Thinking on things eternal... and that body nailed up on that piece of wood. We are but products of a divorce, and like some rebellious child lost and cowering in some dark place, our father has come to find us, extending his hand. Will we take the hand, or beat it away and then 'cut it off' as so many have done before us? It’s December, and there’s the usual fanfare, commercial festivities with the proviso of ‘time with the family’ or ‘the holiday season’, filled with ‘good cheer’, tinsel, trees and fairy lights… and buried deep within all that fake shrubbery, is a hammer (Jer 23:29) striking the anvil of our stubborn subconscious. There the obligatory nativity scene plays out, the “silent” night that never was… (The night of Jesus birth was not silent). If Jesus’ birth was God’s subtle remedying injection to salvage a dying humanity in this broken and ill world, then Christ’s death and resurrection was the hammer blow that quite literally shook the earth to revive/resuscitate/recreate the dead creation. Products of a divorce This is about the state of the world and the nature of the relationship between God and Mankind. There was a time when the Spiritual and the natural were one. That time was, to put it simply, ‘in the beginning’. It is the way they were created, or should I say that the natural was created, and is a product of (a child of) the spiritual. There is a deeper part of the natural that is related to the spiritual. Soul and consciousness, or spirit, which gives life to, and ‘animates’ the natural. Hence the spiritual being more real than the natural, since the natural was created by the Spiritual, and without (divorced from) the spiritual element, the natural will only result in death. The ‘divorce’ came as a result of Man choosing his own way, to disobey God, resulting in this fallen world, where every person seems to be on their own path, looking for answers to the question/purpose to his own existence. Everything a man does is in essence a search for validation. Because ever since Man turned from God, he's been lost, floundering around in a vain attempt to find significance outside of the Creator’s design. So how does God salvage the situation? Something you’ll often hear in churches is that Jesus, the son, was the perfect sacrifice…but what does that mean exactly? Well the key is in the next part – the rising up, the resurrection. He is described as being “transfigured”… this is the key interplay where the natural body of Christ was (elevated) transfigured to the spiritual. His physical body was sacrificed. But if he (Jesus) is God, then he cannot die - Since God cannot die! – Many have difficulty reconciling this issue. How did Jesus (God as man) die, when God cannot die? This is where a deeper understanding of the Trinity is necessary: The Trinity Think of a King – specifically the King’s Right-Hand-man, the one who enacts the will of the King and often acts in his stead. (in pop culture you may also recall the title of ‘Hand of the King’ – a man entrusted with decision-making rights and often even does so from the throne. In history, as well as fictional tales, the Kings ‘hand’ is usually a trusted advisor, a friend or even a mentor. But none come close to the heavenly equivalent. “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well.” - John 14:6-7a I envision it (in a literal sense), that God placed his hand on the earth (in the form of Jesus), and then sacrificed that hand (“My God why have you forsaken me” – Matt 27:46), before God then “reattached” his hand. “I can do all things through Christ (the righteous right hand of God; yoked with the one who is seated at the right hand side of God) who strengthens me” Phil 4:13 (emphasis & expansion my own addition) If this image of amputating (sever, separate, detach) and reattaching a hand seems a little too graphic, then think of this: some synonyms for “attach” is ‘couple, fuse, join, anchor … and yoke’ –Matt 11:29-30 “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”. Also: Gal 5:1 The image of a sacrificed and reattached hand also resonates with the image of taking God’s hand, or letting God take our hand, to guide (shepherd) us as a father holding his child by the hand (Isa 42:6). Psa 63:8 “I cling to you; your right hand upholds me.” (NIV) Isaiah 41:13 “‘Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.’” (NAS) So when we choose to be yoked with Jesus, we place ourselves in the hand(s) of God – (hence we are in him – and Jesus is in us, via God sending down the Holy Spirit to dwell within us; hence also baptism - to be immersed) And when we acknowledge Christ as our personal saviour, we yield to Him and as a result are yoked (to him like oxen to pull in one direction) with him to live as he lived, and thus God ‘grafts’ us onto himself when reuniting with his Son Jesus. Another image: the severed hand – when reattached, is already holding something – what is Jesus holding onto? – those who have chosen him. The Holy Spirit What is this – and why do we need him? To think that before, we were all dead (spiritually) and we will all die (physically), separate from God – sin. So Jesus provided the way (IS the way) to God. But when we pray, talk to God, developing our relationship with Him, what do we say that He does not already know? What do I, this formerly dead clay vessel offer the Creator of this very same clay vessel? So then, God comes and imparts of himself, he places within us the Holy Spirit to converse with Himself. If Jesus (in my earlier analogy) is God’s hand, then the Holy Spirit is God’s breath. *See: Genesis 2:7 (God breathed life into Adam) and then John 20:22 (Jesus breathed on the disciples: “And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit’.”) We pray by (in/via) the Holy Spirit, through Jesus (in his name, yoked with him), to the father. If you think of it as a journey; the Holy Spirit speaks for us and carries us (helper) closer through Jesus who paved the way and is the narrow gate through which we go, to God the father (for deeper intimacy). So in this whole exercise, all we do is acknowledge Christ, welcome him into our lives, yield to Christ, to be yoked with him and live in this world as he lived – He does all the work. He acts on our behalf. Without God – the Creator of it all – we are nothing. When our breath is up, we return to the earth, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. And were it not for God’s decision to make everything, we wouldn’t even exist. God placed within us the ability to choose – Free Will – because for some reason he wants a relationship with his creations, to adopt us as his children. The more we allow Him into our lives, and relinquish our ‘ownership’ of these lives He made, the more he will do with these clay vessels. “May my prayer be counted as incense before You; The lifting up of my hands as the evening offering.” Psa 141:2 “We lift up our heart and hands Toward God in heaven;” Lam 3:41 “But at the evening offering I arose from my humiliation, even with my garment and my robe torn, and I fell on my knees and stretched out my hands to the LORD my God” Ezra 9:5 But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands… (11a) you gave through your servants the prophets … (13) "What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. (15) LORD, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence." Ezra 10, 11, 13, 15. And yet despite this…. Despite us turning from God, the Lord has extended his hand to us, to make us right by him. Interesting points of contention: - If Jesus is God, then why did he pray – did he pray to himself? --- Jesus subjected himself to human form, so he gave up/sacrificed some of the Godly attributes we naturally ascribe to him; Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience. Of these, he clearly (in his finite human form) could not be everywhere at once (presence), and although intelligent – refuting all arguments thrown his way, he did not Know ALL (prophetically) in terms of time and place of things to come. Despite the Divine power he displayed (walking on water, authority over the elements and sickness etc.) he was human, he did get tired and sleepy – needing rest (Mark 4:38 – Jesus sleeping on the boat; He got thirsty whilst on the cross – his thirst for water also led him to the well where he met the Samaritan woman in John 4). So Jesus praying is yet another instance of his dependence on God the father, as he submitted himself to human form. Also - prayer is communication (communion) with God - how do you develop/deepen/maintain your relationship with someone? ... you communicate with them. - Wait, there’s 1 God, but you described 3 parts while the Bible describes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 3 persons – this is confusing… The mystery of the triune God is not something I nor any man can or will completely unravel. What limitations can we put on something that is infinite? All these images, of 3 persons, or parts - hand and breath etc, are just that – images, so that our finite minds form some kind of tangible understanding as to the nature of God – this eternal being that exists outside of time and outside of the natural world. So in essence we are attempting to attach human attributes to something that is not human (anthropomorphism). So for an example, when you hear a claim that there is no son of God because there’s no such need, as in the Quran 112:1-4 “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten” – this is simply looking at, or defining God in human terms, it is also putting limitations on God and what he is willing or able to do… He designed Man, and designed the birthing process. He is free to do with his Creations what he wants. It is also attempting to eliminate/reject the idea of “incarnate” – that God might appear as a human – be personified in human form (since he'd already appeared to others in dreams, in the form of a cloud or of Fire - it does not mean he IS Fire or clouds, but that he can take on these forms)… that does not mean that God is human, but that he can take on the form of a person, if he so desired. God is mysterious, and there are things about him and his nature that we will never know or understand, yet he has made himself known to us (his Creations), even after we turned from him. God decided to reunite man unto himself. But how - How does one reconcile something which is Pure, Good and Holy (God) , with something which is none of those things (man)? Why didn't God simply just forgive us and be done with it? Why was shedding of blood necessary for forgiveness? Answer: The interplay/collision between the Spiritual and the Natural; for man to be reconciled with God (in the spiritual), he had to discard (shed) the natural; but since we turned from God we became spiritually dead, existing only in the natural, hence Jesus coming… and the rebirth (born again) and New Creations – 2 Cor 5:17. So that when we die here on earth, our flesh will die – the natural – and the revived/reawakened/received indwelt Spirit will one day reunite with Christ – [finally reconciled after the divorce/separation between God and man (Adam)] – to be ‘the bride of Christ’. “But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” - 1 Cor 2:14 Shalom *
0 Comments
So by problem, I also mean danger, because we tend to underestimate this issue, and overestimate our capacity or ability in understanding it. This is about mediums, guides, gurus or generally people who say they’ve received ‘word’ or inspiration from some spiritual source – even those who share your beliefs. Many people seek direction this way, from books written by people who’ve had some dramatic spiritual event to guide their lives and provide some help to other people seeking similar direction. In a general sense though, Spiritism, according to one of its chief proponents ‘Allan Kardec’, is “a philosophical doctrine with religious effects. It has its fundamental basis, like any other religion, God, the soul and a future life. But it is not like most established religions as it does not have dogmas, rituals, or temples, and among its followers, nobody takes or receives the title of priest or high-priest.” Now, if you believe in the spiritual realm (as I do), this can become a tricky topic if you’re not looking to offend anyone because it involves people’s beliefs, but I think people should allow their beliefs to be shaken a bit from time to time, to see how deep their roots really are, and to test the strength of their particular belief system. So without complicating things too much, here’s the problem: Trust. If you’ve read a book or heard someone speak about spiritual guidance, whether from a psychic medium, an Imam, a pastor, or simply a friend offering some help via (deeper) self-help books, then the issue will come up; how do you trust the source of the guidance offered. Recently a friend offered/suggested a book written by a woman who wrote because she claimed she was inspired by “a voice”, saying it was like she wasn’t writing the book at all, but rather simply writing whatever the voice told her to write. Later, she claimed (believed) that the voice belonged to Jesus. The problem is that some of what she wrote (the voice said) was simply not Biblical. This is a problem, not just for me (a Christian) but for anyone interested. This brand of Spiritism I find to be common among New Age Religions, along the lines of Eckhart Tolle and even those behind the fairly recent book ‘The Secret’. Another perspective is the all roads lead to Rome idea, ie. the all-encompassing route of embracing all religions and beliefs as being essentially the same thing – all religions lead to God, they’re just different strokes for different folks (via-a-vis pluralism). But that’s an overlapping issue. Spiritism is a bit more specified and direct. Getting back to the book in question; How do we know that the author of the book (A course in Miracles by Helen Schucman, 1948-2013) is on the right path? For a Christian this is simpler because whatever disagrees with the Bible, is false, since the Bible is Truth, the Word of God being the Way, the Truth and the Life… so anything inconsistent with it, is therefore NOT the truth. I'm aware that to some this seems a bit narrow-minded, but you wouldn't call a passenger narrow-minded for insisting that only a qualified pilot should fly the plane. And that's essentially what this is about, qualifying forms of Spiritism. But what about non-Christians? Specifically Non-Christians who also happen to believe in some form of Spirituality and seek guidance through similar books, or a spiritual realm, the afterlife, ancestors, spirit-guides, a higher consciousness, self-help meditation etc.? How would you trust the word of a psychic? [Side note - This by the way is also one of the reasons why I am not a Muslim. I believe Muhammad had a profound spiritual experience in that cave, but how do I trust one man’s word, a man who himself according to tradition, was unsure about the source of the revelation upon receiving it?] People like to compare the Quran to the Bible, but that’s not accurate. It would be more apt to compare the Quran (1 book comprising the teachings/insights of 1 man, Muhammad) to other books/writings other men, like the Books of Isaiah or Jeremiah, or the Epistles of Apostle Paul (his writings contained within the Bible). This comparison would be more reasonable. This leads to why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles etc, are joined and included into a singular collection: the Bible. Viewed individually, they can all be bracketed as spiritual books and a form of ‘Spiritism’, the 66 books in the Bible, after generations of deep scrutiny (written over a period of 1500 yrs) are found to be consistent with one another in thought, content and purpose. It simply means it carries divine credentials like no other book - hence it being the most attacked book in human history. But for Non-Christians, I’m curios to learn; what are your criteria for discerning spiritual integrity? If we all believe that there is a spiritual realm, and if that spiritual realm resembles in some small way, the essential dynamics of this world, in terms of the ‘invisible’ qualities like intellect, morality, consciousness etc. – and if we assume that passed souls (ancestors) are now a part of this metaphysical/spiritual realm… then its logical to assume that since good and evil are evident in this natural world, then it's wihtin the spiritual world as well. In fact, it would be quite presumptuous, or even naive to think good and evil are not prevalent in the spiritual realm. This is especially true if you acknowledge that these elements, the natural world and the spiritual, interact with one another. Then from there, that people in this life will pass on to the next life in some form or other. Are we willing to gamble and assume that good and evil do not exist in the spiritual realm? And with that knowledge, when one attempts to interact with the spiritual, how do you then discern if whatever you’re interacting with, is good or evil? The truth is divisive, simply because it is exclusive – there is one narrow way, the right way… and many people find themselves on the wrong side or outside of it, this is why doing the good or the right thing, is often so difficult. For this reason it can be said that truth is sometimes offensive because, by its nature, it says that certain positions are wrong/false. Hence, (capital T) Truth excludes some people, and can be offensive. So, taking up the position of Truth may also at times come across as arrogant, with further potential for division. Having faced my own crisis of faith and been in a position of deep doubt, I can at least attest to it not being a very good place to be; but still, I had to go even deeper to a place where I was willing to accept and deal with the consequences if I found there to be an error in my beliefs. It was a commitment to put the truth to the test, or whatever test I could come up with, and then to be willing to deal with those consequences, whatever it was, whether I liked the answers I found or not. [This is also why New Age pluralism is so popular, because then there is no wrong answer, so it fits many people's desires - to each is his own, or simply another branch of relativism]. All this is naturally related to the quandary: 'Is there a God? and if there is, then who is he and how do we get to know him/it... and did this creator reveal himself to the human race in some way?' So often in this world, which we’ve made so very complicated, we seek guidance and sometimes that ‘guidance’ comes in forms that seem welcoming at first. However, scratch at the surface and it may reveal some inconveniences that many are simply not willing to confront. To use a common saying which also happens to be from the Bible, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13) I understand the desire for spiritual guidance, but what are our criteria for deciphering this thing (spirituality) which by its very nature is alien to us? It is something we are unqualified to deal with, hence our methods for interacting with it cannot come from us. So, do we not need some sort of barometer to judge all spiritual matters… if not, then what? We are quick though to create our own way when wading into spiritual waters, all to fit our own spiritual desires and perspectives. How do you discern or judge Spiritism? My advice is to earnestly seek the Truth . . . As to "what is truth?" as a friend asked me recently, well that's firmly entering epistemology. But since it is such a tricky subject to define, perhaps the best starting point is to clarify what it is NOT. And its at this foundation where we find the issue of relativism and absolutism. Is Truth Absolute/fixed/objective, or is it relative? "What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are..." But, if "truths are illusions" then nothing is absolute, then it means that that claim is self-defeating... because then nothing is certain/the truth/to be trusted, including that very sentence "truths are illusions". You see if Nietzsche's claim is true (which by the way, would make it absolute) then by his own claim everything he said is an illusion, and why bother listening to/reading it in the first place. The following quote though explains it better IMO: "The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do, is follow his advice." Some handy links:
"What is Truth? | Explain Truth | Define Truth" - carm.org "What is Truth?" - Paul Pardi article on philosophynews.com 295 - Terrorist attacks worldwide thus far for 2015, averaging 27 per month… however November alone currently stands at 33 so far, and with the Paris attacks inspiring the trending hashtag “#PrayforParis”, I take it many people are wondering (yet again, as it is with most atrocities or disasters throughout history) where was God during this time, or why did it happen, or the greater question of ‘why is there evil in the world’? It sets off another flurry of questions: If God created everything, then did he create evil, and thus, doesn’t that make God evil…? A political satire show jokingly presented an overlapping issue by belittling a politician’s belief in God, along the lines of “he believing that the world is around 6000 years old, and he believing in a God that is powerful enough to create the universe in 6 days but not powerful enough to NOT make paedophiles”. Many sceptics hearing these sorts of comments on an otherwise mainstream news show would gleefully laugh at said man with his seemingly, by modern standards, conservative beliefs, the insinuation being: how can we (citizens) allow such a man with such (ridiculous) beliefs to govern a state or country. The bigotry here is pretty palpable and intentional. What so often frustrates me, is when intelligent people fail to really think. This ultimately comes down to choice, and what we choose to believe based on the evidence at hand. As we know, good lawyers are very capable of getting guilty men off the hook, and it happens more often than we care to admit. The evidence for or against God’s existence is the same for all. To myself, the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing (For), but I acknowledge that there is just enough of an element of doubt to fuel the ‘un-believer’. As to why this doubt exists, well I encourage you to read another article I wrote exploring this very issue. [Why do you need faith to believe in God?] I must also add that much of the bias against God is fueled by man’s own ignorance and pride, and that other thing listed among the notorious 7 deadly sins, that of ‘Sloth’ (or laziness/apathy/indifference). Many are content to live without truly knowing, because to know or to seek to know would mean disturbing their status quo. It means (via their misguided perception) perhaps living a devout life of celibacy and going to church every Sunday and helping thy neighbor, and generally being accountable, and gasp, reading the Bible - that outdated and thick book of many tiny words written in some ancient languages that’s mostly confusing and filled with parables… and who knows what to take literally and what not, and how is something that apparently contravenes modern scientific theory going to help me today? Not to mention all the “fairytales” with talking animals and bushes… So, instead of going through all that hullabaloo, why not skip it and just go on with my life, “as you were” minding my own business, and being generally (by the world’s standards) a good and law abiding citizen, because if being a good person isn’t good enough for whatever god may or may not exist, then maybe he/she isn’t a god worth knowing. The issue arises: Are you earnestly seeking the truth? If not, then don’t bother continuing with this read. *** If you are, then you must face a very real truth: that if God exists, then he most likely does not conform to our rules or the standards you or I set – we, being the creation, and God, the Creator. So when we say that being a good person should be good enough for God for us to get into heaven or paradise or whatever, we are doing 2 things here:
So that means that we have to relinquish power or concede that we do not (and will never) know everything. At the heart of this, is submission… to submit to a greater power than ourselves, an entity that knows better than we do and that has the ability to, and has, outlined a particular way in which we should live our lives… But we don’t want to be told how to live our lives. This is essentially crux of the matter, like a rebellious teenager not wanting a parent to interfere and tell them what to do… so we choose our own way, and in a world where we’re free to exercise our own free will, evil will exist.
There are many more issues and questions that this raises, but essentially, we need to confront or entertain the issue of ourselves and our relation toward (a potential) God. Once we accept the simple dynamics of this relationship, then the state of play is made more apparent, and the consequences we live with are put into a little more context… this is also when the answers become more complicated and even messy, and we must first be prepared for answers we don't like, or are uncomfortable, before we even earnestly ask the hard questions. “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” [Image credits: unless otherwise stated - tumblr.com, warphotographer.org, Facebook.] ******* |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|