Author: Teddy Ray

“Do you believe in God?”

believe?A friend asked me to weigh in on a Facebook discussion: “Can we choose to believe?” It was clear the inquirer’s intent was to ask if someone could choose to believe in the existence of God. Another friend encouraged me to share my response here…

I must say I’m a total lightweight in philosophy – much more comfortable (and interested) in theology. First, “belief” I think goes much deeper than we tend to treat it. Belief can be about existence (i.e. Do you believe in Santa Claus? Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Do you believe in God?), or about trust (i.e. Do you believe in Barack Obama as President?). We can have a belief in scientific principles (i.e. Do you believe in macroevolution?) or attributes (i.e. Do you believe that piece of paper is red?).

When philosophers ask about belief in God, it seems that they’re primarily talking about existence and attributes. Can a God exist? Can a God like this exist? Can someone choose belief in the existence of something? Many people will want to say no. We believe something because we believe it — whatever evidence we have assessed has convinced us — not because we choose to believe it. If we know that piece of paper is white, it would take some real mental gymnastics to convince ourselves that it’s red. When the evidence on one side outweighs the other, they’ll say, they can’t just choose to ignore the evidence and believe something contrary to it.

I get the importance of being convinced by the evidence. But I suppose I’m also not convinced we’re such rational creatures that we really believe or don’t believe in things based on a logical examination of the evidence. This is why we see red-faced arguments between otherwise rational people over stupid (or not stupid) issues. They have so committed themselves to believing in something that they’re nearly immune to all evidence presented on the opposite side. At that point, they’re not holding those beliefs because of evidence, they’re holding those beliefs because of a commitment to them — probably more unconscious than conscious refusal to consider the alternatives.

But then there’s this — which I suppose is one of my great general critiques of philosophy… It seems that philosophy treats God as an object rather than a subject. Philosophy tends to examine God more the way that you would examine a table or the number six or the concept of beauty. [1] Look for Trinitarian language in philosophy. I find very little. Because the Trinity reveals God as Subject–as Father, Son and Holy Spirit in relationship–and it seems that philosophy is more comfortable analyzing objects than subjects. And so, at least in my experience of it, philosophy tends to stop at theism and rarely goes to Trinitarian theism.

I don’t believe in an objective God. I believe in God the Father Almighty and Jesus Christ his only Son and in the Holy Spirit. That’s a totally different belief. It’s not a belief that they are. I suppose it includes that, but it’s much more a belief that this Trinitarian God is Life and Salvation. And ultimately, I think it’s much more about choosing to put my trust in the God whom the historic community of the Church has witnessed to. I believe I could choose to walk away from that trust, and thus from any legitimate “belief” in the God of the Christian faith. But I don’t want to. I choose to continue to believe.

Martin Buber’s I and Thou would lend some extra philosophical points to the discussion.

What do you think? People who have wondered/struggled with the question of God’s existence, how does this strike you? People who are heavier weights in philosophy, where am I assessing correctly and incorrectly? 

Find this interesting? You should JOIN my e-mail update list.

—————-

1. I’m not necessarily saying this is philosophy’s fault. It just seems that philosophy is better setup to ask and answer these sorts of questions. And for me, at least, these aren’t the questions I’m really interested in.

Sexuality and Theology – A running start

man and woman
Looks like a DVD boxed set, doesn’t it? Nope. Just a really big book.

In my post on Sexuality and Webbed Theology, I said I would soon be posting my sermon, “Eucharist Sexuality.” This is far from a comprehensive approach to the topic. That would require a book. Or more. But I hope it’s as promised – a running start.

Eucharist Sexuality – mp3 [Click to listen on-line, right-click to download]

The times of silence are me moving two trees into the front of the room. The first at the left of the room, the second at the right.

The interest in this topic beforehand was greater than any other sermons in recent memory. In only a day since preaching about it, I’ve already had more responses from people and pastoral opportunity than with just about any other topic.

I think what I had sensed was true: the Church has done a poor job helping people understand and properly practice their sexuality, and a lot of people have been (whether they knew it or not) waiting for some theological guidance.

I can agree with my friend who said that nearly all of the decent and deep work in this field (at least of what I’ve seen) has come from the Anglicans and Roman Catholics. If you’re interested in doing some reading, let me suggest:

I’d love to hear your questions and thoughts.

Sexuality and Webbed Theology

 

sex

[When you’re done here, see the follow-up: Sexuality and Theology – A running start]

In my experience, there may be no bit of Protestant theology more impoverished than our understanding of sex and sexuality. I usually see one of two approaches:

1) Ignore it entirely. Perhaps because we don’t know what to say or because we’re embarrassed about what we’ll say. Perhaps because our theology generally suffers from a dualism that wants only to deal with “spiritual” things and treats the physical world as either irrelevant or something to be shunned. (We see that in songs like “Absent from flesh! O blissful thought!” and “I’ll Fly Away.”)

2) Argue over very specific rules about sex – namely, who should be having sex and who shouldn’t – while generally disregarding any bigger picture. Some people/groups will cite a few particular Bible passages and argue one way. Others will argue against any of those rules, citing things like cultural sensitivity, hospitality, grace, and open-mindedness.

Neither of these approaches seems interested in a deeper theology of sexuality. [1]

As a pastor, I’ve realized that the Church isn’t preparing its people for how to live as sexual beings. We may tell them when they can and can’t have sex, and with whom, but that’s about it. What do we have to say to single men and women about their (wo)manhood? To those singles – or to couples struggling with fertility – who ask what it means that God has created them with an innate sense for fatherhood and motherhood? My toolkit has proven too basic for those situations – and what’s in it feels more like shallow clichés than robust theology.

Jesus and Sex

Twice, the Pharisees and Sadducees try to trip up Jesus by asking him about issues concerning marriage and sexuality.

When the Pharisees ask about divorce (Matthew 19), they’re focused on what Moses had said before. Actually, they seem very narrowly focused on how to interpret Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1.

I’m not sure those Pharisees are very unlike many in evangelical world today: cite a Bible verse and make a rule. They ask, “What are people allowed to do, and what are they prohibited from doing?” Give them an answer, and they’re fine to run along.

But in that encounter, Jesus points beyond Moses. All the way back to creation. Now we’re not just dealing with rules that have been set, we’re dealing with a whole theology of creation. And when the Pharisees challenge him – asking why Moses could say something so much more permissive than what Jesus expects – Jesus says it’s because their hearts were too hard to live according to the proper standard. Yes, there was a rule in place, but it doesn’t capture the truth at its heart.

When the Sadducees ask about marriage after the resurrection (a clear trap – they don’t believe in resurrection; Matthew 22), they seem not far from the skeptic who asks if God can create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it. [2] Their question isn’t a serious inquiry seeking an answer. It’s a way to prove their position by the absurdity of the possible answers.

But we get in Jesus’ response a brilliant glimpse into the true final ends of marital relationships. So while the Sadducees try to use an example of marriage to show the absurdity of a future resurrection, Jesus shows them that their problem is their understanding of marriage in the first place.

Sexual Theology in the Web

My purpose here isn’t to start giving answers about a theology of sexuality. To even begin doing justice to that will take numerous posts – or a book. [3] Next week, I’ll post the audio to my sermon, “Eucharist and Sexuality,” which at least gives a running start.

My purpose here is to demonstrate our need for what I referred to as a webbed theology in my last post. I’m sure the Pharisees and Sadducees were, in many regards, thoughtful and careful theologians. But when it comes to sexuality, the examples we see show groups that are simplistic and superficial, looking narrowly at Moses’ laws in Scripture to make their laws and arguments. I don’t think we’re doing much better today.

Jesus shows that there’s more to it. Want to understand marriage and divorce and sexuality? Then you need to understand creation. Which means you’ll need to get into mankind’s creation in the image of God. Which leads to the heart of the image of God – the Trinity.

Want to understand marriage and sexuality? Jesus shows that you need to understand eschatology – the part of theology dealing with our final destiny.

We’ll have to get deeply into an understanding of Christ’s incarnation and the church as the bride of Christ (ecclesiology), which I’m coming to believe get right to the heart of a proper theology of sexuality. And we’ll need to work out a theology of desire and delight, to boot.

Those last three paragraphs may show most clearly why evangelicals have an anemic theology of sexuality.That theology depends on a robust ecclesiology, which hasn’t been a strong suit for us. It depends on a theology of desire and delight, which I don’t think I’ve ever heard discussed (we’ll need to go to Augustine for things like this). And it means getting past debates about creation and evolution so that we can ask some more important theological questions about creation.

I’ll have more on this at some point in the future (which is now: see Sexuality and Theology – A running start). To get more, click here to JOIN my e-mail update list.

———-

1. When I asked a friend – one of the best theological thinkers I know – for some resources on the subject recently, he suggested I go to Europe and the Anglicans and Roman Catholics. He said he wasn’t aware of any good evangelical theology being done in this area – or American theology, in general. We evangelicals seem pretty blissful in our ignorance and superficial approach to sexuality.

2. For what it’s worth, this is more of a word game than a genuine, philosophical problem. Can God make a round square? No. Not because God isn’t all-powerful, but because it’s a violation of definitions.

3. If I wrote anything at a book level right now, I think I’d title it Sex, Money, and God’s Crowning Gift. I’ll leave it to you where I might be headed with that…

Related articles