You are a Theophany

Every single person is a theophany. May we all see God’s image in each and every person God puts in our path, and welcome them as we would welcome God. 

Genesis 1.27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Matthew 5.14-16 You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid… Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

Luke 9.48 Jesus said to them, “Whoever welcomes this child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me; for the least among all of you is the greatest.”

The glory of God is humanity fully alive, and human life is the vision of God. (Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 4.20.7)

You are a theophany, made to shine the Light of Christ to others. So… shine!

The Panentheism of Creation in Christ

Recently a friend online asked me a great question: "Can you tell me why you think (if you do) the creature / Creator distinction is essential to affirm?"

As in many things, the fact of the Incarnation and the paradoxical spirituality that flows from Christ makes it difficult to affirm or deny there is an absolute distinction between Creator and creation. Christianity is full of paradoxes in which two sides must be held in tension for Truth to be encountered: Christ is human AND divine; God is one AND many; Divine Providence AND Free Will; Grace AND Works; etc. One of these paradoxes is that Creation is in God, AND also distinct from God. Here’s the two poles I try to steer between:

The Complexity of Love's Simplicity

After posting my last essay, Fr. Kimel has noted that David Bentley Hart affirms Divine Simplicity in many places and "divine simplicity is an expression of negative theology. It doesn't say anything positive about God; it simply denies that he is composed of parts." And this is absolutely true about Hart, and his recent book "You are Gods" has several mentions of the implications of Divine Simplicity. But the important distinction I would like to make is that in the West, Divine Simplicity is frequently tied to knowledge of evil which determines created beings to be evil. This makes God the cause of evil, because nothing could be otherwise than God has known it and made it to be. 

Hart's concept of Simplicity states almost the exact opposite conclusion: God's Simplicity implies that God will inexorably work good for all beings, even after their choices have led them into bondage to evil. Yet, for Aquinas (and those who follow him) the simplicity and unity of God leads to the inexorable conclusion that God will damn some or most eternally, for God's own glory. So, while I can agree that the concepts of Divine Simplicity as put forward by Aquinas and Hart are similar insofar as they are an apophatic statement of what "God is not" in Godself, they are perfectly opposite as regards what this entails for God as God relates to a created world. At least this is what it seems to me, and it seems that with such a wide difference of effect, therefore one cannot say they are the same concept of Divine Simplicity.

So the major difference I am getting at is that Divine Simplicity is pernicious if it is used as a rationale for why God would will and cause evil in the world, including damning many or most humans eternally. 

Divine Simplicity is simply too simple

Recently the amazing Fr. Aidan Kimel has written an article on how the "free will theodicy" is incompatible with Thomas Aquinas' concept of Divine Omniscience. This "free will" argument is that evil and suffering and death are the consequence of creatures freely choosing to deny and destroy themselves and others, and not because God has directly willed evil to happen. Yet, Aquinas' account of Divine Knowledge would deny this, and posit God as the active cause for all choices and events.

The Many Loves of the Love of God

When we speak of the Love of God, or praise God for God's Loving-Kindness, we are remembering that above all, God is Love. But this Love is not merely the feeling we tend to associate with liking something a great deal, such as when we say "I love this coffee" or "I love that activity". Rather, we mean that God's Love is something deep and active, constantly working for the abundant life and flourishing of those God loves. In short, it is Love operative in sacrificial acts of kindness: Loving Kindness. Many Scriptural words and concepts fill out what this Divine Loving-Kindness means.

Scriptures on experiencing Divine Light

I figured I would start the year with a little Bible study. Here are some things that Scripture tells us about Divine Light and how we may experience and embody Light in our lives. The following is a Scriptural outline on how we can experience Divine Light, through Jesus Christ, but the power of God's Spirit.

The Metaphysics of Materialism

Materialist determinism is a perpetually popular view in the modern world. It is the metaphysical viewpoint which denies metaphysics by positing that: 1. Reality is made of matter and only matter. The only reality is matter and the physical forces which operate within material interaction. This raises the thorny question of what exactly matter is. But let’s bracket this and assume there is something called “matter”, and it is the only constituent of reality (as opposed to “spirit” or “mind” or “consciousness”). 2. The events in reality are causally determined by material laws and forces, such that even the workings of mind and consciousness are determined by the physical states which preceded them. There is no free will or choice. All are illusory experiences formed in brains after events have happened. All phenomena can be fully explained in a mechanistic way through the matter and forces at work in an event, without any reference to choices or intentions or motives or thoughts.

However, as elegant as materialist determinism seems to be, it has some rather impractical and non-elegant implications. 

Why God cannot be evil

Recently I was in a discussion in which someone asked whether God could be evil. Is it possible that the Ultimate Reality that is the source of all other realities is actually malevolent? Fortunately, it is both an evidential and a logical impossibility for God to be evil. God cannot be evil due to both an a priori reason (a reason which comes prior to experience in the world) and an a posteriori reason (a reason which comes from reflection on experience in the world). 

Is Love stronger than hate?

The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: “I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have drawn you with loving devotion." (Jeremiah 31.3)

Jesus said: "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself." (John 12.32)

Some have wondered what will win in the end: God's Love or human sin and hatred. Hate from a finite being is by definition, finite hate. Love from an infinite Being is by definition, infinite Love. The quantitative and qualitative difference between finite and infinite is by definition, infinite. Therefore God’s Love is infinitely more powerful and persuasive than even the greatest amount of finite hate, and that infinite Love will not give up or let down until it has, after ages of ages, transformed all finite hate into infinite Love. 

Resurrecting the Matrix: An Ideological Review

I just saw Matrix Resurrections. Here are my responses in no particular order:

God is...

The undeconstructable Love 

Which shines as a Light 

In the darkness

Calling us to unfurl 

Beckoning us to grow 

Into our fullest and best selves

A Provocation on the Constant of Change

The common sense insight that “the only constant is change” may have more going for it philosophically than we give to most platitudes. If change is constant, absolute, and unchanging, then let us take it as such. There has to be an unchanging Reality which is the engine driving all change which itself does not change. Because if change were to change, it would have to change into “not change”, into static unmoving immutability. Which would be to say it would change into nothing: Non-Being. But if beings exist and change, they must be upheld by a Dynamic Being, a Transcendent Life, which keeps all other things in motion around it and alive within it. This eternal constant of Change must therefore give Being to beings that they may exist and have life. This diffusing self giving for the Good of others is what we call Love. The Dynamic of Change is the Love that moves the Stars. Call it Love. Call it Life. Call it the Source. Call it Reality. Call it Change. Call it the Self. Call it God. But whatever you call It, call on it to make Its Self known to you in the depths of your self. 

Theological Topology: Placing the Trinity in Reality

At first glance, topology and theology have nothing to do with each other. Theology, on one hand, is "the rational discussion of God" (from the Greek words "theos" meaning God, and "logia" meaning study of, or reasoned discourse about). Topology, on the other hand, is the study of geometric properties and spatial relations between various kinds of objects in space, and the way in which constituent parts are interrelated or arranged. So, theology seems to deal with an Ultimate Reality beyond our world, while topology deals with spatial relations within our world. Nothing could be more different. It is like comparing apples to oranges, or Infinite Being to mere beings.

When Words Fail

How both Theistic and Nontheistic language fails to describe Ultimate Reality

In the constant back and forth between Theists and Nontheists, one of the frequent criticisms hurled from both sides regards the problem of language. Both sides claim that that other side slides into nonsensical or tautological language that fails to say anything about Reality. At some point, each side gets to ideas that are so foundational, so axiological, to their interpretive framework, that all they can say is "it is what it is".

What is interesting to me is that this point of linguistic "no return" is precisely at the same point and regarding the same issues. This break in meaningful, non-tautological language happens precisely at the ultimate origin, the ultimate value, and the ultimate destiny of all things. At these three points both the Theist and the Nontheist are effectively reduced to silence. This is when our words fail: When we lack the ability and even the concepts necessary to describe the ultimate nature of the Reality we find ourselves in.

Visions of Ultimate Reality

Ultimate Reality and Visions of Truth
The goal of our spiritual journey is to explore what is True, pursue what is Good, and practice what is Beautiful. And this journey begins with the question: What is Truth? Some say that Truth resides in a Holy Book of some sort, or a set of infallible statements about Reality. Some claim Truth is found in an inner experience, while others say it is found in evidence gathered from our senses. And then we find great spiritual teachers, such as Krishna who says “no Truth is superior to me”, or Jesus who says “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. Despite all of the apparent differences, these visions of Truth share some commonalities: They assume we are part of a greater Reality. And we come to experience Reality, as it really is, through many ways. These ways include books, and our senses, and inner experiences, and relationships with others. Through these ways we find Truth when our inner self conforms to what is really Real, and we are brought into harmony with Ultimate Reality. And in history there are enlightened persons-- like Krishna and Buddha and Jesus-- who are so filled with Ultimate Reality that they claim to be living embodiments of Truth. 

So what is the greater Reality that we need to conform ourselves to, so we also can embody Truth? What is really Real in the world we experience? What is the Ultimate Reality which is beyond, or within, or underneath, the apparent reality we experience every day? 

In the Divine Symphony: Why I think God is Real

In the school where I am chaplain, two of the skills we try to teach students are: First, how to build an evidence-based argument, and second, how to present the view you hold without demeaning or belittling those who disagree. This is especially true with controversial subjects that people hold strong opinions on. 

Since we give feedback about this so often, to so many of our students, I thought I would create an example of a controversial, evidence-based argument, which was presented in a way that sought to include even those who disagree with my conclusion. And voila: This sermon was born. The texts read before this sermon included: Psalm 19.1-9; Acts 17.27-28; Romans 1.19-20; 1John 4.7-16.

As we continue our journey through Epiphany, the season when Christ's Light shines on ALL kids of people, through ALL kinds of experiences, I wanted to challenge you a little today about HOW we see God's Light. And this challenge comes from a question I frequently get asked, and that I was asked again last week. The question goes something like this:

"Fr. Nate, you seem like a smart guy. How come you still believe in God?" 

A Provocation on Polytheism

I used to think polytheism was ludicrous. But if I didn't know better, I would think that old gods with names like Mars and Mammon, Eros and Eris, Thanatos and Dionysios, are actually orchestrating events in our society. What is more, it seems like they are all perfectly willing to dress up as Jesus of Nazareth, so long as we worship and sacrifice to the values they embody.

Credo: The Story that Reads Us [A Mini-Systemic Theology]

This was originally written in 2006 in partial fulfillment of requirements for Systematic Theology at Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University. It is fairly representative of my current thought, although in several ways I have built on, or superseded, what is written here. This is especially true in matters dealing with Science, World Religions, and Socio-Economic Justice.

This is the FULL 18,000 word original version that was trimmed to around 10,000 words to be turned in. Note that all endnotes have been removed from this version, due to the limitations of the blog format. However, all sources cited and consulted are found at the end of the essay.

A Prayer: Lord Jesus Christ, send forth your Spirit that I may say what needs to be said, in space allowed, and bear witness fully to your Father's Glory and His Story which writes us all. Amen+

Why God feels sorrow and joy

Is God able to truly feel sorrow over our failures? Does God truly rejoice with our successes? Today in Church our lectionary included the text from 1Samuel 15 that "The  Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel". This is a wonderful text which leads into several interesting theological places I have wanted to write about for some time. To get to those places, let's start Biblically. 

God, Gender, and Washington Episcopalians

Recently the Episcopal Diocese of Washington passed a resolution about gendered language and God, and the internet, predictably, went crazy.

This issue touches on a number of issues Biblically, Theologically, Ethically, and Aesthetically. None of these issues are particularly complex in and of themselves, but taken together it creates an issue where people absolutely lose their minds. Before commenting, let's read what the resolution actually says: They urge the Episcopal Church to "utilize expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition and, when possible, to avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God." That's it. That's all of the language of the resolution. There is no attempt to prohibit male images, titles, and pronouns for God, but to balance them with images, titles, and pronouns drawn from Scripture and Tradition which reflect other aspects of God as well.