Friday, May 09, 2003
Theology Uncertainty Principle
What becomes increasingly evident to me as I study theology is that so many of the things that I thought I knew about God turn out to be somewhat imperfect images, metaphors and models. They point towards God, they say something about what God is like, but ultimately they cannot describe God truly. Not only that, but some models that we find useful are sometimes in opposition to other equally useful models.
There seems to be theological uncertainty principle. In physics, Heisenburg's uncertainty principle means that you can never know everything about a given particle. You can gain knowledge about a particles position only at the expense of knowledge about its velocity, and vice-versa. In theoogy it seems the more you try to pin down one thing about God, the more the rest of God becomes a mystery.
Holy Spirit and Trinity
Last night we were discussing the Holy Spirit. There are so many ways of thinking about the Spirit that I am left feeling that I know nothing about the Spirit at all. In the end I fell back to saying that when I speak of the Holy Spirit I am referring to the experience of God as present and active in the universe, in the church and in myself and other individuals. From a trinitarian viewpoint, does this mean that the Father and the Son are not present or active in the universe? I have to say, 'No, that isn't what I mean'. The Father and the Son are not simply beyond the universe. But whenever we speak of God working in our lives or in the church or in the world, we say that it is the Spirit at work.
This pushes me to a view of the Trinity where the persons are distinct aspects of God. Is this modalism? What does it mean to talk of three persons? We rule out tritheism, so we are not talking about three independent individuals having a conversation with each other. When we speak of three persons in God, we cannot mean persons in quite the same way that we normally think of persons. I think what we really mean is that we experience God in three distinct ways and that in each case we relate to God personally. This is not modalism if the aspects are actually distinct from each other. Perhaps the consciousness of God is differentiated as God exists as three distinct aspects. This also allows the possibility that the aspects relate to each other, though not in the sense that they have a get together for a chat. Perhaps the relation is in their mutual dependence - the three together are one God, and all three are necessary for God to be God.
I like the concept of the Trinity in 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed' by Keith Ward (2003: 235-236).
"On aspect is that God is the utterly transcendent creative ground of all being, beyond human comprehension, the unlimited ocean of infinity, the abyss beyond duality from which all things issue, the ultimate cause of all.
A second aspect is that God is the supreme intelligence in which all possibilities exist as thoughts exist in the mind. Here all the archetypes of being are rooted, and ordered with perfect wisdom. Infinity takes form as mind and self-luminous awareness, and exists as the uncreated light of wisdom which gives form and intelligibility to all things.
A third aspect is that God is the dynamic energy which gives actuality to the forms conceived by the divine wisdom, which values and affirms them, and which delights in their particularity.
God as transcendent abyss, God as particular yet unbounded intelligence, and God as the immanent creative energy of being - these, it might be said, are three distinct ways of being God, all of them necessary to the divine nature, and all bound together in a uniquely perfect reality which is at once deeply personal and yet infinitely more than either one rational individual or three such individuals of the same sort."
Perhaps some of the possibilities or purposes in the divine intelligence relate not to creation but to Godself, such that God is Trinity apart from the universe.
What becomes increasingly evident to me as I study theology is that so many of the things that I thought I knew about God turn out to be somewhat imperfect images, metaphors and models. They point towards God, they say something about what God is like, but ultimately they cannot describe God truly. Not only that, but some models that we find useful are sometimes in opposition to other equally useful models.
There seems to be theological uncertainty principle. In physics, Heisenburg's uncertainty principle means that you can never know everything about a given particle. You can gain knowledge about a particles position only at the expense of knowledge about its velocity, and vice-versa. In theoogy it seems the more you try to pin down one thing about God, the more the rest of God becomes a mystery.
Holy Spirit and Trinity
Last night we were discussing the Holy Spirit. There are so many ways of thinking about the Spirit that I am left feeling that I know nothing about the Spirit at all. In the end I fell back to saying that when I speak of the Holy Spirit I am referring to the experience of God as present and active in the universe, in the church and in myself and other individuals. From a trinitarian viewpoint, does this mean that the Father and the Son are not present or active in the universe? I have to say, 'No, that isn't what I mean'. The Father and the Son are not simply beyond the universe. But whenever we speak of God working in our lives or in the church or in the world, we say that it is the Spirit at work.
This pushes me to a view of the Trinity where the persons are distinct aspects of God. Is this modalism? What does it mean to talk of three persons? We rule out tritheism, so we are not talking about three independent individuals having a conversation with each other. When we speak of three persons in God, we cannot mean persons in quite the same way that we normally think of persons. I think what we really mean is that we experience God in three distinct ways and that in each case we relate to God personally. This is not modalism if the aspects are actually distinct from each other. Perhaps the consciousness of God is differentiated as God exists as three distinct aspects. This also allows the possibility that the aspects relate to each other, though not in the sense that they have a get together for a chat. Perhaps the relation is in their mutual dependence - the three together are one God, and all three are necessary for God to be God.
I like the concept of the Trinity in 'God: A Guide for the Perplexed' by Keith Ward (2003: 235-236).
"On aspect is that God is the utterly transcendent creative ground of all being, beyond human comprehension, the unlimited ocean of infinity, the abyss beyond duality from which all things issue, the ultimate cause of all.
A second aspect is that God is the supreme intelligence in which all possibilities exist as thoughts exist in the mind. Here all the archetypes of being are rooted, and ordered with perfect wisdom. Infinity takes form as mind and self-luminous awareness, and exists as the uncreated light of wisdom which gives form and intelligibility to all things.
A third aspect is that God is the dynamic energy which gives actuality to the forms conceived by the divine wisdom, which values and affirms them, and which delights in their particularity.
God as transcendent abyss, God as particular yet unbounded intelligence, and God as the immanent creative energy of being - these, it might be said, are three distinct ways of being God, all of them necessary to the divine nature, and all bound together in a uniquely perfect reality which is at once deeply personal and yet infinitely more than either one rational individual or three such individuals of the same sort."
Perhaps some of the possibilities or purposes in the divine intelligence relate not to creation but to Godself, such that God is Trinity apart from the universe.
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
Reflection on evangelical church ministry, in the Brethren tradition
For 8 years, between 1990 and 1999, I was a member of an 'evangelical' church. The church's roots lay in the Brethren movement but when I joined it had already begun to move away from strict Brethren practice, and this movement continued during my time as a member. The church had good contact with the other evangelical churches in town as well as with the wider evangelical movement. I therefore had a good deal of exposure to this particular style of Christianity.
Prayer and reading the Bible are regarded as the primary ways in which the Christian knows God. Perhaps it would be better to say that the reading, study and preaching of the Bible is believed to be the main way through which the Holy Spirit operates in the church. It is through the Word that the Spirit makes Christ present, teaches, exhorts, strengthens and comforts. The Bible is therefore accorded the greatest authority and its private and corporate study is strongly encouraged. The sermon tends to be the focal point of the average service, and tends to be of reasonable length.
The significance of the sacraments is played down. In the church I belonged to, as in many evangelical churches, only baptism and communion are recognised as these are mentioned explicitly in the NT. Furthermore, these sacraments are not generally regarded as being means by which we enter into communion with Christ, but are only symbols. Baptism is a symbol of entering into Christ's death and resurrection (after Romans 6), but does not do anything in itself. Despite this, importance is placed on the practice of full immersion because that is perceived to be the biblical practice. Communion is a remembrance of the death of Jesus and as such is done with due solemnity, but there is no notion that Christ is present in the bread and wine. Perhaps it is because the 'breaking of bread' (as it is called in my old church) has had its spiritual significance so downgraded, that the breaking of bread service is so poorly attended, despite the otherwise high level of commitment that members felt towards their faith and the church. There seemed little sense that the sacraments were areas of the Spirit's operation; they are things that the church does in obedience to Christ, rather than things through which God does something.
The primacy of the Bible means that the church tends to an inerrant view of Scripture, and is also prone to literalism. I certainly noticed a hostility to science, which was felt to undermine biblical beliefs. There is also a suspicion, even a rejection, of church traditions. The traditional practices of the church are often rejected in favour of the practice of the early church, insofar as it can be discovered through the NT texts. The problem with this is that there is no clear picture of early church worship that can be deduced from the texts, and no evidence that there was any uniformity in worship.
For 8 years, between 1990 and 1999, I was a member of an 'evangelical' church. The church's roots lay in the Brethren movement but when I joined it had already begun to move away from strict Brethren practice, and this movement continued during my time as a member. The church had good contact with the other evangelical churches in town as well as with the wider evangelical movement. I therefore had a good deal of exposure to this particular style of Christianity.
Prayer and reading the Bible are regarded as the primary ways in which the Christian knows God. Perhaps it would be better to say that the reading, study and preaching of the Bible is believed to be the main way through which the Holy Spirit operates in the church. It is through the Word that the Spirit makes Christ present, teaches, exhorts, strengthens and comforts. The Bible is therefore accorded the greatest authority and its private and corporate study is strongly encouraged. The sermon tends to be the focal point of the average service, and tends to be of reasonable length.
The significance of the sacraments is played down. In the church I belonged to, as in many evangelical churches, only baptism and communion are recognised as these are mentioned explicitly in the NT. Furthermore, these sacraments are not generally regarded as being means by which we enter into communion with Christ, but are only symbols. Baptism is a symbol of entering into Christ's death and resurrection (after Romans 6), but does not do anything in itself. Despite this, importance is placed on the practice of full immersion because that is perceived to be the biblical practice. Communion is a remembrance of the death of Jesus and as such is done with due solemnity, but there is no notion that Christ is present in the bread and wine. Perhaps it is because the 'breaking of bread' (as it is called in my old church) has had its spiritual significance so downgraded, that the breaking of bread service is so poorly attended, despite the otherwise high level of commitment that members felt towards their faith and the church. There seemed little sense that the sacraments were areas of the Spirit's operation; they are things that the church does in obedience to Christ, rather than things through which God does something.
The primacy of the Bible means that the church tends to an inerrant view of Scripture, and is also prone to literalism. I certainly noticed a hostility to science, which was felt to undermine biblical beliefs. There is also a suspicion, even a rejection, of church traditions. The traditional practices of the church are often rejected in favour of the practice of the early church, insofar as it can be discovered through the NT texts. The problem with this is that there is no clear picture of early church worship that can be deduced from the texts, and no evidence that there was any uniformity in worship.
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Theology Corner - God on the brain
Finally got around to watching God on the brain the other night. Quite interesting. The way the program put it, religious experience is hardwired in the human brain. When people have religious experience, certain things happen in the brain. Conversly, those certain things happening in the brain can also trigger religious experiences, especially for epileptics. I was quite surprised that the program didn't go for the obvious sensationalist angle - "Neuroscience proves that religion is all in the mind." At least one of the scientists involved in the program pointed out that one could argue that God made the brain so that it would have these experiences - a sort of spiritual antenna. I don't know about that. After a little reflection, my feeling about the findings is "what else did you expect?" After all, the brain is involved in every kind of conscious experience that we have, so why should 'God-experience' be any different? It seems reasonable that there are patterns of brain activity associated with religious or mystical experience, just as there may be patterns associated with fear, sex and so on. It doesn't necessarily mean that God made the brain a certain way, or that God is simply the product of the brain. All that can be said for sure is that certain experiences are associated with certain patterns of neurological activity.
More interesting, at least in my opinion, is (1) whether spiritual experiences of the kind under investigation are true experiences of a spiritual reality, (2) the possibility that spiritual experiences might be induced, and (3) the potential implications for inter-faith relations and the competing truth-claims of different traditions.
(1) There is the question as to whether having a religious experience, however it is brought about, means that one has truly experienced God or nirvana or whatever (assuming that there is such a thing). I don't see how we can answer this question. Having a spiritual experience is no guarantee that we have really touched reality. People who hallucinate may hallucinate about something that is real, but they haven't actually experienced the reality. Are there any criteria to establish whether a particular spiritual experience is a true experience? Skipping over this for now, if we accept that some or all religious experiences are true, the other two questions need to be raised.
(2) The idea of inducing a spiritual experience is not new. People have prayed, meditated, sung, chanted, danced and taken drugs as ways of attaining spiritual experiences. Now it seems that the right bit of technology, utilising magnetic fields passing through certain bits of the brain, can also do the job. Should these technologically induced experiences be regarded as less valid than those achieved by more traditional means? Or will we be going into churches and donning our God helmets? When our brains are in the right state, however brought about, does it make us naturally more sensitive to spiritual reality?
(3) The fact that people of different traditions have the same neural activity when they are having spiritual experiences (as Buddhist monks and Franciscan nuns apparently do) also raises the question whether they are in fact experiencing the same spiritual reality? If they are, then this has implications for questions about the exclusivity of particular religions. It may not mean that the truth claims of religions are all of equal value, but it may mean that contact with ultimate reality is possible through the different religious traditions. Writing as a Christian this might mean that although the truth claims of Christianity are true, God allows that all religions can potentially reach God, or that God works through all religions.
Finally got around to watching God on the brain the other night. Quite interesting. The way the program put it, religious experience is hardwired in the human brain. When people have religious experience, certain things happen in the brain. Conversly, those certain things happening in the brain can also trigger religious experiences, especially for epileptics. I was quite surprised that the program didn't go for the obvious sensationalist angle - "Neuroscience proves that religion is all in the mind." At least one of the scientists involved in the program pointed out that one could argue that God made the brain so that it would have these experiences - a sort of spiritual antenna. I don't know about that. After a little reflection, my feeling about the findings is "what else did you expect?" After all, the brain is involved in every kind of conscious experience that we have, so why should 'God-experience' be any different? It seems reasonable that there are patterns of brain activity associated with religious or mystical experience, just as there may be patterns associated with fear, sex and so on. It doesn't necessarily mean that God made the brain a certain way, or that God is simply the product of the brain. All that can be said for sure is that certain experiences are associated with certain patterns of neurological activity.
More interesting, at least in my opinion, is (1) whether spiritual experiences of the kind under investigation are true experiences of a spiritual reality, (2) the possibility that spiritual experiences might be induced, and (3) the potential implications for inter-faith relations and the competing truth-claims of different traditions.
(1) There is the question as to whether having a religious experience, however it is brought about, means that one has truly experienced God or nirvana or whatever (assuming that there is such a thing). I don't see how we can answer this question. Having a spiritual experience is no guarantee that we have really touched reality. People who hallucinate may hallucinate about something that is real, but they haven't actually experienced the reality. Are there any criteria to establish whether a particular spiritual experience is a true experience? Skipping over this for now, if we accept that some or all religious experiences are true, the other two questions need to be raised.
(2) The idea of inducing a spiritual experience is not new. People have prayed, meditated, sung, chanted, danced and taken drugs as ways of attaining spiritual experiences. Now it seems that the right bit of technology, utilising magnetic fields passing through certain bits of the brain, can also do the job. Should these technologically induced experiences be regarded as less valid than those achieved by more traditional means? Or will we be going into churches and donning our God helmets? When our brains are in the right state, however brought about, does it make us naturally more sensitive to spiritual reality?
(3) The fact that people of different traditions have the same neural activity when they are having spiritual experiences (as Buddhist monks and Franciscan nuns apparently do) also raises the question whether they are in fact experiencing the same spiritual reality? If they are, then this has implications for questions about the exclusivity of particular religions. It may not mean that the truth claims of religions are all of equal value, but it may mean that contact with ultimate reality is possible through the different religious traditions. Writing as a Christian this might mean that although the truth claims of Christianity are true, God allows that all religions can potentially reach God, or that God works through all religions.
