In our last episode, I challenged you to imagine advising God in the writing of His autobiography, and I presented my own conclusions about the scope and content. With those suggestions in mind, let's consider the matter a little more concretely.
Suggestion 1. "For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man enters the picture...."
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1) The rest of the chapter summarizes the whole of that creation. Chapter 2 focuses in on the creation of man.
Suggestion 2. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject, events just prior to the publicaiton of the work, or a climactic, defining moment.... Usually, the conclusion makes it clear tht the end of the story is actualy "to be continued...." The ultimate ending then becomes, appropriately enough, "and they lived happily ever after."
Genesis 2-9 ends with God destroying a world gone mad in a climactic flood, but saving Noah and his family and promising them that the world would not again face that judgment.
Genesis 10-Malachi 4:6 is the story of God's often-broken relationship the nation of Israel, ending with a promises of the Messiah and 400 years of silence from God.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the story of the Messiah, the story of what God did in order to restore man's relationship with Him, the story of His fulfillment of many of the promises of the Old Testament; with the climactic moment being the resurrection. Acts-Jude explore this relationship further and in a practical manner.
Revelation (with Daniel and several other Old Testaments books of prophecy) foreshadows the rest of the story, anding with the climactic moment of "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." And He who sitws on the throwne said, "Behond, I am making all things new." (Revelation 21:1 & 4-5)
Suggestion 3. It would make sense for God to choose events that connect to His audience and reveal his motives.... He needs to also provide a more personal story, the "human interest" side.
"Human interest" is the hallmark of God's autobiography. Rather than placing the story in the first person singular (I, me, my) He chooses to tell His story through the lives of those with whom He has relationships. We not only hear God's story, but the stories of people who are both fascinating and "just like us." He doesn't ask us to take His word for things, He presents the testimony of witnesses. Thus, we relate to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, the Judges, Saul, David, the prophets, Peter, John, James, and even Judas Iscariot and Paul. And the theme, His motive can be found throughout - no matter how badly you've messed it up, God's forgiveness can be found and His grace is sufficient.
When you consider what God's autobiography should be like, what it has to be like in order for us to comprehend it even a little, and then look at the Bible, the "obvious" answer to the question of God's autobiography, it becomes so much deeper, clearer, richer, holier and amazing. Then consider Hebrews 11, in which time will fail the author if he tells of ...others.... Brothers and sisters, those "others" include us. We, too, are in God's autobiography.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Brain Bending
Recently, I've been debating the question of kids saying, or being required to say, the Pledge of Allegiance. I have also been reading the book, Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. She provided what I thought might be an interesting and profitable way to recast the question. Much of the debate involved the contunuum between autonomy and society or collectivity. It's the discussion of the individual good, rights and responsibilities in opposition to the common, collective or social good, rights and responsibilities.
Does a child have a right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a child have enough responsibility to say it? Does a society have a right to require that a child say the pledge? Does society have the responsibility to make absolutely sure that that child understands the pledge, understands his right (or lack thereof) to refuse to say it, and has ample opporunity to refuse? Does society have equal responsibility with every other potential decision the child faces? Does the "good" of the individual (however defined) outweigh the "good" of society (again, hwoever defined)? Or, does the good of society outweigh the good of the individual?
For the autonomous person, the good of the individual always outweighs the good of society (at any level.) At the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call the Hive Mind - the good of the society always outweighs the good of the individual to such an extent that there is no longer a separate individual good. Drawing an analogy from Star Trek, this is the Borg. I suspect my inability to develop a comparative analogy for the anarchic nightmare that is the opposite of the Borg/Hive Mind nightmare reveals a tendency in me toward the autonomous end of the sprectrum (though how far in that direction I go, I have yet to determine. I am also unsure whether the source of this autonomy is the American independent spirit or the even more ubiquitous desire to be "like God.")
There are two general lines of questioning to be explored here. The first is wehter or not there is apoint where the ideal balance between the needs, desires, rights and/or responsiblities of the individual and those of the society is found. If so, where is it? I doubt there is a universal tipping point of this sort. I beleive the issues must be resolved in a case by case basis, as with the Pledge discussion. It should be considered also that in addition the "good" of the individual or the society, and the harm of the individual and the society, there is a range in which the individual or society neither benefit nor suffer; there is a neutral territory.
The second line of questioning is where one finds the solution to the problem presented by each opinion. In Total Truth, the author refers to Rousseau's philosophy as being archetypal of autonomy. As I understand it, for Rousseau, society or civilization was evil and the solution was the state, whose job it is to control the society, but not the individual. The closest I can come to the other position is a variation of one in which privacy is seen as the origin of evil. In this case, the solution was the revolutionary overthrow of individualistic oppressors and the establishment of a collectivistic, socialist or communistic society. To whom doews the society turn to combate the "evil" of individualism? The model on which I based this variation looks to society itself.
Are these models accurate? I the example of the pledge, those who subscribe to the "society" model, who believe that children should say the pledge, that we should be patriotic, etc., seem to me to be those most likely to vehemently reject the idea of establishing a socialistic or communistic state. They are, at least stereotypically, of a Conservative persuasion. Those who subscribe to the "autonomous" model are stereotypically of a Liberal persuasion. I expect them to be in favor of a more socialistic state and of "politically correct" language, which regularly suppresses the very autonomy they appear to be championing in this case. The situation seems counter-intuitive.
What's going on, then? Am I working from stereotypes that are that off-base? Is the debate not ultimately Liberal vs Conservative? Have I chosen the wrong models? Can the models not be applied in individual situations? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the problem is with the premise: that the debate is based on the continuum between autonomy and society. Certainly anyone reading the debate would reach the same conclusion.
Two possible (and not mutually exclusive) solutions come to mind. The first is that no group is pure. For both the Liberals and the Conservatives there are issues seen as best resolved by autonomy and issues seen as best resolved by a socialistic or collectivisitic approach. In short, we have returned to the first question of this post. The second is that the issue under debate was not accurately defined. Is the dilemma really autonomy vs society or is it merely being presented as such? Is it a conscious, deceptive tactic, a taught behavior/response or natural? The answers may depend on the individual making the argument.
Is the dilemma autonomy vs society? If the subject of the debate were changed to "should our children be permitted (or required) to" speak in favor of some Liberal agenda point would those both sides suddenly fall silent? In fact, they would reverse roles, assuming what is more traditionally their positions.
The answer may lie in the differing approaches taken by the opponents. Those who speak in favor of children saying the Pledge express authoritative universals. The Pledge is good. All children should say the Pledge. When they speak in favor of some other agenda point, do those who oppose the pledge use authoritative universals? I suspect that they present positive role models demonstrating the behavior. They show value for the behavior and the reason for it. They equate the behavior and the reason for it with intelligence, sophistication, and social benefits. They make the behavior and the acceptance of the reason for it desirable. Once they have built value, then they begin to pronounce negatively with regard to its absence. In other words, the Conservatives approach the issue objectively and through facts, while the Liberals approach it subjectively, through values and feelings.
Putting aside the sense that Conservatives might have that it is "right" to approach the subject of the pledge factually, historically, etc., perhaps the better approach would be to use the media to make it popular and attractive, sophisticated, cool, etc. to say the Pledge.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-LPbIls0iOnI/red_the_pledge/
Does a child have a right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Does a child have enough responsibility to say it? Does a society have a right to require that a child say the pledge? Does society have the responsibility to make absolutely sure that that child understands the pledge, understands his right (or lack thereof) to refuse to say it, and has ample opporunity to refuse? Does society have equal responsibility with every other potential decision the child faces? Does the "good" of the individual (however defined) outweigh the "good" of society (again, hwoever defined)? Or, does the good of society outweigh the good of the individual?
For the autonomous person, the good of the individual always outweighs the good of society (at any level.) At the other end of the spectrum is what I'll call the Hive Mind - the good of the society always outweighs the good of the individual to such an extent that there is no longer a separate individual good. Drawing an analogy from Star Trek, this is the Borg. I suspect my inability to develop a comparative analogy for the anarchic nightmare that is the opposite of the Borg/Hive Mind nightmare reveals a tendency in me toward the autonomous end of the sprectrum (though how far in that direction I go, I have yet to determine. I am also unsure whether the source of this autonomy is the American independent spirit or the even more ubiquitous desire to be "like God.")
There are two general lines of questioning to be explored here. The first is wehter or not there is apoint where the ideal balance between the needs, desires, rights and/or responsiblities of the individual and those of the society is found. If so, where is it? I doubt there is a universal tipping point of this sort. I beleive the issues must be resolved in a case by case basis, as with the Pledge discussion. It should be considered also that in addition the "good" of the individual or the society, and the harm of the individual and the society, there is a range in which the individual or society neither benefit nor suffer; there is a neutral territory.
The second line of questioning is where one finds the solution to the problem presented by each opinion. In Total Truth, the author refers to Rousseau's philosophy as being archetypal of autonomy. As I understand it, for Rousseau, society or civilization was evil and the solution was the state, whose job it is to control the society, but not the individual. The closest I can come to the other position is a variation of one in which privacy is seen as the origin of evil. In this case, the solution was the revolutionary overthrow of individualistic oppressors and the establishment of a collectivistic, socialist or communistic society. To whom doews the society turn to combate the "evil" of individualism? The model on which I based this variation looks to society itself.
Are these models accurate? I the example of the pledge, those who subscribe to the "society" model, who believe that children should say the pledge, that we should be patriotic, etc., seem to me to be those most likely to vehemently reject the idea of establishing a socialistic or communistic state. They are, at least stereotypically, of a Conservative persuasion. Those who subscribe to the "autonomous" model are stereotypically of a Liberal persuasion. I expect them to be in favor of a more socialistic state and of "politically correct" language, which regularly suppresses the very autonomy they appear to be championing in this case. The situation seems counter-intuitive.
What's going on, then? Am I working from stereotypes that are that off-base? Is the debate not ultimately Liberal vs Conservative? Have I chosen the wrong models? Can the models not be applied in individual situations? The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the problem is with the premise: that the debate is based on the continuum between autonomy and society. Certainly anyone reading the debate would reach the same conclusion.
Two possible (and not mutually exclusive) solutions come to mind. The first is that no group is pure. For both the Liberals and the Conservatives there are issues seen as best resolved by autonomy and issues seen as best resolved by a socialistic or collectivisitic approach. In short, we have returned to the first question of this post. The second is that the issue under debate was not accurately defined. Is the dilemma really autonomy vs society or is it merely being presented as such? Is it a conscious, deceptive tactic, a taught behavior/response or natural? The answers may depend on the individual making the argument.
Is the dilemma autonomy vs society? If the subject of the debate were changed to "should our children be permitted (or required) to" speak in favor of some Liberal agenda point would those both sides suddenly fall silent? In fact, they would reverse roles, assuming what is more traditionally their positions.
The answer may lie in the differing approaches taken by the opponents. Those who speak in favor of children saying the Pledge express authoritative universals. The Pledge is good. All children should say the Pledge. When they speak in favor of some other agenda point, do those who oppose the pledge use authoritative universals? I suspect that they present positive role models demonstrating the behavior. They show value for the behavior and the reason for it. They equate the behavior and the reason for it with intelligence, sophistication, and social benefits. They make the behavior and the acceptance of the reason for it desirable. Once they have built value, then they begin to pronounce negatively with regard to its absence. In other words, the Conservatives approach the issue objectively and through facts, while the Liberals approach it subjectively, through values and feelings.
Putting aside the sense that Conservatives might have that it is "right" to approach the subject of the pledge factually, historically, etc., perhaps the better approach would be to use the media to make it popular and attractive, sophisticated, cool, etc. to say the Pledge.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-LPbIls0iOnI/red_the_pledge/
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Autobiography
A friend once asked me "Why didn't God include an autobiography along with the Ten Commandments?" Imagine that you are a writer and that God has asked you to help Him write His autobiography.
What would you set as the scope? When should it begin? When should it end? How many pages should be in it? What sort of details and events would you suggest He include? For what sort of audience should you (or He) write? Intellectual? Influential? Average? Is there anything specific you would suggest He include? Is there anything specific you would suggest He not include? What questions would you want Him to answer. Put aside the "obvious" answer and really think about this.
If I were advising God in the writing of His autobiography, one of the first questions I would face is where it begin. In my experiences, biographies generally begin with one of four points in the subject's life: with some genealogical information (at the very least an overview of the lives of the subject's parents); with the birth of the subject; with the earliest memories of the subject; or with some pivotal event.
God told Moses that He is the self-existent one (Exodus 3:14) that He had neither parents nor a birth; in fact that He has existed through eternity past and will exist through eternity future. For us to begin prior to the creation of the universe would give His audience no frame of reference in which to operate. It would be irrelevant and incomprehensible. The creation would seem to be a good pivotal point at which to begin.
That only helps a little. If one accepts the estimates of the scientists, the universe came into existence something like 14 billion years ago. Do we start there? Do we assume that - just because the earth didn't exist yet, that God was sitting around doing nothing for billions of years? Earth supposedly cooled about 4 billion years ago. Humanity supposedly evolved into its present form about 155,000 years ago. On the other hand, conservative Bible scholars estimate that the universe, the earth and man came into being about 10,000 years ago. The earliest writing is estimated to be about 5,500 years old (http://news.bbc.co.uk.1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm)
For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man entered the picture because until man enters the picture, there's no connection between God and His audience.
Where to end is not quite as difficult as where to begin. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject; events just prior to the publication of the work; or a climactic, defining moment. A true autobiography can't end with the death of the subject/author, so most autobiographies end with some combination of the other two. Usually, the conclusion makes it clear that the end of story is actually "to be continued...." Such an ending is uncomfortable unless we are reassured that the story will continue.
What would you set as the scope? When should it begin? When should it end? How many pages should be in it? What sort of details and events would you suggest He include? For what sort of audience should you (or He) write? Intellectual? Influential? Average? Is there anything specific you would suggest He include? Is there anything specific you would suggest He not include? What questions would you want Him to answer. Put aside the "obvious" answer and really think about this.
If I were advising God in the writing of His autobiography, one of the first questions I would face is where it begin. In my experiences, biographies generally begin with one of four points in the subject's life: with some genealogical information (at the very least an overview of the lives of the subject's parents); with the birth of the subject; with the earliest memories of the subject; or with some pivotal event.
God told Moses that He is the self-existent one (Exodus 3:14) that He had neither parents nor a birth; in fact that He has existed through eternity past and will exist through eternity future. For us to begin prior to the creation of the universe would give His audience no frame of reference in which to operate. It would be irrelevant and incomprehensible. The creation would seem to be a good pivotal point at which to begin.
That only helps a little. If one accepts the estimates of the scientists, the universe came into existence something like 14 billion years ago. Do we start there? Do we assume that - just because the earth didn't exist yet, that God was sitting around doing nothing for billions of years? Earth supposedly cooled about 4 billion years ago. Humanity supposedly evolved into its present form about 155,000 years ago. On the other hand, conservative Bible scholars estimate that the universe, the earth and man came into being about 10,000 years ago. The earliest writing is estimated to be about 5,500 years old (http://news.bbc.co.uk.1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm)
For practical purposes, it makes some sense for God's autobiography to begin with a brief summary of the creation up to the time when man entered the picture because until man enters the picture, there's no connection between God and His audience.
Where to end is not quite as difficult as where to begin. In general, biographies end with the death of the subject; events just prior to the publication of the work; or a climactic, defining moment. A true autobiography can't end with the death of the subject/author, so most autobiographies end with some combination of the other two. Usually, the conclusion makes it clear that the end of story is actually "to be continued...." Such an ending is uncomfortable unless we are reassured that the story will continue.
What would be the climactic, defining moments in God's life? Some further discussion of this must be given in a discussion of the content, but keeping a human audience in mind it seems clear that each of the series of endings of the works should contain a climactic, defining moment that builds on the others so that the whole produces not just a list of events, but some sense of purpose, progress and completion that is all somehow connected to humanity. Each "book" within the larger book should generate a picture of who the subject is, but they should also build on one another to produce a clearer picture still. The ultimate ending then becomes, appropriately enough, "and they lived happily ever after." Ever after could easily be applied to eternity future. Like eternity past, it is incomprehensible to us, but the climactic , defining moment that precedes ever after would likely complete the brackets begun with the creation: the end of the earth, time, etc.
Perhaps the most difficult questions are those addressing the content of God's autobiography. Even if He were restricted to the shortest time period, which moments in the past 10,000 years would He think important for His audience, for us? We dare not assume that because we don't notice activity that it doesn't exist. How many events could be included without making the book too long for most people to read. If we restricted him to one page per years, the book would still be at least 5,000 pages long by the time of Moses and 10,000 pages long now.
The content of any autobiography is linked to the motives behind is writing. For example, an author who is seeking acceptance will tell different stories (or tell the stories in a different way) from an author who is seeking glory and from an author who wants his audience to benefit from the work. This is a very complicating point because an author may have more than one motive for writing. While motives may never be clearly stated, their influence is enormous.
Another complicating factor in an autobiography is that the author can relate stories that could not be told by a biographer. Activities about which no one else knows can be revealed. Stories can be told in which the subject worked behind the scenes as well as stories in which the subject took center stage.
It would make sense for God to choose events that connect to his audience and reveal his motives. Somewhere near the beginning, some attention should be given to the initial relationship with man - God's revelation of Himself to man and man's response. From there, any changes in that overall relationship would need to be explored. The problem is that if we only deal with stories of God's handling of crises, we wouldn't get an accurate picture of God. He needs to also provide a more personal story, the "human interest" side.
With all of this in mind, I can't think of a better thing to say than, "To Be Continued...."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Out of Context
Over the past couple days I've been reading a thread at http://www.topix.net/forum/city/erie.pa called "Why I Left Christianity." One of the posters has been quoting verses of Scripture, mostly from the Old Testament, which most people would find difficult or impossible to understand or accept. Someone said she was quoting out of context. This evening she raised a criticism with which I have to agree. "We" quote John 3:16 out of context all the time.
I also have to agree with her next statement: that whether John 3:16 is in context or out, it's bizarre. Think about it. Why would any god in his right mind love the world - given how the world has treated him - enough to give anything, let alone his only begotten son - so that anyone (not just those who are "special") who believes (just believes, not deserves) should not perish but have eternal life? If there is a more bizarre concept, it doesn't come to mind.
Her point and conclusion will probably be simple: if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, then it cannot possibly be true. My point and conclusion is equally simple: even if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, that doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, it is more likely to be true because it's bizarre. Would you have come up with such an off-the-wall idea?
Have you thanked God for being bizarre recently?
I also have to agree with her next statement: that whether John 3:16 is in context or out, it's bizarre. Think about it. Why would any god in his right mind love the world - given how the world has treated him - enough to give anything, let alone his only begotten son - so that anyone (not just those who are "special") who believes (just believes, not deserves) should not perish but have eternal life? If there is a more bizarre concept, it doesn't come to mind.
Her point and conclusion will probably be simple: if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, then it cannot possibly be true. My point and conclusion is equally simple: even if it is as bizarre as we agree that it is, that doesn't mean it's not true. In fact, it is more likely to be true because it's bizarre. Would you have come up with such an off-the-wall idea?
Have you thanked God for being bizarre recently?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Ten Commandments
Is God subject to the Ten Commandments? Is He legally bound to them? Could He break them? Would He?
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," "You shall not make for yourself an idol..." and "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."
Consider the first three commandments, and the idea of God having a god before himself, worshipping idols or taking His own name in vain. I can't bend my brain far enough to be offended by this idea not because it's blasphemous or unthinkable, but because it's absurd. "Absurd" may not be extreme enough to express the situation. God (rightly) has too high an opinion of Himself to break these commandments, even supposing that He is subject to them.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Here are some questions - what constitutes work to God? If God is everywhere, by which standard of "day" does He calculate when it's the seventh?
Honor your father and your mother....
He has none.
You shall not murder.
This may be the most significant of the commandments in terms of the question of God being able to break them. Can God murder? Murder has been generally defined as the unlawful taking of a human life by another human. Most people don't think of a cat killing a mouse as murder. They don't call it murder when a hunter kills a deer. It's not even murder when a shark kills a human. Further, a judge who sentences a criminal to death is not then tried for murder. Can it then be murder when God kills a person (keeping in mind that all have sinned and that the wages of sin is death)?
You shall not commit adultery.
Considering the fact that we are a lower life form, it probably wouldn't be too far off the mark to suggest His response would be "Yuck!"
You shall not steal
Can He steal what is His by right?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Why would He, unless He was submitting to someone else for some sort of judgment?
You shall not covet....
Again, if it all belongs to Him, and if He an create more of whatever it is, why would He?
Is He subject to the Ten Commandments? You tell me.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," "You shall not make for yourself an idol..." and "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain."
Consider the first three commandments, and the idea of God having a god before himself, worshipping idols or taking His own name in vain. I can't bend my brain far enough to be offended by this idea not because it's blasphemous or unthinkable, but because it's absurd. "Absurd" may not be extreme enough to express the situation. God (rightly) has too high an opinion of Himself to break these commandments, even supposing that He is subject to them.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Here are some questions - what constitutes work to God? If God is everywhere, by which standard of "day" does He calculate when it's the seventh?
Honor your father and your mother....
He has none.
You shall not murder.
This may be the most significant of the commandments in terms of the question of God being able to break them. Can God murder? Murder has been generally defined as the unlawful taking of a human life by another human. Most people don't think of a cat killing a mouse as murder. They don't call it murder when a hunter kills a deer. It's not even murder when a shark kills a human. Further, a judge who sentences a criminal to death is not then tried for murder. Can it then be murder when God kills a person (keeping in mind that all have sinned and that the wages of sin is death)?
You shall not commit adultery.
Considering the fact that we are a lower life form, it probably wouldn't be too far off the mark to suggest His response would be "Yuck!"
You shall not steal
Can He steal what is His by right?
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Why would He, unless He was submitting to someone else for some sort of judgment?
You shall not covet....
Again, if it all belongs to Him, and if He an create more of whatever it is, why would He?
Is He subject to the Ten Commandments? You tell me.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)