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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)