The Akashic Field Part II: Unexplained mysteries

(This is part II of a review of Ervin Laszlo's book, Science and the Akashic Field- see part I below)

At the core of Laszlo's book is the idea that the Universe is guided by an "informational" field, or, as he calls it: the "A-field". This name is taken from the Sanskrit word for "ether", Akashic. He describes the field as something akin to the Gravitational Field in that one cannot see it, feel it, or directly observe it- but one can infer that it exists from the way things may interact with it. This informational field, may inform all things in the Universe- from the smallest entities like quanta to massively large cosmological things like stars, planets, solar systems, and the actual universe itself.

What kinds of things can one infer an informational field from? Here Laszlo lists many different puzzles that do not make any sense when looked at from the conventional scientific point of view.

A. Cosmic mysteries:

1) The staggeringly fine-tuning of the universe: if the "Big Bang" had produced just one billionth more or less matter than it did, space-time would have been curved even in the absence of matter (it is flat in the absence of matter).

2) The missing "mass" of the universe: even when scientists use dark matter to account for a huge chunk of the mass in the universe that they cannot see, there is still a massive amount "missing".

3) The accelerating cosmos: the cosmos should be slowing down.

4) Coherence of cosmic ratios: the mass of elementary particles, the number of particles, and the forces that exist between them are all mysteriously adjusted to favor certain ratios that appear over and over.

5) the "horizon" problem: the cosmos is evolving exactly the same in every direction from the Earth, but that kind of coherence doesn't make any sense- nothing could travel that fast to make sure it stayed coherent.

6) fine-tuning of universal constants: the universe seems very finely tuned for the extremely improbable conditions for which life can emerge and evolve.

Conclusion from cosmic mysteries: something is connecting everything in the Universe, and thus the universe may not have risen in the context of random fluctuations.

B. Puzzles of Quantum Physics:

1) Quanta (the most infinitesimal unit of any entity) do not exist in just one state. Until interacted with they display the counterintuitive behavior of being in multiple states at the same time.

2) Once a quanta is interacted with, it "becomes" one state- but there appears to be no way of telling beforehand which state it will become- it seems to choose its state from some other way than the act of the interaction.

3) You cannot measure both speed and energy of a quanta at the same time- when one is measured, the other becomes "blurred".

4) Quanta that are linked somehow remain linked: even when taken far apart, when one is observed, the other takes on a complimentary state based on its linked partner.

5) In one system, all the quanta are linked in such a way that not only will all take on a state based on another quanta- if one is individually measured the others will take on a complimentary state- even if the experiment is not carried out.

Conclusion from activity at the quanta level: Newtonian physics works on Earth- but ran into trouble once we split the atom. Then Einstein came up with Relativity- which is very hard to understand as it does not mirror what we see in everyday life. Now that concept is having trouble since quantum mechanics has come along. Something even more counterintuitive is needed to explain the phenomena we are now experiencing. What can connect quanta and make them behave the way they do? No matter how far apart- even light years away- quanta are somehow correlated. How does that happen?

C. Puzzles with Biology

1) organisms are extremely coherent: experiments in quantum biology have shown connections between organs in the body and in particles within organs.

2) organisms are coherent with their environment: without an internal fine-tuning to the external, organisms would have not been able to adapt to changing environments and would have been eliminated by natural selection.

3) The Darwinian concept of the separation of the genome from its environment is not correct- it has been proven so by statistics and experimentation: offspring can adapt in such a way that the same environment would have killed the parent. Statistics proves that chance mutations and natural selection could never have resulted in life in such a "short" period as it did on Earth.

Conclusion from Quantum biology: we are not only internally coherent, we also are coherent and correlated with the outside world. Not only that, but something guided the evolution of life- chance and destruction of the weak couldn't have done it.

D. Puzzles with Conscience research:

1) The measured effects of "non-local" events: groups praying for hospitalized individuals were able to have a statistically significant impact on those hospitalized when compared to those who were not prayed for.

2) Cultures developing similar artifacts and other cultural connections and correlations although they were never in contact.

Conclusion: not only are we coherent within ourselves and the outside world, but we are coherent with each other.

Conclusion from all this: things on the micro, macro, and even "ordinary" (from the human perspective) scales are surprisingly coherent and correlated. What makes this coherency and correlation happen?

A possible solution is an informational field that we cannot detect, but that "informs" everything in the Universe, guides all evolution, and connects us to everything. What does it mean? This is a question Lazslo will attempt to answer, but one in which we can attempt to answer for ourselves as well. What are the implications of some of these ideas on us as Christians? On our understanding of God and our purpose here? On life and the afterlife?

The Akashic Field: Part I

In the coming weeks I will attempt to explain parts of a book called Science and the Akashic Field (http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html). This book explores an "integral theory of everything", or- as Einstein liked to call it: "reading the mind of God." The book is a fascinating look at some cutting-edge science attempting to tie cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, consciousness, and all other science disciplines together. It is written by Ervin Laszlo, (http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/bios/ervin-laszlo.asp).

What is a "theory of everything" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything)? Simply put, physicists have long dreamed of coming up with a mathematical equation that would be able to explain all observable phenomena. Einstein attempted to do so (unified field theory), but lately- especially in light of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)- scientists have turned to conceptual schemes instead of mathematical equations to help explain "everything".

For awhile now many people, and increasingly scientists, have felt that the universe was connected somehow- that it isn't all just a bunch of random encounters with lots of "empty" space in between matter. With the curious and "weird" phenomena that is quantum activity coupled with the puzzling discovery that matter (detectable, observable entities) only makes up 4% of the Universe- scientists have slowly been coming around to the realization that our perception of reality is massively skewed by our lack of perception of the true nature of the Universe.

Or, in layman's terms: we can only "see" 4% of what's out there- so any conclusions we attempt to make about the ENTIRE universe are apt to be incomplete and most likely totally wrong; in addition- quantum mechanics: or the explanation of physical reality at the smallest level- is "weird": i.e. it seems to violate Newton's Principles on how matter behaves.

The weirdest, most unexplainable phenomenon: the smallest facet of physical reality: the quanta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta)- basically a "packet" of energy that is unlike any form of energy that we know of (it is both a "corpuscle and a wave", is not material- but can have the properties of mass, gravitation, and inertia)- when one property of a quanta is measured, the other properties become unavailable to measurement and observation. In other words, each quanta has the potential to take on different properties, but once they are interacted with- they take on a specific characteristic, a reality- and all other potential positions are unavailable. Another weird quality: there is no way to predict which property the quanta will take.

Laszlo points out that many scientists do not mess with the "why", but only stick to finding out the "how" of things. He explains in the beginning that "why" and "purpose" questions seem to some to stray too close to putting human perception and subjectivity on science. However, Laszlo makes the case that science should be concerned with "why"- that ultimately "why" may matter more and help explain the "how" better than just attempting to explain the "how".

As Laszlo explains in the first section- "why" really matters because no-one wants to believe that this universe came about simply by chance, that nothing we do will amount to anything in the long-run, and that the universe will end in destruction. "Purpose" drives humans and if the Universe is purposeless, then it begs the question of why even have humans in the first place (or, for that matter- anything)?

His answer: that cutting edge discoveries in physics, biology, cosmology, and consciousness all point to an existence that is not accidental, that the universe is an informed and meaningful universe, and that a unifed conceptual scheme can tie all phenomena in the world together: Einstein's elusive integral theory of everything.

As we get further into the book we will discover new ways of looking at the Universe, some that will look very familiar to religious folk (while at the same time looking unfamiliar to athiestic scientists), and others that will tease us into looking at the Universe in a wholly different light. If God is indeed more complex than we can understand and a literal interpretation of the Bible would have us believe- then these concepts could indeed be a glimpse of the awesomeness of His creation and maybe even a hint of the essense of God Himself.

Can Christians have their God and eat Him too? (Or, can athiests have their science and eat it too?)

This fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574405030643556324.html has two well-known authors answer the question, "Where does evolution leave God?". The great thing about this piece is that the WSJ did not do what most mainstream media do in juxtaposing different views on God: get one example from a moderate scientist and one example from a fundamental Christian. Instead, Richard Dawkins portrays a dyed-in-the wool atheist viewpoint and Karen Armstrong gives the view of a more moderate Christian. Although one could argue for a more balanced view (two extremists or two moderates), I think the WSJ peice is the most balanced I've seen anywhere.

Armstrong's view is very close to some of the ideas that have been posted on The Red Cell blog. She makes the argument that prior to the 17th Century, most religious scholars and even practitioners approached God and church doctrine in more of a spiritual way. Thus, in line with the Greeks, there was a "mythos" and a "logos" and they were careful not to confuse the two. Thus, "logos" or logic would have you discover that the Earth rotated around the sun and act accordingly. This "logos" would never, however, address things like morality, spirituality, origins of life, creation subjects, God- etc. The assumption is that our logic is unfortunately bounded by our perspective: our place in the universe and our limitations. Of course this isn't testable, but that does not mean it does not exist. Armstrong argues that that is why we need both- because just to assume everything must be logical and proven to be contemplated is possibly a very bad assumption. She further makes the point that at some time after the 17th Century, believers started to take the Bible literally and apply its teachings to subjects wholly outside of its focus: provable scientific inquiry.

Taking Armstrong's points a bit further, this is why the "logos" and "mythos" separations make sense to me. I don't need to read the Bible literally and ignore the provable fact that the mustard seed is not the "smallest of all seeds." In the same vein, I don't have to ignore evidence that supports evolution (although I should keep an open mind to other testable hypothesies). If, indeed, God (or as Armstrong describes it: "God beyond God"), in all God's mysteriousness is not an entity that is observable or measurable by humans, it would be egotistical to think that we could explain how the universe was created in the truly Godly technical way it came into being using human language and a human interpretation (whether literal from a human standpoint or not) of the Bible.

Having said that, the same can be said of the athiest view, which is represented by Dawkins' writing. In his peice, Dawkins basically argues that God does not exist because evolution can explain how life began on Earth. Ignoring the fact that Evolution is still a theory and that it has not been proven (if it ever could) that all life on Earth followed an unmolested evolutionary trail from the first beginnings of the planet, and that even if evolution explained how life on Earth began it doesn't explain two other subjects: how the universe "began" (assuming it did "begin") and what our purpose here is (again, assuming we have one- which I do assume- otherwise all this debating is useless): I think it is likewise egotistical that athiests can rule out God simply because the entity is unprovable.

To expect that everything has to follow a "logos" or reason is to ignore the possibility that we humans are so limited in our faculties that we might not be able to ever detect other things "out there". That, of course, does not mean they are out there, or that athiests have to believe something else is out there just because Christians say there is- but I would argue they shouldn't discount the possibility out of hand. Most of the makeup of the Universe (that we can perceive) is actually not even detectable by humans (dark matter and dark energy). Only about 4% of the universe is directly observable.

The dominant theory about the universe holds that another 22% is so-called dark matter- which is indirectly observable by its effect on the observable parts. The rest- 74%- is not detectable at all right now and is referred to as "dark energy". I am not trying to say that God is the dark energy or something to that effect, but to simply point out that just because we cannot detect something hasn't forced scientists to discount it. On the contrary, although they only take into account what they think the universe is physically composed of, they do not discount unobservable phenomena.

Likewise, in my opinion, we should not discount possible unobservable phenomena that may lie on other "extra-universal" planes than we exist in and that do not fit into the "logos" realm (different ways in which to exist might not follow what we view as fitting within the realm of reason). Dawkins refers to these kinds of things as "magic", but surely- just as he points out- Medievel peoples would have considered 747s as magic as well, but that does not make them any less "real". To assume that as technology progresses, "God" digresses is to assume the opposite of what we have possibly experienced: that as technology progresses and we are able to observe and measure more, we either become closer to understanding the entity we know as "God"- OR, that the two are wholly separate subjects and it is not a zero sum game- as the entity known as "God" is outside of the "logos" part of our world.

In conclusion, the point that I think Dawkins misses is not that he is wrong- but that the human description of God might be wrong. In other words, just because literal translationists say that God must be a certain way does not mean they are right and just because athiests say evolution proves there is no God does not mean they are right either. I tend to believe that God is much more mysterious than any verse-quoting preacher can describe, as I also tend to believe that the universe is much more mysterious than any science-quoting athiest can describe. In the end, the two may be incompatible anyway- one describing the physical universe and the other describing the spiritual. The fascinating possibility that I am interested in is, if it exists, in what way are the two connected- and can we detect that?

Necessary, but not sufficient?

Last Sunday, our Pastor Ron said the phrase "necessary, but not sufficient". My ears perked up because it recalled recent conversations in the classroom about ultimate causes.

Of course, looking back at his sermon, he really didn't say the phrase that caught my attention. What he said instead was:

"... The Westminster Confession of Faith on which the Presbyterian Church is based says, "All things in Scripture are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, (They) are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture that not only the learned, but the unlearned may attain a sufficient understanding of them..."

So, while he touched on the concept, "necessary"- he shied away from the term "sufficient" when speaking of Scripture (his use of the term "sufficient" was in reference to us understanding the Scripture).

But what is sufficient? Is the Bible sufficient? Or is it "only" necessary? Necessary to understand God, but not sufficient to understand Him? Following Ron's central idea of his sermon that day- that we should approach the Bible as a group in order to gain a deeper understanding- follows in the tradition of current social science theorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse).

The idea is that one is bounded by one's own experiences and knowledge when approaching a new topic (or even an old one) and thus one is limited in one's potential for understanding. Discourse- talking with others (although that is a shallow definition) can help spur deeper understanding.

Pastor Ron seems to advocate the same for understanding the Bible (and thus, one would presume, God). So, it is necessary to read the Bible- but not sufficient. One needs "discourse" also. Is there anything that is sufficient?

Theoretically one could arrive at ludicrous trains of thought following this exercise. Is God really necessary? Or, is our belief in Him all that is necessary? In other words, is it more important that we believe, or that He exists? If our beliefs affect our actions, belief may be more important in the conceptual sense (at least on Earth). If He exists, but no-one believes that, then as far as Earthly existence His reality would not seem to be that sufficient.

And that is probably the limit of my understanding: it all boils down to context. Universally it is sufficient that God exists. But our understanding of God is bound by our Earthly knowledge. We can't even begin to explain 1/1000th of God's makeup. If that is so, then maybe it is not important that His existence be sufficient. For us, all that is sufficient now (due to our ignorance) is that we believe. Maybe that is all we can shoot for in this life.

Is the Church a Learning Organization?

The one fad in the business world that might be on the verge of becoming more than a fad is "the learning organization". In short, a learning organization empowers its employees down to the lowest level with a passion for education and knowledge, responsibility to make decisions, a team-player attitude, and the acceptance of mistakes- with the idea being if the whole organization learns from everyone's mistakes, they won't be repeated. This contrasts with the traditional organization that hides mistakes, promotes those who consistently show excellence (and thus hide their mistakes), and doesn't trust their employees.

Is the Church a "Learning Organization"? I've been in some churches where most of the responsibility rests with only a few. I've been in others that seem to play a political game- and thus people are unwilling to admit mistakes. I've also been in the proverbial "perfect" church wherein everyone supports one another and the goal is the growth of the congregation, as opposed to the growth of individuals within the congregation.

I guess the answer may be that some churches are more "learning organization" oriented than others. It would, of course, depend on the individual church's culture, history, its present pastor and church elders. But, as a rule- are churches geared towards being learning organizations or are they traditionally more likely to be traditional, hierarchical, and resistant to growth. Do people use the Bible to prohibit "growth" in the church? Can we question paradigms that have been around forever and are no longer seen as dogma as much as they are seen as unquestioned doctrine? Are we passionate about the search for knowledge in everything we do? Are we really concerned with education- education in a more scientific experimentation-style that requires an underlying doubt about dogma?

I'm really not sure. I would like to think the church doesn't stifle a learning organization-type atmosphere. Surely there were periods in the Universal Church's history wherein this wasn't the case. I would encourage church goers to read Peter Senge's book, The Fifth Discipline- which is considered one of the authorities on Learning Organizations, and then give their opinion on this question. Here's a good link: http://www.solonline.org/aboutsol/who/Senge/

What is the purpose of church?

I get a lot of polar opposite thoughts on church from acquaintances:

- "Church is man-made and really doesn't do too much for me spiritually"
- "It is wrong to not go to church."

As I'm finding out more and more, reality is usually somewhere in the middle of ideology. Churches are influenced by their parishioners and many a church could seem more earthly than heavenly when filled with the self-righteous, the judgmental, the gossipy, and the cliquish. Having said that, however, learning about heavenly matters is tough on one's own- surely discussing, sharing ideas, contemplating during sermons, and working to help others all have the potential to broaden one's understanding of universal purpose.

As a kid I usually liked to go to church. There was Sunday School- which was like regular school only some of the kids didn't go to my regular school so it was a chance to play with other kids I didn't normally see. There was usually some type of food- especially at potlucks. One Lutheran church I went to had fastnacht- which was a fun and crazy time of food, drink, dancing, skits, singing, and acting. Retreats usually were in the mountains or at lakes and those were definitely fun. Mixed in with all that were lessons on God and the Bible and these things stoked my curiosity of heavenly topics. I slowly started to seek answers to questions we didn't really touch on in school: why are we here?; what is the purpose of life?; how should we live and why?

As I got older Sunday was more of a day to recover from Saturday. I felt uncomfortable going to church alone and even after I got married it seemed more like a families-with-kids kind of place. But, I never really felt any passion about going to church at that point- it seemed more like a social club to me than anything else.

After children came along I started seriously thinking more about church and wanting "to belong". I remembered the good feeling of belonging from when I was a kid and wanted the same for my children. Since joining a few churches now for several years I think there are some obvious positives to going to church:

- it helps one broaden their social contacts. It is spiritually and emotionally healthy to have more contacts than just family and work. Church allows one to meet others that one might not normally meet. Church members may need help at times and this allows beneficial relationships between people that normally might not exist- especially in today's world of the Internet, suburbs, and TV.
- discourse is increased. Lots of books have been written on the importance of discourse in improving understanding. Reading the Bible at home is good, but talking about the Bible with others leads one to hear different ideas and attempt to articulate one's own ideas- many times a prerequisite for deeper understanding.
- Churches usually help others. At the least they help their members when they need help. Usually, though, the membership attempts to help locals in need and even those in other countries. Charity helps others and it helps the people giving it too.

But, does Church always help people, or, conversely, is it required? Would love to hear thoughts on this- because I think I know the answers, but I'm not sure. I have heard horror stories of some churches being more hurtful than helpful and I have thought at times that it would be really hard to understand God if one didn't go to church. Is there only one answer? Is this a false choice?

I do, however, think the key is discourse. If the theorists on complexity are correct and it is difficult for one person- no matter how smart- to come to greater understanding about complex subjects through only self-study- then church is probably more important than I thought. Discourse might actually be required to greater understanding of God. It might not be required to get into Heaven- but maybe it is required to understand the possibilities of what Heaven means.

Are our souls separate from our bodies?

If you google the title you get a plethora of sites and ideas. One of the ideas that seems to pop up directly questions what the Bible says: "...A soul is an idea created by man to comfort his fear of his impermanence..."

If you google the words "Bible" and "soul" you'll see this website: http://www.learnbible.net/soul.html. In it you see many Biblical references to these ideas:

- "God hides the truth from all but a few" basically saying that it is hard for the "common scholar" to divine Divine Truth from reading the Bible (so, who is a "common scholar"?)
- "That Greek thought and St. Augustine came up with the doctrinal views of "the soul"- and not anything directly out of the Bible
- "..."Among the ancient Hebrews 'soul' was the equivalent of the principle of life as embodied in living creatures, and this meaning is continued throughout the Bible ..."
- "...In the Old Testament Hebrew, the original word for soul is nephesh. In the New Testament Greek it is psuche. Both mean the same thing and are used Interchangeably. One is used to translate the other..."
- "...It is quite obvious at the outset that a word of such broad application, including all the animal kingdom, all its bodily [and] physical aspects, CANNOT POSSIBLY indicate some immortal essence in man distinguishing him from the lower creation..."

I'd encourage anyone interested to peruse the rest of that website- some interesting thoughts. I personally plan to spend some time today looking up the thoughts on the "soul" in the Bible- but as the above-mentioned website notes- is the Greek and English translations so corrupted as to make finding the meaning of one word problematic? I guess it depends on what our thoughts are on the source of the Bible and subsequent translations.

Bottom line, though- is: is our soul separate from our bodies, or is it a manifestation of our bodies (or is that a false dichotomy- and the "truth" somewhere in between?)?

On the one hand I feel very lucky to have been born into the U.S. and as a product of loving and educated parents. That my soul "landed" in that vessel seems to me to be a jackpot kind of "win". Surely I need to do a lot to justify that gift.

On the other hand, what if my soul could not have existed in any other body? What if it is the end result of every person along my lineage up to this point? What if my soul actually emerges from my body and is not separate? This possibility makes the whole "afterlife" idea a little murky- what happens to my soul if it is a result of my body- and my body is decomposing in the ground? Likewise, if my soul is entirely separate- wouldn't that be akin to the idea of multiple lives?

The meaning of "Yom": How do we set church doctrine?

I read recently that the Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the Creation story ("Yom") could have three different meanings. One is a 12 hour period. Another is 24 periods of something (24 seasons, 24 days, 24 years, etc. The last possible meaning is "a time period". This could mean a season, a year, a millennium, etc.

I'm no language expert- and surely don't know Hebrew (so I might be entirely wrong), but if this is true then a literal translation of the Creation story may be problematic. Do we really know what the "literal" translation is?

One theory I've heard to solve this "problem" is that the King James Version was inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be a translation we can count on being literally God's words.

In going to the website http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm, I saw these interesting theories on the Genesis account of Creation:

1- It happened exactly as the Bible- in its current English translations- says it did (God created the world in 6, 24-hour periods)
2- God created the world in 6 days, but the days were not contiguous- there were long periods of time in between each day.
3- God's "days" are a thousand days to a human "day"- therefore it happened over 6,000 days.
4- God's "days" are "like" a thousand days- so they could be any time period- to us they are long, to God they are "only" a day.
5- The Creation story is a metaphor- not meant to actually describe what happened, but to give humans a model from which to follow in as far as work, worship, and rest.
6- Each day represented millions of years
7- God did create the universe in 6 days, but it happened a long time ago (unknowable).
8- The author of Genesis used a narrative device to describe the Creation in "acts"- instead of "Act I", he used "Day 1". In other words, it is impossible to know how long "Act I", etc. was.
9- God described the Creation to Moses and took 6 days to describe it. Moses described the illustration.
10- God commanded Creation to take place over 6 days, and then it took a much longer period to take place
11- depending on your "time perspective" (since time is relative), from God's perspective (outside looking in?) the days were short. From our perspective (inside?) it would have been billions of years- but even that is problematic- since "we" weren't around billions of years ago. (this theory somehow agrees very closely with Big Bang Theory calculations for the age of the Universe)
12- and, my "favorite" : "...Replicated earth theory: Mike Schuler has developed a novel theory of origins, and has begun a web site to explain this and other scientific puzzles. He believes that God created an original earth. He spent billions of years trying every possible genetic code, to see what types of life would result. Most of the species were useless. God created a mass extinction event whenever the world filled up with such unneeded species. At the end of this great experiment, he was ready to create humans in the image of God. So he created an exact copy of that original earth in perfect detail, down to the atomic level. This took him only six days, as Genesis states. Schuler draws the analogy of the creation of a music CD. It might take months to create a new CD, but a copy can be created in seconds..."

I, personally, have one question for all of the theories which hold that it had to have happened (any part that God took direct part in) in a certain time period. For an omnipotent God, why would it not have happened instantaneously? It would seem to me to be more believable that it really was a metaphor to show us how to live, and that in reality it happened in a way most likely only known to God.

The science fiction lover in me, however, likes the "time perspective" theory. Time being relative is very hard for the layman to understand (me being one of them). At the start of the Big Bang (if the theory is right), time, space, and matter were compressed in ways beyond our understanding. To explain how it really happened, one would have to know from what perspective it was being described. Since humans weren't around according to the Bible- it would only follow it wasn't from our perspective.

In the end, however- it should only matter how it happened if it effects the central tenets of our faith. Does it?

Flooding in front of our eyes: Are we ignoring God in favor of the Bible?

If any of you have been reading this blog for some time you've probably noticed a trend in some of the posts: a struggle with how to interpret the Bible. I see some issues with a literal translation, and yet- what is the alternative? As one of my youth pastors once said: "in picking and choosing what to believe from the Bible you, in effect, become your own god."

But can that be all there is to life? Believe a literal translation of the Bible, blindly, and, through little effort of your own (unless you were unlucky enough to have been born into a non-Christian family and/or country, which would mean you would have expended lots of effort overcoming your cultural background) you reach Heaven? As a non-believe once asked me, "Why would God be so enamored with a bunch of automotons- bent on believing whatever their parents and/or society told them to- without so much as a critical thought?"

It reminds me of a story that I've posted once or twice already, but I think it is worth repeating:

A farmer is in Iowa during a flood. The river is overflowing, with water surrounding the farmer's home up to his front porch. As he is standing there, a boat comes up, The man in the boat says "Jump in, I'll take you to safety."
The farmer crosses his arms and says stubbornly, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. The water rises to the second floor. Another boat comes up, the man says to the farmer who is now in the second story window, "Jump in, I'll save you."
The farmer again says, "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The boat goes away. Now the water is up to the roof. As The farmer stands on the roof, a helicopter comes over, and drops a ladder. The pilot yells down to the farmer "I'll save you, climb the ladder."
The farmer says "Nope, I put my trust in God."
The helicopter goes away. The water comtinues to rise and sweeps the farmer off the roof. He drowns.
The farmer goes to heaven. God sees him and says "What are you doing here?"
The farmer says "I put my trust in you and you let me down."
God says, "What do you mean, let you down? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!!!"

Now, we all laugh at this joke today and if you're like me you wonder at someone who would believe in something that he can't explain (God) and yet not believe in something he can. It reminds me of those people who deny medical treatment to their kids in favor of prayer. I want to yell out: "maybe God already answered your prayer and sent you a doctor!"

Likewise, I sometimes get the feeling that something similar may be in store in the Afterlife for me if I have lived by a literal interpretation of the Bible alone and ignored everything else as "man's folly". I can imagine God saying, "I created you in my own image (knowledge of self?), gave you reason, gave you the scientific method, gave you the potential for critical thought, etc.- and you chose to waste those gifts? How could you be so confident in something that you devoted no critical thought to? How can you be so pompous as to think you have Me figured out from only one of the tools I provided?"

To me "faith" is a more complex topic than we give it credit for. Believers seem to want to wrap it up in a nice little box and either you have it or you don't. Blind faith, some will say, is what God wants. Doubt, examination, and alternative possibilities are the Devil's tools and man's undoing and overconfidence. And yet I can't get why God would reward an uncritical approach to His universe. Why give us all the tools He has given us if He didn't expect us to use them- not to come to a total understanding- but to grow closer in understanding?

Maybe faith isn't just a blind faith in what our parents and society tells us, but instead faith entails believing that not everything is as simple as it appears. Maybe faith means trusting our senses and not ignoring them when they seem (from our vantage point) to contradict church doctrine. Maybe faith involves assuming that we don't live in a "matrix"-type existence and that what we see, measure, feel, etc.- is reality. To believe that all scientists are part of some worldwide conspiracy headed by the devil seems to me to run counter to that definition of faith.

Surely the knowledge of physics passed on through the generations for the past few hundred years has done wonders for the collective knowledge of the human race. If anything, I would propose it has deepened the mystery as to how God functions and how the universe came into being. I'm not saying ignore all verses in the Bible as false and start believing everything that comes out of scientific journals. But, I'm not sure we should discount them all either- the reality of God may exist in some mysterious mixture of both the Bible AND science- and wouldn't we hate to have been working at cross-purposes because we think our grasp of the Bible gives us all the answers? Can we be so confident?

Is the Bible consistent?

Growing up, a close relative used to express his frustration with the Bible to me at times. "I am frustrated many times with the New Testament. It's all about forgiveness and love. We Protestants have forgotten about the God of the Old Testament- the punisher. You didn't mess around with Him. We need more of Him today. We need a flood!"

The exact opposite was what I usually heard from my friends. "The Old Testament is so judgmental. Why can't everyone be more loving and forgiving like Jesus?"

Then I met crusty, old Army guys who talked about "the commie threat" and that Jesus seemed "like a hippy" to them.

Then there were the collegiate folks who talked more of tolerance than anything else- and made the case that Jesus would have been more tolerant than Christians today (I guess they missed the part about the moneychangers and the part of Peter trying to get Jesus to fight back).

Lastly there were the folks that thought contemporary preachers ignored the "fire and brimstone" parts of the Bible in order to not turn-off people who were looking for hope. Joel Osteen and others seemed to be the anathema of God to them.

I, too, see a difference between what was stressed in the Old Testament and what seems to be the focus of the New. In the Old there was instruction, disobedience, and punishment. There were laws- tons of them.

In the New Testament there was one message: love. God loves us, so Jesus sacrificed Himself, so that we could be saved. And all we have to do is believe in Him and love one another.

How do we reconcile these differences? Some say that is how it was meant to be: Jesus came and changed things. Others see no difference- they talk of a consistency throughout the Bible.

I tend to think that Jesus did change things. What I think about a lot is why we don't add more books to the Bible. Surely we have learned things since Jesus was here. Things that could expand our knowledge of life, purpose, and the universe.

Complexity Theory would hold that things get more complex and complicated over time. Following that- that is why religions keep breaking off into different groups and sub-groups. Things won't get simpler- things will just get more complicated. And more diverse. And there will be more groups.

So- that's why I don't think books will be added to the Bible. No group would be able to sell their ideas of additions to the other groups. It wouldn't be accepted.

But that is too bad. I am reminded of the story of the guy who passed up all kinds of chances to be saved during a flood thinking that God would save him. In Heaven God tells him, "I sent you a boat, a helicopter, a...." I think God has given us many things since Jesus was here. We have discovered and understood so many more things about His creation. We have uncovered many more questions. I sometimes feel that God would want more added to the Bible. That He still inspires people to write about Him and His creation. Will he one day say to Christians- "Why did you stop adding to my book?"

1 problem with Evolution down, 1 to go

After a HS education and some college-level classes on biological evolution and then reading a book called Scientific Creationism (and 20+ years of religious education and thought) I found myself having two issues with evolution as I understood it:

1) on the macro level I tied it to The Big Bang and saw an inconsistency at some level with respect to the need for a "first cause" at some point. At some point I thought science had a problem with being consistent: the further one went back, the closer one got to a conclusion that a Creator of some kind was needed (who created the mass of stuff that "banged"?).

2) at the micro level I thought there were too many holes in the fossil record to back up evolution. I thought evolution theory held that over a long period of time through random mutations and natural selection new species would emerge. If that were true surely at least one species would have a fossilized record of most of the variations it went through to arrive at what they are today.

Since there was no such record that I could find for even one species- I thought the theory didn't jive.

Recently, however, from readings on Complexity theory and "Emergence" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium) I've come to the belief that the fossil record might not contradict a theory of evolution- and that the education I got on evolution (and the way Darwinian evolution is taught) was wrong. The basic idea is that life is not chaotic or random- there are rules that structure life and that we all have to follow (one could suppose physics is an attempt to "discover" these rules that govern the universe).

From that initial structure- certain changes in the environment (quite possibly NOT random- but seemingly to us on the micro level) lead to very quick change and whole species developing seemingly overnight. And that is followed by long periods of seemingly no change. So- the fossil record wouldn't show a thousand different variations in a species because there weren't a thousand variations.

The bottom line on these concepts is that we aren't here by accident- based on the initial conditions everything we see at the macro level is more or less pre-determined (although there are plenty of micro happenstance) based on the structure (rules) of the universe (think physics)-although "emergence" would probably state it is pre-determined, but only identified as such from hindsight (unless one is an all-knowing entity).

All of that leads me to believe that one of my problems with evolution has died a slow death. But- does that lead me further from the concept of God? My conclusion is "no"- and actually I even feel closer to a belief in a "Creator". I somehow get the feeling that the mechanics of God are way out of my league the more I learn- but I actually think my other "problem" with evolution- the one that deals with the eventuality of inconsistency- is actually GREATER as I accept the "new" evolutionary theories. When one follows the logic trail all the way back to the beginning of the universe it seems to me that there IS design, there IS structure, there IS a purpose- based on emergence theory and punctuated equilibrium.

Why? Because everything rests on initial conditions and thus the world isn't chaotic and filled with chance- based on those concepts. And there are rules and structure to life. All of that leads me logically towards something setting those initial conditions, establishing the structure and rules, and something that could possibly figure the macro patterns that will emerge light years from now (or from the beginning) i.e., an all-knowing entity. Of course we can't prove this, but I'd argue it goes both ways (we can't prove another way either). When you factor in the fact that only a very small percentage of the universe (4%) is even detectable (see dark matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) and only 22% of the rest is even indirectly detectable- it seems very likely that we may never be able to "prove" (or disprove) a Creator in this life and/or dimension.

In the end I may be framing the term evolution incorrectly. To me evolution cannot be separated with the initial conditions of the universe and what started it all (Big Bang or something else). I know they are two distinct theories, but in my overall concept of the universe it is difficult and seemingly inconsistent to separate them from the same underlying logic (that logic being either no "Designer" running things and having influence- or a Designer doing something either at the beginning or continuously (read: God). Indeed, both emergence and Complexity theories would hold that evolution at the micro biological level depends entirely on however the Universe started and the rules inherent within.

Can you have evolution and still have God? Or, more presciently: can you be consistent within the concepts of evolution as we understand them today and declare there is no God? I would argue that it would be difficult.

Was Jesus an environmentalist?

I googled the title and came up with this website: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4010/is_200205/ai_n9033508/?tag=content;col1 about an environmental preacher. I think what she says makes sense: that Christians shouldn't be about overconsumption and waste. I think that definitely fits into what I see were Jesus' priorities: modesty, unselfishness, and sacrifice.

But, should we be environmentalists? To me, much of the environmental agenda has turned political and thus ideological. I think there's a tremendous difference between cutting your consumption, cutting off lights, and recycling- and trying to make the world colder (I'm sorry, I'm a "We can do anything about Global Warming- cynic"). I have plenty of faith that humans can make the environment bad, but not much faith we can reverse macro trends.

What is more interesting to me is, at the macro level, what would Jesus be for? Would He have sided with Al Gore or would he have belitted a "Tower of Babel"-type idea: this turning the world colder?

I really do think He would have been for micro-level environmentalism- just as Reverend Bingham talks about. But I also think that Jesus would have not been interested in macro-level politics. I think He was focused on the spiritual side of things and the Afterlife. "Render unto Caesar" could well have been "render unto Al Gore"- which I would take to mean to not get involved in the debate- at least not on religious terms.

But, if you believe that macro changes emerge from micro changes- then perhaps everyone turning "greener" will be a good thing overall for the planet. And while we might not get colder, maybe we can at least keep from getting any less healthy. And I would submit that would be in keeping with Jesus' teachings.

How "easy" it would have been to have witnessed the resurrected Christ!

I say "easy" because there were still people who didn't believe- but I'm not sure there were any who refused to believe once they saw Him, and felt the holes and his side. Talk about proof! What we call "faith"- those disciples like Thomas that were able to get proof- did they really have faith? Why can't we get the same proof- we wouldn't need to wrestle with "big-picture" questions with athiests. Sometimes I think it would make things too easy if we were just handed truth on a silver platter. Seems we would skip a lot of necessary learning (the trip is many times more important than the destination) if Jesus appeared before us today during a church service and let us take pictures of Him ascending back into Heaven along with Peter, Isaiah, and Moses. But wouldn't that be the same as Him coming back and proving to Thomas and others that he arose?

Is God omnipotent?

The question on the poll to the right- 'is God omnipotent?' was meant to address the seeming paradox that God could be so powerful that His actions and past could both fulfill scripture AND match science as we currently understand it (or will, in the future). In other words, if God is so powerful as to be beyond human understanding, then it might be possible that science doesn't contradict Him, but, in fact, is consistent with even scripture- but obviously in ways we don't yet (and maybe never will) understand.

If that is a possibility, then perhaps many of the doctrinal things Christians argue about or debate with secularists is trivial. Take, for instance, whether God made the Earth in 6 days or 6 billion. Does it really matter? And, if it does matter, then is it safe to say that God, being all-powerful, could have both created the world according to scripture AND consistent with how scientists believe it happened? And if that is a possibility then we might have a little more in common with atheists than we might care to admit.

Throwing Palms and singing hallelujah: if they knew who Jesus was, why did they kill him?

Mark 11 and the chapters around it have always concerned me. Something just didn't seem right. Jesus went from being celebrated to crucified in a very short time. The same people who were calling him the Messiah, laying palms and their cloaks in the road, amazed at his speaking ability- very quickly seemed to do a 180 and insist he be crucified- in the place of a criminal. How did that happen? And what does it mean for us today?

Reading between the lines- obviously he upset the religious leaders of the day. He told them that what you put into your body does not defile you- but what comes out does. He told them that they worshiped tradition more than God. He told them to get their monetary interests out of the synagogue.

Also reading between the lines- the people laying palms on Palm Sunday seemed to be celebrating a political leader- "blessed be the kingdom of David". Not only did he threaten the religious leaders- one would think the Roman leaders would also be concerned with anyone who encouraged the people in terms of Jewish tradition. It must not have taken the religious leaders long to stir up the people against Jesus- but how?

My theory is that they just told the people the truth. That truth was that Jesus wasn't a political leader set to overturn Roman rule. They told the people what Jesus had told the Disciples not to tell anyone: that he was a spiritual Messiah that would save everyone's souls- not a political Messiah that would re-establish a Jewish state. If that was what the people were expecting and the Romans fearing, I would imagine it didn't take too much to convince either group that Jesus was a liability. Once the Romans figured out he was "just" a spiritual Messiah- they tried to get out of the spectacle, but the people insisted they follow through.

What makes my theory chilling to me is that I see many parallels to that time and today. I hear religious leaders quoting scripture with the confidence of the Sadduccees as to what it means. I see Christians and Jews convinced that government policies can bring back the Messiah- either the 2nd coming or the 1st- depending on your view. I see religious folk intimately worried with political issues and relating everything on Earth to religion. And I could just imagine Jesus coming around today and saying the same things to the religious today that he said to his disciples and to the Sadduccees and Pharisees he did long ago: 'You do not know the Lord'.

I have a friend who is convinced he can take scripture and understand how God works at the most fundamental level. I have a sneaking suspicion that, just as Jesus was frustrated with the religious of his day, we are still missing the proverbial big picture.

The Afterlife, the purpose of life, the nature of God, how "grace" works, all that stuff is beyond our capacity to understand- even if we had the textbooks on it all (it would be like giving a 2nd grader a college physics treatise). But- there are some underlying principles that DO matter, and I think those are what we should be concentrating on. Problem is, I'd argue we have not really identified those principles, or had the discourse of what they could be. Prior to that we can't even begin to discuss the why- why those principles are important. Would Jesus come back today and say we are still not getting it?

If the answer is "yes"- then what do we do to correct it? First step would be to assume we don't know what Jesus was getting at and to approach the Gospel like it was the first time we'd ever read it- without any assumptions guiding our understanding of it (no approved translations, no assuming it is the infallible word from God, no assuming that it is to be taken literally, etc.).

Second would be to see if there are any similarities in other religions, codes of law, universal understandings, scientific conclusions, etc. We wouldn't be searching for things like "Love God with all your heart"- which is intrinsically impossible to define, but the underlying principle behind it (be unselfish?). Likewise, the underlying principle of Grace seems to also be unselfishness- and modesty.

After a discourse on the underlying principles which seem to permeate all belief on this planet, we could then get into postulating why they might be important. And at the same time we could try to codify how to execute those principles in daily life.

Just a thought- maybe it is wrong, but if the Sadduccees and Pharisees had it wrong, it makes me wonder why we think we would have it right today- especially with so many claiming they have it "right"- and none seeming to be that similiar. Surely our religion has changed a lot since the Apostle Paul was struck blind on that lonely road. I do have a feeling, however, that it has stagnated some since Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door at Wittenberg.

What authority does the Bible have?

A frequent question about the Bible, books such as Genesis and Exodus in particular, is whether they aren't just mythology; tale tails to explain a distant past that no one has experienced.

There have been historical studies done of the Bible, and it certainly has history in it that has been verified. That still doesn't allow one to logically conclude that it is all true.

Like historical novels, why can't clever men record history but also introduce fictional characters? In this case, God, the devil, Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.

Are there also fictional places, such as Sodom and Gomorrah?

Can men discern the truth about the Bible, separate fact from fiction, history from fantasy? Should men either accept it all, or reject it all?

Works vs. Grace

The Presbyterian Church (and many other Christian churches) have a doctrine that stresses "Grace" over "Works". At the risk of oversimplifying, the gist is that we get into Heaven based on God's Grace- through Jesus dying on the Cross- and not by any works that we do.

I often wonder if the stress on Grace to the utter ignoring of works leads some to discount works as just an afterthought or even as useless. Some people take the extreme and think that if they believe in Jesus that they don't need to worry about anything. Joel Osteen preaches that God wanted us to be happy and successful.

Yet I wonder if this builds complacency. As a relatively blessed person in the world- especially one born in America to a relatively well-off family, I have been given many things without working to get them. I can only conclude that these were gifts to me- and subsequently that I should do something to deserve them. In short, if I waste these gifts, it won't go over so well in the Afterlife.

That isn't based on any Biblical verse or church dogma- it is just a feeling I have. I figure that we are here for a purpose- and that purpose has to be a little more complicated than just to see who accepts Jesus or not as their savior. The concepts in that belief- in my opinion: unselfishness and humbleness- are probably the most important, but along with that I really think that we are also here to determine if you deserve what you started with. I'm not sure why or how- but I just know in my heart that if I don't use the gifts God has given me it won't be a good thing.

1) is our purpose here "only" to see if we accept Jesus?
2) what is the purpose of the Afterlife?
3) what will the Afterlife be composed of?
4) was Revelations just written in the style of the day?
5) what place do "works" have in faith?

Losing our religion?

In case you've missed it, the news is full of stories these days about the death of religion- or at least of Protestantism.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/is-religion-los.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101859925

What can we do to stop this trend- or should we? The first story is written by a religious professor who notes that today's youth do not want a religion that makes any moral judgments- everyone is good and the only goal is happiness- the sooner the better.

This has to remind some of Gomorrah. Are we there yet? Are we worse? Or are things much the same as they always have been? Is there no progress for humanity?

Another interesting trend the papers note are the growth in American-made religions like Scientology and Mormonism.

Design and questioning assumptions: How relevant is it to Faith?

The U.S. Army is going more and more towards the concept of "Design" everyday. At the heart of Design is critical thinking, systems thinking, complexity theory, and chaos theory- to name just a few of the concepts. It is fundamentally about a new way of thinking, a new way of approaching problems, life, and how we process information. It has the potential to fundamentally change the way the Army does things- from the top on down.

Some guys resist the new ideas- as many are resistant to change. Design isn't something easily understood or grasped. I probably could attempt another ten pages of explanation and probably wouldn't get it right. Suffice it to say that Design attempts to have people take themselves out of their biased perceptive selves and attempt to redefine things in terms of other peoples' perspectives. This causes a person to suspend his/her own beliefs and assumptions in order to better understand what others may be perceiving things. For one example, in the Yom Kippur War both the Israelis and the Egyptians declared victory. How could that be? Both defined victory differently. Without that fundamental understanding, it would arguably be harder for each to capitalize on their "win".

Regardless of how one views this new "holistic" way of thinking- it is coming, like it or not. Many Charter Schools are turning towards Holistic approaches to math and other problem-solving subjects. The Army officer's Basic courses are starting to throw out the old linear ways of learning and turning to more Design-type approaches. I submit that if people in their 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's don't educate themselves in Design- they may not be able to communicate much longer with younger people.

Will this effect churches? Some in the Army think so. By forcing people to practice to see things differently, question assumptions, and re-assemble fundamental worldviews, it is hard not to apply the same concepts to one's fundamental beliefs- both in one's country and one's religion. Is that a bad thing? Should church's run and hide from these concepts, or should they welcome the challenge? As with everything there is risk- risk that some believers will lose their faith or stop coming to church. But, the gains could be astronomical. Church's the embrace these concepts and challenge their own parishioners to learn all they can about Design and apply it to their own faith could build a very strong and intelligent church body. It could even have the potential to turn the recent deterioration around for the Protestant faith.

1) Is the church in danger of becoming irrelevant?
2) Is it better for the Christian religion to turn back to its roots- and become the "outcasts" of society?
3) Does Design have the potential to turn some away from the faith?
4) What is the matter with questioning fundamental assumptions- and coming to the conclusion that "Absolute Truth" isn't something that Humans can know?
5) What things MUST Christians accept on faith- regardless of the assumptions behind them?
6) Can Christians KNOW any Absolute Truths? How?

Church and Politics

I read with interest recently the article on bishops criticizing the appointment of Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/1086063.html). The line that got me thinking was the priest's comment that if he didn't criticize her, no-one would and that even Jesus was criticized for doing what he thought was right.

But did Jesus ever confront the politicians of the day? I don't remember him criticizing Caesar or saying that the local governor was corrupt and shouldn't support infanticide. I don't remember him saying that the local centurions should be more lenient on Jews. In fact, the only group I remember Jesus being critical of was the religious leaders of the day. He admonished them for thinking that they knew God. I read that as a warning to all: be modest when it comes to knowledge of God: we as humans can't begin to fathom the intricacies of the Creator, Holy Spirit, and Son.

Some would say that Jesus didn't operate in a world where Christianity was the de facto state religion- and that to compare what he would do today is to compare apples and oranges. I would disagree. I think Jesus was more concerned with something greater than Earthly politics: he was concerned with our souls. When he did talk about the government it was to say there was a separation and that they should adher to that delineation. 'Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and Give unto God what is God's' I take as saying that politics has to do with Earthly needs and wants and what God is about is much greater and much more spiritual.

So, in conclusion I would think that Jesus wouldn't bother with choosing a political party, picking platforms, or arguing over abortion, prayer in school, or stem cells. I think he would tell the religious leaders they don't understand God. And I think he'd tell everyone: Love God over all else and love your neighbor. And be more modest.

Our bodies are temples?

I remember hearing once that our bodies are temples and thus we shouldn't eat bad food or avoid working out. As an avid Crossfitter (www.crossfit.com), I think I have the second one covered, but I could probably eat better. There is nothing better-tasting in my opinion than a double Whopper with cheese from Burger King and some fries from MacDonald's (I know- I have to go to two places to get a good meal...).

But, what of the idea that we should take care of our bodies for the Lord by working out and eating healthy? I think there might be something to that, but not sure of the principle behind it.

Sunday thought: who would Jesus hang out with today?

While Ron, our pastor, read the lesson today on Peter pulling Jesus aside and telling him he probably shouldn't talk about going to Jerusalem and getting killed, I couldn't help but think about who Jesus would hang out with and who would he not get along with if he came to the U.S. today.

Based on the stories in the Gospels, I'd think it would probably go something like this:

- He would probably have some contact with a prophet or preacher who would be in trouble with the law/government (aka John the Baptizer)
- He would get men to leave their family businesses and learn to recruit others (fishers of men)
- He would then go to public places and start preaching and he would heal mentally ill people and those with physical afflictions
- He would become so popular that huge crowds would congregate wherever he went
- As he preached and healed, preachers from all denominations of Christendom would find something about him that they thought contradicted the Bible and would start to criticize him.
- He would then be "caught" eating dinner with prostitutes, bankers, porn producers, movie moguls, Pro-Choicers, and lawyers. Elders, ministers, and deacons from all the great faiths would condemn him for doing so. He would say that he didn't come for the righteous- for they don't need salvation.
- He would then be photographed by a cell phone camera playing golf on a Sunday morning with OJ Simpson. Even Joel Osteen and his kind would now say this is obviously not the Christ. Jesus would be shown on a Youtube video telling his detractors that Sunday was made for man, not man for Sunday.
- He would then be seen by people giving comfort to a woman in a Planned Parenthood office. Leaders of many faiths would then immediately leave and plot against him- some seeking assasination, others seeking remedy through the courts.
- Jesus would be overheard warning people to beware of contemporary preacher's and politician's words. This would be touted in the papers as treason and heresy and inflame both sides of the political aisle. Democrats and Republicans would join religious leaders in unanimously condemning him.
- Jesus would then tell his followers that he was to be rebuked by the elders of the church, preachers of the chief denominations, judges of the legal system, and political chieftains. His top follower would tell him not to go against the powers that be- to which he would reply, "Satan, get away from me."
- Jesus would then be engaged in a series of debates with lawyers, judges, politicians, and religious leaders. After each debate each group would grow more fearful of his popularity with the people and their subsequent loss of power.

We all know how it ends in the New Testament. Would this happen to him today too? Or would he hang out with Middle and Upper-Class Americans, reveling in our contemporary issues? He came to Earth to the Jews: an occupied people. If He came back now would he hang out with the modern-day Roman Imperial citizenry?

Today's thought: failure

An article in today's KC Star http://www.kansascity.com/238/story/1071370.html led me to think about failure with respect to our faith. Do we allow people to fail?

Sure, I first thought- we sin all the time and talk about it ad-nauseum. Whole sermons are devoted to sinning. One preacher even told me to "sin boldly".

What I'm not so sure of, however, is if we encourage people to "fail" in their beliefs. In other words, we seem to be bounded by the dogma of a "consensus view" of our faith. It is assumed we believe word-for-word the Apostle's Creed- and yet how many people have actually read (as opposed to saying it in unison) it and understand what they are saying (or, have read the historical record behind the development of it)?

Most people I go to church with probably don't believe in aliens, ghosts, or vampires. But they supposedly have no problem believing someone walked on water, turned water into wine, and was raised from the dead. Is all that just something you accept because it's been repeated so many times you just accept it based on familiarity? Come on now- be honest- if any of you heard today that someone walked on water or healed a blind person- wouldn't you immediately discredit the story?

Which brings me back to failure. If, as the article suggests, failure helps us learn, then I think it is imperative that we allow failure within the church. Failure in the sense of questioning those things that we think everyone is supposed to believe. Failure in the sense of "heretical" ideas. Failure in the sense of going down the wrong path.

Someone once spoke to me of a concern for going "too close to the devil" with the Red Cell concept. I have thought a long time about that. To me, a fear of going too close to the devil implies a weakness of faith. If I am afraid the devil will ultimately win me over because I am investigating my faith, then that would imply that Jesus has a hard time winning out over the devil. I don't accept that line of reasoning. I think the more you test your faith, the stronger it will be. Conversely, if all you do is repeat the scripture when prompted to in church and don't test yourself with other ideas, when you are truly tested you may find yourself wanting.

I have heard preachers assume in their sermons that people take Biblical "Truths" as fact, and yet I'm not so sure most people have investigated these "facts" in any deeper way than when they were first introduced to them as children. I know I haven't. I would encourage, instead, preachers to ask the questions of their congregants. Instead of assuming they believe- ask them what they believe. Tell them how some of the things we believe in came to pass (Like the Council of Nicea, the Apostle's Creed, and how books of the Bible came to be accepted).

Don't be afraid of people questioning details based on a search for knowledge. Don't be afraid of people going down the wrong paths. Don't be afraid of people "getting closer to the devil". If what we believe in is true- they should find their way back eventually. And along with the failures they will encounter as they go down different paths- they will come out stronger.

Who was Melchizedek?

Interesting guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek

From Hebrews 7:

"...He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever..."

I had never heard of him- which surprised me. There seems to be several different ideas about who he was/what he was. Even some differing ideas in the Jewish, Gnostic, and other traditions.

Bottom line is that he seems to have been some sort of King of "Salem" and "priest of the Most High". He is mentioned twice in the Old Testament and then mentioned again in Hebrews as being some sort of foundation for a priesthood that must have existed prior to the Aaronic preisthood and that later welcomed Jesus to its ranks:

Hebrews 6: "...where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

Later, in Hebrews 7 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=hebrews+7&version1=47): "...He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace."

So, it would seem that there was a Most-High Priest who was also a King (of possibly Jerusalem?) who received a tithe from Abraham and who resembled Jesus (he seemed to have appeared on the Earth without human parents, didn't die, and is still a priest today), and who had a "tradition" so important that Jesus followed in it.

Some translations seem to make the case that it was a political play to connect Jesus to a priestly line- because the tribe of Judah had no "priests" like Levi, etc. Similar to connecting Jesus to David's line (and, interestingly- David is connected to Melchizedek in perhaps a similar way in Psalms).

Any thoughts?

FEB “Thought of the month”:

The Bible was written in Hebrew- a language with some 1300 words (at the time), that, when translated into other languages- like the 4 million-word English language of today- loses much of its original meaning. To take it literally is to not only ignore the problems associated with translation, but to also miss God’s intent: which was only to provide us with a spiritual guide explaining our relationship with Him. To use it as a scientific textbook or even historical work is taking it out of context. God gave us our own faculties in order to figure out the mechanics of the Universe, how the Earth got here, how we got here, and even what happened back in 2,000 B.C. You might even apply that to some of the stories of Jesus- was it really THAT important to believe that He walked on water- or more important to get the meaning of the story? Jesus talked in parables all the time, why couldn’t the disciples and apostles and other writers of the Gospels have done the same?

Questions for further thought:

- Assuming God is omnipotent (all-powerful), is it possible that He created the world both as current science theorizes it to have happened (over billions of years), AND in a way that would match what is described in scripture (original Hebrew with all its possible meanings)? If God can exist in a Trinity that is so mysterious and confusing as to seem paradoxical to humans, why couldn’t the Creation story be much more complex than the way it SEEMS to be described in Genesis?

- How literal should we take parts of the Bible- since the Hebrew of the time supposedly had only a few thousand words compared to our millions in modern English? Are principles that Jesus taught the more important parts, or does it take away from anything if we don't accept it all as precise facts?- What of the concept that the Bible was inspired by God to be an explanation of His relationship with us- and not as a Historical or Scientific Textbook? If possible- then it would follow that to use it in any manner other than as an explanation of our relationship with Him would be problematic- sort of like using a cookbook to understand lava flows. Or is it a "be-all, end-all" answer to everything and science is attempting the impossible and will always or usually be wrong?

- Do Christians "limit" God by trying to "box" Him into what it says in a literal interpretation of the Bible? Would it be more realistic to assume we cannot know the details of how He operates- to include the universe and the Earth- at least through only the Bible? Would it not make more sense to postulate that He provided the Bible as a spiritual guide, but gave us the tools to discover the answers to the rest of His creation on our own (or at least PART of the answers)? Or, at the least, should Christians couch everything we say in terms that recognize we might not understand God as much as we sound like we do? Or, alternatively, is the Bible all we need and everything else an illusion of our own pride? Can we not even trust our own senses and reason?