My Attempt At Religious Epistemology

I have written this to consolidate space on Facebook where there is a very interesting covnersation taking place. My plan is to write this and then hope that all the right people will be exposed to its content so that way it does not seem as though I am trying to "hog" the conversation. Plus, it gives me a change to take some time and write out something that I think needs some vast explaining. A blog is perhaps not the best place to elaborate on such complex pontifications, but for the moment it is better then a Facebook post.

The issue is epistemology. (Yeah, exciting!!!) I will have in the back of my mind a conversation which prompted this blog, but I will also be elaborating my own insights and for the most part taking this whole thing in my direction. So here we go... What seems to me, to be the main issue is the involvement of the will in the construction of knowledge, or to a lesser extent the formation of beliefs.

What is the difference between knowledge and belief? Knowledge has been defined as Justified, True, Belief (JTB). Thus, you know what you believe, but what you believe you cannot necessarily claim you know. This takes some nuance understanding. I think most people would say that if they believe it they know it, and because they know something they can believe something. Belief seems to be something that we will, whereas knowledge seems to be something that happens in lieu of proper cognitive functioning.

For me personally, I take it as a mark of identification when I say that I believe something. I am saying that I deliberated on the matter. I weighted the options, and I came to an informed decision regarding all the available information to say that YES! this represents me. I take knowledge to be that pool of information I look to to form my beliefs. So my experience of JTB is a bit reversed. I use knowledge to form beliefs, not the other way around.

But then again. I also have beliefs which I would not categorize as knowledge. I believe vanilla milkshakes are better then chocolate ones. Now it is true that it is a knowable fact that our senses are subjective and that I easily know that vanilla milkshakes taste better than chocolate ones, but I wouldn't say that I know them to be categorically better, I only believe them to be. In this sense, belief operates more like opinion then in the former sense, of self-identification. Hence, my belief in the heliocentric theory is by far and perhaps even categorically different then my belief in vanilla milkshakes.

So at the start, I want to make a distinction between opinion and belief. I will state that we believe only that which we are willing to identify with, as my definition for belief. And that we acquire opinions through our experiences. Now, I wish to add that by opinion, I do not mean something weak, as something to which we say, "That is only your opinion." Opinion in this sense, is our own private and isolated assumption of what reality represents. I have an opinion that vanilla milkshakes are better then chocolate ones, because that is my own private and isolated experience. Just the same I have an opinion that the earth revolves around the sun. Opinions are not arbitrary. It just so happens that the latter is justified through an epistemological process that enables me to claim that this opinion is consistent with a body of objective knowledge. Thus, knowledge, I believe, ought to be defined as Justified, True, Opinion (JTO). I even might change it again, at a future date to (WTO) Warranted True Opinion, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.

So with this in mind, let's knock out the easy one, what is True? Without getting too technical, I think it is pretty much a universally agreed upon statement that Truth is that which reflects reality.

Pretty much Epistemology has been concerned about the area of Justification, and how it operates in order to confirm opinion into knowledge. Deduction is the first thing to mention in order to justify opinion. Deduction is a method whereby two opinions, or in the case premises form to make a conclusion that could only be formed through the synthesis of the two premises. Thus, it is often, but not necessarily the case, that deduction expands our knowledge. It makes certain that we arrive at justified, or right, conclusions. But deduction does nothing to give us this certainty regarding our premises.

This is often regarded as the problem of Induction. Now, many have tried to solve the problem of induction, but for the most part all agree that it is a problem that doesn't have a real answer, or to put another way... induction cannot have an answer, because induction is the answer. Induction is the method whereby our opinions are formed and hence cannot have a real opinion about itself. Thus, it becomes hard to define induction because we are only left with the ability to speculate, but the one I will choose for this blog is one that I have gathered from a few sources, but my main one is Objectivist Epistemology, which in my mind defines induction as the integration of experienced quantities into conceptual entities. This integration having two components. The first being mathematical. Parts which integrate into wholes have an intrinsic mathematical relation. Thus, are basic knowledge structure is in many ways a mathematical one at its most fundamental level. And the second being causal relations. For parts to be able to form a whole there must be some relation between those parts which are causal.

Think of opinions as being puzzles. For a puzzle to get put together you need quanta, you need pieces to the

puzzle. These pieces have to fit together. Thus, there each piece connects to the next is like a causal relation between the pieces. and you need a system to expiate the process. Each piece has a connector or a divot. This already implies a mathematical system; 1 or 0. But there is also the grid that can be overlaid over the puzzle, again mathematics. And we can detect certain patterns that will emerge as the picture comes together to select what pieces will fit where. Pattern formation and recognition is once again a mathematical product. So we see that if the completed puzzle forms valid opinions then we can have a good foundation to call this knowledge.

But there is one more thing that I feel is of crucial importance. And that is the self-correcting behavior of induction. Induction does not, nor can it, give us the same certainty for our premises as deduction gives us for our conclusions. But with the method of induction being both mathematical and causally related is a good indicator that it can be truth-bearing, but at the same time it gives us no ability to rely on it. After all, we know people have had wrong opinions, and we know that very smart people have promoted very wrong ideas about how reality worked. I think to clarify this point it is important to take a side step to understand why the self-correcting nature of induction is important, and why I think it is a basis for what I will lead to my final conclusion.

In figuring out the dynamics of knowledge one thing always keeps coming up in the background and that is the distinction between the will and the intellect. I think people identify most with this reality because it is something that is so common and experienced at just about every point in life. We want something that we know we can't have. will vs. intellect. We want to know more about the universe so we study astronomy. will assists intellect. We learn that eating certain foods can cause diabetes, and our desire for such foods decreases. Intellect assists will. The relationship between our will and our intellect has existed since the dawn of man. And it does not look like a struggle that is going to end with the progression of epistemology. But it has been generally practiced that in order to truly define induction we have to eliminate the will as much as possible. So typically, that which we would call knowledge has the least amount of "exposure" to our will as possible.

This leaves us is somewhat of a quandary, because it seems for all intents and purposes the will is useless and only a hindrance to that which can be described as our essence, or that which has become the defining characteristic of our humanity... our mind. Now it is true that our minds are a collection of many things... memories, feelings, intuitions, and knowledge to say the least, but among these contenders for who "rules the roost" of our mind knowledge is clearly the winner. Our knowledge is our access to reality. So it would seem that the wills purpose in all this is to simply supply focus and cognitive emphasis on where our inductive mechanisms are directing it. In the scheme or rational epistemology the will is but a mere servant.

But I digress. The reason I bring this up, is because when we identify the self-correcting nature of induction we see how little part the will plays in concept formation. It's okay to be wrong, because being wrong does not threatening the process. Being wrong is not blameworthy in rational thinking. Unless, of course, one refuses to admit they are wrong, but that is stubbornness, not rational thinking. When one is wrong, they can be corrected and no guilt or shame is ever owed, because of an error resulting from induction. If a road leads us down a path to induce a false conclusion, it is hardly ever entirely false, and its error will present itself soon enough, either as more opinions generate which question the reliability of the belief, or as more examples produce the inconsistency of its actuality. Either way, it is induction working as how it is supposed to work. It is not a guarantee of certainty, but rather a guarantee of inculpability.

There is no blame where the will is not present. Rational beliefs ought to form and be justified under conditions where the will has as little involvement as possible. Induction may produce error, but induction is self correcting. When we use it the errors will resolve and process is not harmed.

So induction is the justification which turns opinion into knowledge. So when a person says, "I know man is mortal", "I know man evolved from lower species", "I know the Holocaust happened in the past", "I know democracy to be the best political system", or "I know the expansion of the universe leads us to a singularity in the past" they are using inductive reasoning to state what is justifiable knowledge. Many of these statements we do not have 100 percent definitive evidence, but there is enough reliable information which causally relates and demonstrates mathematical consistency to induce that these statements do in fact relate truth.

No, this doesn't mean that they have to be absolute in order to achieve this. It doesn't mean that we can't modify or adapt its content. Nor does it mean that we are blameworthy even if one is entirely wrong. In this way, man is but a receptical of justified knowledge. We apply reason, but the content that arises on our mind because of this application is mechanical and necessary. We have no ability to resist what opinions form in our minds from the application of reason. In this sense, we are but the instruments of reality, once we make the choice to be "rational". The body of knowledge which arises from the application of reason forms from necessity, and not from choice, or arbitration. Focus your mind on anything. You have the power to think, or not think, but you do not have the power to alter what you come to know once we choose to think. You can choose to live life blind, close your eyes, and turn reality into a blurry mess, but once you do you abdicate your own participation in existence. You become nothing.

This fact has some unsettling consequences. But it also has some profound insights, once they are realized. I made certain statements like, we are mere tools of reality, or our knowledge is but a by-product of reason. These terms have very little to do with accountability, responsibility, or ownership of self. How can we make sense of our life in the world, if all we know is but a mere fabrication of the necessary forces we have no control over? Why would one person be held accountable for whether or not they believe in God, when knowledge of Him either arises or doesn't through no fault of our own.

Here's where we take a turn. Now that we understand the inductive and rational process by which justified knowledge forms, I wish to propose how we come to form beliefs through the body of our knowledge. I have maintained a distinction between what I call "opinion" and what I call "belief". Now for the most part epistemologists just use one word, "belief". And this can be done as long as we still maintain a distinction within that term belief. I have chosen to use two terms, to make it easier, but in reality what we are referring to are beliefs which are justified and beliefs through which we identify our self in the world.

Rational epistemology can account for the entirety of all reality except one thing. Our self. When we begin to think we can easily refer to the concretes of our inductive method that form the justification of our opinions and turn them into knowledge, but when I say things like, "I know I am a child of God", "I know love makes the world go around", "I know that there is a place for me", "I know I am important, unique, and significant", or "I know death has no power over my life". These are phrases that I have no justified opinion for, but yet I identify with them. They give me a sense of belonging and relatedness to a world where it seems my choice and will have no place to assert itself. Now, I used the word "know" in these phrases to show the relativity that exists between words like "know", "believe" and "opinion". In many ways these terms are interchangable and it can be difficult to seperate out the meaning and intention behind them. According to my argument it is most apt to use the term "believe" in the above statements, but I do not hesitate to mention that in our attempt to self-identify ourselves in this mechanical reality we use knowledge in an analogous sense. Thus, our beliefs which identify our self in an ordered construct are analogous to the body of knowledge we possess.

In this sense, our beliefs are integrated in the same way that our knowledge is, but is a dynamically opposed dialectic. Where knowledge seeks to eliminate the will in order to justify itself, belief to be justified, if that term can be used, must maximize our will. This would seem to suggest that beliefs are then inherently anti-intellectual. Which seems to be a most unfitting set of circumstances, but that is not at all the case. Our beliefs arise out of the self-expression of our body of knowledge. It is our knowledge which forms the grounds for belief, but they do not limit or restrict our beliefs, except in the manner to which they are communicated.

For instance, the belief which states "I am a child of God" does not need to say that one of my biological parents is an actual and literal "God". But it responds to the body of knowledge I possess about biology and holds certain analogous content in relation to such an integration. By child of God, I mean in a rather analogous sense that God is my father. Which reflects the sense that I find myself to be god-like in a certain way (hence the self-identification) and that God is above me.

Thus, there is never a case in which my beliefs must contradict my body of knowledge, nor must I think that my body of knowledge limits my beliefs in a certain way. Thus, the idea of God, in this sense, does not need to exist in causal or algebraic relation to my body of knowledge. I do not need to explain my belief in God through rational justification. My belief in God can stand as an expression of my own identity. My belief in God can simply say, "I identify with God" without naming the reasons or causes of why God exists or inhabits objective reality.

The problem occurs when we try to justify God according to the body of our knowledge. The problem happens when we do not respect the division between the beliefs which we identify with, and the beliefs which are rationally justified. It happens on both sides. It happens when atheists try to claim that all self-identification is a part of the process of rational justification, and it happens when the theist tries to claim that belief in God is rationally justified.

In our theory of knowledge we saw how the self-correcting nature of induction served to give us the ability to remove, or accept the removal, of our will from the domain of knowledge. But yet, the will in not entirely absent, is it? remember our locution? As long as we choose to be rational! Reason is a choice, but it is such a choice that once it is made we become subject to the necessity of rational thought. In a sense, it is a choice to destroy our choice. Thus, in like manner our intellect can assent to its own inability to truly be able to represent the entirety of our being. It is a gambit of sorts. Our will and intellect can co-habitate with one another given a certain agreement be made between them. Our will submits to reason and our intellect submits to belief. But the terms of this truce must be observed. They exist in tension with one another to be sure, but in this a dialectic can be formed between our knowledge and our belief. Just as knowledge is integrated quantitative thinking, so too our beliefs are integrated qualitative thinking.

The constant between them is integration. And this is expressed in the dictum that as reality is itself an integrated whole, so too our self must be an integrated whole as well. It is our ability to assert our self in reality which makes belief an aspect of our will, so important. With this being the case, beliefs are not given open access to simply apply themselves willy-nilly there is a structure to work in. The belief must exist in reference to self, and it must be an analogous extension of our body of knowledge. Thus, to believe in the tooth fairy as an adult is ridiculous. To believe in unicorns and spaghetti monsters is still unfounded.

But the self as it is can assert a ground for its being in something eternal, infinite, and self-creating. It can without unanalogous content identify with God. The self can ascribe certain beliefs as pertaining to faith in the sense that certain beliefs transcend normal categories on the analogous relation to our body of knowledge that certain realities are inductively transcendent, like math and causality. In this sense, faith is not mathematical, but it is certainly analogous which is a kind of math, but only in the sense that both seek an integrated whole. So we can have a justified, if we can use that term, belief which seeks to self-identify, and a faith which seeks to transcend our self all on the basis of integration without provided any inconsistency with our own body of knowledge. And we can claim that these beliefs are knowledge and that this knowledge is belief through our own involvement in dialectical and analogous existence. I can say that I know God, even if I have no justified belief in God, because my own experience of life and reality immerses me in this dialectical process of ambiguity and freedom.

Note, that it is only when I seek to justify my knowledge of God that I must drag myself out of this nebulous

fog and use actual technical terms. When I say that I know God, I can't allow myself to believe this is a rationally justified expression. I must retain in my psyche and my self the reality of my own limitations and the nature of my belief. My knowledge of God is dynamic and in flux, it is not the product of a necessary chain of rational induction and deduction. It can be expressed through certain propositions, but the reality is that it is simply an assertion of my will to identify with the integrative process of reality. Courage is the word I use to this act of will to identify and integrate with reality, and when combined with this process it becomes "The Courage to Be". In this sense, reality is ultimately integration. The One which unites everything without diminishing anything.

2013 In Review

Well, another year has come and gone, and what's more this year was a year that ought to never have occurred. What's that mean? Well, if you remember in 2012 the world should have ended on December 21. So 2013 was a year of new beginnings.

This year was a transformative year for me, as well. Spiritually there were many things that marked a dramatic change for me. I faced many doubts and trials, and I feel that I overcame many obstacles. I have come out stronger, and I feel deeper connections with my family and friends that have stood by me and supported me.

As some people know, I turned away from my faith and my beliefs in Christianity some time ago, and came back to faith under the conviction that I was denying apart of myself. This led me to gradually enter into new and deeper understandings of how we relate to God, Jesus, the Bible, and the Church and my beliefs in Christianity were restored. Though, admittedly, through this journey I have never fully felt at home in the Christian faith.

This year, many of my beliefs were challenged... My belief in the resurrection. My belief in the Bible as being inspired. My belief in the Spiritual Presence. My belief in the Church to represent the People of God. In all this, my belief in myself was challenged, as well.

I had no sense of how to identify myself as a Christian, while it seemed that most of my Christians beliefs were opposed or even heretical to what many Christians around me would think. But as the year ended I began to have a breakthrough. I found others like me, but more importantly, I made a choice. I resolved to be the person I wanted to be. To not judge my own faith by the standards of other people, and to include as many as possible into my world. I resolved that my beliefs, if there were wrong would work themselves out as long as my heart was open to those around me, and as long as I didn't feel the need to hide who I am.

Like it or not, I think many Christians feel a hidden fear to conform and identify their beliefs with what is seen as what "most" Christians believe. We all question our beliefs or think that certain beliefs don't make sense, but believe anyways, because somehow we think this is the "Christian" think to do. We all want to be good Christian boys and girls, but when I decided to come back to Christianity I decided in my heart that I would never let fear rule my faith, and this was the last battleground I needed to fight. I don't need people to think I am a good Christian in order to do the work of God. Or more importantly, I do not need the approval of others in order to believe that I am approved of God.

The Gospel is new every day, and for every person, and at every age. This year this was my Gospel.

There are some serious events to consider for the year in review. My son was born in the spring. I left a church that I had been member of for over ten years. I accepted a job promotion which gave me a new schedule. And I got a vasectomy. Leila started school this year. And Bella began 2nd grade.

My only regret for this year is that in my quest to understand my Christian identity I lost a good friend. I wish things could have been different, but I was put in a position where I was expected to deny who I was and that was unacceptable to me. What is encouraging to me is that I came out better because of it, and I have no hard feelings toward anyone. And I am hopeful that reconciliation is still possible in the future.

But I feel certain now of the work that God has for me, and I have overcome the obstacles that would hinder my faith in pursuing this goal. It is the Gospel that is my passion, and it is in communicating this Gospel to everyone. I have my bearings now, and am charting my course. I am going to build a community of faith. When and where. I do not know, yet. Maybe this year things will get clearer. But for now this is where I am at. May the next chapter begin!

1 Thessalonians 1:1-3 Part 1: Faith

A Historical Study of the Bible

A Historical Study of the Bible is a study in the order the books were written in.

Intro - The story of Paul's work in Thessalonia is found in Acts 17:1-9. It tells of how Paul came into the city "reasoned" with the people and caused a whole bunch of ruckus. There are some parallels in Acts to 1 Thessalonians worth mentioning. Both make use of the "kyrios" title for Jesus. "Jesus is Lord". This would have been in conflict with the Emperor cult which was universal in Roman lands. We also see in the Acts story a man named Jason, who is never mentioned in 1 Thessalonians who apparently stood up for Paul and housed Christians. 

The Acts passage also says how "God fearing Greeks" became Christian. It was a common practice in the Diaspora for Jews to proselytize Gentiles. Any monothestic Gentile could join the Jews in synagogue and learn from the Torah to be "indoctrinated" these "God fearing Greeks" could later convert to Judaism. It was the perfect ministry ground for Christians evangelists to take advantage of. These Greeks for the most part rejected the paganism of their time and were knowledgeable of Jewish culture and apocalyptic which the Christian message relied upon. 

Thus, we learn from Acts that the Thessalonian church was largely Gentile, but had extensive knowledge of Jewish scripture and custom. They know of Jesus' resurrection (17:3) and because of this even the universal Roman cult to worship Caesar as Lord is replaced and these believers only call Jesus their Lord. And this creates controversy in the culture. 

v1 - The intro picks up almost where the Acts passage leaves off. We see Silas who is included in the Acts pericope, and we see Timothy, who comes into the picture later in this book. What we do not see is the traditional Apostolic confirmation that comes into play in later Pauline letters. All that we see is the simple name "Paul". This is indicative of being a very early letter of Paul and we can see further developments of this address as well. In Galatians which is the next book to study, Paul is an apostle sent by God and Jesus. In 1 Corinthians Paul's apostleship becomes more centered on Christ and the will of God becomes secondary. Romans has perhaps the greatest apostolic accolade where Paul cites his credentials in five eloquent verses.

It is thus, reasonable to conclude that this is a very early letter of Paul, and while it may not be his first letter, it is of near certainty that it is the first letter in the NT that we have record of. 

v2-3 - It is customary in Greek letters to include a "health-wish" after the introduction. "Health" in the Greek mind was not simply a medical concern. It was an overall state of life. It was synonymous with happiness. Paul borrows from this pattern to include in his introduction an address for spiritual health which he sees embodied as faith, hope, and love. Sentiments which get repeated in later Pauline letters.

We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is Paul's first use of his "famous three". Faith, hope, and love are an enduring legacy of Paul and we can see that they were present at the very start. They become of monumental importance when 1 Corinthians is written, but Paul weaves these themes in all his writings. The basic teaching of Paul here is that for spiritual health faith, hope, and love are necessary and primary virtues. Galatians 5:5-6 says,

But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

This is the same formula Paul uses re-applied to the context of the Galatians letter. We already referenced the 1 Cor. passage which is the most widely known. Philippians is a bit more creative in presenting the "famous three". Paul uses the story of his chains and suffering to present an immanent view of faith, hope, and love to show the Philippians believers how these virtues work themselves into the experience of grace and the gospel in ones personal life (1:16, 20, 26). The admonition is for believers to experience this same gospel through faith, hope, and love. At this juncture Paul advances his teaching on the famous three by associating it with the Gospel of God. This development moves us beyond the mere "spiritual health" teaching found in 1 Thessalonians and gives us insight into the importance of these virtues as they relate to the Gospel. And especially in Romans (Paul's magnum opus) do we also find this trinity of Gospel virtues. Romans 5:1-5 says,

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

Clearly, faith, hope, and love are not simple theological ideas in Paul's mind. In 1 Thessalonians they are the virtues of spiritual health, but these virtues develop into the cornerstone of Paul's spiritual life. So the question becomes... what is faith, hope, and love?

Instead of skipping to the obvious answers found in non-Pauline sources. Let's look at what Paul means by these terms so we can get a full and accurate portrayal of Paul's Gospel message. Let's start with faith...

In 1 Thessalonians faith produces work. This is the same word used in Ephesians that says, "not by works" (2:9). This is consistent with Paul's teaching. Paul has never divorced faith from works, as some might think. In reality Paul simply places faith before works, and places faith as sufficient for salvation. Works are the natural outcome of faith. Paul and James are in agreement.

Understanding the relationship between faith and works helps us understand what Paul means by faith. The word he uses for "work" in 1 Thessalonians is "ergon" (2041). This word is not simply "slave labor" but is entrepreneurial. It is effective work, artistic, and industrial. It is the kind of work done with a purpose, like a mission. So for Paul, faith is that element which makes work worthwhile. It is that which gives us purpose, meaning, significance.

1 Thessalonians mentions faith eight times. Romans 35 and Hebrews 31. They are clearly the NT winners, but Galatians is a third of the size of Romans and Hebrews, roughly the same size as 1 Thessalonians and has 20 references to faith. Making it pound for pound the winner of NT faith references. Galatians is the next book Paul wrote after 1 Thessalonians.

For Paul, faith is what justifies us (Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9, Rom. 4:5). This is the total requirement of the Gospel. Faith. But what does it mean to have faith? What is faith? How does one know if they have true faith, or false faith? Well, Paul is not a systematic theologian, but there are many clues in his writing to outline what faith meant to Paul.

The first and most important aspect of faith is what we have looked at already. The distinction between faith and works highlights for us the depths of faith. "Work" in the sense that Paul uses it, is not how we might understand "work". Paul's understanding of "work" might better make sense to us if we compare it to the word "production". Work, in the modern mind, is mechanical and empty. It is the mindless operation of our faculties. We work to eat, and we eat to live. Thus, for the modern man work is simply a survival mechanism.

But Paul's use of the word "work" is not meant to convey this idea of mechanical survivalism. Work, or production, is something man does to make something... to create. Man does not work, as in mere operation. He works, as in sublime production. He produces. He creates. He fashions. It is this aspect of man that is both glory and folly, and Paul understands this most of all through the Law.

For the Jew, the Law was not simply a list of commands that had to be obeyed. It was the pattern of reality, and it was the glory of man to participate in this reality and produce this reality for society and culture to live in. Jews did not see obedience to the Law as something mechanical, in that if they did what God wanted then they would get something they wanted as well. They saw the Law as something to be created among men, among the Gentiles, among the world, in Palestine the Law would restore Israel, and in Jerusalem the Law would usher in the Messiah. For the Jews works of the Law created and produced the kind of reality that God desired for all mankind.

It is so important to understand this idea of "work" that Paul uses when he speaks of faith, because it is this idea of "work" that demands faith. Paul is not speaking of two different ideas that are detached from one another. Paul's understanding of work implies an element of faith. Paul is not divorcing work form faith, as many misguided Christians seem to think, which is only a result of their Western industrialized mentality. Paul is a master thinker of the highest caliber and within this idea of "work" is able to establish what is required for Christian faith.

For Paul, work is an existential reality. Man creates himself, and in so doing destroys himself. His creation is his work. The old myths and religions preached that to solve this problem man had to work harder. Paul saw that this system is flawed, and that the solution to man's problem lay not in the work he did, but in what gave that work meaning. What made work worthwhile? Faith became the answer. The reality is that man has no answer to why he strives to exist in the world. Why he struggles so hard for so little. Paul saw that man's work pointed to something greater. It is this ineffable greatness of life that is given the term faith. Faith is the declaration that man's work will always have meaning and significance regardless of the destruction it ushers into the world. For Paul, faith has little to do with propositional beliefs, and more to do with the courage to face meaningless existence and to force your own identity and mark upon the universe.

Be on alert. Stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. - 1 Cor. 16:13

the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God. - Gal. 2:20

For Paul faith is the answer to meaningful and purposeful work. But faith is also a mystery. Just as Paul demonstrates faith in the duality between work and meaning so he too demonstrates faith in the duality between wisdom and mystery. In the ancient world man was confronted with many harsh realities that trampled on the spirit of man. First, he had to work long hours as slaves. Work, work, work. Not only did man have to work hard and for long hours, but it seemed to be unending. Every year man had to work the same land, deal with the same weeds, and fight the same predators. What was the point to it all? Religion in the ancient world offered man a great release. It gave sense and meaning to the repetition of life. Ritual and Liturgy gave these repetitive elements symbolic characteristics that gave man the opportunity to participate in the divine. This spoke to the common ailment believed to exist in man. Today, we relate to it as anxiety, or angst, but in the ancient world it was work... toil.... labor. Man realized that work was inevitable, inescapable, and unavoidable. But this is not bad. Work, just like the endless repetition of seasons and storms, is an activity that takes part in the plan of God. Work was meaningful, but its meaning had to be grasped outside the realm of the work itself. 

This same problem existed for wisdom. Wisdom in the ancient world was practical wisdom, but it was not pragmatic, in the sense that its aim was directly toward mere immediate or utilitarian concerns. Practical wisdom was directed toward the happiness and health of man. But the problem that existed with wisdom is that it also amounted to sophism and endless philosophies of empty chatter. Wisdom gave man the tools to live a good life, and even a life that pleased God, but it appeared no different than all the false philosophies of profit and selfish gain. Practical wisdom gave into doubt, just as productive work gave into bondage. Faith redeems work through meaning, and it redeems wisdom through mystery.

holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. - 1 Timothy 3:9

my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature ; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away ; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory. - 1 Cor. 2:4-7

What is mystery? It is the power of God. Mystery in relation to wisdom is the secret knowledge that grounds practical wisdom so that it will not collapse into sophism. The mystery is what makes knowledge something more then mere human conjecture. It makes it possible to live in a world of doubt, just like meaning makes it possible to live in a world of bondage. For Paul this is what faith means. Faith is that courage which refuses to accept the world in which we live and to make this life something holy, something glorious... "to our glory". 

So many try to equate faith with belief in the Christian community. And this is not necessarily bad. But in the most basic NT sense, faith is that sense of courage which seeks to live a glorious life. Without this most basic elemental sense of faith the beliefs which become attributed to it will be empty, shallow, and self-destructive. Paul had a specific vision of faith when he wrote 1 Thessalonians and now that we have studied his writings and seen the central images and dualities he primarily used with faith/works and mystery/wisdom we can see how for us today we can relate to our own faith. Now I am not reducing faith to courage, or denying that propositional beliefs are necessary for salvation. What I am saying is that faith must be primarily described as courage before any propositional content can be attributed to it. It is this attribution that I believe is most important for believers to understand, because it is the key to a victorious faith, a faith that can conquer both doubt and meaninglessness.

Musings from Enoch - Book I

Well, I have finally begun my study of the Pseudepigripha. This is a monumental undertaking for me, and one that I wish will merit insights into the Bible that I have been struggling with for quite some time. Some of my primary concerns are: What were the varying beliefs about resurrection? What was the Jewish eschatology? What did the figure Son of Man mean? Son of God? What about pre-existence and angels? If an angel were "incarante" would they be held to the same resurrection and a normal person? And so forth... These questions have been spinning around in my head since I have been delving into the new world of higher criticism, and they hold some fundamental repercussions concerning Christian foundations. So without further ado here is my analysis of the first part of the book of Enoch...

 Enoch begins by reinterpreting the protology and cosmology according to the new world they were exposed to during the Exile. In the diaspora Jews were exposed to pagan beliefs that challenged and inspired their own spirituality and consequently these new beliefs had to be integrated into the Jewish paradigm. Angels, demons, spiritual warfare, oppression, and living a downtrodden life while being elected. These new realities are introduced through the narrative of Enoch.

The author of Enoch has masterfully used the story of Noah to reinterpret the origins of humanity. Enoch was

an antediluvian prophet who was "taken" to be with God. Thus the author was able to put Enoch in an interesting position. Jews during the exile began to believe that the world would soon come under the judgment of God and so they could look back to a time when God's judgment came upon the earth to construct a new paradigm where God's judgment would come in the future. 

The first verse reveals a possible eschatology that as Christians we may not be aware of. God would remove the wicked from the earth so that the righteous can dwell on it in the blessing of God. The typical Christian eschatology is just about the reverse of this. In Christianity God removes the righteous so the earth can be condemned with the wicked and then the righteous can come back to a new earth. This possible eschatology has given some a good reason to think that the verses in Matthew 24 actually refer to this other possible eschatology rather then what has become the standard Christian eschatology. So when it speak of two men being in the field and one is taken. The one taken is the wicked one and NOT the righteous one that many assume to be the case. The key indicator to this is that Jesus says it will be like in the days of Noah.

In chapter 7 of Enoch he begins to describe the "giants" that came from the union of women and angels and it seems like the author might be describing characteristics which they found in their rulers in the diaspora. The giants were oppressive and embodied injustice. Prophecy and eschatology were often used as Jewish methods to speak about social issues of their day. An oppressive ruler could be cast in a religious sense as an anti-Christ. Early Christians also faced oppressive rulers which could be a reason why they adopted this same kind of apocalyptic language.

In chapter 9 of Enoch it mentions how the dead will rise. "They will bring their suit" to the gates of heaven. This is an interesting phrase that I am puzzled about. In chapter 22 it mentions this "suit" again, and it seems to suggest that it is the righteous who possess this "suit" and the wicked will be destroyed. For all intents and purposes this resurrection is given to the already dead and it will be for the righteous dead. 

Enoch 10 has an important verse in it which is just about a direct quote from Revelation 20:10 that describes the torment in hell that the fallen angels will suffer. This verse in Revelation is one of the only verses that actually speaks of hell as a place of eternal torment, and if there was a cultural predisposition to refer to hell in such a manner then we might be able to conclude that such a verse is only mentioned symbollically and not literally. The verse in 20:10 bears similarities to the Noahic covenant, anyways. It speaks of "day and night" a significant reference in the Jewish mind which tracked the passing of time from "night to day". The reference of "day and night" is a sign of the firmament being dropped and the day and night skies being made visible. Thus, I believe the Revelation 20:10 verse is more about the social and political realities that God was going to change forever, rather then about people being tormented for all eternity. This was apocalyptic language of the time.

There is also reference to the tree of life, and in that passage there is another reference to the tree of wisdom. Enoch calls it the tree of wisdom, but it is the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Just like in Revelation, one day we will eat from the tree of life and live forever.

In Enoch 14 it mentions tongues of fire which surround the Temple of God in heaven. This again can give us insight into the mentality of the early church concerning it origins. This also places a context to refer to the early churches distinguishing the tongues of fire with the ability to speak in tongues, which is a reversal of the Tower of Babel narrative. Since, early Jewish eschatology seems rooted in the Noahic narrative it seems likely that the multitude of languages would have to be overcome for God's kingdom to be established on earth. So tongues of fire and speaking in tongues can be seen as signs of God's Kingdom being established in the Jewish mind.

Enoch 15 comes to explain how demons came to exist. The giants who died lost their bodies, but their spirits had no place to go. Their spirits belonged in heaven, but they were banished from heaven. They did not belong to the earth (human souls sank below the earth and were seen as part of the earth) so they longed to be back in bodies or to cause torment to others. Interestingly enough, this does give us a formula by which we can speculate about angelic incarnated beings whose bodies die. Enoch says that their spirits go to heaven. This may or may not refer to a possible belief in resurrection for Jesus, but it does set a precedent.

Then Enoch goes on to describe the various levels of heaven and the after-life. There are places where the fallen angels will go. Places for the wicked who die and places for the righteous who die. 

That is just about all for the first book. It establishes a protology in which an eschatology can be formulated. Later Enoch will elaborate in eschatology and the end of the world. It will be interesting to see if it connects with his protology as I believe it will.

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist - Part V: The Unified Experience

We cannot turn back the clock. We are stuck in the modern world. Sticking our head in the sand like the fundamentalist cannot produce a unified experience. Putting our head in the clouds like the moralizers of Liberal Protestantism cannot produce a unified experience either. We have to have genuine religion in order to be a unified person. We cannot reduce faith to moral conviction. In our postmodern world it is generally accepted that man needs spiritual nourishment. What I am proposing is that for the Christian our spirituality should unify us as a person with our faith. I think that the Higher Criticism of the Bible through the structure of Neo-Orthodoxy can do this.

What do I mean by a unified experience? Fundamentalists look for a unified experience by claiming that their beliefs are similar to those of the early believers. They use their beliefs about the Bible to unite themselves with a perception of what they believe is ultimately important in their spiritual lives. This is a common religious practice, and one that I do not deny. I seek a unified experience as well, and I think many people do not understand the unifying experience that can happen if we change the way we read the Bible. It makes sense that if we change our method of interpretation then our unifying experience of the Bible must change as well. It makes sense that many would appear resistant to this change, thinking that maybe they are loosing a part of themselves, because the unifying experience integrates itself into our meaning-structure. But I assure you that this is not the case. Not only does Higher Criticism offer a valid unifying experience, I believe it offers one that is more effective then fundamentalism.

The fundamentalist focuses his unifying experience upon his orthodoxy. The Liberal Protestant focuses his unifying experience on orthopraxis. The Neo-Orthodox is able to blend the two together. For the fundamentalist it is important to believe what the early believers, believed. For the Liberals it is important to act like the early believers. For the Neo-Orthodox it is important to be like the early believers. Fundamentalists give attention to an object. It is an object of belief. It is a "what" not a "who". Liberals give attention to a behavior. It is subjective with no content. It is a "who" with no soul. Neo-Orthodox give attention to what the early believers were like and how we can imitate their lives in our modern world. It possess an object and a subject.

Neo-Orthodoxy seeks a unifying experience by reading the Bible like the early believers read the Bible and understanding it in our modern world, like the early believers understood it in their "modern" context. All interpretation is re-interpretation when it comes to religious texts. The Neo-Orthodox believes that Higher Criticism can best engage the believer in the same, or similar, process that the early believers engaged in when they read the scripture, and that is a meditative process.

Meditation is not a rational endeavor. It is not about compartmentalizing or dividing up themes and models. To meditate upon scripture is to absorb it into yourself, to make it a part of your identity without it entering into your rational faculties. The early believers meditated upon scripture in order to fuse it into their lives without the mess of rational and practical considerations. This is most confirmed by the ancient practice of lectio divina, which is the earliest known practice of how early Christians read the Bible, but we know from the Old Testament itself that meditation was major practice in ancient times of understanding Scripture.

When I say that meditation is not a rational endeavor I mean that in a particular manner as it concerns the Western practice of reason. Meditation does not follow any propositional or syllogistic reasoning pattern. It is not about premises and conclusions. It is simply about absorbing the information. Repeating it to yourself over and over again, and contemplating upon the various connections the object of your meditation creates, and when these connections reveal the inner workings of your life as it compares to the scripture you resolve in prayer to model your life by those patterns. The standard is the Bible, but the application emerges from a union of meditation and reflection.

Modern man has a difficult time connecting with the meditative process. We desire to grasp and understand the objects of our attention. To simply accept and absorb information seems elementary, juvenile, or weak minded. Fundamentalism is superficial and objective. It is far removed from the meditative process. But Higher Criticism does open us up to an experience that is similar. Higher Criticism lays bare the content of Scripture. It removes the impossible elements that cause our mental defenses to reject it and allows the message to penetrate our minds, making it able to become a part of our contemplative process. Man cannot contemplate on miracles and wonders in this day and age, because we are removed from them. That is the simple reality. This is not a denial of the miraculous, but a modicum by which modern man is able to contemplate upon the word of God.

For instance, if a fundamentalist were to meditate upon the phrase, "He will rise in three days". He will be limited by the depth his contemplation can take him. He can certainly be enlightened by all the cultural dynamics that took place in ancient times concerning the eschatological significance of "three days", but ultimately these insights will be blocked by the reality that for the fundamentalist this information is an addendum and has no real impact on the reality that in three literal days someone rose from the dead.

But the neo-orthodox is able to accept this information more intuitively into his meditative process. The phrase "three days" can become a center piece of interpretation and allow ourselves to experience the world that the early believers would have experienced. We can see how significant it would have been to say that a person rose after three days, and that this would have had to of been a watershed for such a community. Whoever this person was he has enormous eschatological significance. The literal meaning of the "three days" becomes insignficant. It is not denied, because it no longer becomes important, and it is no longer allowed to block our contemplation and integration of the object of our meditation. Through this we can see how important this man would have been to the believers of his time, and how important he can be to us.

Higher Cirticism allows for the background cultural influences to become apart of the narrative, and because of this it is allowed to enter into the contemplative process, which is able to integrate the more personal information into our spiritual development. And the mind can accept the results because it is not barricaded by presuppositions of the past or authority.

Higher Criticism allows for a spiritual unified experience and it does so without betraying the modern spirit of man. Fundamentalism rejects this spirit and resorts to authority and fear in order to do it. In the process it adopts the methods it rejects in order to interpret its own Bible. The fundamentalists seek a unified experience through orthodoxy, but cut themselves off from the depths of contemplation. It is because of this that I believe Higher Criticism and Neo-Orthodoxy provide a more genuine and authentic Christianity then fundamentalism.

The Burden of Church

This comes from the heart. I have recently left the church I had been attending for twelve years. I am
frustrated, hurt, lonely, and yes, angry. Big surprise, right. I think it rather queer that as Christians we expect other Christians to feel this way when it comes to "church departures". I mean, are we so two dimensional and limited in our own spirituality that we cannot possibly conceive that decisions like these are rather a combination or varying and complex webs of emotion, desire, and expectation.

Sure, I am angry, but I am also hopeful. I am disappointed, but I am also sympathetic. I am hurt, but I am also encouraged. Do I have to be one or the other? Can't I be both/and? I am a human. I can have two contrary feelings at once, and not have any clue what any of it means. Is this not a more accurate description of the human experience? So while it may be easier for you to characterize or pigeon-hole me try to first understand. I wish to be transparent and open. I wish to be an active participant in my own demise. If I am to fall flat on my face it will certainly be by my own doing. So here I stand. Take your best shot...

I wish I could simply come here to you today and say that I have all these intellectual and rational arguments as to why it was best for me to leave the church. I wish it could exist all in my head, but alas, as a humble philosopher I cannot simply "think" away my life without at first trying out my beliefs and principles in the real world. That said, I have felt for a long time that I did not quite fit in at my church.

I love books. I love to read. I love to read every perspective on an issue. I love to question my own position on issues, and I love to gain new insight that I had not considered before. I love to learn, and I love to teach. I love to simply argue, debate, and dialogue over an issue to force, in a certain way, a truth which perhaps all parties had not considered. I love to stand strong and articulate an idea, a belief, or a principle in such a way that others can understand it, and agree to it, or reject it, and if they reject it that they reject the true "it". This is a raw passion for truth.

This is the core of the falling out I had with the church. My previous church grounded itself on the "mission" to "create relational environments for discipleship"... Sounds good right? I thought so. But as I peeled away the layers of this central tenet over the years banging my head against constant barriers and opposition, I began to see something horrid and deplorable. Something I almost cannot bear to write about, and something I feel needs to be addressed to the utmost seriousness of any church attender.

The wall is anti-intellectualism. Now, I think I can say in full confidence that this is the reason my twelve years of faithful service met in such failure. It's not that I am "too" smart for the church. The church simply does not want to learn. It does not want the truth. It pains me to say it this way, but I have good grounds to conclude this.

I was told by more then one member of staff that this church was not a "teaching" church. I was told that staff was selected for their merits to be "relational" and were not considered for any educational merit. I was told that "intellect" or the engaging there-of was not a relational environment. I was told that it mattered not whether or not a person engaged their mental faculties to understand their faith as long as they stayed married to their wives and remained "good boys and girls", of sorts.

Now you can imagine that this list of charges was not simply stated to me in such a blameworthy manner, but I do feel that this is a fair and true accounting of what I have recently experienced. Here is the reality. I went to a very large church that has recently seen decline in attendance. Younger people are leaving and the older people are becoming more dominant and identical with one another, and wouldn't you know it that for the most part this means being and acting like the head pastor.

So what I pose is the rather honest question... if "relationship" without regard to "intellect" is the best way to discipleship then WHY (for God's sake!) is the church mimicking and parroting what they see and hear rather then acting on their own behalf? When the product is a church that looks identical to each other and also looks like the head pastor then should we not question our approach to relationship? Can we not at least entertain the idea that such an approach to relationship is simply a manipulation and a coercion against the masses designed not to inspire them to discipleship, but rather to subject them to it. If the consequences of such a church resembles this pattern then does it not warrant such a consideration.

Now, I am not a man who lives with his head in the clouds. I get it. I get that you simply cannot argue a person to live a righteous life. But WHY is this the ultimate and final objection to considering another alternative to church????!!!!!! Can I not at this point claim that you cannot mind-control a person to live a righteous life? Both arguments seem valid, but also completely miss the point.

We live in a dangerous new world. And danger is not intrinsically bad. In the right light, this danger can be an adventure, and the church is left in the wading pool. If it is to be respected in the modern world it has to be willing to engage in the intellect of man, and it has to be willing to accept that relational environments does not mean some mushy-gooshy couch crying session where we admit to masturbating or having lustful thoughts. A relational environment can be simply a group of people who know nothing about each other personally but debate and argue with one another with the utmost respect and honor. It can be led by a person who is not "doctrinally" in line with the most enhanced Evangelical confession, as long as such a person is honest, humble, and open to correction. If the church wants to commit itself to discipleship in the modern world it has to be willing to let go of the reigns of power in "relational environments" it has to be willing to let there be a dynamic instead of a program, an energy instead of a structure, and a trust instead of control.

Now I am not saying that it is a either/or. I get the need for relational discipleship. I do, but can we make room for the intellect to be a relational environment, too, and if we do what does that look like? Are we willing to let go of the forces that are clearly manipulating and distorting our vision? Because I ask you, who is truly to blame for what a ministry produces? If you truly want disciples, do you think you can gain them through "relationships"? Or is it a bit more complicated then that? I think it is. And I worries me to my core that this insidious claim might be a bit more pernicious then I think.

After all, I really do believe that everyone at my old church is an honest person, and genuinely believes that

they are honoring God, but what it they simply allow themselves the luxury of believing in this so that they do not have to look deeper to the potentially more malicious intentions? What if they enjoy manipulating and controlling people, so much, that they are willing to be blinded by their faith? The sad reality is that no effort is made on their part to distinguish themselves from this rather dark possibility. And this in my mind, calls forth the most basic and necessary condition for intellectual honesty to exist in a discipleship matrix. How else can you know that you are just not some master manipulator, unless you open your community to freely inquire and develop?

Why I am no longer a fundamentalist: Part IV: Hermeneutical Musings

The basic controversy between Higher Criticism and the Literal-Grammatical Method (fundamentalism) is how to approach the plain reading of the text and the cultural influences of the time. If we can consider these as two separate entities lets identify them as...

1. The plain rendering of the text

2. The cultural background.

Now both sides agree that these two entities exist, and both agree that an accurate interpretation of the Bible requires both these elements, but we disagree as to the order. Fundamentalists are willing and wanting to engage in studies which heighten their understanding of the cultural background, but such knowledge is never able to provide a breach upon the rendering of the plain and simple meaning. 

I believe this is because fundamentalists see the importance of a universally accessible Tome of sacred

writings, due in part to their belief that unbelievers must suffer an eternity in hell. Every unbeliever is informed of his fate in the Bible and those who still choose to disbelieve must suffer the consequences. Thus, fundamentalism is in many ways a self-confirming spirituality that allows the devotee the luxury of knowing that he is right regardless. If a person were allowed to justify their unbelief in hell based on the cultural background of the Jewish people then the reality of spiritual devotion seems to be in jeopardy  So again we see fundamentalists responding to a threat.

In a rather ironic twist which borderlines on paradox the fundamentalist accepts a rather ubiquitous double standard when it comes to his Scriptures. The fundamentalist derides reductionism as a perversion of science and claims that true knowledge must be able to be influenced by sacred scripture, but what the fundamentalist utilizes in approaching scripture is a reductionistic method of interpretation. If a text can only mean what the plain reading renders then you are reducing that meaning and limiting it regardless of the cultural depth we see in the past.

The reality is that fundamentalists only comfort themselves with superficial knowledge of the past only to appease themselves that they are interested in the "heritage" of the Bible. Such knowledge only accompanies what their preconceived interpretations are. They do not look to the past to be informed by it. They believe they are already informed by it. They look to the past to simply find confirming evidence of what they already know. This is understandable, but it is not justifiable. And it fits neatly into the model of fundamentalism that we are seeing. The fundamentalist fears that an honest look into the past will eradicate the Christian faith and because of this he creates a hedge around his beliefs which cannot be penetrated.

Fundamentalism arose during the Enlightenment by overemphasizing (1) the plain reading of the text, and I would say that it operated in tandem with Liberal Protestantism which also arose out of the Enlightenment by and overemphasis on (2) the cultural background. The Liberals were wrong. They wanted to remove the Bible almost entirely, because it was simply a myth, and they wanted to make a religion of rational morality. The fundamentalists were right to oppose them.

Neo-Orthodoxy does not fall into the trap of Liberal Protestantism. They do not remove (1) simply because it is a myth, and they do not focus on the moralizing qualities of (2). The cultural background does have a precedent when it comes to understand what the plain text means, and in this manner there is a priority to (2) over and above (1), but at the same time no text was ever written to simply convey its plain rendering. And Neo-Orthodoxy saves the plain reading of the text by provided a more amiable framework to accept it in. Liberal Protestantism derided the Bible because it was myth, but Neo-Orthodoxy embraces the use of myth in religion as a modicum of humans being able to express their experience of God. Many theologians along the tradition of Higher Criticism have found themes and models present in the Biblical narratives which arise as contrived insertions to make a theological and spiritual commentary upon the event itself.

For instance, Jesus' miracles are in many ways re-creations of Moses' or Elijah's miracles. The fundamentalist sees this as evidence that God miraculously engineered history so that Jesus would repeat the very same miracles Moses or Elijah performed, but the critic sees this as an insertion on the writers part to convey the message that the power or the God they saw in Jesus was the same God that empowered Moses and Elijah. The critic does not call the authors liars or deceivers  but he understands that cultural influences determine in many ways what a piece of work has to say. The message has to be received.

So the plain reading can guide the investigation into the cultural background, but the cultural background always sets the foundation for the plain reading. Neo-Orthodoxy is able to synthesize (1) and (2) together and though they work in a hierarchical structure they are united, unlike Liberal Protestantism and fundamentalism.

I propose that Higher Criticism through Neo-Orthodoxy can provide a more unifying experience of Scripture then Fundamentalism can do through the Literal-Grammatical Method. And I will do this in my next article.