesus?

According to Wikipedia, not everyone agrees with Helmut Koester (in fact, most do not). There are two camps of scholars - one that dates the Gospel between 50-100AD, and one that dates it from the second century (after the canonical Gospels had been written). After a brief overview of the Wikipedia page, I can see that it would take more time than I have available to make any kind of qualified judgement about the historicity of the Gospel. I am confident, though, that if there ever was a group of people living in 30-150AD who were interested in preserving Christ's teachings accurately, that group would be much more qualified to pass judgement on the historicity of the Gospel of Thomas than me. If those people were the ones assembling the canon of Scripture, they did not see Thomas's Gospel as historical. The Wikipedia page says that several early church fathers (3rd century) openly dismissed the Gospel of Thomas. This fact should count for something.

Next time: Chapter 1.

Danger: Attempt at Deep Thought Below

Yesterday in church the sermon was on Micah 6:8 - "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Act justly. Love mercy. Walk humbly. That's what God wants. Not burnt offerings, rivers of oil, and sacrificed firstborns (verse 7). Thank goodness.

But wait a minute - how are we supposed to act justly and love mercy at the same time? Aren't those things at odds with each other? Mercy is, by definition, what we receive when we are spared the consequences of what we deserve. Justice, in contrast, is what we receive when we do get what we deserve. Therefore, if we are to receive or grant mercy, justice must be abandoned. If we are to receive or grant justice, mercy must be abandoned. And yet God requires that we do both. How is this supposed to work?