What God loves the world?

In Models of God: Theology for an Ecological, Nuclear Age (Fortress, 1987), Sallie McFague advances the brilliant thesis that our reified metaphors for God have become models that dictate our understanding of God’s interaction with the world.  While I find her meta-project in some ways reaching, I think her chastisement of the standardized conceptions of God is informative. Our models of God do in fact provide parameters for our imagination – we could never see God as a caring “mother” if he is always portrayed as an authoritative King. Following McFague’s lead I would like to remind us all of a model of God extracted straight from the holy writ itself: the suffering and dying God.

Historically speaking, orthodox theologians have relegated the death of Jesus to his humanity. In their reasoning this follows de facto from the nature of divinity (i.e. the source of all being cannot possibly succumb to death). However, in drawing this conclusion, I think theology has foregone some massively relevant implications of the cross. Jürgen Moltmann rightly avers:

“When the crucified Jesus is called the ‘image of the invisible God’, the meaning is that this is God, and God is like this. God is not greater than he is in this humiliation. God is not more glorious than he is in this self-surrender. God is not more powerful than he is in this helplessness. God is not more divine than he is in this humanity. The nucleus of everything that Christian theology says about ‘God’ is to be found in this Christ event.”[1]

Indeed, there seems to be something cosmic going on at the cross. This extremely human event also somehow gives place to a divine proclamation. God in his absolute pleasure found it most compelling to reveal himself to the world as the Deity who would suffer and die for his creation.  This is not the warrior king riding in on a white horse to save the day. This is the tortured, maligned, rejected friend of sinners who was mercilessly condemned and murdered. Really? God thought this was the best way to reveal himself? Why in the world was this the best way?

For some answers to these questions I find Julian of Norwich a helpful aid. After having a dynamic vision of the Christ's passion, she says:

“For Jesus has great joy in all the deeds which he has done for our salvation, and therefore we are his…We are his bliss, we are his reward, we are his honour, we are his crown.”[2]

And furthermore:

“What I am describing now is so great a joy to Jesus that he counts as nothing his labour and his bitter sufferings and his cruel and shameful death.”[3]

So, what God loves the world? A God who chooses to reveal himself as associated with the lowly and the marginalized. A God who chooses to reveal his essential character of humility and compassion by submitting to a cruel, undeserved death. Groups of theologians like to talk about “paradigmatic stories” from Scripture – well, how about this as a paradigm of God’s heart toward the world? I don’t think that we can get lost in a false understanding of God as an advocate of the white, bourgeois, middle-class when we see him manifested through the event of a broken man on a cross. Certainly not! No, God is humble. God is compassionate. God is joyously about redeeming his creation in the most responsible way possible. That is a ‘metaphor’ of God that I wouldn’t mind seeing reified into a model of God’s heart for the world.

---

[1] Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God (Fortress Press, 1993), p. 205.

[2] Julian of Norwich, Showings, trans. Edmund Colledge, O.S.A. and James Walsh, S.J. (Paulist Press, 1978), p. 145.

[3] Ibid.

Near Death Experiences

-->

I

had the privilege this evening of listening to a presentation given by Jeffrey Long, M.D. His formal education is in radiation oncology (i.e. the application of radiation for cancer treatment), but he has diverted significant energy in recent years towards the scientific investigation of Near Death Experience (NDE).  His website – www.nderf.org – features over 3,000 NDE’s from a variety of countries, religious backgrounds, age, and gender.

Sure, some of this this stuff is a little bit quirky and if someone on the street told me that they had a NDE my first inclination would be to assume that they were strung out on some high-grade morphine.  Nevertheless, Dr. Long’s research has yielded some interesting results. In his book, Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near Death Experiences (HarperOne, 2010), he presents nine consistent elements in the NDE’s that he cataloged[1]:

1. Crystal-Clear Consciousness. The level of consciousness and alertness during near-death experiences (NDEs) is usually even greater than that experienced in everyday life even though NDEs generally occur when a person is unconscious or clinically dead. This high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically inexplicable. Additionally, the elements in NDEs generally follow the same consistent and logical order in all age groups and around the world, which refutes the possibility that NDEs have any relation to dreams or hallucinations.

2. Realistic Out-of-Body Experiences: Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are one of the most common elements of NDEs. What NDErs see and hear of earthly events in the out-of-body state is almost always realistic. When the NDEr or others later seek to verify what was observed or heard during the NDE, the OBE observations are almost always confirmed as completely accurate. Even if the OBE observations during the NDE included events far from the physical body, and far from any possible sensory awareness of the NDEr, the OBE observations are still almost always confirmed as completely accurate. This fact alone rules out the possibility that near-death experiences are related to any known brain functioning or sensory awareness. This also refutes the possibility that NDEs are unrealistic fragments of memory from the brain.

3. Heightened Senses. Not only are heightened senses reported by most who have experienced NDEs, normal or supernormal vision has occurred in those with significantly impaired vision, and even legal blindness. Several people who have been totally blind since birth have reported highly visual near-death experiences. This is medically inexplicable.

4. Consciousness During Anesthesia. Many NDEs occur while under general anesthesia- at a time when any conscious experience should be impossible. While some skeptics claim that these NDEs may be the result of too little anesthesia, this ignores the fact that some NDEs result from anesthesia overdose. Additionally, the description of a NDE differs greatly from that of one who experiences “anesthetic awareness.” The content of NDEs that occur under general anesthesia is essentially indistinguishable from NDEs that did not occur under general anesthesia. This is further strong evidence that NDEs are occurring completely independently from the functioning of the physical brain.

5. Perfect Playback. Life reviews in near-death experiences include real events that previously took place in the lives of those having the experience, even if the events were forgotten or happened before they were old enough to remember.

6. Family Reunions. During a NDE, the people encountered are virtually always deceased, and are usually relatives of the person having the experience- sometimes they are even relatives who died before the NDEr was born. Were the NDE only a product of memory fragments, they would almost certainly include far more living people, including those with whom they had more recently interacted.

7. Children’s Experiences. The near-death experiences of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or near-death experiences, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning.

8. Worldwide Consistency. Near-death experiences appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those that occur in people in Western countries.

9. Aftereffects. It is common for people to experience major life changes after having near-death experiences. These aftereffects are often powerful, lasting, life-enhancing, and the changes generally follow a consistent pattern. As the NDErs themselves almost always believe- near-death experiences are, in a word, real.

I can’t say that I’m sure what to make out of all of this. If anything, these experiences seem to affirm the existence of an immaterial soul. Something has to be the “you” who experiences these phenomena – right? I mean if you are brain dead when these things occur, then there has got to be something else still operating that counts as “you”. So, maybe these NDE’s can cache out positively in regards to the substance dualist/reductive materialist debates.

I’m not sure how far these scientific findings can further dogmatic claims about the existence of God. Some of these NDE’rs did in fact experience someone they recognized as Jesus or God. However, none of these experiences were what we would expect them to be. Generally, Christians expect post-mortem experiences of God to be awe-inspiring and fearful for those who did not formally profess belief in God during their mortal life. However, Dr. Long points out that each person who admitted to interacting with Jesus or God in their NDE – Christian or not – never once felt fearful or an overwhelming awareness of awe. They all just felt a sense of familiarity with God – He seemed more like a loving, benevolent friend than a holy, magnificent judge. So, it looks like there still needs to be some additional theological reflection on this aspect of NDE’s. Frankly, it still seems a bit odd to me on the whole.

Anyway, I guess at the end of the day any human experience that vacillates between embodied and un-embodied existence is bound to be markedly aberrant. Reminds me of Paul’s reflection in 2 Corinthians about being clothed with a heavenly body instead of our earthly tent – even there it seems that Paul values an embodied existence for the after-life over a disembodied soul. But, I think that’s another topic for another day.

---

[1] The following summation of these nine elements is taken from Dr. Long’s website: www.nderf.org.

On the Fecundity of Man

People make things. They always have. They always will. 

This is one of the beautiful realities about humanity (although, perhaps also one of the most frightening). Humans can construct and create. We have this amazing capacity to manipulate the physical world around us and use it to our ends.

This mystery of creativity is truly striking. What enables a person to envision a skyscraper? What reality allows someone to design a faster airplane? How can a mind devise the intricacies of something like the Large Hadron Collider?

As I reflected on this mystery, I realized that this human capacity of creativity even transcends modification of the physical world – this human capacity for creating also impinges on other realities.

It seems to me that we as humans also have the capacity to create (i.e. bring about or actualize) non-physical things as well. We have the capacity to create virtuous communities and we do that by actualizing love, mercy, kindness, etc. We have the capacity to change someone’s life by speaking words of wisdom and discernment to them.  We have the ability to bring hope to desperate situations by supplying compassion and tenderness.

The future of reality awaits creation. It seems to me that this is what Christians are supposed to be about.  If nothing else, we are called to a particular way of living – we are called to realize a certain set of realities. All of the realities that the Spirit of God promises to bring to bear on a believer’s life are waiting to be – they’re waiting for us to create their reality in the here and now.

Now, before you start thinking I’m encouraging us to go overthrow our socio-political structures and beat down the door of the surrounding secular institutions in order to set up a Theocracy, let me assure you my thoughts are much more modest.

I envision this happening at a much more base level. I’m talking about living into these realities through daily choices made towards God and other human beings. This is not political activism (although perhaps at times it may have to be). Rather, it is primarily living life well in the nitty-gritty; being empowered by the Spirit of God to actualize the realities of God in a world that desperately needs the presence of divine things.

So, while it is truly beautiful to see how people can lasso the world outside of them, I wonder if it might also be worthwhile to turn our attention to our internal world and exercise our creativity there as well.

The Boston Marathon and Imago Dei

-->

T

he events that occurred at the Boston Marathon yesterday were absolutely horrific. The disregard (maybe even disdain?) for human life is difficult to fathom. How could human beings ever become so hardened that they could inflict such suffering on fellow humanity?

In some ways, I have almost started to anticipate these tragedies – whether they are self-inflicted from other humans or brought on from the tireless wrath of nature. Still, I’m not sure exactly how to feel about that. Is it healthy to expect evil? Am I rotting my soul to allow those thoughts space inside my consciousness?

Nevertheless, I am reticent to relinquish all hope in mankind and I think I have good reason for that hesitancy. For, there is true beauty to be found staring back into the face of mal-adapted humanity. There is good that can be sifted from the overwhelming pain of undeserved suffering. That beauty can be found in the heart of the doctor, who finished the Boston Marathon and then, dehydrated and tired as he was, went directly to the emergency center to care for his fellow human beings injured by the explosions.  That good can be seen in the actions of the police officers, firefighters, and other emergency responders who swarmed the scene to give security, care, and love to those who desperately needed it.

This outpouring of love and compassion is exactly why I still believe in humanity! This is why I still believe that somewhere (however deep down and sullied on the surface) there is goodness in the heart of men. Because it seems to me that whatever great terror other humans (or nature) can bring on humanity, there are always people ready to counter just as strongly with love and compassion. That is truly beautiful!

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this is a salutary goodness. I don’t think that humanity will all of a sudden rise up and accomplish their own salvation (I don’t expect the Red Cross to start handing out indulgences, etc.).

Nevertheless, the reality of this compassion gives one a moment of pause. What’s the source of this beauty?  How can such goodness exist? In a world where people exemplify hatred and live disastrously inharmonious lives, how can mercy still arise?

I think St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks to this moment very poignantly when he says:

“Hope always draws the soul from the beauty which is seen to what is beyond, always kindles the desire for the hidden through what is constantly perceived.”

Surely this beauty, this goodness, this mercy, this love, must draw us beyond it’s own existence to the source of all virtue. I do not think it is just happenstance that these beautiful things (compassion, love, etc.) are always present in the wake of extreme dissonance.  Indeed, these virtues are the very clue that there is still a Divine presence in the world – that there is still a Divine image in man.

So, while frustration, anger, and sadness might be filling your heart today as you reflect on yesterday’s tragedy, I encourage you to take a moment and reflect on the beautiful things that exist in the wake of misfortune.  Take a moment to reflect on the compassion and love that this revealed in the hearts of men. I challenge you to see the image of God all over the reaction of men as they care for others. How about we let that idea disseminate throughout social media?

The Nature of Rationality: An Amateur Reflection on the Options

 

T

here is a noticeable stirring pulsing through the theological world as theologians are exploring what their 'science' might look like in a world filing for divorce from Modernism. These theologians are accepting the fact that the nature of rationality is changing and they are asking questions like: How might theology look if the idea of propositional, objective truth is removed from the table? Could you really do ‘actual theology’ in this setting? Doesn’t theology require metanarrative and objective truth? Reflecting on the state of theology vis-à-vis a postmodern world Stanley Grenz says:

“…there is much evidence [in fact] that suggests that the postmodern context has actually been responsible for the renewal of theology as an intellectual discipline after a period of stagnation under the weight of modernist demands concerning the acquisition of knowledge.”[1]

Grenz contends that the proliferation of new theological approaches (i.e. constructive postmodernisms, postmodern dissolutions, post-liberal theology, theologies of communal praxis, etc.) has actually been demonstrably invigorating for the general theological task.[2]

            Now, don’t get me wrong. I heartily applaud the work of theologians who are trailblazing through the postmodern landscape to stake out a claim for theology. My only question is, might there be another way?  Must we abandon ourselves to a postmodern world? Is there any value in retaining a realist perspective of truth and the world around us? Perhaps I am a bit of an old soul, but many of my intuitions still seem to coincide with the metaphysic of the ancients. I still find myself drawn toward the notion of an objective reality accessible by reliable rational faculties.

             Nevertheless, I am not fool enough to disregard the data that argues for the relativity of rationality. I get that diversity is an undeniable feature of the world. I get that the modern foundationalist project failed itself. I get that contemporary intellectual sensibilities are rushing towards alternative perspectives on the nature of truth. I just wonder if my only recourse is to abandon myself to the current or can I make a choice to swim towards a protruding rock.

            At the end of the day, maybe there is not even a choice to be made. Maybe all people are so cultured that my illusion of a choice between these alternatives is actually a delusion. Maybe my localized group of compatriots just tells a modern story and I therefore have modern intuitions – making me just another player in the inescapable postmodern world I now inhabit.

---

[1] Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), p. 22.

[2] Ibid., 22

A Vision of Man in God? Barth on Christ's Role in Anthropology

W

hat does it mean to be human? Karl Barth tackles this question with a unique twist. Whereas many anthropologies turn inward to define man philosophically from the inside out, Barth argues that true man is discovered only by turning our gaze outward to the only real man: Jesus Christ. What follows is a brief explication of his six irreducible criteria for anthropology as acquired from the revelation of Jesus Christ.

It should be noted that Barth presents these general characteristics with some qualification because he does not think that Christology and anthropology have an exact one-to-one equivalency.[1] Due to Christ’s divine nature, there is exists some mysterious relationship between his identity with God and his true humanity. Nevertheless, Barth argues that we can “know indirectly who and what we are from the fact that we live in the same world and have the same humanity as this man.”[2] So, holding that epistemic qualification in mind, we now turn to Barth’s six irreducible criteria.

           

Barth’s first essential quality of humanity deals with God’s direct presence with man. If one looks closely at the man Jesus, it quickly becomes obvious that this man was “confronted immediately and directly with the being of God.”[3] Barth does not leave any room for a general theory of God’s presence with man. In Jesus he finds the elements of God’s decision for relationship with man in an undeniably purposeful and personal way. In Jesus, God has eternally determined to present himself to man in a meaningful way. Therefore, real man, as posited in the “priority” of Jesus, exists most truly in this direct relationship to God.[4]

           

Secondly, Barth argues that true man exists as a player in a particular history with God. Indeed, the man Jesus is himself “conditioned” by the reality of God’s work in him to reconcile all men to himself. Therefore, “every man…must exist and have his being in a history which stands in a clear and recognizable relationship to the divine deliverance enacted in the man Jesus.”[5] This perspective removes the ability for man to somehow define his own relationship to God.  God is already about reconciling man to himself and real man is the respondent partner to this Divinely initiated covenant relationship received through the man/God Jesus Christ.

           

The third element of true humanity for Barth reckons with the relationship between man’s existence and God’s glory. He argues that ultimately the “being of every man…is not an end in itself.”[6] In God’s action towards the man Jesus, we find a God who is completely self-determined and sovereign in his self-revelation. He willfully chooses to descend to humanity and take upon himself the nature of man. In this act of humility, he proves himself to be most glorious. So, insofar as any man participates in the same humanity that Jesus had, he also exists for the “true determination” of the glory of God.[7]

           

The fourth essential aspect to Barth’s theological anthropology deals with the issue of God’s sovereignty. Looking at Jesus, Barth finds a man who fits absolutely square within the nexus of God’s lordship.[8] There was never a time when the man Jesus failed to exist under the sovereign will of God or refused to bring his actions into humble submission. Barth understands from this the principle that true man, insofar as he exists as a being with the same humanity of Jesus, will also exhibit life under God’s lordship. Barth sees this as setting clear boundaries around what human freedom can mean. However one might understand human freedom, “it cannot consist in freedom to escape the lordship of God.”[9]

           

Barth’s fifth essential criterion seeks to deal directly with the problematic topic of human freedom.  He argues that if the being of Jesus exists “wholly in the history in which God is active as man’s Deliverer, then necessarily…the being of every man must consist in this history.”[10] Therefore, man’s freedom becomes a freedom to respond to the work of this Deliverer. God has already determined his being in relationship to man and now man must respond to the grace offered to him.[11] On this model, freedom become less of a capacity to do whatever one wishes and more of a grace-filled response God’s action. On this model, choosing anything opposite of what God’s will is becomes a sort of un-becoming or self-contradiction.

           

Barth concludes his analysis of human nature by arguing that true humanity exists for God.[12] Jesus

--> à la man was greater than all other creatures because he existed solely to do the work of God; his life was filled by doing things on behalf of God (i.e. ushering in the Kingdom, speaking God’s word to others, etc.).[13] Interestingly, Barth highlights the fact that “being for God” in this manner is only possible because God previously willed to “bind himself to man” in Jesus.[14] Insofar as all other men are truly human, they respond to God’s initiation in this covenant relationship and offer themselves to his service.  

Whatever other things might be true of man – and Barth concedes the possibility of other things – they cannot be understood apart from these six essential characteristics. These are the boundaries stones that cannot be moved. These are the theological lenses that must influence the interpretation of all other phenomena of man.

---

[1] CD, III/2, 68

[2] CD, III/2, 68

[3] CD, III/2, 69

[4] CD, III/2, 69

[5] CD, III/2, 70

[6] CD, III/2, 70

[7] CD, III/2, 70

[8] CD, III/2, 70

[9] CD, III/2, 70

[10] CD, III/2, 70.

[11] CD, III/2, 70.

[12] CD, III/2, 70.

[13] CD, III/2, 70.

[14] CD, III/2, 70.