I'm currently taking a class on the principles of microeconomics, and the professor gave us a small group scenario to figure out. Basically, a small group of students were stranded on an uninhabited island, and we had to decide within our groups what we would need to survive(assuming we were stuck there for more than a few days) and how we would get it. One group assumed they could get stuff off of the boat that had wrecked (stranding them), and said they would need a knife, some rope, and an axe to survive. Granted, this group was comprised of all guys and they would think about this situation more simply. But another group, comprised of all girls, gave a much more thought out list of what they would need. This included shelter, food, and fresh water. One of the girls knew a bit about the outdoors, and explained that they could get fresh water by boiling the seawater in a leaf. As she was explaining how this worked, the guys group just laughed at them.
Why? Their plan sucked, it wasn't thought out at all, and in all honesty I don't think they could have actually survived on a deserted island if it was just them. The girls' group took the scenario seriously and gave a logical plan for how they would survive, and they get laughed at for knowing how to survive? We are way too comfortable in our dorm rooms, safe and secure, not worried about where we would get food for the day or where we sleep, or even how we would keep oursleves warm at night. Everything is provided for us, and so we laugh at those who actually know how to survive on an unhibated island? Now maybe that's taking it too far, since I don't think any of us could actually survive on an uninhabited island for more than a few days, barring God's help.
College is just too artificial to successfully prepare its students for the real world. How silly we are, thinking we know all this great and important stuff. If left on our own, none of it would help us.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Gender Roles
There are many ways to take this conversation and topic, mainly because there are so many differing views concerning the role of a man and the role of a woman. I believe that each gender has a role, and that those roles are not interchangeable. The phrase "don't send a woman to do a man's job" is totally applicable. But you have to remember the reverse - "don't send a man to do a woman's job." This leads me to a rather large problem: What is a man's role, and what is a woman's role?
Well, looking to the Bible, I see a pretty good description in Genesis 1 and 2. We share a common purpose and thus are equal in our role as stewards of the earth. God's blessing and directive was given to both Adam and Eve: To be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth and subduing it(1:28). However, we see more detail in their creation in chapter 2. Woman was made from the rib of the man, to be a suitable helper for him. And as I have learned from my Gospel of Matthew class, the naming of someone else exerts dominance over them, and Adam named Eve, "because she would become the mother of all the living." Earlier in that chapter God says to Eve: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
But in the NT there is defintely a brighter depiction of the relationship between men and women. It isn't right for men to simply be dominant over women, that is not our role. I do believe that men have a more authoritative role in the world than women do, and I think this can be seen in the mere fact that Jesus came to us as a man. (It can also be said that he did so because we are such a male-dominated race.)
I once had a great conversation with my pastor about this topic, though it was more directly related to the relationship between a man and his wife. He explained that the man is the head of the household, and thus makes the decisions. However, this does not make him the authority of the household, since he should be making decisions based on what would be best for his wife. Basically, the man should be thinking about what is best for his wife, not what is best for himself. The woman should be in submission to the decisions of her husband, understanding that he is making those decisions in her best interests. As Christians, both partners should be supporting one another and growing closer to God in their relationship with each other(this can also be applied to unmarried relationships, like dating).
In addition to this, I think there are certain strengths and weaknesses to each gender which are complemented by the other. I cannot at this time pinpoint any of these(or maybe I just don't want to for fear of contestation <- great word, thanks A Knight's Tale), but if you look around you can definitely see it. I think probably one of the more prominent differences are a man's ability to see the simple side of things, and a woman's ability to see the more complex side.
I'd like to note that of course this is all generalization, and that there are some pretty complex men and some very simple women. In which case, I don't know what I am saying, maybe my mind is just too scattered on this one, interpretation = fail.
Well, looking to the Bible, I see a pretty good description in Genesis 1 and 2. We share a common purpose and thus are equal in our role as stewards of the earth. God's blessing and directive was given to both Adam and Eve: To be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth and subduing it(1:28). However, we see more detail in their creation in chapter 2. Woman was made from the rib of the man, to be a suitable helper for him. And as I have learned from my Gospel of Matthew class, the naming of someone else exerts dominance over them, and Adam named Eve, "because she would become the mother of all the living." Earlier in that chapter God says to Eve: "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
But in the NT there is defintely a brighter depiction of the relationship between men and women. It isn't right for men to simply be dominant over women, that is not our role. I do believe that men have a more authoritative role in the world than women do, and I think this can be seen in the mere fact that Jesus came to us as a man. (It can also be said that he did so because we are such a male-dominated race.)
I once had a great conversation with my pastor about this topic, though it was more directly related to the relationship between a man and his wife. He explained that the man is the head of the household, and thus makes the decisions. However, this does not make him the authority of the household, since he should be making decisions based on what would be best for his wife. Basically, the man should be thinking about what is best for his wife, not what is best for himself. The woman should be in submission to the decisions of her husband, understanding that he is making those decisions in her best interests. As Christians, both partners should be supporting one another and growing closer to God in their relationship with each other(this can also be applied to unmarried relationships, like dating).
In addition to this, I think there are certain strengths and weaknesses to each gender which are complemented by the other. I cannot at this time pinpoint any of these(or maybe I just don't want to for fear of contestation <- great word, thanks A Knight's Tale), but if you look around you can definitely see it. I think probably one of the more prominent differences are a man's ability to see the simple side of things, and a woman's ability to see the more complex side.
I'd like to note that of course this is all generalization, and that there are some pretty complex men and some very simple women. In which case, I don't know what I am saying, maybe my mind is just too scattered on this one, interpretation = fail.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Relationships
We had a Convocation today about relationships. Not just boyfriend/girlfriend relationships, but friendships, roommateships, family ties, and how it can fall apart when you go to college. One thing that focused on is the disconnect that occurs when you leave your high school friends behind at home and leave for college. They understood you better than anyone at college does(at least at first), and you have that feeling of aloneness when there is no one you can talk to about the deep stuff going on in your life.
I have to say, I definitely felt this when I first came to college. My best friend ever, Samwise, was the one guy could talk to about literally anything. We met in the 3rd grade and ever since we have just clicked. As the expression goes, we were "two peas in a pod". We never fought, we never had "falling outs," we just clicked. Then halfway through middle school he switched schools and it became much more difficult to retain our friendship, but we made it work. When you have a friend like that, you don't just let them go. But now that we're in college, we both just can never find the time to chat or hang out. And while I've made friends here that I can talk to about the deep stuff going on, I still can't talk to them about everything, that base child-like connection just isn't there. What I am trying to say is that I miss him.
It's critically important to retain friendships that you've had before college. Even if it may upset our new friends a little, you can't just forget your past, nor should you. Samwise is someone who was around as I grew up into the person I am now. We may not be able to talk much anymore, but when we do, that connection is still there. I feel like we can still talk to each other about anything, and if those of you reading this have a friend like that, DO NOT LET THEM GO. They are the kind of friend that is unreplaceable(if that's even a word).
The convocation also talked about roommate relationships, and how sometimes good friends don't make good roommates. I've learned this the hard way, unfortunately. Leroy Jenkins is a treasured friend, but now that he is also my roommate, I don't get a break from him. As I mentioned quite extensively in one of my previous posts, I need alone-time, and he doesn't like to give me that. He's probably not intentionally doing it, but he is just always around, which forces me to try and "escape" from him, which is a terrible thing to try to do. It's not fair to him. At the same time, good roommates don't always make good friends either. Like my roommate last year. We did pretty well as roommates, but we didn't click as friends. We could respect each other (which is very important for roommates), but we didn't have enough in common to be good friends.
And finally, the convocation talked about boy/girl relationships. At college you meet a lot of people from the opposite sex (especially here, with a 3-1 girl-boy ratio). These people come from all over the country, and come with a lot of different views concerning the opposite gender. Some girls are used to hanging out with a lot of guys, and guys can easily take that interest the wrong way (as I have seen time and again). It just gets messy, as one of the guys said.
In high school, I would always hear girls say things like "Guys just don't get hints." Well, when you've got different messages coming from all over the spectrum, like girls who just want to be friends to girls who are interested, it becomes necessary to ignore hints, because honestly you just can't tell. One very good piece of advice they gave was to avoid a relationship freshmen year. Heck yes. Because if that relationship doesn;t work out, you've both made the same friends (typically), and a break-up means a loss of more than just a boyfriend/girlfriend. I don't really have anything more to say about this(due to a lack of personal experience in my college years, and due to an unwillingness to share anything deeper than that at this time), so I guess that's all for now.
As for family relationships, keep in touch with your family. Your parents have known you literally your entire life, longer than you even remember. They love you and care about you, and just because you are more independent now doesn't mean you shouldn't check in with them and let them you're all right. And your siblings still love you and care about you, and it would not be fair to them to leave them "out in the cold" and do your own thing. Especially if you're the oldest in the family. Your younger siblings rely on you, and you should be there for support.
I have to say, I definitely felt this when I first came to college. My best friend ever, Samwise, was the one guy could talk to about literally anything. We met in the 3rd grade and ever since we have just clicked. As the expression goes, we were "two peas in a pod". We never fought, we never had "falling outs," we just clicked. Then halfway through middle school he switched schools and it became much more difficult to retain our friendship, but we made it work. When you have a friend like that, you don't just let them go. But now that we're in college, we both just can never find the time to chat or hang out. And while I've made friends here that I can talk to about the deep stuff going on, I still can't talk to them about everything, that base child-like connection just isn't there. What I am trying to say is that I miss him.
It's critically important to retain friendships that you've had before college. Even if it may upset our new friends a little, you can't just forget your past, nor should you. Samwise is someone who was around as I grew up into the person I am now. We may not be able to talk much anymore, but when we do, that connection is still there. I feel like we can still talk to each other about anything, and if those of you reading this have a friend like that, DO NOT LET THEM GO. They are the kind of friend that is unreplaceable(if that's even a word).
The convocation also talked about roommate relationships, and how sometimes good friends don't make good roommates. I've learned this the hard way, unfortunately. Leroy Jenkins is a treasured friend, but now that he is also my roommate, I don't get a break from him. As I mentioned quite extensively in one of my previous posts, I need alone-time, and he doesn't like to give me that. He's probably not intentionally doing it, but he is just always around, which forces me to try and "escape" from him, which is a terrible thing to try to do. It's not fair to him. At the same time, good roommates don't always make good friends either. Like my roommate last year. We did pretty well as roommates, but we didn't click as friends. We could respect each other (which is very important for roommates), but we didn't have enough in common to be good friends.
And finally, the convocation talked about boy/girl relationships. At college you meet a lot of people from the opposite sex (especially here, with a 3-1 girl-boy ratio). These people come from all over the country, and come with a lot of different views concerning the opposite gender. Some girls are used to hanging out with a lot of guys, and guys can easily take that interest the wrong way (as I have seen time and again). It just gets messy, as one of the guys said.
In high school, I would always hear girls say things like "Guys just don't get hints." Well, when you've got different messages coming from all over the spectrum, like girls who just want to be friends to girls who are interested, it becomes necessary to ignore hints, because honestly you just can't tell. One very good piece of advice they gave was to avoid a relationship freshmen year. Heck yes. Because if that relationship doesn;t work out, you've both made the same friends (typically), and a break-up means a loss of more than just a boyfriend/girlfriend. I don't really have anything more to say about this(due to a lack of personal experience in my college years, and due to an unwillingness to share anything deeper than that at this time), so I guess that's all for now.
As for family relationships, keep in touch with your family. Your parents have known you literally your entire life, longer than you even remember. They love you and care about you, and just because you are more independent now doesn't mean you shouldn't check in with them and let them you're all right. And your siblings still love you and care about you, and it would not be fair to them to leave them "out in the cold" and do your own thing. Especially if you're the oldest in the family. Your younger siblings rely on you, and you should be there for support.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Essence of Stress
I've come to realize that stress is only what you allow it to be. I think it comes from a need to be in constant control, and when that control begins to slip out of our fingers we freak out and scramble to keep it in place. In the end, we are left with no control and a huge mess. I don't see myself as a very stressful person, and so from this definition, I can't tell if that means that I just have such a solid grip on my control that its rare for that control to slip away, or if I'm just a very malleable person in that I can "go with the flow" so to speak. I tend to think I am more of the latter, because a lot of times my lack of stress comes from a lack of general care about what would typically stress people out.
I had a paper due in the morning, 6 pages, based off of a comparison of two theologians. All the people around me are stressing out and frantically trying to finish it before class in the morning. I've had at least a good week to prepare and get it done. But no, I didn't really give it much thought because I figured "hey, its nothing, you can get it done in one night." And you know what? I did. No stress, no real hassle, just did it.
It's kind of been the story of my life. Very rarely will I get stressed out about stuff. It's definitely not always a good thing, because there have been times when I didn't get my work done, and paid the penalty for it. But I look around sometimes and I see people freaking out and I wonder why. If we go through life worrying about everything, how are we supposed to enjoy the life we have been blessed with? If we surround ourselves with drama all the time, when will we be able to break ot of it enough to take in the world around us? To enjoy the beauty of God's creation, and the company of others. I'm not trying to advocate a life dedicated to pleasure or anything like that, but I just don't see why we should have to stress out over matters that are trivial in the grand scheme of things.
As Christians we are called to give our lives over to God. This includes our grip on control. I think the reason why I have been so stress-free these past couple of years is because I have trusted that God has a plan for me and will help me in my endeavors to fulfill that plan. Well, that and a general lack of concern for HW, never did like doing it. =D
But I don't know, I think stress is just a result of our holding onto control which we just don't have. It's an illusion of control, in reality I don't think we have as much control as we think we do, or think we should.
I had a paper due in the morning, 6 pages, based off of a comparison of two theologians. All the people around me are stressing out and frantically trying to finish it before class in the morning. I've had at least a good week to prepare and get it done. But no, I didn't really give it much thought because I figured "hey, its nothing, you can get it done in one night." And you know what? I did. No stress, no real hassle, just did it.
It's kind of been the story of my life. Very rarely will I get stressed out about stuff. It's definitely not always a good thing, because there have been times when I didn't get my work done, and paid the penalty for it. But I look around sometimes and I see people freaking out and I wonder why. If we go through life worrying about everything, how are we supposed to enjoy the life we have been blessed with? If we surround ourselves with drama all the time, when will we be able to break ot of it enough to take in the world around us? To enjoy the beauty of God's creation, and the company of others. I'm not trying to advocate a life dedicated to pleasure or anything like that, but I just don't see why we should have to stress out over matters that are trivial in the grand scheme of things.
As Christians we are called to give our lives over to God. This includes our grip on control. I think the reason why I have been so stress-free these past couple of years is because I have trusted that God has a plan for me and will help me in my endeavors to fulfill that plan. Well, that and a general lack of concern for HW, never did like doing it. =D
But I don't know, I think stress is just a result of our holding onto control which we just don't have. It's an illusion of control, in reality I don't think we have as much control as we think we do, or think we should.
Friday, October 28, 2011
The Trinity...?
So for our Theology class this week we are going through the Trinity. Trying to understand how God can be three persons in one; three individuals, all with unique responsibilities and personalities and yet all one single entity. The typical response for this kind of lack of understanding is "Oh, well we can't comprehend it with our limited human understanding, we just have to accept it as it is." What I don't understand is, why would God reveal Himself to us in way that we couldn't understand? That just doesn't make sense with what I understand of who God is. If the Bible was written for us as a special revelation, revealing God and His nature to us, then why would He insert this concept of Himself that we could not possibly understand? Either He revealed it to us because we can understand it, or He didn't reveal it to us and the Church inserted the idea of a Triune God into their understanding of the Bible. My main reasoning behind this second answer is that there is no mention of the trinity anywhere in the Bible. I have to admit that during my class period I didn't pay any attention to what the professor was teaching. Instead, I spent the hour searching through my NIV Bible for all references to God as well as any reference to the other two members of the Trinity - Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Here is what I found:
There are 3 specific persons of God mentioned in the Bible: God (the Father), Jesus Christ, and it is understood that the Holy Spirit is of God. However, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, there are no statements, allusions, or references indicating that the three are indeed one. The use of the word "God" and all references to Him are used throughout the entire Bible in a singular form, with the general exception of Genesis 1:26 - "Let US make man in OUR image..." In all other cases, you will see grammar like: "The Lord your God", "The God of Israel", "I am God Almighty", "and I will be your God". God, as He is revealed to us through Scripture, is a singular entity.
Let's look at His Son, Jesus Christ. In Mark 16:19 Jesus ascends into Heaven, to sit at the right hand of God the Father. Note that he is not sitting on the same throne, there are at least two seats up there. Sitting at the right hand also implies a certain degree of servitude, or submission, to whomever it is that you are sitting at the right hand of. I'd like to qualify here that I still believe Jesus Christ is divine. After all He is called the Son of God(as well as the Son of Man), and just as I am a Spatz because I am my father's son, so Jesus is divine because He is the Son of the Divine. One can know the father through his son, or at least that was case back in those days. In those days, the son would learn his father's trade(we see this in the case of Simon Peter and his brother, and James and his brother, working with their respective fathers). In some cases, Jesus would be called the son of the carpenter, or a carpenter in and of himself. His father was a carpenter, so he was too, or at least he knew the trade. In the same way, just as God is divine in nature, so is Jesus divine in nature because he is God's Son.
I want to stress the difference though. Jesus is divine, but He is not God. Nor do I believe He ever claimed to be God (at least not God, the Lord Almighty). He claimed instead to be the Son of God, the promised Messiah sent to save mankind from their sins and eternal damnation. In John 3:16, it says that God sent His Son. He didn't send Himself, He sent His Son, one whom He has authority over and can thus send. To further this concept of their separateness, in John 14:1 Jesus himself says, "Trust in God, trust also in me." Indicating that He and God are not the same person. In Acts 2:24 God raised Jesus (a man) from the dead. He exerted power over someone separate from Himself. In fact, the entire crucifixion scene indicates to me that there could be no direct being between God and Jesus, meaning that they are not the same person. At one point God forsakes His Son because He cannot look upon sin "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" In Luke 18:19, Jesus asks "Why do you call me good? ... No one is good, except God alone." In Philippians 2:5-11 it says Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. And later God exalts Jesus to the highest place, so that "every tongue [may] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So while Jesus is definitely worthy of our worship and praise as Lord and Savior, it does not seem to me that he is God. So far I see a definite separation of status between Jesus and God. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Jesus is called a mediator between us and God, and as we know he is the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through him. So while Jesus is definitely of a divine nature, he is not of the same nature as God the Father, nor does he seem to be on the same level as God the Father.
Then comes the Holy Spirit. This one is more plain than the argument for Jesus. In Genesis 1 it says the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters. This can either be the Holy Spirit or it is referring to God being in spirit form, I'm not really sure. Then later, in Genesis 6:3 it says, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'" A little note here brought me to Galations 5:16-17, where it says, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." And it goes on to say that the Spirit and the sinful nature are in direct conflict with one another. I think in both these cases it seems that the Spirit has some separation from God as well, just like Jesus did. And of course, the concept of the Trinity allows for this kind of separation. They are 3 distinct entities in one. However, in Jesus' case, he had claim to divinity, being the Son of God. However, this is not the case for the Holy Spirit. Not a single passage in the Bible, at least not one that I could find, made any reference to the Holy Spirit as God. Instead, the verses I found all seem to reflect the idea that the Spirit is a lower entity that belongs to God, as something/someone which He can give commands to and send to places. In Isaiah 63:10 it says, "Yet they(the Israelites) rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them." And in the context of this passage it would seem that it is indeed talking about His essence, His Spirit, in the same way that we would talk about being in high or low spirits. But in the New Testament, where most of our information about the Holy Spirit is found, the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of God) is portrayed as a manifestation of God's will, meaning that God works through His spirit on earth. In Luke 11:13 we see the Holy Spirit as something/someone who can be given away by God the Father: "...how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" In John 4:23-24 we see that God is spirit: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth."
This passage also had a note, which brought me to Philippians 3:3, which says that "we worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus." Here it seems plain to me that the use of the term "spirit" is directly related to God. It isn't saying that there is a Spirit that is God, but it does say that God is spirit, indicating that He is not of this world, He is not physical in form. Yet we can worship Him by His spirit, which He has given to those of us who have asked. In John 14:26 it says that God will send us a Counselor to be with us after Jesus has ascended. And we get a look at the function of that counselor in John 16:13-15:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
The Holy Spirit, then, is not God the Father, as we see here, because he only speaks what he hears from Jesus, to whom it was given by God the Father. The Spirit of God is a messenger from God, revealing to us what he hears from God, which is truth. And finally in John 20:22, we find Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Once again we see the Holy Spirit as someone who can be given away. The Holy Spirit comes from God, but is never said to BE God, at least not in the NIV translation.
Something that Leroy Jenkins brought up to me during class was the Nicean Council, which met to determine the person and nature of Jesus Christ in relation to God. At this time, there was no concept of the Trinity. The Council met in 325 CE, and the conclusion was that Jesus Christ was of divine nature. It was not until many years later that the idea of the Holy Spirit being part of this triune God came into the catholic church doctrine.
An idea similar to what I have been contemplating is Subordinationism, which was thought of by Origen, and which inspired Arius' Arianism (which was condemned as heresy in the Nicean Council). Subordinationism claims that the Son is eternally divine but not equal to the Father in being or attributes. Another idea is that of Adoptionism, which says that Jesus was just a man until his baptism, when God the Father adopted him as His Son. This doesn't seem likely in my opinion when I consider the birth narrative of Jesus.
I would propose, to sum up what I have said thus far, that God the Father is the eternal God and Lord Almighty who created the world and all that is in it. His Son, who is also of divine nature, acts as a mediator between God and Man, and came down to earth as a man to save us from our sins, offering up his life as a sacrifice for our atonement. The Holy Spirit is then a manifestation of the will of God, given to us as a messenger and sanctifier, indwelling and empowering us to be followers of Jesus Christ and his example. God is God, Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ, and they are both divine; the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and though it has divine qualities(being of and from God), he is not the God we worship, but rather he is what allows us to worship and know who it is that we worship.
This still leaves me with some questions, like were Jesus and the Holy Spirit created? And if so, when? Or is it possible that Jesus has always existed but is not God? That is to say, can he have existed before creation and yet be separate from God? And what do we do with passages like Matthew 28:19?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The other side of the argument of the Trinity is whether there are ONLY 3 persons of God. As Leroy Jenkins figured out during another class, 3-sided objects do not (and cannot) exist in the 3rd dimension. So either God has only one Person, or He has 4 or more. Who really knows? All I know is that if the Bible is supposed to give us Special Revelation, why would it contain concepts and ideas beyond our comprehension? I feel like He would want us to be able to understand who He is, and thus worship Him as such.
I would also like to state that my denial (or contention) in regard to the Trinity is considered heresy in the Church. But what if the concept of the Trinity is not an accurate portrayal of the nature of God? What then? How might that impact our understanding of who God is, and thus who it is that we worship?
There are 3 specific persons of God mentioned in the Bible: God (the Father), Jesus Christ, and it is understood that the Holy Spirit is of God. However, throughout both the Old and New Testaments, there are no statements, allusions, or references indicating that the three are indeed one. The use of the word "God" and all references to Him are used throughout the entire Bible in a singular form, with the general exception of Genesis 1:26 - "Let US make man in OUR image..." In all other cases, you will see grammar like: "The Lord your God", "The God of Israel", "I am God Almighty", "and I will be your God". God, as He is revealed to us through Scripture, is a singular entity.
Let's look at His Son, Jesus Christ. In Mark 16:19 Jesus ascends into Heaven, to sit at the right hand of God the Father. Note that he is not sitting on the same throne, there are at least two seats up there. Sitting at the right hand also implies a certain degree of servitude, or submission, to whomever it is that you are sitting at the right hand of. I'd like to qualify here that I still believe Jesus Christ is divine. After all He is called the Son of God(as well as the Son of Man), and just as I am a Spatz because I am my father's son, so Jesus is divine because He is the Son of the Divine. One can know the father through his son, or at least that was case back in those days. In those days, the son would learn his father's trade(we see this in the case of Simon Peter and his brother, and James and his brother, working with their respective fathers). In some cases, Jesus would be called the son of the carpenter, or a carpenter in and of himself. His father was a carpenter, so he was too, or at least he knew the trade. In the same way, just as God is divine in nature, so is Jesus divine in nature because he is God's Son.
I want to stress the difference though. Jesus is divine, but He is not God. Nor do I believe He ever claimed to be God (at least not God, the Lord Almighty). He claimed instead to be the Son of God, the promised Messiah sent to save mankind from their sins and eternal damnation. In John 3:16, it says that God sent His Son. He didn't send Himself, He sent His Son, one whom He has authority over and can thus send. To further this concept of their separateness, in John 14:1 Jesus himself says, "Trust in God, trust also in me." Indicating that He and God are not the same person. In Acts 2:24 God raised Jesus (a man) from the dead. He exerted power over someone separate from Himself. In fact, the entire crucifixion scene indicates to me that there could be no direct being between God and Jesus, meaning that they are not the same person. At one point God forsakes His Son because He cannot look upon sin "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" In Luke 18:19, Jesus asks "Why do you call me good? ... No one is good, except God alone." In Philippians 2:5-11 it says Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped. And later God exalts Jesus to the highest place, so that "every tongue [may] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." So while Jesus is definitely worthy of our worship and praise as Lord and Savior, it does not seem to me that he is God. So far I see a definite separation of status between Jesus and God. In 1 Timothy 2:5, Jesus is called a mediator between us and God, and as we know he is the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father except through him. So while Jesus is definitely of a divine nature, he is not of the same nature as God the Father, nor does he seem to be on the same level as God the Father.
Then comes the Holy Spirit. This one is more plain than the argument for Jesus. In Genesis 1 it says the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters. This can either be the Holy Spirit or it is referring to God being in spirit form, I'm not really sure. Then later, in Genesis 6:3 it says, "Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal, his days will be a hundred and twenty years.'" A little note here brought me to Galations 5:16-17, where it says, "So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature." And it goes on to say that the Spirit and the sinful nature are in direct conflict with one another. I think in both these cases it seems that the Spirit has some separation from God as well, just like Jesus did. And of course, the concept of the Trinity allows for this kind of separation. They are 3 distinct entities in one. However, in Jesus' case, he had claim to divinity, being the Son of God. However, this is not the case for the Holy Spirit. Not a single passage in the Bible, at least not one that I could find, made any reference to the Holy Spirit as God. Instead, the verses I found all seem to reflect the idea that the Spirit is a lower entity that belongs to God, as something/someone which He can give commands to and send to places. In Isaiah 63:10 it says, "Yet they(the Israelites) rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit. So he turned and became their enemy and he himself fought against them." And in the context of this passage it would seem that it is indeed talking about His essence, His Spirit, in the same way that we would talk about being in high or low spirits. But in the New Testament, where most of our information about the Holy Spirit is found, the Holy Spirit (or the Spirit of God) is portrayed as a manifestation of God's will, meaning that God works through His spirit on earth. In Luke 11:13 we see the Holy Spirit as something/someone who can be given away by God the Father: "...how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" In John 4:23-24 we see that God is spirit: "Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth."
This passage also had a note, which brought me to Philippians 3:3, which says that "we worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus." Here it seems plain to me that the use of the term "spirit" is directly related to God. It isn't saying that there is a Spirit that is God, but it does say that God is spirit, indicating that He is not of this world, He is not physical in form. Yet we can worship Him by His spirit, which He has given to those of us who have asked. In John 14:26 it says that God will send us a Counselor to be with us after Jesus has ascended. And we get a look at the function of that counselor in John 16:13-15:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
The Holy Spirit, then, is not God the Father, as we see here, because he only speaks what he hears from Jesus, to whom it was given by God the Father. The Spirit of God is a messenger from God, revealing to us what he hears from God, which is truth. And finally in John 20:22, we find Jesus giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Once again we see the Holy Spirit as someone who can be given away. The Holy Spirit comes from God, but is never said to BE God, at least not in the NIV translation.
Something that Leroy Jenkins brought up to me during class was the Nicean Council, which met to determine the person and nature of Jesus Christ in relation to God. At this time, there was no concept of the Trinity. The Council met in 325 CE, and the conclusion was that Jesus Christ was of divine nature. It was not until many years later that the idea of the Holy Spirit being part of this triune God came into the catholic church doctrine.
An idea similar to what I have been contemplating is Subordinationism, which was thought of by Origen, and which inspired Arius' Arianism (which was condemned as heresy in the Nicean Council). Subordinationism claims that the Son is eternally divine but not equal to the Father in being or attributes. Another idea is that of Adoptionism, which says that Jesus was just a man until his baptism, when God the Father adopted him as His Son. This doesn't seem likely in my opinion when I consider the birth narrative of Jesus.
I would propose, to sum up what I have said thus far, that God the Father is the eternal God and Lord Almighty who created the world and all that is in it. His Son, who is also of divine nature, acts as a mediator between God and Man, and came down to earth as a man to save us from our sins, offering up his life as a sacrifice for our atonement. The Holy Spirit is then a manifestation of the will of God, given to us as a messenger and sanctifier, indwelling and empowering us to be followers of Jesus Christ and his example. God is God, Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ, and they are both divine; the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and though it has divine qualities(being of and from God), he is not the God we worship, but rather he is what allows us to worship and know who it is that we worship.
This still leaves me with some questions, like were Jesus and the Holy Spirit created? And if so, when? Or is it possible that Jesus has always existed but is not God? That is to say, can he have existed before creation and yet be separate from God? And what do we do with passages like Matthew 28:19?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
The other side of the argument of the Trinity is whether there are ONLY 3 persons of God. As Leroy Jenkins figured out during another class, 3-sided objects do not (and cannot) exist in the 3rd dimension. So either God has only one Person, or He has 4 or more. Who really knows? All I know is that if the Bible is supposed to give us Special Revelation, why would it contain concepts and ideas beyond our comprehension? I feel like He would want us to be able to understand who He is, and thus worship Him as such.
I would also like to state that my denial (or contention) in regard to the Trinity is considered heresy in the Church. But what if the concept of the Trinity is not an accurate portrayal of the nature of God? What then? How might that impact our understanding of who God is, and thus who it is that we worship?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Chapel
We are talking about chapel and how we are required to go to 30 every semester. I just want to say that if chapel were not required, I would not go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)