Intro to the Church

In regards to what I want to write on next, I have a quote that I read today from one of my favorite books, "Orthodoxy" by G. K. Chesterton. This quote is in reference to an ordinary man's view of the world, but I saw it as almost dead on of my view of the church. Chesterton saw this view of the world the only healthy one, and I have to agree:

"No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world:but we demand not stength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing?"

I've seen too many people leave church, too many friends leave my church because they held onto the just hating it. I've seen too many people stay around the church and adore the church because they just love it. Chesteron rightfully says that we need not be a pessimist or an optimist in the ordinary sense. We need to be mystical, and thus idealist. Without this ingredient, change would not be added.

The point is that there is nothing wrong with having a distaste for the church as long as you have that distaste because you love it and want to restore it to the way it should be. However, it is another thing to have a distaste and never look back. Chesterton said two things from two other books of his, "The Everlasting Man" and "What's Wrong with the World," that are worth noting in light of this:

"As for the general view that the Church was discredited by the War - they might as well say that the Ark was discredited by the Flood. When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do." - Everlasting Man

The last phrase is of utmost importance. We cannot expect the Church to be perfect, it has never truly purported to be. But even the first part is worth noting for a good defense against the common argument that there is evil in the world and therefore the Christianity is wrong.

The second quote is worth keeping in the back of your mind as we deal with this idea of the Church. We must understand what it is saying and give people a little slack:

"My point is that the world did not tire of the church's ideal, but if its reality. Monasteries were impugned not for the chasity of monks, but for the unchasity of monks. Christianity was unpopular not because of its humility, but of the arrogance of Christians. . . The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."

Chesterton, a very pious Catholic, understood what Augustine understood centuries before him - do not judge a philosophy by its abuse. Notice Chesterton said CHRISTIANITY was unpopular not because of ITS humility, but of the arrogance of CHRISTIANS. While Christians should live the Christian ideal, we all fail at it sometimes. But Christianity's ideal is unwavering, and its founder, Jesus, the epitome of this ideal. So I encourage readers to take the rest of this series in light of Chesterton's thoughts. Ideals are fleeting in this world, but the journey to acheive them is quite concrete.

The Underlying Story of Creation

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

Christians make a big statement when they say this, especially in todays world. However, the more I study and learn, the more I am convinced this statement is the beginning of a very true story. I want to take this verse in sections and then show the underlying story that is not focused on in the continuing verses. The story will unfold as I go, so let's begin.

"in the beginning..." is a phrase that is needs more explanation than usually given. The idea here is not necessarily the beginning of time. I do not see a problem with this, but it would be better to translate this phrase to mean the fundamental principle or most important thing. The Vulgate and Jewish translation both connotate this idea. This means that it is not just focused on the beginning of a process but is actually trying to highlight this moment as being fundamental to all existence. What this tells us is that what is about to be said next is the fundamental or basis for everything else. Therefore, the phrase "God created" is in the context of the essence of all there is. All there is stems from God Himself. This is not to mean God is the heavens and the earth, but that He created them according to His own nature. God CREATED, which implies things distinct from Himself but something that is not completely other in nature.

The word "create" in Hebrew is "bara". This word has the same root as the word "brit", which means covenant. This means that for God to create meant that He was entering into a relation. From the very beginning relation is there. This is big - the beginning was a very personal one. It had to be personal if the world as we know it makes any sense.

In the big scheme of things there are only a few answers to the question of being - How did things get here? Francis Schaeffer lines out four possibilities:

1. Once there was absolutely nothing and now there is something
2. Everything began with an impersonal something
3. Everything began with a personal something
4. There is and always has been a dualism

The first option, as Schaeffer points out and I agree, cannot be held seriously. This view has lost popularity to my undertsanding for obvious reasons. If you say there was really nothing and then something, you must truly mean there was nothing - no matter, no energy, or anything else. This is inconceivable. The last one is equally unsatisfactory to most people because we always look for the unity beyond the duality. Even the idea of Yin and Yang we try to fit into a unity of harmony; we try to see the one relationship as the answer, not the two separate.

The second option, is widely held, but as Schaeffer points out, it is not satisfactory to explain the world:

"An impersonal beginning, however, raises two overwhelming problems. . . First, there is no real explanation for the fact that the external world not only exists, but has a specific form. . . What is there has form. If we assert the existence of the impersonal as the beginning of the universe, we simply have no explanation for this kind of situation."

So this first point is saying that an impersonal beginning of the universe does not explain form. If a mysterious power or harmony of powers or even matter and energy exist, it does not give rise to the complexity and form that science finds. This is the basic argument of Intelligent Design; and intelligence implies personality, even if it is an indifferent one. Schaeffer's second point hits a much more alarming deficiency of an impersonal beginning:

"Second, and more importantly, if we begin with an impersonal universe, there is no explanation of personality. . . Man has a mannishness. You find it wherever you find man- not only in the men who live today, but in the artifacts of history. The assumption of an impersonal beginning can never adequately explain the personal beings around us, and when men try to explain man on the basis of an original impersoanl, man soon disappears. IN SHORT, an impersonal beginning explains neither the form of the universe nor the personality of man. Hence it gives no basis for understanding human relationships, building just societies or engaging in any kind of cultural effort."

Here, Schaeffer shows that an impersonal beginning to all there is does not explain personality, relationships, morals, or cultural effort. A power of some sort cannot bring about personality because it is unable to create; only empower. A mind can only create personality because it is personality itself. If we have a personal universe, then we must have a personal beginning.

This is what we get in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Each one purports a personal beginning, but Christianity is the only one that purposts a relational beginning. In theory, there is a difference in personal and relational. You do not need another to be a person, you need an other to be relational. This is something only Christianity can offer through the Trinity.

However, great a mystery the Trinity is, it really does give answers that no other worldview can really give satisfactorily. The biggest thing that the Trinity offers is that love and communication are intrinsic to what has always been. There is an I-You relationship in the Trinity that needs both love and communication to exist. Therefore, as seen earlier, when God created as the most fundamental event, he created in like fashion (and remember to create implies a relationship being made). Unlike Islam where Allah has to create others in order to love, communicate, and relate; the Triune God needs no creation to do these things. However, when he does create, it is intrinsic for Him to do so and create relational things. Schaeffer puts it in the following way:

"The historic Christian position concerning Genesis 1:1 is the only one which can be substantiated, the only one which is fair and adequate to the whole thrust of Scripture. "In the beginning" is a technical term stating the fact that at this particular point of sequence there is a creation ex nihilo - a creation out of nothing. All that is, except God Himself who had already been, now comes into existence. Before this there was a personal existence - love and communication. Prior to the material universe, prior to the creation of all there else, there is love and communication. This means that love and communication are intrinsic. And hence, when modern man screams for love and communication, Christians have an answer: There is value to love and communication because it is rooted into what intrisnically always has been."

This last statement is key. Love and communication in our lives has no value outside of them being intrinsic in our creator. This worlds complexity, and the existence of relational beings gives more reason to believe in a personal Creator than an impersonal one. Moreover, it makes sense for the Trinity. Even the question of unity in diversity is answered in the Trinity. Relation is the foundation of all the world, and we cannot get that unless the Triune God is the Creator.

There is a lot of ground covered in this and this is more complex than this. If there are holes then we can discuss them. This topic takes books to cover but I think this at least gives an overview of this. Maybe more will come...

Things to come...

Now that school is over, I can spend more time studying what I want and doing what I want like get married, learn some languages, read some philosophy and literature, and relax. I was thinking earlier about what will be good to write about next, and I think I will write about my view of the church - what it means to be a community (universal and local), the mission of the church, the purpose of the church, and the condition of the church. My views are different than some, but I do see value in the traditions.

But I have a little something now that I have been trying to word right since January that I want to start with. It is on the Trinity. This is a doctrine that is hard to explain, but I think gives a very important paradigm to the world as we know it. I am not going to focus on how the Trinity is rational (it is hard to see as rational). Instead, I am going to focus on how it's existence gives meaning to the world that nothing else can do. Intrigued? Hopefully so.