The exchange between Pontius Pilate and Jesus in John 18:28-38 illustrates another of the big questions of life. The passage tells us that after Jesus had been arrested, Caiaphas and the Jewish council sent Him to Pilate. The council did so because they wanted Jesus put to death, but under Roman law they had no authority to enact the punishment. Pilate had several questions for Jesus. First Pilate asked whether Jesus was King of the Jews. Jesus responded by asking Pilate if the idea that Jesus was King of the Jews was the latter’s own idea, or if someone had told him that. Pilate, apparently seeking the truth so that justice could be served, wanted to know what Jesus had done, because it was the Jews who had handed Jesus over to the Roman authorities. Jesus indicated that His kingdom was not of this world. Pilate exclaimed, “You are a King, then!”
Jesus reply is astonishing, “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” Pilate asked.
Interesting question, isn’t it? Is Jesus, having established that his kingdom is not of this world, stating that he holds dominion over an idea, which is truth? Pilate does not give Jesus a chance to answer. I doubt Pilate expected one because for him the question is rhetorical. For Pilate, there is no truth. Everything is subjective, and justifiable from a point of view. Pilate is pragmatic; he does what works. In this case he needed to placate the Jewish leaders and avoid riots.
The Bible doesn’t shy away from presenting two philosophies that compete with each other. On the one hand, Jesus proclaims that there is objective truth, that the truth is knowable by anyone, and that he can lead you to it. But he makes claims that are difficult to accept, as are claims made about him. Among them are He and the Father are one, if you believe in him you will have eternal life, and His virgin birth. On the other hand, those that live by the idea that there is no truth, or that it is not knowable, reject Jesus’ testimony because all humans have parents, and all life dies. Those that reject Jesus know these things to be objectively true and therefore his story is unbelievable. How would you resolve these apparent contradictions?
Showing posts with label Absolute Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Absolute Truth. Show all posts
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sunday, April 5, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
