open source theology

To be honest, my first reaction to this sort of statement is that it is meaningless pseudo-philosophizing - but then I begin to worry that perhaps I am simply too stupid, or too narrow-minded, to appreciate it. So I will make some general comments and see if the poster or anyone has anything to say in response.

1. There are several unsupported assumptions: eg. ‘all things are necessary’, ‘the universe is iterated over time’, the inclusion of the individual as person in this process of iteration. Where do these beliefs come from?

2. What we have here is a form of pantheism (possibly panentheism) that addresses the problem of dualism on an entirely different basis to biblical theology. Part of Wright’s argument in The New Testament and the People of God (252-256) is that mainstream Judaism tended to preserve those forms of dualism that distinguished it from pantheism (theological/ontological, theological/cosmological, moral, eschatological) but rejected or marginalized forms of dualism that would have confused it with Gnosticism (theological/moral, cosmological, anthropological, epistemological, etc.). (The terminology Wright uses here is not very helpful.)

3. So biblically we cannot say that the soul is a manifestation of the divine will. The person is ontologically and morally autonomous and therefore accountable. Death is the ultimate expression of that accountability (‘the wages of sin is death’), and in my view death is exactly what it says it is. You die. That’s the end of you. There is no immortality, no continuity. But the believer dies in the hope of being resurrected from the nothingness of death to be part of a new creation. This hope is not grounded in the nature of existence (eg. an iterative universe) but in the faithfulness of God, who has made a covenant with those whom he has called to be servants of righteousness in this world, guaranteed by the death, resurrection and vindication of the Son of man. That is a far cry from the view that ‘any future state is inseparable from all of the elements that constitute past states and the initial state’.

4. Having said that, can we nevertheless regard pantheism as a genuine and useful attempt to articulate something of the sense of otherness to life? If we feel that conventional ‘evangelical’ language and modes of thinking have become stale, perhaps there is something to be gained by stepping outside that discourse and approaching the questions of biblical theology from a ‘somewhat different point of view’ such as this. My view is that the church must remain faithful to a biblical understanding of the creator God and must be willing to affirm that belief publicly, but I’m not sure that we properly fulfil our calling to be a ‘royal priesthood’ in the world by crudely denouncing paganism or other forms of religious belief. Should we regard these simply as false and dangerous beliefs, or are they stages on a journey, attempts to make sense of transcendence and mystery that may potentially shed light on our own position?

Thank-you Andrew for your passionate and articulate response.

In response to:

“1. There are several unsupported assumptions: eg. ‘all things are necessary’, ‘the universe is iterated over time’, the inclusion of the individual as person in this process of iteration. Where do these beliefs come from?”

All things are necessary is self-evident. To remove a past event would demonstratably change the current state. This was the basis of the development of chaos theory when early attempts at weather modelling demonstrated that seemingly minor round-off errors resulted in significant deviation as the simulation was advanced over time.

Premise 1: A state of the universe exists. Premise 2: The universe is a space-time continuum that advances, changes or unfolds over time. Premise 3: To be a part or a member of the universe requires that any part is both effected by and effecting the state of the universe.

Argument: I don’t think that you will be able to successfully challenge P1 and P2. P3 may be attacked depending upon your interpretation of quantum mechanical events. It can be argued that it is not knowable whether a QM event is effected by the universe, though I doubt it can be argued that a QM event or any event can occur without some effect due to chaos theory.

My Conclusion/interpretation: The current state of the universe exists, and hence all contributing factors were required for this particular present to exist. This says nothing about what is or is not outside the boundaries of space-time. It does acknowledge a limit to what can be said about God, just as a quantum singularity (black hole) has an event horizon that precludes observation of the state inside that singularity. Inf

erence based upon effect in our existence is what we are left with. This need not collapse the mystery of God to one of mechanics, but it should caution us against anthropomorphism.

Andrew: “What we have here is a form of pantheism (possibly panentheism) that addresses the problem of dualism on an entirely different basis to biblical theology.”

As I said in my previous note, I am putting forward a different position for the purpose of counterpoint and discussion. Your response is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for. Thank-you.

On the matter of dualism, I hold that what there can be no separation in fact, and that dualism in our thinking and perception is an artifact (ego/false self) of the rationalising/abstracting faculty of the brain. I hold that the brain is a state engine that is always in flux. (Witness the state of one’s own brain as a case in point. Try a little meditation and see how particular forms/thought-streams emerge into consciousness without the conscious intent that such particular forms emerge.)

Andrew: “So biblically we cannot say that the soul is a manifestation of the divine will. The person is ontologically and morally autonomous and therefore accountable.”

Ah, but if one asserts that God alone is in itself, as the creator and first cause; then all forms (even sentient ones) are derivative and contingent upon that one Divine will. The chain of causality finds itself attached to that through which existence is willed to become. Unless God is not trans-temporal, the full state of the existent universe from T=0 to infinity is known outside of its boundaries by God. Hence all forms and unfoldings are necessarily as they are by the will of God, if God exists as discussed.

I have very little to add to your 4th point. It seems to express your position accurately and probably reflects the position of a goodly number of others. An adequate answer will probably not be forthcoming as the mystery of God seems to be meant to draw a person into places where the nakedness of the Divine presence displaces/dissolves our limited interpretations. And yet, a large range of diverse forms of expression arise. However strange this may seem, the fact of diverse expression and interpretation is witness to it being part of the Divine will. Were this not so, how could a form come into being without limiting God by introducing at least one “other” as a being in itself?

Thanks - a cogent and interesting response…

but if one asserts that God alone is in itself, as the creator and first cause; then all forms (even sentient ones) are derivative and contingent upon that one Divine will. The chain of causality finds itself attached to that through which existence is willed to become. Unless God is not trans-temporal, the full state of the existent universe from T=0 to infinity is known outside of its boundaries by God. Hence all forms and unfoldings are necessarily as they are by the will of God, if God exists as discussed.

This is too deterministic for my liking. It’s like the old argument about predestination. You can hardly prove it or resolve it one way or another - but it can make a huge difference to a person’s approach to life. But I would also want to point out that an ontological dependence does not necessarily entail - and perhaps necessarily cannot entail - a moral dependence. To be created ‘in the image of God’ is usually taken to mean that humanity enjoys an authentic, if limited, autonomy. This would basically be my response to most of the preceding argument.

I don’t entirely understand your comments regarding dualism. You seem to be asserting some sort of mind-body monism and I wouldn’t disagree with that. The machine may have ghostly qualities, but there is no ghost in the machine. But I would resist any attempt to absorb God into that monism.

My comments concerning dualism are based on personal experience. As such it becomes difficult to give them a form that would necessarily have validity to another person. I try through poetry, and I will include a sample below. There have been occasions where it is as if all the world was being spoken through with one voice saying: I AM. It was not that the world was God, but that within each form the eternal BEINGNESS of God was becoming expressed. The I AM that was a deafening silence seemed to be always presence, but rarely noticed due to the clutter of noisy distractions that normally capture my attention.

Eternal Ode

Between the two who are One, The universe becomes and collapses. The Word is manifest out of void. The Wind of the Master plays, Itself: A sacred song upon existence’s reed flute.

An ode to longing for its origin, In ecstasy and desolation: My flute pines a withering song of love. The grave of my soul releases, Spiritual Jasmine.

In time or in eternity, No longer can I tell, but this: My being and my nothingness, together, in perfect habitation, Sing and dance.

If the Divine will is the only will in fact, it includes the fact that we go through this process of experiencing as though choosing. In other words, to fall back and argue something to the effect of, “If it is all God’s will, I can do anything I want as that is his will”, is foolish. The “i” is a contingent existence, it cannot do anything it wishes and fall back on this lame justification. In other words abandoning morality is not an option or hard choice. I prefer to think that we experience soft or virtual choices, that while God determines, part of that determination is that we experience the tensions of moral quandary and the pains of feeling separate and alienated.

Many have trouble with the question and purpose of suffering in relation to God. They ask, how is it that suffering can be squared with God’s perfection. The mind that tries to “solve” this problem is at a disadvantage, unless it is accompanied by the heart in the desert. Often it is in those moments of being in the wastelands of desolation that the spirit in man seems to cross the chasm into the very heart of the unchanging Divine presence. It seems not unlike the process where the student in Zen having become so frustrated and focused on the koan and the rebukes of the master, changes state, in a moment into being in itself (or as close to that as can be experienced while still retaining form.) The following poem expresses this idea:

Eternity’s Flower

Buddha held forth the flower. The Enlightened One bloomed.

The petal of each form’s unfolding: Sweet revelation from emptiness is wafting incense.

Fragrance of my most Beloved’s essence: Longing’s silent ode, unfolding love’s fugue.

Scent to senseless Presence: Love’s light reveals naked boundlessness.

From all the hidden wells: Love’s essence bursts and burns.

The perennial of life’s flowering expression: Eternity unveils, as petals part and depart.

Oh most Beloved, dearest and most potent: Rose thorns mercifully shred the raiment.

Often it is in those moments of being in the wastelands of desolation that the spirit in man seems to cross the chasm into the very heart of the unchanging Divine presence.

I wouldn’t dispute this as a positive approach to the personal experience of suffering, but I do think that sometimes we get too preoccupied with the rather theoretical problem of reconciling the reality of pain and evil with the notion of a perfect God. It is not a biblical problem, certainly not in this form. In the Bible the question is more likely to be formulated: How long until God does something about it evil? The short-term answer is that God has called those in Christ to be part of the solution to evil in the world - and it’s a moot point, of course, whether the church has responded at all well to that calling. The long-term answer is a new heaven and a new earth, however we are to understand that vision exactly.

I would suggest that for the believer in Jesus it is within the framework of these two ‘answers’ that we must deal with the problem of personal suffering. This is the proper context for the more mystical experience that you describe - though for those who do not wish to take upon themselves the burden of ‘christlikeness’, perhaps the argument stands somewhat as you have expressed it.