What is God's relationship to time?

I normally don't post this kind of stuff on here, but thought it would be ok for a change. How does God relate to time as we experience it?

The classical answer is a variation of timelessness: God is outside of time. Aquinas affirms a version of time being spread out before God like a parade that he sees all at once.

A more recent answer is that God is temporal: He experiences time in ways similar to us and the future is still open; he does not inhabit the future.

Somewhere between are varying answers of God's relativity to time: God experiences time in a different way from us. Boethius said that if time is like a wheel, then we experience the wheel at the rim, but God experiences it at the centre.

My own take is the following. God is timefull. He contains all of time. If I could change Boethius' analogy, God is the wheel and time is the centre. Where God "touches" time, he experiences time and shapes and moulds history. Where he does not touch time, he contains it.

How do I arrive here? Via Einstein, we know that time and space are relative. At higher speeds, time slows and space shrinks. This means (and this is NOT an original illustration) that
if one twin flew in a space ship that travelled near the speed of light for a certain amount of time and then returned to earth, he would be younger than his other twin. Time proceeds at a slower pace at such high speeds. If the twin in the space ship had a high-powered telescope, he could look back and watch the events of his brother's life occur at a different speed than his brother can.

Let's expand this to God: God contains all of time, being beyond the boundaries it creates. He "sees" time proceed at a different pace. But God has also entered the created order, making himself subject to the boundaries of time/space by his Son and Spirit. The Son and Spirit are the persons of God who "touch" time, moulding and shaping it, drawing it to the conclusion God desires.

So, I think it best to say that God is timefull. He contains time and is not bound by it. But God also touches time in the Son and Spirit and therefore is involved in it and working to draw it to a purposeful conclusion.

Enacted Exile or Why John the Baptist would have liked the Rolling Stones

This past weekend I preached on Matt 11:1-15, which is John the Baptist's (JTB) existential crisis of Jesus being the Christ (as) he expected. One part of Jesus' announcement to him of what his kingdom would look like stuck out to me: "The dead are raised." Symbolically raised people signified a return of Israel from exile (see Ez. 37 and the valley of dry bones, esp v. 12: I will open your graves and bring you back to Israel."

Now, change gears for a second: We all know how Mark announces the prophetic ministry of
JTB: "a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord'" (Mark 1:3). The interesting thing is that this is not what Isaiah 40:3 says. Isaiah 40:1-2 announces the return of Israel because her sins have been paid for and 40:3 talks about a voice calling, "In the desert, prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God." Desert and wilderness, of course, have connotations of wandering between Egypt and the promised land and of being in exile. While in exile, says Isaiah, make straight paths for God. JTB, however, goes out to the desert and announces the LORD's coming! He enacts the exile of Israel in his own life to prepare God's coming. That is amazing.

Yet he still finds himself in a jam: He sits in jail while the one he announced leaves him there. Jesus' word to him that the dead are raised, though, may have brought a whole bunch of resources to JTB's mind: if the dead are raised, and return from exile is described as the dead being raised, maybe a greater return from exile is to be expected! Maybe a deeper and fuller
return from exile--a return to life--started to form in his mind.

Either way, we know JTB announced and enacted return from exile; would have known that return to life had symbolized a return from exile; wanted rescuing from prison by his King; and when such rescuing didn't come, still remained faithful to the point of being beheaded...

So, while JTB may have wanted rescuing, he really needed resurrection: And that's what he'll get. You can't always get what you want, and if you try sometime you find you get what you need.

You can't change the world

It's impossible to change the world. Too many people live here to have sufficient contact with a critical amount of them to accomplish any change on a world scale. You can, however, change a world--the world of someone who otherwise would not have lived in a world conditioned by your presence, which is hopefully gracious, loving, faithful, and hopeful. Changing that person's world is your priority. Bemoaning one's lack of influence globally only serves to abdicate one's responsibility to the actual neighbour.

I say this more to myself than to others.

Baptism part 2

Well, we got some input on baptism. Now I am curious to hear people's thoughts on infant baptism. I'll welcome comments from all traditions on this. I'll share my thoughts in a comment at some future day.

Peeling Pains or "The Nightmer"

Here is a video of Kirk Cameron that I got from Caleb LaPointe's website. Thumbs up to Paul for telling me about it. The video is Ray Comfort explaining why the banana is the atheist's nightmare. Out of curiosity, could I call this video the evangelical's nightmer? As in, being lost at sea during a very dark time? I think I shall (plus the video is shot in front of some body of water).

Enjoy the Evangelical's Nightmer!

Baptism

I'm curious to hear the thoughts of some of my fellow Wesleyan ministers on what Baptism is. So, please share. I'd like to hear straight shot answers, so it won't be a matter of getting the "Wesleyan position right," but of just seeing where we are.

I am curious because I recently encountered a gentleman in our church who is getting baptized who actually places more emphasis on baptism than I do. That is rare for the circles in which I run. His read of Scripture, which is just reading the text at face value, leads him to believe baptism is necessary for salvation. (The discussion we are having is quite old and centers around "baptismal regeneration." But that's a longer discussion.) This puts me in a strange place for two reasons. First, because baptism has such a close connection to salvation in the New Testament that it is hard, prima facie, to disagree--although I do. Second, because my disagreement brings out the Lutheran in me: if baptism were necessary for salvation, that would make baptism the dreaded "work." If baptism is necessary, then crucifixion and resurrection are not enough. I rarely find myself compelled to be Lutheran, but here the resources of a rigorous theology of the cross come to my aid. So, I find myself emphasizing the communal aspect of baptism; the means of grace it is; its being a sacrament--and he still wants it more emphasized. And I am thrilled! I find myself planning for a baptism on Sept. 17 and he asks, "What if that day doesn't come?" I love it! Is there a regeneration of desire and interest in baptism?? Let's hope!

So...what's baptism in your opinion?

Btw, I found something that I am REALLY good at: Getting low electricity bills. My last bill? $15.

The Relative Truth

With the growing prominence of postmodernism in popular circles, there is always a backlash. In the most recent First Things, Avery Dulles has an article entitled, "The Orthodox Imperative." The basic gyst of the article is the safety and goodness of orthodoxy, which he maintains means right belief rather than right worship. He notes fives lines of objection to dogma or creed, one of which I want to address here: historical and cultural relativism. Historical relativism is the belief that statements are conditioned by time. So, dogma and creed need to change according to the progression of knowledge through time. At least, so goes the argument. Dulles then mentions John Henry Newman who almost agreed with the statement, but conditioned it to say that development of doctrine cannot counter previous doctrine without it being a corruption. Here I agree with Newman (and Dulles' point).

The second form of relativism is cultural relativism, which says that (for Dulles' purposes) religious statements are culturally formed and therefore different dogmas can be developed in different cultures. Different dogmas can be developed to meet the religious experience from different parts of the globe. Dulles responds that any dogma is either objectively true or false: There is a Right or Wrong response to statements of religious truth. While I don't always find myself overly at home in the philosophical framework in which that makes sense (boiling everything down to barebones and then marking it Right or Wrong), that is necessarily true.

My beef with Dulles is that he overstates his point and therefore loses the war for orthodoxy when he says: "Truth by its nature is universal and permanent. If a statement is true at any time and place, it must be true always and everywhere. This principle of universalism holds for all truth, whether scientific, historical, metaphysical, or religious." Well, no.

The statement, "Aaron Perry, born of Ellard Perry, exists" is true--right now and in all places. However, 30 years ago, it was false. So, truth is not permament. Likewise (here I am thinking of something Peter Leithart wrote a while back), 500 years ago, I could not say, "I can fly across the ocean." That is now true, though. So, truth is not permanent. Nor is truth universal: "The courts are corrupt," may or may not be true depending on your region. It is relative to location.
This is not to say that some truth is not universal: "God loves all people" is universally true, regardless of location and time. Some truth is universal; some truth is relative. In demanding that all truth be universal and permanent, Dulles misargues his point and loses the benefit of orthodoxy. How so, you ask? Probably the two most quoted declarations of orthodox Christianity are Trinity and Incarnation: That God has within himself the ability to become incarnate without ceasing to be transcendant and that God did so. The cultural truth, and therefore not permanent truth (in the sense that God became Incarnate at some point), of Incarnation, however, is exactly what makes that truth universal. If that saving truth were outside culture, then we would be beyond saving because none of us exists without culture. As Oliver O'Donovan has pointed out, it is the humanity of Christ which makes him universally identifiable. That encultured and storied orthodox truth is precisely what opens the door for good, Christian reflection on the immanent religious experience of other cultures--made possible, and likely expected, by a God who became flesh for all in Jesus of Nazareth.

Take aways from the Summit

I just attended the Willow Creek Conference at a satellite location in Syracuse. The initial reflections are both initial and reflections: they have not been baking long, but they have been in the oven.

First, Radical Orthodoxy made an appearance. It came in during an interview with Jim Collins, an expert of the longevity and improvement of businesses. He said, "It is false that churches shoudl be like businesses." He then fleshed out the different paradigm that is in the "social sector," but I think we can limit it to the new community of the church. Imagine that! The church operates under a different structure from profit/loss organizations! Everything is theological. Of course, Collins, not a believer, is the exception that makes the rule all the more pertinent: If an unbeliever realizes this in his value-laden research, then surely believers should be harping this loud and clear, no? (I suppose this firmly entrenches me in my Wesleyan paradigm of prevenient grace.)

Second, Andy Stanley had the best message. He actually understands that the Kingdom is not up to him. His message was very wholistic: If you're going to cheat something, cheat the church at which you work. There are profound and obvious differences between Stanley and Hybels. I would really like someone to make them explicit and flesh them out. I am much more drawn to Stanley than to Hybels.

Third, I like Bill Hybels. Some of what he says I find wrong ("The local church is the hope of the world,", not theologically correct ("Substitutionary atonement is the foundation of Christianity," but then expounds a mixture of satisfaction and penal substitution theories), and irritating ("The Kingdom can't afford to lose a single leader." Actually, it can afford to lose any and all leaders and I suspect it will go on. There is only one who is indispensable and he has already conquered. Some Guy may argue for a second servant is indispensable, but he's wrong.), but I like him. Why? He had Andy Stanley speak at a conference he organized. Anyone who can give platform to such obvious disagreement has got to be humble.

But to be fair, he did make explicit the local church statement today. "The local chuch is the hope of the world because it bears the message of God's atonement." Of course, that means that the local church isn't the hope of the world, but the bearer of the message that shows the world's hope....

Fourth, I saw one of the dumbest shirts ever: "WARNING: Exposure to the Son may prevent burning. ~God." I'll just leave that one untouched.

Does the solution determine the problem?

I am doing work on the atonement. Some new theologies (liberation, feminist, womanist, black) have opened new and interesting ground in thinking about the atonement. The question that is always in need of revisiting is, "What problem does God solve in the atonement?"

I think we have tended to see solutions (namely, in more popular understandings, satisfaction and penal substitution) and worked our way back to the problem. The thought gets worked out something like this:

1. Atonement models that involve violence, indicate a problem that had to be worked out with violence.

2. If the problem was something that needed a violent solution, then God must be inherently violent.

3. Since God is not inherently violent, then violence must not be part of the problem.

That's a really quick summary, and needs more nuancing, but it's the general idea. My question: Could a solution have elements that are not indicative of the problem? Could God's work in atonement have elements that do not indicate the nature of the problem? Or, Could an atonement with violence solve a problem that one would not necessarily associate its solution with violent means? (I.e., shame, alienation, powerlessness, etc.) I think yes.

Three items

First, I don't think I'm the first person to see it, but there is a connection between the baptism and death scenes of Jesus' life in Mark. In his baptism, he sees heaven being torn open and hears the words of God saying, "You are my Son" (1:10-11). At his death, the curtain is torn in two and the centurion hears Jesus' cry ("My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"). At his baptism, Jesus is validated by God. At his crucifixion, he wins over the opposition.

Second, check out this article on Rob Bell--pastor at a church in Michigan. It's quite good.

Third, a wonderful couple from my church gave me a window air conditioner yesterday.