If we define space as the absence of matter or its constituents, it is inextricably linked to the existence of matter. Without matter there is no space because space is defined in opposition to the presence of matter. Space is simply a void which has the potential to be filled with matter or energy. That potential is what defines it as space. In other words, if nothing is the absence of something, something must exist for nothing to exist relative to it.
Space and time are also inextricably linked. Movement through space affects movement through time and vice versa. This is one of the fundamental principles of general relativity. Without matter, there is no space. Without space there is no space-time continuum. Because matter and time are absolutely interwoven, without matter time does not exist.
Taking this strain of thought to its ultimate conclusion (or ultimate beginning), the beginning of the universe represents an instantaneous appearance of matter, energy, and space. Without matter and energy, there was neither any time or any space in which the matter could possibly exist. Therefore, either the cause of the universe exists both an extra-temporal and extra-spatial state, or the sudden appearance of matter has absolutely no cause at all. Which do you think makes more sense?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thou Shalt Not Ask Questions
One trend that has cropped up in certain churches, particularly those of fundamentalist or charismatic dispositions, that deeply disturbs me is the idea that to ask questions of church leadership is tantamount to rebelling against them. Additionally, these churches often teach strongly that those in authority at the church are appointed by God should not be questioned. The classic sections of scripture used to justify these beliefs are Psalm 105:15 (cf. 1 Chron. 16:22) and Romans 13.
There are many possible reasons as to why this idea has grown popular, but here are a two of the most plausible possibilities. The first reason people are told not to question is simply that church leadership does not want the people to question its teachings or practices. There could be many reasons for this but the most common is either the leadership is un-informed on a particular subject or that the leadership is teaching or doing something that is out-of-line. In either case, the strong discouragement to ask questions is dangerous because it removes the mechanism of correction within the church. It also teaches people to be entirely dependent on the minister for one’s opinions, beliefs, and practices. This is entirely un-Christian. Ministers and elders are appointed for our instruction, edification, and correction, not to dictate our lives. They are a supplement to the work that the Holy Spirit already does within us, not a replacement for it.
The other main strain of thought that contributes to this dangerous notion is that asking questions somehow indicates a lack of faith or disrupts the faith of others. Questioning leadership does not necessarily correlate to a lack of faith. In fact, if one is stable enough in one’s faith to engage in the psychologically taxing act of asking difficult questions, it is safe to say that person’s faith is probably stronger than another person who intentionally ignores difficult questions in order to preserve his/her faith. Ignoring difficult questions only preserves a faith which is blown about by every wind of doctrine and is intellectually dishonest. People who refuse to ask critical questions are those who are most often disturbed by claims controvert what they’ve been taught. Their subsequent reactions are often erratic and do greater damage than would have been done if questions were asked in the first place.
Questioning leadership does not necessarily disrupt the faith of others either if done correctly. In fact, many of the questions posed by brave, cordial inquisitors may be the same questions that others are afraid to ask. In other cases, the questions may simply provide clarification of the teachings and practices of the church. How then is questioning authority a dangerous thing if done in love for the edification of oneself and others?
I challenge those who believe that questioning authority is wrong to provide me with scriptural evidence that it is. In my readings of the Bible, I have found nothing to indicate that asking legitimate questions is wrong or that such a practice should be construed as an act of rebellion against church leadership. If one asks questions in an inflammatory manner with the expressed purpose of stirring up strife, confusion, and disobedience within the congregation, then questioning the leadership should be considered inappropriate behavior. However, if one asks questions for the purpose of clarifying his/her own understanding of a teaching, rooting out heresy, asking if certain church practices are ethical or effective, or discerning the wisest course of action, how can such questions be considered wrong?
There are many possible reasons as to why this idea has grown popular, but here are a two of the most plausible possibilities. The first reason people are told not to question is simply that church leadership does not want the people to question its teachings or practices. There could be many reasons for this but the most common is either the leadership is un-informed on a particular subject or that the leadership is teaching or doing something that is out-of-line. In either case, the strong discouragement to ask questions is dangerous because it removes the mechanism of correction within the church. It also teaches people to be entirely dependent on the minister for one’s opinions, beliefs, and practices. This is entirely un-Christian. Ministers and elders are appointed for our instruction, edification, and correction, not to dictate our lives. They are a supplement to the work that the Holy Spirit already does within us, not a replacement for it.
The other main strain of thought that contributes to this dangerous notion is that asking questions somehow indicates a lack of faith or disrupts the faith of others. Questioning leadership does not necessarily correlate to a lack of faith. In fact, if one is stable enough in one’s faith to engage in the psychologically taxing act of asking difficult questions, it is safe to say that person’s faith is probably stronger than another person who intentionally ignores difficult questions in order to preserve his/her faith. Ignoring difficult questions only preserves a faith which is blown about by every wind of doctrine and is intellectually dishonest. People who refuse to ask critical questions are those who are most often disturbed by claims controvert what they’ve been taught. Their subsequent reactions are often erratic and do greater damage than would have been done if questions were asked in the first place.
Questioning leadership does not necessarily disrupt the faith of others either if done correctly. In fact, many of the questions posed by brave, cordial inquisitors may be the same questions that others are afraid to ask. In other cases, the questions may simply provide clarification of the teachings and practices of the church. How then is questioning authority a dangerous thing if done in love for the edification of oneself and others?
I challenge those who believe that questioning authority is wrong to provide me with scriptural evidence that it is. In my readings of the Bible, I have found nothing to indicate that asking legitimate questions is wrong or that such a practice should be construed as an act of rebellion against church leadership. If one asks questions in an inflammatory manner with the expressed purpose of stirring up strife, confusion, and disobedience within the congregation, then questioning the leadership should be considered inappropriate behavior. However, if one asks questions for the purpose of clarifying his/her own understanding of a teaching, rooting out heresy, asking if certain church practices are ethical or effective, or discerning the wisest course of action, how can such questions be considered wrong?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Cessationism: A Practical Solution?
With regard to the operation of spiritual gifts within the Christian church in modern times, there are basically three positions. The first holds that all spiritual gifts ceased after the original apostles of the early church passed away. A second option, pentecostalism, says that none of the spiritual gifts ceased in operation because God is unchanging and the gifts were passed on by the first century apostles to their disciples. A third position, cessationism, argues that most of the spiritual gifts in the early church still operate, however, there are a few gifts that were given as "signs" to the early church through the apostles.
For the record, there are two definitions of an apostle. The strict definition of an apostle defines an apostle as one who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (see Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 9:1). The second defines an apostle simply as "one who is sent". In the case of spiritual gifts and their operation in the church, the former definition typically applies.
Cessationists posit that the gifts of healing, tongues, prophetic foreknowledge, and apostleship (in the strict sense) were signs given to the apostles of the early church in order to establish the church.
Instead of rehashing a multitude of theological arguments about cessationism, I'd like to point out that the three gifts that cause the most problems in the modern church are prophecy, tongues, and healing. These are the very gifts that cessationists argue are no longer in operation within the church. (Cessationists do not argue that these three phenomena are necessarily impossible, but rather that the apostolic gift to operate in them on a regular basis has ceased.)
Prophecy is probably the most abused spiritual gift of them all and it can cause the most damage if misused. Many people have put their hope in so-called prophets who make pronouncements in the name of God that never come to pass. This can cause those who have listened to the false prophets to doubt God, make poor life decisions, and generally end up in a state of despair. Prophecy has also been used frequently to manipulate others.
In addition, the Bible makes several forceful warnings about false prophets. We should not doubt that the consequences are severe for those who claim to speak in the name of the Lord and use that privilege for personal gain.
The gift of tongues was always somewhat of an embarrassing practice to me, even when I attended a charismatic church. In the early church, every indication we have is that the tongues used by the early apostles were real languages that could be understood by native speakers of the languages. If a person spoke publicly in a tongue during a Christian gathering, Paul instructed us in his first letter to the Corinthians to wait for an interpretation. If no interpretation was given the person who gave the tongue was asked to remain silent in the gathering.
Even if tongues function in non-human languages (i.e. "tongues of angels") they should still sound like languages. My linguistic curiosity got the better of me at a few points and I started analyzing the tongues I heard other people using and, to be frank, most of them weren't languages at all.
Additionally, when I've heard charismatic evangelicals stereotyped in the media and elsewhere, speaking in tongues is almost always the first point mentioned, usually in joking fashion. I have a feeling that it is stumbling block for those who are first exposed to Christianity through charismatic churches, but are looking for simple, sensible Christianity.
Lastly, the gift of healing, though wonderful, can also be misused. This happens mostly with faith-healers who tell people that all they need to be healed is faith. If a person has faith and does not get healed, what then? Is God somehow to blame? Is God a liar for making promises He didn't fulfill? Surely not, but if someone is exposed to this sort of intense disappointment, it is easy to forego this logical problem and blame God. Either that, or the person realizes the minister has mishandled the scripture and that person extrapolates his/her disillusion with the particular minister to the church at large and never darkens a church door again.
I've seen all of these things happen on many occasions. I've seen many people leave the church and abandon Christianity because of them. Either these three gifts are no longer in operation in the church and their presence indicates false practitioners within the church, or church leaders have displayed an embarrassing lack of discernment and wisdom in their application. Is it better then to simply adopt a cessationist position regardless of its validity given the abuse resulting from these three gifts? Which is more valuable: a few spiritual gifts that can appear in miraculous signs and wonders or the spiritual well-being of those who would be lead astray if the gifts were misused?
For the record, there are two definitions of an apostle. The strict definition of an apostle defines an apostle as one who was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (see Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 9:1). The second defines an apostle simply as "one who is sent". In the case of spiritual gifts and their operation in the church, the former definition typically applies.
Cessationists posit that the gifts of healing, tongues, prophetic foreknowledge, and apostleship (in the strict sense) were signs given to the apostles of the early church in order to establish the church.
Instead of rehashing a multitude of theological arguments about cessationism, I'd like to point out that the three gifts that cause the most problems in the modern church are prophecy, tongues, and healing. These are the very gifts that cessationists argue are no longer in operation within the church. (Cessationists do not argue that these three phenomena are necessarily impossible, but rather that the apostolic gift to operate in them on a regular basis has ceased.)
Prophecy is probably the most abused spiritual gift of them all and it can cause the most damage if misused. Many people have put their hope in so-called prophets who make pronouncements in the name of God that never come to pass. This can cause those who have listened to the false prophets to doubt God, make poor life decisions, and generally end up in a state of despair. Prophecy has also been used frequently to manipulate others.
In addition, the Bible makes several forceful warnings about false prophets. We should not doubt that the consequences are severe for those who claim to speak in the name of the Lord and use that privilege for personal gain.
The gift of tongues was always somewhat of an embarrassing practice to me, even when I attended a charismatic church. In the early church, every indication we have is that the tongues used by the early apostles were real languages that could be understood by native speakers of the languages. If a person spoke publicly in a tongue during a Christian gathering, Paul instructed us in his first letter to the Corinthians to wait for an interpretation. If no interpretation was given the person who gave the tongue was asked to remain silent in the gathering.
Even if tongues function in non-human languages (i.e. "tongues of angels") they should still sound like languages. My linguistic curiosity got the better of me at a few points and I started analyzing the tongues I heard other people using and, to be frank, most of them weren't languages at all.
Additionally, when I've heard charismatic evangelicals stereotyped in the media and elsewhere, speaking in tongues is almost always the first point mentioned, usually in joking fashion. I have a feeling that it is stumbling block for those who are first exposed to Christianity through charismatic churches, but are looking for simple, sensible Christianity.
Lastly, the gift of healing, though wonderful, can also be misused. This happens mostly with faith-healers who tell people that all they need to be healed is faith. If a person has faith and does not get healed, what then? Is God somehow to blame? Is God a liar for making promises He didn't fulfill? Surely not, but if someone is exposed to this sort of intense disappointment, it is easy to forego this logical problem and blame God. Either that, or the person realizes the minister has mishandled the scripture and that person extrapolates his/her disillusion with the particular minister to the church at large and never darkens a church door again.
I've seen all of these things happen on many occasions. I've seen many people leave the church and abandon Christianity because of them. Either these three gifts are no longer in operation in the church and their presence indicates false practitioners within the church, or church leaders have displayed an embarrassing lack of discernment and wisdom in their application. Is it better then to simply adopt a cessationist position regardless of its validity given the abuse resulting from these three gifts? Which is more valuable: a few spiritual gifts that can appear in miraculous signs and wonders or the spiritual well-being of those who would be lead astray if the gifts were misused?
A Brief Statement of Purpose
I used to write much more than I do now. Upon gleefully looking back at past writings, I realized there was so much more to say, but my inhibitions, lack of adequate vocabulary, immaturity, or simple ignorance often prevented me from doing so.
Thus, I decided to engage in an new cathartic adventure. This blog will probably contain a small bit of poetry interspersed with a wide variety of prose.
In years past I've written about a plethora of subjects, usually whatever came to mind. That will
likely continue.
Since I've recently been exposed to many theological issues within modern Christianity, the majority of posts to this site will probably concern Christian belief, history, and practice. I don't claim to be a formally trained theologian or church historian, but rather someone who is passionate about the fundamental truths of Christianity and enjoys studying them.
My hope is that these writings bring enjoyment to whomever reads them, but more importantly that they lead others to ask important questions. Answers cannot be sought until we ask critical questions, but I find few even reach this point anymore.
Thus, I decided to engage in an new cathartic adventure. This blog will probably contain a small bit of poetry interspersed with a wide variety of prose.
In years past I've written about a plethora of subjects, usually whatever came to mind. That will
likely continue.
Since I've recently been exposed to many theological issues within modern Christianity, the majority of posts to this site will probably concern Christian belief, history, and practice. I don't claim to be a formally trained theologian or church historian, but rather someone who is passionate about the fundamental truths of Christianity and enjoys studying them.
My hope is that these writings bring enjoyment to whomever reads them, but more importantly that they lead others to ask important questions. Answers cannot be sought until we ask critical questions, but I find few even reach this point anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)