Looking Up: Thales, Plato, and Paul

Looking up to the heavens is as old as the human race itself. Whether sitting around a campfire, watching a meteor shower, stargazing, daydreaming, or navigating the high seas, looking upwards at the sky in wonder and awe is an ancient and human tradition.

Throughout history there have been famous instances of looking upwards that have shaped the course of human thought and human history. Three famous examples come immediately to mind: Thales the first philosopher, Plato and his Allegory of the Cave, and the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. I wish to spend a little time reflecting on these famous up-lookers and see what theological lessons can be learned from them about what it truly means to keep our eyes and minds focused on the "above" as Christians.

I shall begin with Thales, who is known in western philosophy as the "first philosopher." In addition to the serious contributions Thales made to the history of human thought, there is a slightly apocryphal story about Thales falling into a well. So goes the story that he was so preoccupied with looking upwards trying to understand the workings of the heavens (i.e. proto-astronomy) that he was not watching where he was walking and fell into a well. Thus the history of western philosophy begins with an unsubtle image of the impracticality and perhaps futility of the human intellect in light of practical concerns. In an important way, the story of Thales and his well shaped the prototypical image of the philosopher with his head in the clouds, abstracted and detached from the concerns of the "real world." Philosophers and thinkers have lived with the reputation of being too abstract and impractical ever since Thales. (Bear with me. There is an important point to this history lesson. I promise.)

While Thales may have made some important mathematical and astronomical discoveries as a result of his skyward gazing, it was not until Plato and his "Allegory of the Cave" that any real systematic treatment was made of the importance of keeping one's mind upward-focused. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato recounts a fictional tale as a metaphor for the human condition. The human quest for real knowledge, Plato claims, is like living life as prisoners within a dark cave. Seeing only a dark cave wall, illuminated only by faint shadows, the prisoners in the cave live their entire lives thinking that the shadowy illusions along the walls of the cave are the extent of their reality. But suppose that one of the prisoners were able to break free from his chains and crawl his way up and out of the cave into the blinding light of the sun. The freed prisoner would discover the true source of illumination and come to realize that there is an underlying reality that provides the grounding for the false images he had previously taken to be "real." There would be a period of adjustment while his eyes adjusted from darkness into light, but for the first time the prisoner would have real knowledge.

Now for Plato the sun is still just a metaphor for the source and grounding of reality. For Plato this grounding was in terms of abstract and pure concepts like justice, piety, beauty, etc. Certainly there are instances of these grounding principles in the physical world; good and just actions, beautiful things, etc., but Plato held that in order to have real knowledge, one must understand these pure concepts themselves apart from their instances in the physical world. Thus the true source and grounding of reality for him was a separate realm of abstract concepts he called "forms." And it is the job of human reason to use its ability to think abstractly and philosophically to reason one's way to knowledge of these pure forms; a job which only reason could do since for Plato it is by reason and abstract thinking alone that we can have knowledge of perfect and abstract concepts.

It is no wonder that the early Christian theologians were often Neoplatonists who thought that Plato's notion of an underlying and grounding reality was harmonious with the notion of God as the creator and ground of all existence. The difference between Plato's theory of the forms and the neo-Platonism of these early Christian theologians, of course, was the role Christ plays in the system. Instead of Socrates being the true philosopher, as for Plato, who was able to lead humanity out of Plato's cave, for the Christian Neoplatonists it was Jesus himself who leads the way for mankind to the true origin and source of being, God the Father.

And finally we come to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. Formerly named Saul, the Apostle Paul was originally a fierce persecutor of the early church. On the road to Damascus he was blinded by a light from heaven and rebuked by the voice of Jesus himself for his persecuting. Saul was told by our Lord Jesus that he was God's chosen instrument to carry the gospel, the good news, of Jesus to the Gentiles. From that moment Saul underwent a radical conversion experience, perhaps the most radical in all of human history, from the staunchest persecutor of the church to the person most responsible (albeit guided by the Holy Spirit) for spreading the good news of Jesus and his forgiveness of sins across the known world. From that moment on he would become known as "Paul" and would become the man who is still even today the most convincing apologist for Christ the world has ever known.

What is unique about Saul's transformation and conversion to Paul along the road to Damascus is the way in which his skyward vision sought him out through no volition or attempt on his own part. Both for Thales and for Plato, the heavens are waiting passively to be sought out by philosophy and human reason; but for Paul and for all Christians, it is God who seeks us out in the darkness around us and within us. Paul was not looking to meet Christ on the road to Damascus, but Christ sought him out from the right hand of the Father and convicted him of his sinfulness in his heart.

And here the true meaning of the "heavens" for us as Christians presents itself. We often think of God in heaven being "above" us, and we often look up to the sky to pray to God the Father; but we simultaneously have the Holy Spirit within us to convict us and to comfort us and to orient us back to following Jesus. And so for us as Christians, the full meaning of using our minds and eyes and hearts for understanding is inextricably bound with keeping our hearts fixed on God our Father, Jesus our savior, and the Holy Spirit within us.

But unlike the heavens of Thales or Plato, the grounding of our being and our salvation is not passive and inactive, but personal and close at hand. We can know God in a personal way, while Plato could only know about the forms in an impersonal and abstract manner. And while Thales' skyward gazing led him to stumble, as Christians we have assurance that our inner heavenly gazing, being of the heart towards God, will never lead us astray but rather into the loving arms of our Father and creator.

Thales and Plato certainly show us the grandest heights and deepest pitfalls of human reason unaided by divine providence. But it is Paul's heavenly vision and encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus that illustrates the true encounter waiting to be found with Jesus and with the heavens; for Jesus did not wait for us to find him with our weak and imperfect faculties; Jesus instead sought us out by humbling himself (as Paul says, even to the point of death on the cross) and brought the hope of salvation to our doorsteps and to our hearts.

We need not have any fear of the wells and ditches along our path, for God's providence surrounds us even in times of trial. We need not have any grand delusions of climbing our way to God out of Plato's cave because of our own merits. Instead we place our faith, as Paul says, in "Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks." (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:23) And this is the most important heavenly truth of all: "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). Foolishness to the Greeks indeed, but the Greeks can have their Thales' well and their Plato's cave and their impersonal heavens; for it took a foolish and active vision from heaven on the road to Damascus to bring them a savior in Jesus.

The Apostle Paul showed us how to love Jesus with all one's soul, and all one's mind, and all one's heart. He toiled to spread the gospel to the ends of the Earth because that was the path God laid before him. He not only shared Jesus with the Gentiles because of his Christ-like example of service and sacrifice, but he knew that Jesus could be preached to the Gentiles with his mind as well.

Paul used his every mental strength to understand God's plan for redemption and salvation, and his reasoning in his New Testament letters is first-rate; and yet Paul took no credit for himself, counting his own strengths apart from Christ as a loss for the sake of Christ. It is only with Christ that man is able to walk with God, and yet Christ himself did not enter the world as a metaphorical Platonic sun or form; but as the servant and son of the living God. He died for us, he rose again, and conquered the death and destruction to which our sin would lead us. His body was broken as a sacrifice for our salvation and forgiveness; and this is the true meaning of the following passage of John in his gospel:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:1-5)

So like Plato, let us keep our eyes on the Light, but instead not of our own accord but on that of Jesus. Like Thales, let us seek to understand the heavens, but instead let us bring the Light of Christ to the world and not lose sight of the path before us. And like Paul, let us follow the path God has laid before us for our lives; to love Jesus, our Light, with all our beings and all our minds, and to know that it is only in service for the cause of Christ that our human walks have their true purpose.

My Ten Favorite Bible Passages

Here are my ten favorite Bible passages. I think you can learn a lot about a person by what scriptures they turn to for comfort and guidance. Please share your own list, too, in the comments section or as a link to your blog.

1) John 1:1-5: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

2) Philippians 4:4-8 "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice! Let your forbearing spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things."

3) Romans 8:1-5 "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the spirit."

4) Ecclesiastes 5:1-3 "Guard your steps as you go to the house of God, and draw near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know they are doing evil. Do not be hasty in words or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few. For the dream comes through much effort, and the voice of a fool through many words."

5) Revelation 21:1-8 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away. And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new. And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." And He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost. He who overcomes shall inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

6) Luke 23:33-43 "And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves. And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, "He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One. And the soldiers also mocked Him, coming up to Him, offering Him sour wine, and saying, "If You are the King of the Jews, save Yourself!" Now there was also an inscription above Him, "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." And one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And indeed we justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

7) James 3:5-12 "So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. Behold, how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among out members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father; and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way. Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Neither can salt water produce fresh."

8) Proverbs 9:7-10 "He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, and he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you. Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be wiser still; Teach a righteous man, and he will increase his learning. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

9) Colossians 3:23-24 "Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve."

10) John 10:25-30 "Jesus answered them, "I told you and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.""

How to Read the Bible: Biblical Literalism or Open Interpretation?

Here is an article I had published on Associated Content entitled "How to Read the Bible" in which I consider the opposing views of Biblical Literalism and Open Interpretation:

Nearly every Christian will agree that reading the Bible is an important spiritual discipline (something that draws you closer to God). I have found, however, that individual Christians differ wildly regarding the approach one should take to reading the Bible. I do not mean here simply what passages to read when, although there are many methods one can follow to systematically read through the entire Bible. Instead I mean the interpretive work and the hermeneutics involved when one interacts with such an important text (arguably the most important text ever created insofar as it constitutes God's plan for salvation for us, his creations).

I advocate a position involving a middle way (media via) between two opposing extremes or dangers when reading the Bible. These two extremes are over-flexibility in interpretation and under-flexibility in interpretation. On the one hand, I find it too naive to think that there is no interpretive work done when reading the Bible. The doctrinal distinctions and differences from Christian denomination to Christian denomination are enough to show that there is a fair amount of interpretive work to be done when encountering ancient texts, even texts that one believes to be divinely inspired. I have met Christians, bless their hearts, who are literalists and hold that every word, in English no less (forgetting that the Bible is a culmination of different texts from different time periods in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic), is a direct communication from God.

I can appreciate the heart of the literalist position, although I disagree with it) since to hold such a view is to have a rock solid foundation in an ever-changing and morally-bankrupt world. While I agree with the need for the rock, the rock should be none other than Christ himself rather than the literal interpretation of ancient texts. Only Christ is qualified to be the foundation of Christian faith, and I do not believe one's faith should stand or fall based on whether every word in the Bible is literally true. To do so actually places Christian faith on shaky foundations (especially if one's faith could be disproved by showing that specific claims were actually false) rather than on the true foundation of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

So it seems clear that the need for some level of interpretation ought to be allowed or even encouraged. The disagreements Christians have among themselves about certain textual passages from the Bible is enough to show that there are already competing interpretations abounding. The question is: how much interpretation should be allowed in Christian beliefs and doctrine? In other words, is there a point at which the interpretation has diverged too far to the point that the new interpretation has lost what was essentially (i.e. indispensably) Christian about the gospel? Another way to put this is to ask whether there any central tenets of Christian faith without which one ceases to be a Christian altogether? You can see the problem already forming once the door is allowed for interpretation. How does one allow for competing interpretations to allow for human fallibility while not compromising about the heart of being a follower of Jesus? While I do not have a well-worked out answer to this question, I do suggest a few things to keep in mind when you yourself are faced with the question of interpretation and when encountering others who do not share your interpretation.

I think the most important factor to keep in mind when reading the Bible is to read with a spirit of humility and an open heart. All too often religion has been used to propagate an individual's or an institution's individual agenda. In other words, people try to make the Bible conform to their own priorities and beliefs rather than to let themselves be guided by the Holy Spirit working within them. It is only God who is an omniscient (all-knowing) and perfect being. By definition, then, humans in general are limited in their knowledge and imperfect in their natures (God called Adam good, not perfect). All too often Christians will fail to keep these considerations in mind when reading the Bible (and especially when expounding their own beliefs of the meaning contained therein). So the first thing to keep in mind is to have a humble spirit when reading and interpreting the Bible, remembering that only God knows all things. It is also important to remember that the Holy Spirit dwells within us and will guide our hearts when we are receptive to its movements. Only the spirit should guide one's interpretation of the Bible, never one's self, ego, or prejudices (especially those from your particular tradition and which you are most likely to be blinded to the presence of).

The next thing to keep in mind is that the Bible is viewed by a majority of Christians to be a divinely inspired book written by fallible human beings. There is a point at which it is possible to sacrifice too much to the sake of interpretation and at which the essential message of the Bible is lost. If I had to retain one principle that is central to Christian belief, it would be Jesus' claim in John 14:6: "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." In other words, there is only one path to salvation, through Jesus Christ. This I find to be the one central tenet without which one ceases to be a Christian. Paul knew this when he wrote to the Corinthians that ..."if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14) Paul saw that if the uniqueness of Christ as the paschal lamb for our salvation is not retained, then Christ's death on the cross was neither necessary nor worth our faith.

This last point has immediate relevance for today's multiculturalism. One often hears people say that the Christian way is only one path to God, but is not the only path. Paul saw that if this perspective were taken, then Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection would all have been in vain. For if there were another path to salvation available, then why would the Father God sacrifice Christ his Son? I do not intend to go into the theological reasons for the necessity of a sacrifice and resurrection of a messiah, but hopefully you see the force of this argument (given originally by Paul). With other paths to salvation freely available, Christ's entire ministry, life, death, and resurrection become meaningless and arbitrary. Paul also uses this rationale to justify the necessity of taking a missional, evangelistic stance towards people who do not yet know of the good news (literally "Gospel") of Jesus Christ. God provided the path to salvation, and it is up to us to make it known to the world (although with a spirit of humility and imperfection ourselves).

Different Christian denominations and movements have differed about how to walk this line between interpretation and Christological foundations, but Christians are at their best when they retain the self-sacrificing spirit of our Lord Jesus and are humble about their own correctness. I believe it is possible to promote Christ as the one and only path to salvation out of a sense of love, compassion, and understanding for those who do not yet know Christ. This does not mean we should all be relativists and believe that all beliefs are correct or valuable just because they are beliefs. I do not believe this to be a coherent position anyways. Rather it means that we should not be so forceful in promoting our own beliefs that we lose the forgiving and humble spirit of Christ himself, guided by the Holy Spirit within us. The same should be true of our own devotional time reading the Bible. The essential message of the Bible should be quite apparent, but remember to be humble about the details, for only God has complete knowledge of all things.

Sacred Pathways Assessment

I took the Sacred Pathways Assessment, which is a personality quiz that analyzes the way(s) in which you best relate to God and the forms of Christian worship that best resonate with you.


Here are my results:

Intellectual: 28
Contemplative: 19
Enthusiast: 18
Caregiver: 16
Activist: 14
Ascetic: 29
Traditionalist: 23
Sensate: 13
Naturalist: 22


And here is a description of the various categories given along with my results:

Intellectual - Loving God with the Mind:
These Christians live in the world of concepts. They may feel closest to God when they first understand something new about Him.

Contemplative - Loving God through Adoration:
These Christians seek to love God with the purest, deepest, and brightest love imaginable. They want nothing more than some privacy and quiet to gaze upon the face of their heavenly Lover and give all of themselves to God.

Enthusiast - Loving God with Mystery & Celebration:
Excitement and mystery in worship is the spiritual lifeblood of enthusiasts. They are inspired by joyful celebration; cheerleaders for God and the Christian life. They don't want to just know concepts, but to experience them, to feel them, and to be moved by them. They like to let go and experience God on the precipice of excitement and awe.

Caregiver - Loving God by Loving Others:
Caregivers serve God by serving others. They often claim to see Christ in the poor and needy, and their faith is built up by interacting with other people. Caring for others recharges a caregiver's batteries.

Activist - Loving God Through Confrontation:
These Christians define worship as standing against evil and calling sinners to repentance. They are energized more by interaction with others, even in conflict, than by being alone or in small groups. Activists are spiritually nourished through the battle.

Ascetic - Loving God in Solitude and Simplicity:
Ascetics want nothing more than to be left alone in prayer. Let there be nothing to distract them--no pictures, no loud music--and leave them alone to pray in silence and simplicity.

Traditionalist - Loving God Through Ritual and Symbol:
Traditionalists are fed by what are often termed the historic dimensions of faith: rituals, symbols, sacraments, and sacrifice. They tend to have a disciplined life of faith and have a need for ritual and structure.

Sensate - Loving God with the Senses:
Sensate Christians want to be lost in the awe, beauty, and splendor of God. They are drawn particularly to the liturgical, the majestic, the grand. They want to be filled with sights, sounds, and smells that overwhelm them. The five senses are God's most effective inroad to their hearts.

Naturalist - Loving God Out of Doors:
The naturalist seeks to leave the formal architecture and the padded pews to enter an entirely new "cathedral", a place that God himself has built: the out-of-doors.

Is Religion Inherently Rational or Irrational?

Here is an article that I had published on Associated Content entitled, "Is Religion Inherently Rational or Irrational?"

There are two schools of thought on the epistemic status of religious belief. One school of thought holds that religious belief is inherently rational, while the other school of thought holds that religious belief is inherently irrational (for better or worse). The great Christian theologians and apologeticists have almost universally held that their faith is rational in some form or another, while the irrationalist school of thought has its roots with Kierkegaard and the rise of the existentialist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. In this article I will present both views and give arguments defending the view that religious belief can be based in rationality (although certainly individual Christians do not all necessarily view their faith in this way).

Faith as Rational

Within the school of thought that holds faith to be rational in nature, there are three distinct views on the relationship of faith to rationality. The first view holds that religious belief is only rational if one is able to provide adequate justification, proofs, or reasons for the beliefs. Christian apologetics in general fits into this category, as do the classic philosophical arguments that attempt to prove the existence of God through reason (e.g., Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, St. Anselm's Ontological Argument, and William Paley's Teleological Argument, etc.). The second view on the relation between faith and reason is that religious beliefs are rational if and only if there is no counter-evidence to disprove one's religious beliefs. This view is akin to a falsification model of scientific knowledge, which holds that current theories are acceptable after the failure to falsify those theories through experiments designed to disprove them. In terms of religious beliefs, one justifies his/her beliefs in this model by defeating counterarguments against one's beliefs. The third view holds that religious beliefs are rational as long as they are coherent with the rest of one's fundamental beliefs. On this model, one is concerned with the internal coherence of a a belief system. With coherence as the standard for rationality, this view holds that religious beliefs are justified insofar as they mesh well and cohere with all our other beliefs and experience; including our beliefs about science, the human condition, religious experience, etc. My own view is that this third view under the blanket of rational faith, i.e. that religious beliefs are rational if they are coherent with our other beliefs, is the most promising of these views for showing religious faith to be inherently rational instead of irrational.

Faith as Irrational

Although there have always been irrational religious people who do not attempt to give their religious beliefs a rational foundation, the irrationalist movement really gets off the ground in the late 19th century and in the 20th century with Kierkegaard and the rise of the existentialist movement. Kierkegaard held (at least on one reading of his work) that religious belief was inherently irrational, as characterized by the "leap of faith" that one takes, often to the contrary of any evidence our grounding for that leap. While I will not go into detail about the specifics of Kierkegaard's philosophy, this view should be familiar to those of us living in the 21st century who are familiar with the schism that was created between faith and reason as a result of this existentialist/irrationalist movement. One sees the legacy of this view in the continuing conflict (or pseudo-conflict, as I believe it to be) between religion and science. It is no accident that we are left with the irrationalist view of faith and reason (and faith and science in turn) as the received view after the influence of the existentialists on 20th century thought. I will argue, however, that there are problems with this view and that the resulting conflicts between faith and reason, and between faith and science, are merely pseudo-conflicts that are (albeit difficultly at times due to our still limited understanding of the natural world) in principle able to be resolved.

Coherence

As stated above, I believe option #3 under the rationalist category is the best way of conceiving the relationship between faith and rationality. Again, under this view one's religious beliefs count as rational if they can be shown to be coherent with our other beliefs (e.g. those about the natural world and its laws). I will show what is wrong with each of the other views, including both other rationalist views and the irrationalist view in general.

The first rationalist option, that faith is rational if adequate justification can be given for one's views, seems doomed to failure. Many attempts to try to prove God's existence rationally have been made over the millennia, most of which (such as the Ontological and Cosmological Arguments) are generally accepted to be unsound arguments (although the coherence view I advocate gives these old arguments new life due to their often rigorous conceptual analysis of concepts associated with divinity). In addition, the modern iteration of this approach, the Intelligent Design movement, I believe incorrectly assumes that God is the only way to account for the complexity and variation one encounters in the biological sciences and in the universe as a whole from the perspective of cosmology. Each attempt to show that God is necessary for the events described in the various natural sciences is defeated as our knowledge about the natural world increases. This attempt to place God's interaction with the world in the gaps of our understanding has become known, somewhat pejoratively, as "God of the Gaps Theology". As we learn more about the natural world, the gaps in our understanding narrow and God gets squeezed out of the picture more and more. So if we are to show that faith is inherently rational and coherent with the natural world we live in, it cannot be through abstract philosophical arguments or by invoking God merely to fill the gaps in our own understanding. I argue below that the coherentist option best allows for a robust theology that places faith on a rational foundation without falling prey to bad arguments or to a God of the Gaps Theology.

The second rationalist option, that faith is rational if there is no counter-evidence, is likewise doomed to failure. When presented with counter-evidence, one can always give a clever interpretation to make that new evidence fit nicely into one's current belief system (the recent press coverage of the Creationist Museum is an example of this in action). With this being the case, it is impossible to ever provide evidence that will conclusively disprove a religious belief system. While one might cynically think that this is a problem with religious belief in general, showing it to be irrational, it is worth noting that the natural sciences have the same problem. As Thomas Kuhn has shown in his account of paradigm shifts in scientific knowledge, it is always possible to revive a dying theory by trying to make the new seeming counter-evidence fit into the current theories. If there is repeated failure to do so, then science may or may not abandon those current theories and a paradigm shift occurs taking new theories as fundamental and accepted. But the problem should be apparent: there is no clear counter-evidence that will disprove a theory directly; one can always attempt to save the theory (or save the religious commitments) by offering an interpretation that incorporates that new evidence into current beliefs. For this reason, I do not believe that the second rationalist option above is a fruitful way of thinking of the relationship between faith and rationality.

As for the irrationalist view above, I also believe that this notion of an irrational faith is not the correct way of conceiving the relationship between faith and reason. Being a Christian myself, I believe that God the Father is the creator of the universe. If this is the case, then the world that God created and the world that we live in and learn about through the sciences are one and the same world. There should not be a conflict (as our knowledge becomes adequate to show this) between one's faith and the things that are true of the natural world as long as one has a correct understanding of each. The irrationalist movement creates and dichotomy between the world of faith and the world of reason that does not acknowledge that the worlds described by each are actually one and the same reality. So in principle there should not be a schism or a conflict between faith and reason, and where there is conflict, it is merely apparent conflict and apparent contradiction due to the limits of our own human and fallible understanding. Notice now that we are talking about coherence between faith and reason and between faith and the natural sciences. This is the heart of my conviction that rationalist option #3, which is the view that faith is rational if it is coherent with or other beliefs, is the most fruitful and promising way of conceiving the relationship between faith and reason.

The Coherence Project

It is over-quick to use the insight that faith and reason describe the same reality as a way of justifying faith outright. Our understanding of things divine and our understanding of the natural world are still limited in nature due to our imperfect and human perspectives. Even if God has revealed some truths to us about his own nature and his relationship to mankind (especially in his incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth), it would be hubris to claim that we had a full understanding of the divine nature. Likewise, no one would deny that scientific knowledge is constantly progressing, or at least evolving, which points to the limitation of our own understanding of the natural world and the universe in which we live. Because of this lack in our understanding, there is still much work to be done to show that religious beliefs are actually coherent with the natural sciences.

Care must be taken not just to invoke God as a way of explaining away the gaps in our understanding, though; but where we have positive knowledge (or at least well founded beliefs) of the natural world and positive knowledge (again, or at least well-founded beliefs) of things divine, the task is to show how the two systems are coherent and compliment one another. The mistake made by the Intelligent Design movement is that the Intelligent Design movement tries to use the natural world as a means of proving conclusively that there is a divine being. I believe that project to be doomed to failure, but nonetheless I believe that there is promise in trying to show that religious belief and beliefs about the natural world are coherent beliefs.

Without a doubt, Big Bang cosmology has reopened the door to belief in a creator who set the Big Bang in motion, and there has been much research into the possibility of using top-down causation as a means of explaining God's action in a world that is governed by natural laws without violating those natural laws themselves. This approach is also being used as a means of explaining how God could use the natural laws themselves as a tool in his creation of beings in his own image (i.e. with free will and a spiritual life) through the evolutionary process. Again, care must be taken to distinguish this view from the Intelligent Design movement. The difference is a question of trying to prove coherence of two different belief systems rather than trying to use one system to prove the other.

Of course, due to the type of being that we are (an imperfect, created being, from the Christian perspective), we will never be able to accomplish this project fully; for presumably only God has the perfect intellect needed to grasp the whole of creation and the whole of divinity in its fullest coherence. But I believe that it is crucial that we use the gift of reason that God has given us to understand better the world that God has given to us and mystery and revelation of God in that world.

Note: The philosophical background for this article is provided by the work of Philip Clayton, Arthur Peacocke, and John Polkinghorne. Their influence on my thought in these matters cannot be overstated. Visit also the website for the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences for more information on current academic research on the relationship between theology and science.

Humility and Boldness: Complimentary Christian Virtues

Here is an article I had published on Associated Content about the complimentary Christian virtues of humility and boldness:

In this article I will consider the relationship between the character traits of humility and boldness in terms of Christian virtue ethics. It is a common view that humility and boldness are opposing character traits that are incompatible with one another. I will argue here that humility and boldness are indeed compatible with one another despite this commonly received view.

I will first consider the character trait of humility. It is unquestionably true that humility is a proper Christian virtue for a number of reasons. The first reason is our ontological dependence upon God the Father as creator of the universe and creator of us ourselves as individuals. Second, in our humility of spirit we yield sovereignty of our own lives to God the Father and to Christ as our Lord and Savior. Third, a spirit of humility is crucial in developing a Christlike nature as we emulate the selflessness of Jesus as he died and rose again for the forgiveness of the sins of the world. The list of reasons could go on, of course, but the point is somewhat incontrovertible that a spirit of humility is a crucial part of one's proper development as a follower of Jesus.

The character trait of boldness is less obviously a proper Christian virtue. Boldness of spirit is often taken to be associated with negative character traits such as arrogance and selfishness. However I advocate the view that a boldness of spirit is equally as important to being a Christian as humility of spirit. Choosing to be a follower of Jesus Christ requires various actions of boldness without which it would be impossible to be a genuine follower of Christ as opposed to someone who is nominally a Christian but who demonstrates none of the fruit of the spirit characteristic of a new life in Christ.

Numerous examples of boldness are to be discovered in the new testament itself. For example it took a boldness of character for Jesus's disciples to completely abandon their possessions and their old ways to follow Jesus of Nazareth. Throughout the acts of the Apostles and Paul's various epistles, one witnesses Paul's consistent boldness in furthering the message of Jesus despite persecution and imprisonment. The fact that eleven of the twelve apostles were martyred speaks to the necessity of boldness of spirit in the furthering of Christ's gospel.

But while biblical examples of boldness are in great supply, it is equally important for contemporary Christians to cultivate a boldness of spirit as a compliment to their Christian humility. While it takes humility to submit your heart to the will of God in one's life, to act on this submission requires boldness and strength. Suppose that through prayer one has discovered that God desires a change to take place in one's life. While it is true that a humility of spirit is what allows this revelation to have weight in one's life and priorities, it is the boldness to act on this conviction that allows God's sovereignty to bring about a genuine life change. This is in keeping with the view that God created man with free will, with the ability to orient himself towards or away from God at his own discretion. This was evident in the fall of man in Genesis when Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit (whether one takes this story literally or figuratively), and it is evident today as Christians who are able to embrace the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ or to reject it.

So as I see it, the character traits of humility and boldness are complimentary traits that work together to produce lives that are lived in accordance with God's will. However, there is a danger that such seemingly opposite character traits may fail to keep each other in check. If one lacks a spirit of humility in favor of excessive boldness, the result is a person who is arrogant, judgmental, selfish, etc. The boldness in such a person's life is used to further his/her own ends instead of God's ends. By contrast, if one lacks a spirit of boldness in favor of excessive humility, the result is a person who is incapable of acting in accordance with the very will of God to which they have submitted their spirit.

It is true that we as Christians ought to humble ourselves and recognize the need for forgiveness and salvation in our lives, but we should not in doing so make ourselves weak and inactive in furthering the cause of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This last bit is extremely important, but it does not mean that we should use violence, force, judgment, etc. to further God's kingdom, for these traits are not in keeping with the spirit of Christ. Instead one should use relationship, love, forgiveness, and understanding to spread the Good News. It is equally important to note that this does not mean that one should be willing compromise our position that Christ is the one and only savior of the world without whom none shall see their creator. But it does mean that we should be mindful about the way in which humility and boldness work together is us to produce lives with which God will be well-pleased, both within ourselves and in our interactions with other believers and non-believers alike.

Hypocrisy and Sin in the Church

Here is an article I had published on Associated Content on the difference between sin and hypocrisy in the church:

Almost everyone who has turned away from organized religion in general, and from Christianity in particular, has done so because of a bad experience with a church, its parishioners, or its clergy. Many people hold the view that professional clergy are hypocritical about their own lives and their own sinfulness. These same people are living in a time familiar with the problems caused by the televangelist movement, Catholic priest child abuse scandals, and any number of other tragic instances of sinfulness among church members and clergy.

The church, in the universal sense, has not been very effective in responding to the growing misconception that the church as an organized body is an organization of holier-than-thou hypocrites, usually taking a defensive stance that tries to minimize its own self-perception of wrong-doing. In this article, I advocate a position that calls for an opposite response that embraces wrongdoing as a means of emphasizing the redemptive message of forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ. This may look like a contradiction in terms on the surface, but I will explain below why I think that it is possible to acknowledge sin and wrongdoing and still be true to the Biblical message of salvation through Jesus Christ and being a disciple of Jesus.

The first premise in this argument is that sin is wrong. Regardless of why and how one has sinned, a sin is still a sin in God's eyes, and it is always worse to sin than not to sin. That being said, sin is something that we all commit; all of us. Priests, pastors, laymen, deacons, politicians, teachers, and saints have all sinned and continue to sin throughout the course of their lives. This means that everyone is on a spiritual journey filled with many metaphorical spiritual battles that they must face every day. The recognition of sin as a part of our lives is the first step in accepting Jesus as a savior and accepting that his death on the cross at Calvary was a substitutionary punishment for the sins of you and me and the whole world. No one except Jesus has lived a perfect life, which is an essential tenet of Christian belief in Christ as "...the way and the truth and the life...," (John 14:6) bringing reconciliation with God despite the separation of man from God through sin.

A central element of Christianity is the view that we all sin and that God will love and forgive us anyways if we allow him to do so via the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, which is something already accomplished. The necessary event for our forgiveness took place nearly two thousand years ago, and all that is required of us is to recognize our own sinful natures and have faith that Christ's actions on the cross were sufficient to cover our own personal sins in God's eyes. This does not mean that Christians cease to sin, since no one but Christ was able to live a perfect life, being God Himself in the flesh.

The recognition of sin in one's own life ideally should have two effects on those who count themselves Christians. First, one should in theory become less judgmental to others, recognizing that one's own life is just as sinful as anyone else's (although the sin may take different forms). Second, one should have a desire and be striving to become more like Jesus in day to day life, loving and forgiving others as he did. As for the first effect, it is therefore important not to judge others who sin, even the clergy, recognizing that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) One can still condemn the sin as what it truly is, a sin, but one must still love and forgive the sinner in order to be truly Christ-like.

As for the second effect, Christians should all be striving to be Christ-like in their day to day lives. But our necessary imperfection as sinful beings prevents us from doing so to the highest degree. The proper view to take then is that Christians are all ideally on a journey toward increasing perfection and Christlike-ness, but that we will necessary fall short of the ideal set by Jesus who lived the only perfect life. Speaking again in the ideal now, a Christian's life should be a striving toward doing better, but also will necessarily be a life filled with examples of our own flaws, sinfulness in imperfections. It is for this reason that the Christ event, consisting of Christ's death and resurrection, is necessary in the first place. Christ paid the price of death that each of us deserves and God accepted this substitution because of his love for each of us. None of us is worthy of that salvation because of his own merits, and it is this message that should be at the heart of how the world at large thinks of the Christian church.

So what does this mean in terms of how Christians and the church are perceived by the world, and how Christ's message of hope and forgiveness is expressed to that world? Rather than try to deny, minimize, or explain away the sinful behavior of clergy, it is my own view that Christians should utilize these shortcomings to emphasize the forgiveness of Jesus Christ and further spread the gospel (literally "good news") to the world. The sinful acts themselves should be recognized as such and should not be condoned by the church as a corporate body. But not condoning the behavior does not negate the fact that God still loves the sinner and that Christ's blood spilled on the cross is still adequate to forgive any sinner with a repentant heart, even a member of the clergy.

It is too easy for us all, clergy, laymen, and people in the world at large, to play God ourselves and pronounce judgment on others for their sinfulness, when we all ourselves are just as sinful in other ways in our own lives. Both the church as a body and individual Christians have the responsibility to recognize the fact that no one leads a perfect life and that we all will necessarily fall short. To judge the sin of others while putting on the facade of being sinless oneself is properly classified as hypocrisy. But if one is honest about the sin in his/her own life, then one is able to share the love and forgiveness of Jesus to others genuinely without hypocrisy. It is my own view then, that the church should embrace its own sinfulness insofar is it allows one to share the gospel message with integrity and genuineness.

This is not to say that one should embrace or condone sin, but rather that when sin does occur it can be used to emphasize the fact that Jesus forgives all who call on him to do so, and that everyone is welcome at God the Father's banquet table because of his universal love for mankind, his creation. Clergy who fail to do this should likewise be forgiven by Christians themselves due to the fact we Christians ourselves have all sinned and we have likewise been forgiven by Christ. Our own imperfections necessitate that we will not always meet up to this standard of forgiveness, but it is important that we try and that we forgive each other when we fail.