Ichthus77

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 12: The (True) Story of the Cross

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith

TWELVE: The (True) Story of the Cross

“In chapter 12, the author responds to the critique that “‘The Christian God sounds like the vengeful gods of primitive times who needed to be appeased by human sacrifice.’ Why can’t God just accept everyone or at least those who are sorry for their wrongdoings?” (p. 187). To answer this question, Keller compares God to a person who has been wronged by another person. The injured party can exact revenge by making the offender suffer, or the wronged party can instead take the difficult path of forgiveness. When you forgive, you choose not to make the wrongdoer suffer for what he or she has done. The person who was wronged suffers instead. By forgiving the wrongdoer, Keller states, “[y]ou are absorbing the debt, taking the cost of it completely on yourself instead of taking it out of the other person. It hurts terribly. Many people would say it feels like a kind of death” (p. 189). Thus, God suffered the pain of his Son’s death in order to forgive the sins of humanity. And because he did so, the wrongdoers (humanity) are freed from the debt of their wrongdoing. How do you feel about Keller comparing the pain of human forgiveness to God’s act of sacrificing his Son to redeem humanity?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf

I liked how Keller pointed out costly forgiveness is not ‘cheap grace’ — it is a death leading to resurrection, “instead of the life-long living death of bitterness and cynicism,” (189). I liked how he said human forgiveness works this way because we are made in the image (love) of our Creator.

Do you think that, if God is good, it would require that He has made His love of good and hatred of evil manifest? Would it require His love be optional, lest it not be love? Would it require He do something to bring evil to justice? Would you think that if He has not done that, He (given He exists) is not good?

I liked how he pointed out the motivation for confrontation and holding someone accountable is love, wanting the person to change for the better and be renewed, rather than wanting to hurt them. That was the love God demonstrated on the cross. “Therefore the God of the Bible is not like the primitive deities who demanded our blood for their wrath to be appeased. Rather, this is a God who becomes human and offers his own lifeblood in order to honor moral justice and merciful love so that someday he can destroy evil without destroying us,” (192). “On the cross neither justice nor mercy loses out—both are fulfilled at once. Jesus’ death was necessary if God was going to take justice seriously and still love us,” (197).

I liked how he pointed out God’s substitutional sacrifice, the great reversal, is the essence of life-changing love. This reminds me of Wolfgang Carstens’ “The Knife and the Wound Philosophy” which I reply to with my “The Sword and the Sacrifice Philosophy” which is essentially the Golden Rule, referred to as an ethic of reciprocity on Wikipedia. It isn’t “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” – it’s applied empathy.

I liked how he points out Jesus turns the values of the world upside down and implied Christians are a counterculture. I liked how he mentioned how the greatest movies always have the theme of someone giving their life for someone else’s, and that we are in ‘the’ grandest narrative of all eternity (and that ain’t no fishin’ story).

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 11: Religion and the Gospel

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith

ELEVEN: Religion and the Gospel

“In chapter 11, the author contrasts religion with the message of the Christian gospel. He points out that religion is a set of rules and standards that determine what a person must do to obtain divine approval and enter heaven. In contrast, he states, the gospel makes it clear that no human can measure up to God’s standard — which is perfection. That explains why God sent Jesus, his Son, to earth to die for the sins of humanity. The perfect God, in human flesh, was sacrificed for imperfect humanity. Keller writes: “The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued … that Jesus was glad to die for me” (p. 181). How do you respond to Keller’s characterization of religion in contrast to the message of the gospel? How do you react to his summary of the meaning of the gospel?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf

I think it is important to note how, as Keller pointed out, “All other major faiths have founders who are teachers that show the way to salvation. Only Jesus claimed to actually be the way of salvation himself,” (174).

My pastor sometimes uses this “religion, irreligion, and the gospel” idea of Tim Keller’s in his sermons, so I was familiar with it. I think it is something we need to keep reminding ourselves of. I think many of us grow up with the religious mindset, never truly understanding the gospel mindset even if we were raised in a Christian family.

In both religion and irreligion, we are slaves. Only the gospel sets us free. I liked this quote, “We are not in control of our lives. We are living for something and we are controlled by that, the true lord of our lives,” (185). If you don’t live for Jesus, you will live for something else.

I liked Keller’s discussion of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde – if my reading list wasn’t so long, I’d read it right now. I liked his discussion of pride and Pharisaism (religious mindset) and that there are two types: liberals who feel superior to bigots and narrow-minded people, and conservatives who feel superior to the less moral and devout (180). It is building our identity on our own good works, our own self-salvation (impossible) rather than on God’s unconditional acceptance. It is a rejection of the gospel message, of God’s love, of our Savior.

His love is radical, and a response to it is radical. I liked how Keller discussed Valjean’s response to the bishop’s grace contrasted with Javert’s unfortunate suicide in Les Miserables. He couldn’t handle the paradigm-shift. Another one I should read.

I liked Keller’s mention of humble confidence, despite circumstances. It won’t necessarily be all roses, but you will know you are loved with an unshakable love. I liked that he pointed out that this doesn’t lead us to want to go sin our faces off, but instead we are changed in the presence of such love and want it to radiate through us.

The subject matter of this chapter is definitely something I struggle with. I obsess over others’ assessments rather than accepting God’s assessment of me, I feel proud of myself for things I couldn’t have done without God or things that had no love in them, I comfort myself with thoughts of “at least I’m not like them.” But He loves me anyway.

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 10: The Problem of Sin

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith

TEN: The Problem of Sin

“In chapter 10, Keller delves into the issue of sin and its consequences. He begins by positing that we already know sin exists: ‘It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world’ (p. 159). Do you agree that it’s valid to define what is broken in the world as sin? Why or why not? And given all the things that are broken in the world, what questions does that raise in your mind about God?” – Penguin http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf

I like how Keller points out that any time we attempt to build our identity on anything but God and His eternal love, it is sin. An identity built apart from God “can desert you in a moment” (164). God is the only one who can meet our need for Him. Attempting to meet that need with god-substitutes reflects and intensifies our “disordered loves” (165). Sin “does not only have an internal impact on us but also a devastating effect on the social fabric,” (167). “Edwards concludes that only if God is our summum bonum, our ultimate good and life center, will we find our heart drawn out not only to people of all families, races, and classes, but to the whole world in general,” (168). “The more we love and identify deeply with our family, our class, our race, or our religion, the harder it is not to feel superior or even hostile to other religions, races, etc.,” (169). “If you don’t live for Jesus you will live for something else. … If there is a God who created you, then the deepest chambers of your soul simply cannot be filled up by anything less. That is how great the human soul is. If Jesus is the Creator-Lord, then by definition nothing could satisfy you like he can, even if you are successful. Even the most successful careers and families cannot give the significance, security, and affirmation that the author of glory and love can. … Jesus is the only Lord who, if you receive him, will fulfill you completely, and, if you fail him, will forgive you eternally,” (172-173). If you are not living for God’s eternal love – what are you living for? Does it fulfill you completely?

What of the 5 options below (explained in the link below) do you choose and why:
Free to Be or Not to Be

1. Evil exists, therefore a Good Creator does not exist.
2. All is god (pantheism) and there is no evil.
3. There is no such thing as evil, because evil implies an objective, transcendent moral law, which only exists if God exists, and God does not exist.
4. Dualism: good and evil in eternal opposition.
5. Sin is co-creating (exercising free will) apart from God (love).

Do you agree/disagree with any of the vices/virtues being labeled as such in the link below, and do you agree/disagree they all spring from the Golden Rule or royal law of love?
http://theswordandthesacrificephilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/08/sword-and-sacrifice-philosophy.html

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG NINE: The Knowledge of God (Happy MLK, Jr. Day!)

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith

NINE: The Knowledge of God

“In chapter 9, the author states that the real challenge is not to prove that God exists, but to recognize that people already suspect that God exists. He points to the human sense that certain things are right and others are wrong. For example, protecting children from harm is right; ethnic cleansing is wrong. In light of these understandings, Keller writes: “[D]oesn’t that mean you do believe that there is some kind of moral standard that people should abide by regardless of their individual convictions?” (p. 146). He continues: “We can’t know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some super-natural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong” (p. 155 —156). Do you agree that a shared sense of right and wrong is an indication of God’s existence? Discuss your responses,” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf

The quotes at the beginning of chapter eight would have gone excellently at the beginning of chapter nine as well. Would you agree with Maugham and Sartre that, without God, life has no given meaning, that we have no given reason for existing?

Are you of the category of people Keller talks about that no longer believes in God, but still believes some things are right or wrong even if we or others are inclined otherwise? If so, do you feel your moral intuitions are “free-floating in midair” – that “underneath there is an abyss” (145)? –or do you think they are grounded in nature? Do you agree we should love our enemies? Do you think if we all loved our enemies, it would lead to extinction? Do you think that natural selection can work on whole populations, and that the consensus Keller referred to might change? If our moral intuitions were grounded in nature, would that mean life does have a given meaning, that we do have a given reason for existing, contrary to Maugham and Sartre’s thinking, even if there is no God?

Do you think universal human rights come from God, are discovered in nature, or are invented by humans? Does it make sense to you that all of nature “thrives on violence and predation, survival of the fittest” – but it is grounded in nature that humans should not do this? Do you think the “state of nature” is devoid of moral values, or that human morality is part of the “state of nature”?

Keller writes, “If there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is ‘moral’ and another ‘immoral’ but only ‘I like this.’ [Ichthus: emotivism.] If that is the case, who gets the right to put their subjective, arbitrary moral feelings into law? You may say, ‘the majority has the right to make the law,’ but do you mean that then the majority has the right to vote to exterminate a minority? If you say ‘No, that is wrong,’ then you are back to square one. ‘Who sez’ that the majority has a moral obligation not the kill the minority?” (153). Do you think maybe that even though “we can’t justify or ground human rights in a world without God, we still know they exist”? –that “Without God [we] can’t justify moral obligation, and yet [we] can’t not know it exists” (154-155)? If a premise (‘There is no God’) leads to a conclusion you know isn’t true (‘Napalming babies is culturally relative’) then why not change the premise?” (156)

Let’s compare two parts of the above:

“We can’t know that nature is broken in some way unless there is some super-natural standard of normalcy apart from nature by which we can judge right and wrong” (p. 155 —156).

Do you think the “state of nature” is devoid of moral values, or that human morality is part of the “state of nature”?

I almost edited the second statement to have “(the only part that can be morally broken)” attached to the end. When Keller is saying nature is broken, he’s referring to the fact that all of nature “thrives on violence and predation, survival of the fittest” — that’s what he is calling ‘broken.’ Do you think nature is broken because of this? If we include ourselves in the “state of nature” — then it is really only humans that can be broken when we go against our moral values — the rest of nature is indifferent, as Dawkins would say. However, Dawkins includes us in with nature when he makes that “indifferent” statement. Any thoughts?

I’m reading this book that says there are things new (not determined) in nature (also that nature is creative), which is why free will is possible (it’s not written by a Christian, I think the guy is new-agey). But I think from God’s perspective, that isn’t true, because the universe is complete from the first moment to the last moment. Really, I think there is actually ‘more than’ just what we conceive as nature, which is why free will is possible. He took our free choices into account and included them in the completed work, before it ever began. Abstract thought makes us capable of choosing, and moral reasoning, and discovery… of moral absolutes. I think it is possible that our human natures are hospitable to moral intuitions (they can be grounded in nature), but still find myself asking: would that mean life does have a given meaning, that we do have a given reason for existing, contrary to Maugham and Sartre’s thinking, even if there is no God? Dawkins would say “no.” Keller says, that is neither here nor there — we know there is meaning and objective morality: it’s the premise (God does not exist) that we need to change.

But, that was kind of a tangent. Tim Keller clearly thinks the whole of nature is broken. I think the brokenness that happens to the aspect of nature that doesn’t have free will, must be the kind of brokenness that happens when we unknowingly do something that is not good for us. Maybe only in the Garden of Eden (thinking poetically here, though Keller might take it literally), where we have not yet broken unity with God, does the whole of nature go in unbroken harmony with God.

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG EIGHT: The Clues of God

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 2: The Reasons for Faith

EIGHT: The Clues of God

Though Keller agrees it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, he asserts it is possible to weigh the accumulated weight of the clues (though they are each rationally avoidable). There are five clues presented in this chapter:

Clue 1: The Mysterious Bang — We discussed this clue at the beginning of chapter 6’s discussion questions. Either God created the universe, or it “just happened” – and both require faith. I had thought the cyclic cosmological model was a way out of this clue, though I do not necessarily subscribe to it, however, “The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings…consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model’s cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started.” — Brian Greene. For some, the question “Why something rather than nothing?” is made more unfathomable by the existence of God. Rather than (or, perhaps ‘after’) answering the question for them, God’s existence triggers more questions, like “What was God’s motivation, and doesn’t having motivation imply He was lacking something and therefore not ‘complete’?” Divine impassibility was covered at the end of chapter 3’s discussion questions, and I will again provide the link here: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm  It is also discussed in chapter 14.

Clue 2: The Cosmic Welcome Mat — This clue is also called the anthropic principle (or fine-tuning argument), which recognizes that humans could not exist in any other universe than this one. If any of this universe’s constants were different, we would not be around to observe them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant These constants seem fine-tuned by God to support us. There have been several rebuttals, all requiring faith.

Clue 3: The Regularity of Nature — At first this clue didn’t seem very convincing to me, because I had never wondered about the regularity of nature. But (as Hume and Russell pointed out), continued regularity is a matter of faith. There is nothing guaranteeing the universe will be here tomorrow, or that it will operate according to all the cycles we’ve been observing throughout the years, with all its laws. That the universe and all its cycles and laws do keep happening is a clue to a Sustainer of all that regularity.

Clue 4: The Clue of Beauty — “We may, therefore, be secular materialists who believe truth and justice, good and evil, are complete illusions. But in the presence of art or even great natural beauty, our hearts tell us another story. … regardless of the beliefs of our mind about the random meaninglessness of life, before the face of beauty we know better. … Isn’t it true that innate desires correspond to real objects that can satisfy them? … Doesn’t the unfulfillable longing evoked by beauty qualify as an innate desire? We have a longing for joy, love, and beauty that no amount or quality of food, sex, friendship, or success can satisfy. We want something that nothing in this world can fulfill,” (134-135). Perhaps this desire is a type of sense, like sight, a type of sense built for sensing God, and so cannot be satisfied by anything in the natural universe? Have you ever felt “there must be more” when in the presence of beauty (not a mere wish)?

Clue 5: We Trust Our Belief-Forming Faculties — First Keller talks about the clue-killer that all of our beliefs and values are naturally selected and not to be trusted – then he lets it die by its own knife: the belief that all of our beliefs and values are naturally selected and not to be trusted—is not to be trusted. Then he says that the fact that we do trust our belief-forming faculties (here we are weighing clues) is a clue to God.

*******
After reading Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos” — I have become more aware of inflationary theory, and the cyclic model of Steinhardt and Turok, of quantum uncertainty, superstring theory (of five string theories unified in M-theory), joining quantum mechanics and general relativity, the Higgs ocean, M-theory, branes, spacetime may not be fundamental in the sub-Planckian realm, Calabi Yau shape, dark matter/energy, higher dimensions, etc., and can tell you there are many unanswered questions, and many assumptions taken on faith as place-holders until there is rational justification to assume them. Scientists usually (at least tentatively) favor, or have confidence in (based on evidence) a theory and do research to find evidence that will confirm or conflict with it. Scientists aren’t satisified with “I don’t know”–that would be waving the white flag of defeat… the unforgiveable leap of faith away from discovery. All their work speaks “I can know, and I’m going to find out.” Excerpts from Greene’s book: “Probabilistically speaking, it is mind-bogglingly more likely that everything we now see in the universe arose from a rare but every-so-often expectable statistical aberration away from total disorder, rather than having slowly evolved from the even more likely, the incredibly more ordered, the astoundingly low-entropy starting point required by the big bang. / Yet, when we went with the odds and imagined that everything popped into existence by a statistical fluke, we found ourselves in a quagmire: that route called into question the laws of physics themselves. And so we are inclined to buck the bookies and go with a low-entropy big bang as the explanation for the arrow of time. The puzzle then is to explain how the universe began in such an unlikely, highly ordered configuration. That is the question to which the arrow of time points. It all comes down to cosmology,” (176) The theories (still incomplete) mentioned above attempt to explain the answer. “…the highly successful laws of physics developed in the twentieth century break down under such intense conditions [I: in the early universe], leaving us rudderless in our quest to understand the beginning of time. We will see shortly that recent developments are providing a hopeful beacon, but for now we acknowledge our incomplete understanding of what happened at the beginning,” (248). “…if inflationary cosmology is right, our ignorance [I: remains] of why there is an inflaton field, why its potential energy bowl has the right shape for inflation to have occurred, why there are space and time within which the whole discussion takes place, and, in Leibniz’s more grandiose phrasing, why there is something rather than nothing,” (286). “The vision is that string/M-theory will unfuzz…our ignorance of the universe’s earliest moments, and after that, the cosmological drama will unfold according to inflationary theory’s remarkably successful script…But, as of now…it’s anybody’s guess when clarity will be achieved. … The proposal…called the cyclic model…suggest(s) that we are living within a three-brane that violently collides every few trillion years with another nearby, parallel three-brane. And the ‘bang’ from the collision initiates each new cosmological cycle…also known tenderly as the big splat… The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings…consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model’s cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started.” (404, 406, 407). Science can only study physical somethings (which science acknowledges as necessarily having a beginning)–not their nonphysical origins. God is a nonphysical something and so is not subject to entropy and all that–has no origin (is the origin).

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG 7: You Can’t Take the Bible Literally & Intermission

Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt

SEVEN: You Can’t Take the Bible Literally (and) Intermission

Keller says the reason people have a problem trusting the Bible is that some or most of it is “scientifically impossible, historically unreliable, and culturally regressive,” (99-100). Chapter seven deals with the latter two, as chapter six dealt with the first one.

In answer to this: “We Can’t Trust the Bible Historically” (100) Keller replies:

“The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends,” (101). Keller mentions the gospels were written at most forty to sixty years after Jesus’ death, and Paul’s letters were written just fifteen to twenty-five years after His death – while the witnesses, believers and bystanders alike, to Jesus’ ministry, were still alive (Luke 1:1-4; Mark 15:21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-6) to confirm or dispute the details the authors were writing about. In order for altered accounts to gain acceptance, the eyewitnesses, and their offspring, must all be dead. If Jesus had never done or said the things the gospel writers and Paul wrote about – their writings never would have been accepted because the living witnesses would have stomped them down. Acts 26:26. Look at the Gnostic “gospels” in comparison: “the Syriac traditions in Thomas can be dated to 175 A.D. at the earliest, more than a hundred years after the time that the canonical gospels were in widespread use. …The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, however, were recognized as authoritative eyewitness accounts almost immediately, and so we have Irenaeus of Lyons in 160 A.D. declaring that there were four, and only four, gospels,” (103). Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” is to blame for a lot of misinformation, including the myth that Constantine decreed Christ’s divinity and suppressed all evidence of His humanity in 325 A.D., when clearly “no more than twenty years after the death of Christ, we see that Christians were worshipping Jesus as God (Philippians 2),” (103).

“The content is far too counterproductive for the gospels to be legends,” (104). Keller is answering the claim that “the gospels were written by the leaders of the early church to promote their policies, consolidate their power, and build their movement,” (104). Keller asks, if that is so, why do they not have Jesus speaking on circumcision? Why invent the story of the crucifixion, which makes Jesus look like a criminal? Why invent Jesus’ Gethsemane experience, or crying out on the cross, which makes Jesus look like a weak failure? Why make (culturally incredible) women the first witnesses of His resurrection, rather than (culturally credible) men? Why paint the apostles as “petty and jealous, almost impossibly slow-witted, and in the end as cowards who either actively or passively failed their master?” (105). Why reveal the horrible failure of Peter? None of that makes sense if the claim Keller is countering is true – it makes more sense that the authors did not feel free to fictionalize or polish up the facts. Look at the Gnostic “gospels” in comparison: being rescued from the dark, evil material world by secret gnosis appealed to Greeks and Romans, whereas the canonical gospels offended the dominant views with a “positive view of material creation and their emphasis on the poor and oppressed,” (106).

“The literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend,” (106). This is an interesting section that says, if the gospels were fiction, they “suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic, realistic narrative,” (C.S. Lewis) – which “only developed within the last three hundred years,” (106). Keller notes there is a lot of irrelevant detail that only makes sense to include if it actually happened and was part of the author’s recollective memory. He notes that “disciples in the ancient world were expected to memorize masters’ teachings, and that many of Jesus’ statements are presented in a form that was actually designed for memorization,” (106). He also notes Jan Vansina’s “study of oral traditions in primitive African cultures, in which fictional legends and historical accounts are clearly distinguished from each other and much greater care is taken to preserve historical accounts accurately,” (108).

In answer to this: “We Can’t Trust the Bible Culturally” (109) Keller replies:

“Here’s how I advised him and other people on how to deal with a Scripture text that appeared objectionable or offensive to them. … slow down and try out several different perspectives on the issues that trouble them. …the passage that bothers them might not teach what it appears to them to be teaching. Many of the texts people find offensive can be cleared up with a decent commentary that puts the issue into historical context. … To reject the Bible as regressive is to assume that you have now arrived at the ultimate historic moment, from which all that is regressive and progressive can be discerned. … To stay away from Christianity because part of the Bible’s teaching is offensive to you assumes that if there is a God he wouldn’t have any views that upset you. … If Jesus is the Son of God, then we have to take his teaching seriously, including his confidence in the authority of the whole Bible. If he is not who he says he is, why should we care what the Bible says about anything else? … If you don’t trust the Bible enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? … Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it,” (109-114).

Intermission questions: what do you think of Keller saying it is impossible to prove a belief (as strong rationalism requires) but beliefs can be evaluated to be more reasonable than others, though still rationally avoidable (the task of critical rationalism)? What do you think about Swinburne saying that “The view that there is a God…leads us to expect the things we observe—that there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it, that it contains human beings with consciousnesses and with an indelible moral sense. The theory that there is no God…does not lead us to expect any of these things. Therefore, belief in God offers a better empirical fit, it explains and accounts for what we see better than the alternative account of things,” (121). What do you think of Keller saying that how we come to know God is by using our minds (fideists: read: God-given minds) to evaluate what the Playwright has revealed about Himself in the play, including in writing Himself into it?

*******
Sermon notes for Tim Keller’s sermon on this chapter:

Download: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=29

Literalism: Isn’t the Bible historically unreliable and regressive?

Luke 1:1-4; 24:13-32

Intro. to Theophilus

Road to Emmaus.

Historically/Culturally/Personally should trust the Bible.

I. Historically

Doubt: Jesus’ statements/actions concocted by political winners to build their movement, suppressed evidence to the contrary.

Rebuttal:

1. NT accounts written too early to be legends. Luke (30-40 yrs later) – investigated and checked w/ eyewitnesses. Paul – (15-20 yrs later) 1 Cor 15 – many people saw Jesus after resurrection-500 at once-most still alive and you can go talk to them. Phil 2 – (15 yrs later) Paul quotes hymn in praise of Jesus’ divinity. Didn’t begin with Constantine-accepted from the beginning. Constantine didn’t help the church win-Constantine backed a winner. These documents wouldn’t have gotten off the ground and past the eyewitnesses unless the events actually happened.
2. Too counter-productive to be legends. Doesn’t build any powerful movement, makes Jesus look weak when He cries blood and asks for an out, and asks God why He forgot Him. Original eyewitness were women (not considered credible in court). The apostles look dumb.
3. Too detailed to be legend. Detail (investigation, etc.) is for modern fiction-not ancient fiction. C.S. Lewis. Either this is reportage, or modern fiction anticipated in ancient times (the author taking on historical pseudonyms).
4. If you accept NT, accept what Jesus accepted == OT.

II. Culturally

Doubt: Offensive, primitive, regressive.

Rebuttal: how to handle these parts of the Bible:

1. May not teach what you think it teaches. How the patriarchs treat women-polygamy, buying/selling-“Art of Biblical Narrative” by Robert Altar: “polygamy and primogenitor …wreaks havoc in every generation, the younger son is always favored by God”.
2. Might misunderstand due to own cultural blinders. Disciples misunderstand prophecies about messiah because focused on Jews, not whole world. Bible does not condone slavery-when Paul says “slaves obey your masters” he is referring to indentured servanthood. Murray Harris-back then, slaves were indistinguishable from others, often more educated than their masters, made same wages as free laborers and could buy themselves out, very few slaves for life. Though modern slave owners tried to use scripture to defend slavery-they misused it-they read it through their cultural blinders.
3. May think your cultural ‘moment’ is superior, when it isn’t. Western ear: sexual rules bad, forgiveness good. Middle-eastern ear: sex rules good (could be more strict), forgiving enemies-crazy. Examine cultural assumptions. The truth will challenge every culture at some point. So if it challenges you-that’s a good reason to trust it.

III. Personally

Doubt: Trust in authority of Bible is cold, legalistic kind of faith.

Rebuttal: is prerequisite for warm, trusting relationship with Christ. “were not our hearts burning within us as He opened to us the Scripture?” heart: seat of whole person burn: uncontrollable desire for someone – as He opened to us the Scripture. V.27 –It ain’t about anybody in the Bible (legalistic: be awesome on your own!)–it’s about what God did through them and would do as Jesus. It’s about what our hearts burn for. If the Bible has no authority, if we don’t submit to it, we’ve got a Stepford God. We must be challenged, and that cannot happen if we pick and choose and put a chip in Him-making Him in our image. Jesus bled Scripture.
Study guide: http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Literalism_Isnt_the_Bible_Historic.pdf

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice

 Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt

FOUR: The Church Is Responsible for So Much Injustice

“In chapter 4, the author looks at Christian hypocrisy and the problem it creates for those outside the church. The author agrees that people who do not claim to be Christians are often more ethical and more moral than those who attend church. Then he proposes an interesting explanation: churches might have a higher concentration of broken people, compared to the constituencies of other organizations, because people in need realize their condition and seek out assistance (see p. 53 — 54). Do you feel this explanation is too close to saying “don’t judge Christianity by its weakest representatives”? Do you agree with the criticism that if Christianity really does transform lives, that the behavior of Christians should surpass that of the average human? Discuss your responses.” – Penguin
http://download.redeemer.com/sermons/Penguin%20Reader%20Guide.pdf

An observation I have made is that some people who call Christians hypocrites because they witness a Christian doing things they would consider “un-Christian” – they do the exact same things, and often worse things. Maybe it makes them lose hope that they can be lifted out of the mud, when they see Christians who are indistinguishable from the world? Maybe their anger at hypocrisy is misplaced guilt and helps relieve their sense of guilt at doing things they know are wrong — a sense of guilt that is maybe a very heavy guilt complex because they grew up with a Pharisaical (“holier than thou”) attitude about Christianity, rather than knowing that we are saved by grace? I also wonder if they have standards (for Christians, or for themselves-if-they-were-Christians) that are too strict. When I was growing up it was wrong to drink alcohol, and now that rule is more relaxed and we even held sermon group in a pub one time. Maybe their anger about Christian hypocrisy comes from observing ‘nominal’ or ‘fanatical’ people who call themselves Christians but do not know Christ (perhaps some wolves in sheep’s clothing), or maybe from observing newborn Christians who “have a long way to go emotionally, morally, and spiritually,” (53) and judging them prematurely (without grace… perhaps because they don’t yet know grace)? It’s crazy – I was reviewing this book, “Lord, I Need Grace to Make It” by Kay Arthur – all over it in different sections I wrote, “Sorry… I just don’t get it.” I was losing faith at the time I did that Bible study, and clearly – I had not even yet understood grace (as a ‘reality’ and not merely as a ‘concept’). So it is not hard for me to understand how a non-Christian may not understand grace. It’s like God keeps your eyes closed until you are ready to see His world… like a doctor pushing on a newborn’s head to keep it from being choked by the umbilical cord.

I liked how Keller contrasted between ‘nominalism’ and ‘fanaticism’ (56-57) – distinguishing between those who claim the title “Christian” but do not live it out and barely believe it – and those who claim the title “Christian” but behave and believe more like Pharisees. I liked how he emphasized the need to move to a fuller and deeper grasp of what Christianity is – that it is not a form of moral improvement, but salvation by grace – God’s loving us no matter what we do, which motivates us to love others likewise. I liked how Keller pointed out Jesus’ critique of religion similar to the prophets of the OT, and how Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others used their knowledge of true Christianity, of salvation by grace, to live out grace in their critique of religion and the church from within. Here is Rev. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” for your perusal:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf

I liked how Keller pointed out (via Alister McGrath) that “when the idea of God is gone, a society will ‘transcendentalize’ something else, some other concept, in order to appear morally and spiritually superior. The Marxists [Ichthus: not Marx] made the state into such an absolute, while the Nazis did it to race and blood. Even the ideals of liberty and equality can be used in this way in order to do violence to opponents. … violence has been inspired as much by secularism as by moral absolutism. Societies that have rid themselves of all religion have been just as oppressive as those steeped in it,” (55-56).

When you make decisions, do you consider others in general, including being willing to risk your life to liberate others, as Jesus did, or do you not have the motivation–the joy of God spoken of at the end of chapter 4 (if you do have the motivation, I am not asking you to toot your own horn) (if you don’t and you’re a Christian, remember grace and that growth is gradual)? Or do you think God’s self-sacrificial love is not the only motivation for self-sacrificial living [if so, describe the alternative motivation(s)]. Or would you lean more towards the reasoning that, “If this world is all there is, and if the goods of this world are the only love, comfort, and wealth I will ever have, why should I sacrifice them for others?” (66). Does it not at all anger you when Christians do not live self-sacrificially, because you value honor like “the pre-Christian northern European tribes, like the Anglo-Saxons” whose ethic was self-regarding, rather than other-regarding (one could also refer to the egoism of Rand’s ‘rational self-interest’)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy#Ethics:_Rational_self-interest

Footnote 2: “If what you want is an argument against Christianity … you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say … ‘So there’s your boasted new man! Give me the old kind.’ But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people’s souls—of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands. If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him. You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next-door neighbors or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count when the anesthetic fog we call ‘nature’ or ‘the real world’ fades away and the Divine Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Macmillan, 1964), p. 168.

*******
Notes on Keller’s sermon of this chapter:

Download sermon: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29

Injustice
James 2:1-17

Hypocrisy–the Christian church has a long history of oppression. Marx: disempowers the poor.

1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.
2. All who choose Him do the same.
3. How can we make that connection?

1. The Biblical God chooses the poor/oppressed.

“Has God not chosen the poor?” (James) Not ‘only’ the poor-but the poor are not excluded, the Gospel appeals mostly to the poor (as opposed to religion/morality in general) because it empowers them–and God likes to turn the values of the world upside down.

Sociologists who study neighborhoods in Latin America which have undergone conversion, find they are improved economically-Marx was wrong.

Which worldview empowers the poor: Gospel (purpose), or secular (accident).

According to Jesus, the pimps and prostitutes get in before the economic and religions leaders (Pharisees).

Two ways of self-salvation, rebelling against God:
1. Break all the moral rules.
2. Keeping all the moral rules, as if it obligates God to save you.
–Both need God’s grace-only the first category sees it. The poor welcome it.

Push-back: sure, God chooses the poor-but what about the church? Terrible record.

2. All who choose Him do the same.

“Faith without works is dead.” Doesn’t mean works “save” us (Pharisees) (all social workers are not going to heaven necessarily). Means they are evidence (fruit) of that salvation-signs that you are not a Pharisee. Caring for the poor (Pharisees did not). Don’t discriminate. Care for physical needs of people. “Judgment will be w/o mercy for those who have shown no mercy.” Word translated as ‘mercy’ means ‘to be kind, favorable’ – specifically ‘meeting the physical needs of the poor’. Good Samaritan example-‘the one who did mercy’. “Have mercy on us” means “heal me”. The poor should recognize God loves them and the rich man the same. The rich should recognize they are no better than anyone else in God’s eyes-all fall short. You are the poor man-you are the rich man. You are the Other. Identity transformed by the Gospel.

MLKJR – when he confronted Christian clergymen, did he say “let’s get away from Christianity” – did he say “Christianity is the opiate of the masses” – no, he said, let’s return, get to the heart of the Christian faith. Faith without works is dead.

3. How can we make that connection?

“as believers in our Lord Jesus Christ the Glory” – we will not show favoritism, be controlled by superficiality-the “perfected surface”.

Phil 2 – Jesus ultimate glory…gave it up…for the humility of the cross…so that we could share in His glory. But there is beauty in the sacrifice of the cross-“I will attract all men to myself” – though it humbled Him, though it was ugly.

The doubt doesn’t knock down Christianity, but it should knock us down to our knees. Though He was rich, He became poor for us-which is a balm to heal all the wounds we have inflicted upon ourselves.

Discuss in ILovePhilosophy.com: RFG: THREE: Christianity is a Straitjacket

 Tim Keller’s The Reason for God Book Discussion – Part 1: The Leap of Doubt

THREE: Christianity Is a Straitjacket

Chapter 3 is similar to chapter 1 in that both of them deal with the doubt that Christianity is too exclusive about truth and should be more tolerant of non-Christians; they are different in that chapter 3 addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian.

Some favored quotes from the chapter which reflect how chapter 1 and 3 are similar: “Every human community holds in common some beliefs that necessarily create boundaries, including some people and excluding others from its circle,” (39) (examples given are western democratic values foreign to many other cultures, and the distinctly different commitments of the local Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Community Center and the Alliance Against Same-Sex Marriage). “Sanneh argues that secularism with its anti-supernaturalism and individualism is much more destructive of local cultures and ‘African–ness,’” (41) (remember the Jewish holocaust and the increasingly global push for secularization). “Christianity may become the most truly ‘catholic vision of the world,’ having opened its leadership over the centuries to people from every tongue, tribe, and nation,” (45) (‘catholic’ meaning ‘universal’).

Keller mentions that he asks “‘Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?’ They would invariably say, ‘Yes, of course.’ Then I would ask, ‘Doesn’t that mean that you do believe there is some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ that is not defined by us, that must be abided by regardless of what a person feels or thinks?’” (47, emphasis Keller’s). What do you think – is there some kind of moral reality that is ‘there’ and is not defined by us, that will ultimately fulfill us if we live within it or damn us if we don’t (see C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48 – “The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation,”)? Granted – a being that doesn’t exist (so isn’t even a ‘being’) cannot live within or be fulfilled by any moral reality (but put heavy emphasis on ‘regardless’ in Keller’s question – and on ‘feels’ – for any potential emotivists reading this).

Considering that relativism refutes itself, then, of the available differing worldviews, only one, if any, can be correct (in the sense where it did not have to compete for its status in the marketplace of ideas, because it was always the only correct worldview). Does your chosen community’s worldview include “beliefs that lead its members to treat persons in other communities with love and respect—to serve them and meet their needs? … lead it to demonize and attack those who violate their boundaries rather than treating them with kindness, humility, and winsomeness?” (40). Also — if your worldview was ‘always’ the only correct worldview — when did ‘always’ begin?

What is hard to accept is that there is only one Way, but it is the Way for everyone – for God so loves the world (John 3:16). But it is not a Way He unlovingly forces upon us, as love is not forced – we must freely choose it. So, let’s turn our focus to how Keller addresses the main claim that Christianity is stifling to the Christian — the “freedom factor,” if you will.

“Instead of insisting on freedom to create spiritual reality, shouldn’t we be seeking to discover it and disciplining ourselves to live according to it? … What then is the moral-spiritual reality we must acknowledge to thrive? What is the environment that liberates us if we confine ourselves to it, like water liberates the fish? Love. Love is the most liberating freedom-loss of all,” (47, emphasis mine). The discussion of discovering a set purpose rather than manufacturing a new purpose reminds me of the saying, “No need to reinvent the wheel.” “Freedom, then, is not the absence of limitations and constraints but it is finding the right ones, those that fit our nature and liberate us,” (49, emphasis mine). I love the C.S. Lewis quote on 48. I love knowing that the divine requirement is also our complete fulfillment: love.

I also love how Keller points out that this love requirement is not a one-way street. “In the most radical way, God has adjusted to us—in his incarnation and atonement. In Jesus Christ he became a limited human being, vulnerable to suffering and death. On the cross, he submitted to our condition—as sinners—and died in our place to forgive us. In the most profound way, God has said to us, in Christ, ‘I will adjust to you. I will change for you. I’ll serve you though it means a sacrifice for me.’ If he has done this for us, we can and should say the same to God and others. St. Paul writes, ‘the love of Christ constrains us’ (2 Corinthians 5:14),” (49). It is this truth that set me free – the truth of His sacrificial pursuing of each of us, before and after He finds us, whether or not we yet know it.

I have heard two ironically opposed arguments related to this: 1) if He can omnipotently rise from death, His death means nothing, and 2) if He can be vulnerable, He is not omnipotent. To the first: He did physically die and communicate His unconditional love through His sacrifice. To the second: God’s love is more powerful than raw power – the last will be first, the first will be last. One could argue that the inability to love (or fear of loving; love requires more than mere physical strength) is a greater weakness than lack of physical strength (see again C.S. Lewis quote, p. 48) – and God does not love we temporal beings from a lack (as we do apart from Him), but from His eternal perfection. See also…

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm

This is also discussed in chapter 14.

*******
Notes on Keller’s sermon on the chapter:

Download sermon: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29

Absolutism

Galatians 2:4-16

Doubt: Christians think they have absolute truth-but that undermines freedom, tends to oppress people, restricts the individual who believes it. “The heart of liberty is to define one’s own concept of existence or the meaning of the universe” -Supreme Court.

Answer: truth more important, freedom more complex, Jesus more liberating (than you think)

1. Truth is more important than you think.

v4-5 freedom in Christ because of truth of the Gospel (truth will set you free) John 8
Foucault-“truth is a thing of this world, it is produced only by multiple forms of constraint, and that includes the regular effects of power” – truth claims are power plays
–disciple of Nietzsche (hermeneutics of suspicion) (philosophical squinting) (motive?)
–same thing Jesus says of Pharisees-your truth claims are power plays
But, if you conclude “all” truth claims are power plays, you’re wrong.
C.S. Lewis in “The Abolition of Man”–
“You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things forever” – if you say “all truth claims are power plays” – you are saying ‘that’ truth claim is just a power play (not true)
It’s not the truth claim (the “fundamental”)-it’s what’s “in” the truth claim (the “fundamental”)-that leads or does not lead to oppression.
Fundamental truth claim: grace. If you’re out of touch with that reality/truth-no freedom (truth will set you free). Everything else is “real” slavery/addiction to whatever else it is you build your identity on.

2. Freedom is more complex than you think.

Paul was going to the Gentiles, where the power/money was. The apostles were reminding him they have far less money/power, and to remember them.
v.10-free, but restricted to biblical norms
Doubt: thought freedom is absence of restrictions/boundaries/norms?
Give up freedom to eat whatever you want, if you want freedom of good health (or vice versa).
Give up freedom of free time, if you want freedom of musical skill (or vice versa).
But–discipline/restriction is not a good in itself-freedom is not the absence/presence of “restriction”-but it is the “right restrictions”-the ones that fit your nature (design) (who God made you to be).
A fish out of water isn’t free-must be restricted to water.
Our water is love, which requires we surrender all kinds of individual freedom

Afraid of being exploited?

3. Jesus is more liberating than you think.

I Robot: find your own way is what it means to be free
If you have a design-not free.

John: Word-Logos: logic, reason-reason for life
This Logos is not “abstract”-we beheld His glory-is a personal absolute
fish designed for water-free in water
humans designed for love-free in personal love relationship with Logos
an “abstraction” is dehumanizing
If we only surrender to God, it’s one way, it’s dehumanizing, it’s out of fear–Nietzsche and Foucault are right.
But Jesus surrendered to us, adjusted to us, by becoming human and dying on the cross. He was exploited, killed. What more could you ask for from God? Phil 2.
His grace is liberating.
Paul goes after Peter’s racism against Gentiles on the basis of being free, using truth.
v14-“not in line w/ the truth of the Gospel”-you’re a slave to what these people think about you…think about what God thinks about you (love)
“the love of Christ constrains us” – like water constrains the fish
Grace makes God’s desire-our desire.