De Humanitate Iesu

What follows is a transcript of a sermon based on some recent reflections; I thought it was worth a post:

For us, who have made the choice to believe in the resurrection power of Jesus, and pursue a Godly life, we are being made into the likeness of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 3:18, the Apostle Paul writes that under the ministry of the Spirit, we 

‘are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory,’

and in Romans 8:29, Paul writes again that we are being conformed to the image of His Son.’ As we live, we should strive to imitate Christ, though not on our own power, but on the power of Holy Spirit dwelling within us. 

Therefore, my question to you is, if Christ is our aim, how much do you know about how Christ lived? How much have you meditated on how Christ lived so that you know what to aim for? In Hebrews 12:1-2, the writer encourages us to run the Christian race 

‘fixing our eyes on Christ,’

and I love that image, but what does it mean? If we do not have a clear picture of who Jesus was, how can we run focused on Him? The way that we view Jesus Christ and His life here on earth influences our whole Christian walk. If you have an accurate picture of what Jesus did, then we can better understand what we are aiming for. We have to know where we are going before we try to start walking, or we will end up lost and confused.

Jesus is God, but also fully human, which means that in His life, He faced many of the same struggles that we do. A passage that really helps us to understand this is Matthew 4, the temptation of Jesus. After more than a month of fasting in the wilderness, the enemy comes to Jesus. Think again of how physically weak Jesus would have been at this point; I’ve gone at most a day without eating, and after just one day, I already feel lightheaded and tired. Jesus went for forty. Then the enemy appears and says to Him, ‘If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.’ What is the devil actually trying to test here? Is it simply the physical hunger of Jesus? Not so. Let us put the temptation of Jesus in context.

Just before the temptation, Jesus was baptised in the Jordan river by John the Baptist, and on that day, all the Trinity manifested. The Holy Spirit came down as a dove and the Father spoke these words ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.’ A month after this intense spiritual experience, the enemy comes and challenges Jesus’ faith in those words by asking ‘IF you are the Son of God.’ The enemy is testing Jesus’ ability to trust in the words He has heard from God. We see this again in the second temptation, where the enemy says ‘If you are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning You, and on their hands they will bear you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ The enemy pulls in scripture as well, testing and testing Jesus’ security in the word of God. The enemy was testing how secure Jesus was in His identity in God, as the Messiah, as God’s Son.

In our lives, sometimes all that we have is God’s promises, His words of assurance from the past, the bible, or even something He may have spoken to us personally. How much do you keep those words and promises in mind, and live as though they are true? Sometimes we may also receive words from God, but not really believe them in our hearts. Yes, God loves me, but maybe not all the time. God is good, but maybe not this time, or only for other people. The enemy loves to take what God has said and twist it or undermine it with doubts and insecurities. He knows that if he is able to do that to us, then we will live in a cloud of lies that prevents us from living the full life that God has for us. This is what the enemy tried to do with Jesus as well, but Jesus was confident enough, and knew God’s word and character well enough, that He was able to counter with verses from Deuteronomy to stand firm against the enemy. Jesus trusted God’s words so well that He did not need to put those words to the test by jumping off the temple. Like Jesus, we should first know God’s words for us, and believe those words whole-heartedly without having to demand additional proof for them.

The third temptation attacks Jesus a little differently. Satan shows Jesus the kingdoms of the world and says to him, ‘All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.’ In Luke, Satan even says that he has the authority over these kingdoms because he has been given that authority. We often just recoil at the very idea that Jesus would bow down to Satan, and brush off this temptation as a silly attempt to cause Jesus to sin. But what is Satan really offering here? He’s offering Jesus a way out. Jesus knew that He would have to die at the hands of sinners. That was the plan that God had for His life, and it would be painful. Jesus knew the prophecies about His life, pierced for our transgressions, they will cast lots for his clothing, all that. He also knew that after this, He would be glorified by the Father to sit as His right hand, to have authority to rule in the coming Kingdom of God. Satan was offering Jesus a shortcut. Maybe you don’t have to do this God’s way, I can give you the authority that God is promising you right here, right now, without You having to suffer and die. To put it simply, You don’t have to do this God’s way, You can do it Your own way. 

When Jesus looked at His society, He saw a lot that needed to change, a lot of injustice running unchecked. The emperor of Rome at the time, Tiberius, was known for engaging in all sorts of immorality, for his cruelty and ignoring the affairs of state. Jesus must have wondered to Himself sometimes that if He was the Emperor, He could fix so many of the problems that plagued the people of His society. Things that He would do differently, based on the good principles of God’s truth. Decisions that could have been made more wisely and more lovingly, if only there was a Godly man in power. Yet, Jesus was forbidden to act on those thoughts because He knew that God’s way did not involve Him stepping up to become an earthly ruler in the first century, but rather, involved death and resurrection.

Very often, we look at our lives, and what God wants for it, but we trust our own plans and decisions more than God’s plan. He’s asking me to do that? Really? That’s nonsensical! No, there must be a better way, an easier and more comfortable way to get the job done. Think about the plan for Jesus’ life. Go and minister on the earth for three years, after that, you will be handed over to sinners to be crucified. To us, that seems like nonsense, yet, God’s plan and purpose was revealed. Through the work of Jesus, the whole world has the chance to be reconciled with God. I encourage you to step out in faith an obedience into what God has for you. From the present, before the full fruits of your obedience are apparent, it may seem absurd, but do we trust God’s plan enough to obey anyway?

Furthermore, just because we feel we have committed to God now, does not mean that those temptations and issues will never be a problem again. In our walk with God, very often we are challenged on how much we trust God’s words about our identity, and how much we trust God’s plan. Even for Jesus, after three years of ministry, He came back to the same old thoughts. Luke tells us that in the Garden of Gethsemane, right on the brink of the fulfilment of those prophecies, Jesus asked again, ‘Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done.’ Again, Jesus had to remind Himself and choose God’s plan over His own plan for His life. Jesus struggled with point so hard that as He prayed, His sweat became like drops of blood. On the cross, the people who mocked Jesus used the same words that Satan did three years before, ‘If you are the Son  of God, come down from the cross,’ and ‘If you are the King of the Jews, save Yourself.’

In our lives, depending on what God calls us to do and who we are, certain issues may be a lifelong struggle. Sometimes there are good days where we are secure in God’s love, and at other times, the situations are more challenging and it is harder to believe in the goodness of God in that particular area. But look at the example of Jesus, and let Holy Spirit give you the strength to keep trusting God no matter what. It is possible for us to live in this way. Jesus Himself tells us in John 14:10-12 that 

‘...I am in the Father and the Father is in me. The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does His works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me, otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly truly I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also, and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.’ 

The Spirit of God, abiding in Jesus and abiding in us today, is the one who gives us the ability to live Godly lives. Holy Spirit teaches and reminds us, comforts and helps us. Jesus relied on the Spirit, and we too can grow in godliness as we pay attention to the Spirit’s work.

Jesus was able to do what He did not because He was superhuman, but because He was fully human. We were all designed to be in communion with God, with His indwelling Spirit guiding and leading us. When we do not live as the Spirit, we do not live in the way that God designed us to live. A way that is less complete and less human than what God intended. A way that is limited because we do not have the full experience of life, the abundant life that is described by Jesus in John 10:10. Let us thank God that Jesus was sent to show us how to be human, how to live and with His example firmly set in our minds, let us venture to do exactly that.

De Psalmis

I recently shared a testimony on my reflections on the nature of personal relationship, inspired by the time that I've spent over the last few months meditating on the psalms during my quiet times. As one might expect with this process, planning out a sermon in a clear and systematic manner yields further insight, hence this post.

Most interestingly, the psalms have helped me to rediscover what the rest of the bible truly is. I was reluctant to read through the volume of the hundred and fifty songs embedded in them middle of the Bible. But I reached a point where I had read through just about everything else- the prophets, major and minor, the torah, the gospels and epistles. Thus, I began with 'How blessed is the man who...', and proceeded with one psalm a day. I took them each as a poem, since their musical settings were unknown to me; something for David to explain to us all when we do meet him I suppose. Who knew that my IBDP English would help with my quiet times? God does use everything. As someone who devours stories and appreciates good characterisation, now reading through the psalms, I had the realisation that I had been reading the Bible as though it was fiction, another novel, another fantasy. Beginning with the most prolific, David, was not just a king who reigned some two thousand seven hundred years ago, who committed adultery and inspired 'Hallelujah'. He was a person, a fully realised human being, who had his deep struggles with reconciling the idea and character of God to the circumstances which he encountered in his life, as all of us do. Extend this to every other psalmist, Solomon, Korahites, exilic Jews, Moses, the other unknowns; and further, to every 'character' in the Bible, to every prophet, apostle, king or shepherd. going further, to each name mentioned only once or twice, names in the genealogies, and note that each is a person, an object of the love of God, and He knows them more than just by name. We are not stars, we are far more complex. Biblical sonder if you will. I find it amusing that sonder is listed as an obscure sorrow. Why should it be? Yes, you are not the most interesting and multifaceted person out there, but should we not be excited that everyone is? Each person represents a whole new world, a fractal in a set of fractals, developing and dreaming in their own capacity. Each life is another that I can get to know, that God can redeem for His glorious purpose.

Going off that previous point, why do we use the misleading phrase 'bible character'? The lives we read about in the Bible are people, not characters. We may not have a lot of details about some of them, but by calling them characters, we sink into the trap of thinking of them as characters. Characters are great constructs, from Heathcliff and Daisy, to Arwen and Daneel. But as flat or round as they may be, they are not people. They can only have as much significance as we grant them, and once we have read through their story, they never surprise us with anything new again. A person however, does surprise, does change and develop in unexpected ways, and has a naturally imbued significance that comes from the Creator, as a certain declaration would affirm in addition to the Bible. We may know more about certain characters than we do people, but that has nothing to do with how much more significant a single human life is than a whole slew of characters in an epic like the romance of the three kingdoms. It would be a lot better to call the names in the Bible something like 'people in the Bible', or 'Biblical people'.

Far more than the people in the Bible, there is a tendency for us to view God as another, or perhaps the main character in the Biblical narrative. He creates, he loves and nurtures, he judges and destroys. Some may even view God as the most mutable of the characters, going from a wrathful, immature being to one of benevolence and agape. Far from it. The psalms more than show how God has always been a relational and personal God, who is not after sacrifices and legalism but after obedience and trust in His character and plan. The revelation of Trinity shows us that God is inherently relational between His three persons, even before any interaction with His creation.

God is in fact, the source of our understanding of what it means to be truly personal. On our own, we so quickly sink into classifying people as their professions, their ages, their family relationships, their past experiences, or their interests, and so on. Only as we come to know God as a person and develop our relationship with Him do we get a better and better glimpse of how people ought to relate in a way that is truly mature, loving and thoughtful. Every positive aspect that you have known in a relationship is a pale reflection of the kind of relationship that God has within Himself, and desires to extend to you, and desires for you to demonstrate to others.

One final point- Why do we ask 'What would Jesus do?' The same way that we might ask 'What would Darcy do?' Jesus is alive and active, and He'll surprise us from time to time with something unexpected. A character is not alive, and cannot help but respond to something in the same classic way. Of course you could ask what a character would do and get a simple response. Jesus, in contrast, is alive and responds dynamically to situations. Yes, He does have a consistent character, but the way that He wants to act might be completely unexpected. Let's not ask 'What would Jesus do?' but just ask God directly, 'What would You want to do?' and listen out for His response.

Vignette: Imagination

Ensconced in a narrow field,
I contented myself
Playing with components
Familiar and accessible.
Arrangements and
Rearrangements revealed
Minor inconsistencies,
Yet of them I was only

peripherally aware.

I turned my attention
To unresolved questions
Trying to piece what I could
Into a mythos that would
Help me to make sense.

Mental knots now in focus
Refused to untie
Fractal tapestries beneath
The surface lie

Soon the blocks
Once so reliably stable
Crumbled under
Closer examination

New blocks were found,
Discovered
For they were always
Neglectedly present

Astonishing Reality
makes the imagination
shudder at the pretension
that one would ever
conceive a world

Perspectives: Foreknowledge - Part Two

After a mentally exhausting week trying to achieve a deeper understanding of the meaning of life in relation to predestination and free will, I may have arrived on a uniquely modern analogy that helps me to synthesize most of the things I know to be true.

For a long time we have tried to describe the universe as a book that God has written, with characters, events, a plan that He has for the arc of the story and so on. While this has been a useful picture for me in the past, it falls flat when one needs to consider issues like free will, for characters do not possess free will as much as the illusion of it, because the author is ultimately the one determining their decisions, even if a character's thought processes and emotional balance are given adequate realism. In the last few weeks, I've been able to give this authorial picture one last useful wring to contribute to the meaning of life. Why is it that we are able to find meaning in stories? It is not because the characters are free moral agents, making independent decisions, because they are not. If you wanted to you, could skip right to the end of the book and see what key decisions they have been forced to make. It is because we ascribe meaning to the characters and what they do, even if they are fictional, even if they are not really making those decisions. We supply the meaning to stories because we find value in their illusory choices within the framework of the story, which gives us context within which to understand the meaning of Daneel's Zeroth Law or the multiple names of Estel.

If meaning comes from an external power that supplies meaning by creating a context for it and placing value on the decisions made within that context, we might extend that to how God relates to this creation. He has made a world with genuine free moral agents, who make decisions in a framework that has consequences based on what is chosen. He values our decisions, in the same way that He valued the names that Adam gave the animals, or that love towards Him must be chosen. He supplies our actions with meaning. So why do we feel as though our actions, if governed by an enigmatic law of the will as it were, come to mean nothing? We do choose, and even if God already knows those choices, we derive the meaning of those choices not primarily from the fact that we are making those choices independent of any outside influence; that they are my choices, but because the Father above has constructed this universe in such a way that our choices have consequences, for ourselves, for others, for the environment and for our relationship with Him. Thus I have distanced the idea that if choices are predetermined, even if God created our wills by a set of laws behind the curtain and does not presently intervene to overstep that system, from the idea that such choices are meaningless.

To phrase this in an alternative, potentially more intelligible way, if someone were to ask me now, 'Assuming that God has made a free will and understands its properties, did God create Lucifer, Adam and Eve in such a way that He knew that they would fall away from Him?', I would answer, yes, He did. Does that mean that their choices have been predetermined and have no meaning because God is therefore ultimately responsible for what they chose? I would then respond in the negative, because all that God did was to make their wills and then give them a framework within which to make choices which He provided meaning to, because He valued them. They are responsible for the choices that they made and God did not force them to chose as they did. Again, foreknowledge does not equate forced decisions. This is something that the authorial analogy cannot hope the capture, and so I was prompted to look for another system of understanding.

What I would like to do now is to move from a picture of God as the author of a book or novel, to a picture of God as a game designer of a game which is far beyond the classification of any genre. It is at once a role-playing game, a music game, a management game, a simulator, a skill game, a sports game, a tycoon game and so on. It is the game of life. God has constructed this game, with physical laws, social laws and various other rules which players are constrained by. In the same way, a game designer places a player in a situation where they can make choices, As in life, those choices are limited by what has been programmed into the game. I can no more fly than Mario can move back to the now-out-of-view left, because that's the way that the designer has made it. 

Moving on to a more sophisticated game, Will Wright's Spore is a great example of the co-creative purpose which God has made us for. The game of Spore provides simple tools for players to make all sort of creatures, buildings and vehicles, the same way that God has provided us with avenues of expression in technology, the visual arts, music or dance. The game then leaves it up to the players to fill the database with content, and takes what they have created and animates it, gives it distinctive properties, allows it to be shared with other players and populate their games. The game has been constructed to foster this creativity and encourage players to find meaning in designing and sharing their creations. Most certainly, the designers look on the game and find meaning in the avalanche of content that the players have created. Yet, the designers did not determine what the players would do. Again, we simply see that meaning is generated by a framework and value placed on what is done within that framework.

I admit that this game designer analogy also has its flaws, but it does offer another helpful way for me to understand the dynamic between God and the beings He has created. For one, no game designer would claim to be making the players in the same way that the author constructs characters, game designers however, do make characters within their games and players then supply that mystical element of free will into the mix. Does Chell solve the chambers and receive the insults of GLaDOS or does the player? The video game is probably the closest creative expression that we have to approximate the creative act of God in this present day.

Perspectives: Foreknowledge - Part One

I'm having quite a bit of trouble processing the teaching that some of the speakers here at YWAM have either stated explicitly or which their words appear to imply to me. I acknowledge that I may be taking things the wrong way, but in any case I feel the need to process this on the blog, so here goes.

I return once again to the thorny issue of predestination. I have no real idea where this post is going, but I'll begin with the foreknowledge of God and branch out from there. If you recall my previous post on predestination, you will remember that I believe that God has foreknowledge of our decisions. To be clear, this means that I believe that God in His omniscience, knows what we will choose when presented with the fork in the road, whether the road often taken, the road not taken, the path going back or off the roads and into the yellow wood. This is what was directly contradicted by, so far, two of the lecturers, who hold that God does not have this foreknowledge. The justification for this conclusion is that if God has foreknowledge, then there is no free will for the future must already be set in stone and predetermined.

Is there some reason why God knowing the future necessarily means that he is actively determining the future? Consider an example, which I have been using in several discussions around this topic. If you know me in person, you might eventually find out that my favourite colour is blue, or make the connection based on the predominant colour of my attire. So if I were to step into a clothes shop intending to buy a shirt, you might, based on what you know about my disposition, deduce that I would probably walk out of the store with a shirt in some variation of blue, whether lapis, navy or cerulean. Did you in any way determine what shirt I would have bought? I wouldn't say so, unless you had the maternal trump card to play, but other than that, if you were a friend of mine, no, you did not influence my choice of shirt colour. What you anticipate I will do is based on what you know about me, but what I do is ultimately up to me to decide. By extension, if God has perfect knowledge of who we are, He can predict perfectly what we will do in any given situation. Does this mean that He has chosen what we will do for us? No. No more than you made me choose a blue shirt by knowing my favourite colour is blue. Free will can be maintained within the context of God's perfect foreknowledge.

Furthermore, the decisions we make may not be in God's will, or His best for us. He may desire something else for us, but He cannot force us to choose that path. If we choose otherwise, then out of respect for our free will, He must not alter our decision. This is why it is still possible to sin, to rebel, that suffering should have entered the world by the consequences of sin. This is God's only limiting factor, His respect for the free will which He has imbued us with in order that we may love Him personally.

This brings us to another issue, which is: 'Did God create Adam and Eve knowing that they would sin and there would be all this suffering in the world?' or even, 'Did God create Lucifer, which is such a strangely latinate name but anyway, knowing that the most beautiful angel would rebel against Him?' To which I answer, yes, I suppose He did. But here is where my argument runs into an apparent contradiction. If God created a being in such a way that He knew that being would rebel, then is that being truly responsible for the rebellion that results? Could God not have made that being in such a way that when presented with a choice to rebel, that being would be able to resist? If He did that, would there be no free will because there was no possibility to rebel? If God was able to see things deterministically like this, then why bother with the farce of grief and regret or such when the creation fails to honour the creator?

It comes to the mystery of the will, and how we choose. To be honest, no one really knows. I may be pushing things to a Newtonian extreme to assume that the laws which govern how the will works are deterministic. The will is a mystery hidden within the heart, which is something I also noted in my previous post. We have examples of people who come from the most dire and dismal circumstances, and yet choose God and forsake all else, while we also have examples of people in perfect communion with God, namely Adam and Eve, who choose to rebel. 

So coming back to the original question, we can now express in further detail: 'Does God know the mysterious law which governs the will? Is there a mysterious law that governs the will? If He does and if there is such a law, then has He constructed us according to that law, knowing we will disobey? If He does not, then He can He still have perfect foreknowledge?' An attendant question might be 'If will is governed by anything at all, can it possibly be free?'

For the moment, let us turn to the other side of the argument now and explore the implications of God not knowing the choices we will make, if the Will is a mystery beyond the control of God. For one, this destroys my previous post's argument of predestination, as He cannot know that Sodom and Gomorrah are filled with people so far gone that they will never be able to choose Him. He cannot know when to stop the drama of this world because there is no one left who will yet come to choose Him, because He cannot determine that moment. Perhaps this is why I am experiencing such resistance to this idea promulgated here. 

If God cannot know, then the next best thing He can do is to plan for all possible decisions which we may make. Going any further than this appears to me to imply that God is reacting to our prayers and decisions in them most uncontrolled way. The speakers have implied that this is the case, that when we miss a decision, God realigns His plans to work with the new situation. One thing I certainly do not accept is that God changes His mind in such a fashion. That makes Him the receiving one, the one without the initiative, the one who responds. It makes Him the amateur chess player who desperately tries to ward off a checkmate move by move without any sense of mastery of the game. I think that God already knows how to win the chess game, but depending on how obedient we are to Him, He may win that game in more or less moves. He has a plan for whatever we present to Him, and will execute accordingly, but He has already made up His mind about how to respond.

If God changes His course of action based on our decisions, it means that He may have made up His mind, and we still have an impact on the outcome of the future. Rephrasing a little, just because God has made up His mind, it does not mean that our choices have no impact and that our prayers are futile against a fatalistic universe. God changes His course of action based on what we do, and obedience commands blessing while disobedience comes with curses. What appears to have been done, is to say that if God's course of action changes, it implies that He has changed His mind. This I disagree with, because of God can change His mind, He is easily fickle, unfaithful and capricious.

What have I concluded so far? I had better summarise for your and my sake.

First: God does not change His mind, He has a plan that He has decided on, but His exact course of action is dependent on how we respond to Him. Thus our actions and prayers still have an impact on the outcome of the future, and are significant.

Second: If God can know our decisions in advance, it seems as though there must be a governing law of the Will. If there is such a governing law, then the will cannot ever be free because it will be deterministic according to that law and God is running a clockwork act.

Third: If God cannot know our decisions in advance, then He cannot choose to bring judgement prematurely on someone or some nation because you never know if maybe, just maybe, they might come to salvation before He destroys them.

The Second and Third points are mutually exclusive, and so in there must be a flaw in the argument somewhere. I'll leave it there for now, but perhaps I ought to end on a final thought. Is Will a particle or a probability? By this, I mean, is there a definite result when we are presented with a choice in terms of what we will choose, or is it a probability of say, 35% and 65%? It seems an awful lot like quantum mechanics. If that is what our wills are based on, which would seem terribly arbitrary. I do not like the idea that my life is a series of probabilities, it seems too evolutionary. So I ask now, what is choice?

Perspectives: The Purpose of Eden

As part of the course materials here on my discipleship training program at YWAM Lausanne, we are reading the book 'Futureville' by Skye Jethani. His premise is that God created humanity in order to represent Himself on this created world, and we still preserve that impulse to establish order, create beauty and live in abundance, even in our fallen state. I've found his argument quite compelling so far, partly because it resonates with the ideas which I have had for Eldwan's primeval garden. Furthering this was the point which Ms. Maureen Menard made about how we as human beings are to learn more about God as we mature, and as we do so, bear out His image, and that this process is able to happen without the interference of sin, if we are obedient.

Analysing the Genesis account gives us greater clarity on this pre-peccata state. The whole world is not in a blissful state of Eden, only the garden is. If Genesis 2: 4-24 is interpreted as a detailed account of day 6 of creation, we see that on that day, the Lord Himself plants a garden in the east, setting up a precedent for what the rest of the earth is to look like, a template for man's creative work. In our world, we have little evidence that this process went too far before it was derailed.

In Eldwan though, by whatever virtue that differentiates humans in my universe from ours, or that has arisen from deviations of Eleyon's character from YHWH's, they do not make that fateful decision to rebel quite as quickly. So humanity establishes several cities in the garden, their population grows, and things appear to be going well. When the rebellion does split the population, Eleyon decides that He will isolate the problem and thus creates the cradle, raising the mountain range perimeter and removing the garden to the recently isolated 'New World' of sorts, where they can continue their original purpose, relatively unaffected by the sinful nature of their fallen kin.