In our age of multicultural relativism, the ten commandments are often viewed as dead platitudes, antiquated and irrelevant for modern man. Several years ago, there was a long and furious debate when a judge in America placed the ten commandments in his courtroom. Despite the fact that they were eventually removed, the judge received a lot of support for his action. In the last century, God was declared dead and yet it appears that it is only His detractors who have died and He is still alive. Various countries have tried, and yet have been unable to banish God. A zampolit (protector of Soviet dogma) pressuring a Christian pastor, was asked by that pastor, “If the party told him tomorrow to go to church and light a candle, what would he do?” He responded, that it would never happen. Well, that “never” has happened and that tomorrow has come. Many years later that same zampolit printed Gospel tracks for me, an American missionary. Even today in China, despite incessant governmental measures to counter religion, the church in China is one of the largest churches in the world and growing. God just won’t die and His law won’t go away. Are there absolute moral laws, or are they dependent upon the changing trends of human thought? Let’s examine this issue.

Humans are moral beings. It would seem that this statement is self-evident. However, the implications and the explanations of this fact have left some difficulties in the minds of those who would like to banish God from the consciousness of mankind forever. Darwinian sociologists attempting to construct a theory for the moral bearing within humans, have yet to formulate an adequate explanation. The relative moralist attempts to view ethical standards determined either by the individual or their social unit. The result is either individualism in some form of self-rule, or democratic morality that is up for vote in a sea of fluctuating public opinion. Yet the sense of justice and the understanding of right and wrong are so much a part of what it means to be human. The relativist insists that there are not absolute standards of right or wrong, yet when they are personally wronged, they are quick to condemn, and when confronted with the expression of raw evil they recoil from its horror, and rightfully so. The relativist, which for the most part comprises much of our present generation, is “relatively” moral. But below the surface the evil still lurks and the struggle continues.
In an effort to avoid absolute moral laws, great pains are taken to abdicate all absolutes. It is a valiant but vain effort, since it is also self-defeating. A teacher with whom I was discoursing was quite offended by the notion of absolutes and she made the declaration that “there are no absolutes”. The implication of her statement is quite obvious, but intentionally overlooked by many. The implication is that the declaration is in itself a statement of absolute. And being such, it relegates itself to absurdity. Truth is a term of absolutes. Something is either true or false. Truth speaks to the reality of things independent of how I perceive, think, or want things to be. So far, the logical law of non-contradiction has survived the onslaught of its critics, and it is my suspicion that it will continue to survive even as the relativists stubbornly bang their heads against the brick wall.
If there are absolutes, can there also be absolute moral laws? If the human conscience is any indicator, then they do exist. What is the conscience? I would define conscience as the inner law that guides us in the our daily decisions. It can justify our actions which are in accordance with our moral law. And it can produce a feeling of guilt when there is an incongruency between our behavior and our moral standard. I always liked the illustration some North American Indians use to describe the workings of conscience and guilt. They say that within every heart there is a knife. This knife turns like the minute hand on a clock. Every time the heart lies, the knife rotates an increment. As it turns, it cuts into the heart. As it turns, it carves a circle. The more it turns, the wider the circle becomes. After the knife has rotated one full circle, a path has been carved. The result? No more hurt, no more heart. (Max Lucado, Finding a Fathers Love) It is important to note here that the conscience is not the absolute moral law. It is only an imperfect representation. The Bible refers to this innate sense of right and wrong as the law written in our hearts that bears witness and accuses or excuses. Can it be denied? Of course, but we go against our conscience to our own hurt. Just as the body is wonderfully equipped with pain sensors to warn us of danger, we are likewise equipped with moral sensors to warn of spiritual danger that we may not lose our soul. And if the conscience of a nation is in shambles, what hope do we have for its citizenry?

Difficult ethical situations are put forth as a demonstration of the “impossibility” of moral absolutes. Scenarios are constructed that pit two moral choices against each other resulting in a moral dilemma. The result is a made-for-TV situation far removed from reality. “Suppose that someone made you choose which person to kill first and if you refuse they will kill everyone.” or “Kill this person or we will kill your child.” I’ve seen these scenarios proposed on various occasions. Of course these are very hypothetical, but even taken at face value it leaves little doubt as to the proper course of action despite the heavy emotional toll. One always has a choice not to participate in their evil. The danger in these scenarios is that by extension we also participate as we justify actions. The key to seeing through these scenarios is to cut through the emotional manipulation and look for the third, fourth or fifth option which was conveniently forgotten to fit their agenda. The foundational problem in these scenarios is a misunderstanding of moral law. It is an attempt to enforce a technicality of law that misrepresents the law. This tactic was used unsuccessfully against Jesus. His opponents tried to have Jesus agree to the stoning of an adulterous woman. However, He not only revealed their hypocrisy, but demonstrated God’s mercy. He then said to her, “Go and sin no more”, reaffirming God’s standard and man’s responsibility.

Difficult questions abound. The proponent for moral absolute is acutely aware of this and wrestles with these issues. The fully amoral troubles himself not over such trifles as ethics. Today as technology continues to explode, we are faced more and more with these difficulties. They are not easy questions nor are there easy answers. For instance, many couples have eggs fertilized to implant at a later time. The couple divorces and the embryos are still being stored in a suspended state in the freezer. What should be done with the frozen embryos? Whose are they? I will not try to resolve this issue here, but one thing is immediately obvious, the source of the dilemma is choices made much earlier than the “dilemma”. Moral dilemmas are very often of our own making, and the answers are usually much simpler than we are willing to admit. In many cases, we must confess that in the end, there may be no out except an appeal to God for His mercy. Despite the complexities, abolishing moral standards is not the answer. In fact, more than ever we need these standards to guide us through the ever-expanding labyrinth of moral complexities of our day. We must constantly remind ourselves that just because we can, does not mean we should.

The consequences of adapting relative ethics can be devastating. The Nazis were notorious for using Darwinian ethics of survival of the fittest. It is pertinent that we understand that the Nazis’ obliteration of the weaker races and people was for them a moral obligation. In other words, they believed they were doing “good” by killing off these people. It was evolution put into practice. The consistent moral relativist must ask, “Why not? What is right for them is right for them and who are we to judge them?”. They would be right but for one caveat– a universal moral law that supersedes us all. This is the main basis for the Nuremberg trials, imperfect as they were. Are we willing to dispense of a universal moral law and live in a world were there are no restraints and might makes right? We cannot fully comprehend the atrocity of the what the Nazis did until we understand that the monstrosity of Nazis was not one of barbarianism, but one of highly civilized philosophy. It is easy for us to forget that there is a thin line between civilization and savagery, and often that savagery can lie very near to the surface. History has demonstrated that it takes very little coaxing to revive it through fear, crises and ideologies.

Another important angle to the discussion is the issue of free will and determinism. A belief in Darwinian evolution has naturally led to a form of determinism. We are products of chance processes devoid of intelligence or purpose. Man is reduced to a mass of cells and chemicals acting upon honed instincts. We do what we do because that is who we are. Just as a lion tears his prey so we fulfill our lot in life. What kind of choice can we expect from such beings and how can we make moral demands. Today, we give condoms away in schools, because “they are kids and they will not be able to control sexual urges” (which is not surprising due to the nature of the information with which they are bombarded daily through the media). This determinism is expressed in the understanding of criminal behavior, “He had a bad childhood.” Of course our environment comes to play in our choices in life, but we still bear the responsibility for the choices we make. Can we expect youth to respect their bodies instead of giving in to animal instincts? Can we expect people with difficult childhoods to NOT kill or maim others? Determinism and reductionism do not empower man, they take away his soul. I believe that we are creatures made in the image of God. We are more than our chemical make up. We contain the free will to fulfill our role before God here on this earth. However, with that free will also comes the ability to sin and go against our Creator. The most important choice we make is not about our daily ethical decisions, it is how we will choose to relate to God. In fact, the Ten Commandments were not just written to regulate behavior. They are a demonstration of God’s high expectations for us. They are reminders of our position before God. They bring us face to face with our sinfulness and our need for God’s mercy. In Galatians we read,

“But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Galatians 3:22-24

We have all repeatedly broken God’s absolute moral law. However, with God there is mercy and forgiveness. Christ paid the penalty of sin through the death on the Cross that we may freely come to receive forgiveness and a new life with God.

The moral relativists assert that morality is a constantly moving target. Could it be that they are true in their observation, yet false in their conclusion? Could it be that it is not morality that is constantly in motion, but modern man who is moving relative to morality? Could it be that morality is fixed as a guiding star, which we willfully ignore and instead rely on our own intuition to navigate the murky waters? Undoubtedly, it is we who are adrift and not morality. Today’s ethics are peddled in fast moving pictures comprised of millions of bits of information in a constant state of flux. The uneasy uncertainty wears on us and deep down there is a desire to know the truth and to find freedom in that truth. The Ten Commandments were engraved in stone. It is symbolic of the longevity and immutability of that law. Yes, that stone can crush, but it can also give guidance. Most importantly it can guide us to Christ.

Written to be published in Slovo Vchitelyu “The word to teachers”, a Ukrainian Christian journal for teachers.

With that, another emotion flooded his soul, “remorse”, “regret”. His heart tightened as tears tried to well up, yet were choked back by a numbness that encompassed his whole body. His mind was ringing with questions, questions without answers. And yet they all came down to one question, “Why?”. He had always passed the tree without even a desire to touch the forbidden fruit. Then it returned to him. The explanation had flowed smoothly and enticingly from her lips. However, it was hardly convincing. No, it was the look. Standing there, looking into her eyes, he perceived that there was a profound secret she knew and was offering him. He saw what appeared to be an ancient wisdom. Her poise, her lips, her outstretched hand all conveyed the sense of her new found attainment. His protests jumbled in meaningless babble. Deep inside he understood that, if he did not partake he would be forever separated from the one he loved and treasured. What else did he have in this garden, besides her? No sooner had a concern for her arose than another desire commanded his attention. She had been his equal in all things and yet now she had attained a position of superiority. He felt simplistic, subjugated before her knowledge. He saw that this attainment was also now within his grasp as it was now resting in hers. Impulsively he grabbed, knowing full well the reality of the consequences.

Guilt, regret, remorse, another feeling quickly followed. An urge to run, to flee, but from what, from whom? Fear gripped his heart as the security and peace of mind that he had once had was quickly a fading memory. The words “you shall surely die” rang in his ear as the reverberation of a funeral bell. Naked and scared, he stood trembling in the warm tropical air of the garden. He dared not lift his gaze lest his eyes meet hers. Frantic, he scans the landscape for cover–anything to relieve his anxiety.

Entering the thick foliage, he is cognizant of her presence as she follows him deeper into the brush. Why won’t she leave him alone? He turns to see her, a miserable reflection of his own state. Her contorted facial features were far removed from the soft lines that had once so enraptured him. No words are passed as pangs of sympathy well up in his heart. He had a desire to make it better, yet knew that what they had done had been irrevocable. He felt totally helpless. Silently they sat, stitching and weaving together what suitable leaves they could find. The work was frustrating and tedious and the results were far from satisfactory.

Adam had a strong desire to sleep in hopes of awakening from this night mare. His thoughts were shattered as they heard the Lord walking through the garden. They dared not speak and hoped that the Lord would just walk by. However, the Lord spoke. His voice resounded with authority commanding full obedience. The will to resist melted into submission, as Adam stepped out with his wife to confront the inevitable. The feelings of guilt, regret and fear multiplied in the presence of the Lord’s holy light. Doom and despair overwhelmed him. The only thread of hope hung on the note of sorrow and love contained within the voice of the Lord as the ominous judgments were pronounced.

Condemned and forlorn, they left the garden. His shame-filled soul grasped for some ray of hope. His mind continually returned to the words “her seed”. The saying was enigmatic and he could little guess the significance of its secrets. However, instinctively he understood that somewhere in these words hung the hope of all mankind. The hope gave him strength as he gently put his arm around Eve. They walked on to face the strange new world before them. It wouldn’t be easy, but somehow God would make a way. Paradise was lost, yet faith was born.

Related Post:   Awakening to life

A few days after hearing of this creature for the first time, we were camping in the Ukrainian countryside. We were startled awake by a terrible squealing and banshee-like shrieking that would have raised the dead. Fortunately, though, it did not awaken our three children. Lying in the tent, trying to figure out if I had dreamed it, I turned over the possible explanations for such a ghastly sound. My fears were confirmed after a long silence when my wife asked, “What makes such an awful sound?” Chupakabra, of course! The only other possible explanations were some creature being ripped apart or wild hogs fighting in the nearby forest. Of course, the first explanation brings us to the question, “What was attacking the poor creature?” Whatever it was, we survived the week in our tent.

Could there be such a creature? We have yet to catalog all the varieties of animals in our world, so there is a possibility that such a beast exists. A more likely scenario would be an animal that could be deformed in some manner or just mistakenly identified by the eyewitnesses, who live in villages where exorbitant amounts of samogonka (“self-brew” liquor) are consumed. Another possible explanation could be a line of mutants stemming from the Chernobyl meltdown.

Though there could be other possible scientific explanations, it may be best to understand it as a psychological phenomenon. If the description of these creatures is very similar to the description of fabled creatures of the past, we may ask the question, “Why now?” After many mythical creatures have lain dormant for decades, what has awakened them to stalk us now? I propose no scientific proof and do not plan to study this phenomenon in-depth. (Hey, this a blog not a journal.) However, I would propose that chupakabra are quite possibly the expression of vague deep-seated fears of a people. The past several years in Ukraine have been marked with political uncertainties, financial crises, and pandemic scares. These have left people with many troubling and undefined fears. Could the chupakabra be a way for people to put a name to these fears? Is it a natural means of dealing with these issues by transposing those feelings on a mythical creature? I don’t know if we will ever find the answer, but the search for the chupakabra goes on. Just don’t forget to shut your windows at night. You never know to which country the beast might migrate next.

1. A functioning church is not a place of superficial contacts. The relationships within a church are very much like those in a family. And in a family we are accepted who we are, for better or for worse. So conflicts within a church are evidence of the deeper nature of the relationships.
2. A church is not a club of interests. Clubs form around interests and natural similarities in character. The church is made up of all types of people, from all social levels, and different characters. This increases the likelihood that there will be conflicts.
3. A church deals with issues that people hold dear. We may be wrong on some issues and maybe one is wrong in his manner of expressing himself, but to have convictions has long been considered a point of strength not weakness. If there is nothing worth dying for there is nothing worth living for. It is commendable when someone dies for his faith (regardless of the religion), but killing for one’s faith is when the problem comes in.
4. A church is comprised not only of true believers. The Bible is clear that not everyone in the church is a true believer, some are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Conflict often arises not from sheep, but from wolves–those who wish to destroy the church. In many of these situation conflict is even necessary to protect the sheep.
5. A church is not always in conflict. A church conflict is often blown out of proportion and the impression is that churches are always bickering. An emphasis can be made on the problems, when actually the positives far outweigh the bad.
6. The church is not a group of perfect people. There are also different levels of maturity, which is not necessarily tied to age.
7. Churches often have highly-motivated, visionary leaders who can at times clash—not only among themselves, but also with those comfortable in their complacency. Stereotypical CEOs are not the easiest types to get along with, but this is excused as long as they are making money for the shareholders. In the world this is acceptable behavior, but in the church people expect pastors to be pushovers. People misconstrue the meaning of humility. Jesus was the humblest of all, and yet was no pushover.

Considering all the points, it is not surprising that conflicts take place in the church. It is surprising that they do not happen more often. What is missed is that conflict is often necessary and can be constructive. The absence of conflict is not necessarily an indication of peace, it is often the result of lifeless indifference. When conflict does arise within the church there are means of working through difficulties. The natural human reaction is either fight or flight. The Gospel’s message of forgiveness gives the example and the strength to do the impossible. We don’t just walk away, we are family. It is evidence of the real value of the church. Stronger relationships are built through the trials of conflict. Though often conflict is seen as evidence against the church, if handled properly it can be a strong testimony of the love of brothers and sisters who work through their problems, because they do love one another despite their differences.

“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” Galatians 1:6-7

The question arises, “What defines a different gospel?” Or rather, “How far can we move away from the gospel before it is no longer the gospel?” The answer lies in the gospel itself. For to understand a perverted gospel we must understand the true gospel. Upon some meditation, I have compiled a list of five essential points. These are fundamental aspects of the gospel, with which if there any variance the gospel ceases to be the gospel.

1. The condition of man-We begin here because without a proper diagnosis there can be no proper treatment. The remedy of the gospel directly correlates with the illness of man. A gospel that seeks to “better” man socially, mentally, or even spiritually is no gospel at all. Man is fully sinful headed for judgment, betterment will only temporarily ease his symptoms. Instead, what is needed is radical measures. The gospel speaks in terms of death, resurrection, and rebirth. Without a proper understanding of man’s condition the gospel has no purpose.
2. The person of Jesus Christ-The effectiveness of the remedy rests fully on the One who brought it into being. The gospel is believing in His name. His name is His person. The person of Christ involves His humanity, divinity, and the union of these two natures. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” II John 7 Likewise we read, “These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.” I John 5:13 The gospel is His gospel. A belief in another Jesus is no Jesus at all. Without the full person of Jesus Christ the gospel has no power.
3. The nature of the atonement-If earlier we spoke of the nature of the sickness, then here we have the nature of the remedy. This deals with the very mechanics of the gospel. How is it, that sinful man can be made right before a holy God? This is an in-depth subject, Substitutionary Atonement, which sums up the essentials for belief in Christ’s penal sacrifice. Jesus took upon Himself our sins that He may in our place pay the penalty of sin. “Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we having died to sins, might live for righteousness–by whose stripes you were healed.” I Peter 2:24 This also involves concepts of redemption, propitiation, & justification. The nature of the atonement gives the gospel reason and standing.
4. The conditions of acceptance-Here we are concerned with the application of the gospel. As the jailer asked, “What must I do to be saved?” The answer is simple, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. and you will be saved, you and your household.” Acts 16:30-31 Faith in these fundamentals is the means of applying the gospel to our lives. “Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference.” Romans 3:22 The passage that brought up this whole discussion is in the letter of Paul to the Galatians. The whole point of the book is that salvation is through faith and faith alone. Without this point, the gospel has no effect in the person.
5. The uniqueness of the gospel- The claims of the gospel on exclusivity cause the most distress among those who have not believed the gospel. Some try to soften this point to placate others, but there can be no compromise. The gospel will not share its position with any other system of thought. It cannot. It is incompatible. The instant you try to synchronize the gospel with any other teaching, it ceases to be the gospel. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12 Without this point all the other points are denied.

Of course, this is just cursory, but then the gospel is rather simple and thus the fundamentals are rather concise as well. The difficulty for many is the step of faith, without which we cannot please God and we can have no salvation. I would be interested if anyone would have anything to add to this list. Keep in mind that they must be essentials and that many things will be subcategories to the above.

The gospel is more than just some kind of style of music. It is more than lofty sentiments. It is a clear message with concrete application. The fundamentals help us define the parameters of this message. The importance of understanding, holding to and preach can not be overstated. We further read,

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

May we not fall short or fall from the blessing of the gospel, to the curse of a different gospel.

NOTICE:  These will not show on just any Kindle.  To use these files you need a jail broken kindle with the Unicode font hack, which can be found here  http://blogkindle.com/unicode-fonts-hack/ .   I have successfully used this hack, but use it at your own risk.

Now how does this relate to the terms Allah ( الله‎ ) and Elohim (אֱלהִים)?This past week, we were in a missions conference and we were discussing dialog between Christians and Muslims.  It came to me that the root for Allah, the Muslim term for the One God,   has its roots in the ancient semitic term for god “El” which is expressed in the Hebrew term for the One God as Elohim. Al and El the main stem of those two terms may seem very different to English-speaking people, but those who know different languages may recognize that difference depends more on who is pronouncing them.  Have you ever heard in the deep South “tire” that sounds a lot like a drawn out “tar”?  I asked one missionary about this relation and he told me the following story.

Because Israel lay within the trade routes many travelers would pass by the region.  One such traveler entered a synagogue and was so impressed with the significance of Elohim that he repeated it the whole way home to remember it.  However in the process of repeating it, it eventually morphed into the term “Allah”.

Now I am not sure how accurate the story is, but for the Eastern mind that may not be the significance of the story.  This story expresses the family relationship of these two terms.  Both terms are probably best translated into English as simply “God”.  Of course no translation is perfect, but it is sufficient for our understanding.  The question is, “Can the term Allah be used as a general term referring to God in Arabic and other languages that use this term?”.  If the base meaning is God which finds its roots in Elohim then it could be used in reference to the God of the Bible.    On this basis there is sufficient reason to use this terms to contextualize the Gospel message.

There are however some reasons in which this may not be the right thing to do.  The etymology of a word is only part of understanding its meaning.  Sometimes the etymological root is total lost in the present meaning.  In language the real issue is not what a word meant sometime ago, but what it means right now.  That is, its present day usage which includes the associations that go along with it.  To use the term “gay” as a happy frame of mind may be excusable for a 90 year old person or a book from the 19th century, but presently that meaning doesn’t have much currency in today’s vernacular.  The term Allah is associated with the God of Islam, so there is some difficulty in trying to use this term in contextualizing the Gospel.  Despite this, the meaning of Allah is “the sole God” and thus corresponds to the Judeo-Christian concept of the One True God.  Christians living in Islamic-dominated nations have used the term in reference to the God of the Bible (as described in Wikipedia).    Even recently, Christians in Malaysia won a court judgment that allows the use of “Allah” in Christian literature to refer to God.  Of course that has upset some and resulted in church burnings.

Over all, it appears that the use of  “Allah” as part of contextualizing the Gospel is a valid application, but some care should be used and the context must be understood.  Either way, we should be careful due to our preconceived notions to  not judge too quickly others’ use of the term.  Likewise, I believe we should resist the temptation to quickly accept something as a practical means of achieving a goal (which is pragmatism in missions) without thinking through the theological and future implications of a such a course.

He continues to walk through the garden, careful to name every creature that comes within his field of vision. It was an interesting job, endued with purpose. He liked to hear the new sounds roll off his tongue. Each name was unique and meaningful. He felt a sense of duty and pride in his accomplishment as he named each creature. Yet, slowly an emptiness of that pride came over him. The sound of his own voice began to satisfy him less and less. It was as though the sound was meant to be shared. The animals each in turn responded to his voice, but none were able to grasp the significance. Through it all, there was a growing sense of his loneliness, as he noticed that each creature had a companion comparable, yet not identical.

Thirsty, he returned to the pool of water. Before drinking, he again desires to admire his reflection. He grinned but it slowly faded away. Yes, he was handsome but what did it matter? Who would even notice him? He realized a reflection is a poor companion in deed. He quickly thrusts his hand into the water, more out of a need to disrupt his sad thoughts than out of thirst. Tired of exploring his new world and with a desire to forget his somber feelings, he lies on a fresh carpet of grass and enters a deep sleep of dreams.

As he enters his world of dreams, he meets a friend. Together, they walk along throughout the garden enjoying each individual flower tending as they go. They run across the meadows, climb some trees and play in the water. The joy he feels plays across his face as he sleeps. But his smile is not alone, for God also stands by smiling in His own way knowing the dream and its present fulfillment. Deep in sleep Adam feels no pain, yet senses as a rib is carefully removed from his body.

He continues to smile as he slowly begins his ascent from dream land. A smile only disrupted by the remembrance of the last conscience thought of loneliness. He would have desired to return to the land from whence he had just come, if it was not for the sense of another presence. Whatever it was, it was close enough for him to feel its breathing. Not sure what he should do, he remains still, trying to hide his wakefulness. But it was to no avail for the one present was little fooled by this tactic and as such a soft giggle escaped. To him, the giggle was more melodious than any of the song birds he had already named. With its sound, faded all the feelings of loneliness he had experienced and in its place returned the pleasant smile to his face. This came to the great delight of the beholder who responded with another soft giggle. With this, he opened his eyes wishing to see the source of this enchanting music. He could not believe what he saw. Gazing into his eyes were eyes just like his, but not quite his own. The smile that followed the movement of his smile was similar, but not quite the same. It was as though he was looking at his reflection, improved upon many times over. So similar, it was, yet so different. He was bewildered as to what intrigued him the most, the similarities or the differences.

As he looked, he began to raise himself up to get a better look. His recent dream flashes across his mind, but this far surpasses in idea and substance. It is undreamable yet real. New feelings of exhilaration filled his soul. Just as he had named the many other creatures, he understood that this one must have the greatest honor, being the fairest of all. He opened his mouth and declared, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Though many a creature he had named before, none responded with such pleasure and delight as this one, upon hearing her name. Adam felt satisfied. For him, at last, Paradise had real meaning. Paradise had someone to share it with. Paradise had truly become paradise.  Thomas Fleming Oct 11, 2007

Related Post: Awakened to sin

As I embark on this task of teaching theology, at least in part, I understand this precarious position. An explanation is to be demanded. The guards of God’s majesty, holiness and complete otherness cry, “Halt, who goes there? Who dares to approach the most wonderful?” Before I proceed further I must present the grounds for moving forward. I must present, if you will, a theology for theology.

At first sight, it does appear extremely audacious of me or any other mortal to study God or even the things of God. Yet, this is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Christian Theology. For Christian Theology finds its origins not in the exertion of grey cell but in the self-revelation of God. This is not the audacity of theology but the grace of theology. God graciously opens Himself up to perceptibility, not according to our determination or desire but according to His own self-determination of revelation.

A theology of theology begins with the knowability of God. Can we know God? Should we know God? And how can we know God? These are valid questions that must be answered. Again it does seem audacious to assume that we can know God. The accusation is laid, “How can finite man know the incomprehensible?” One flaw in this logic is that it confuses comprehensive knowledge with partial knowledge. Just because we cannot know something comprehensively doesn’t mean that we cannot know in part. For indeed, can someone even know me, a simple man, comprehensively? But then what is the basis of the knowability of God? Again, it is His self-determined revelation. The fact of God’s self revelation answers the issues of knowability. Revelation assumes the ability of the other to perceive what is being expressed. We can know. It also demonstrates God’s desire to be known, for one leaves the shadows only for the purpose of being known. In other words, it is permission or even an invitation to become acquainted with Him. We may know God. That leaves the question of, “How can we know God?” Though it is beyond my intent to explore this matter now, it can be simply answered, “Through His revelation.”

With the above arguments, another opposing question arises. If God has revealed Himself, if he has stepped out of the shadows so to speak, is it proper to ignore Him? Is it justified to go on existing as if He, the self-existent One, does not exist? This is the audacity of non-theology. When God presents Himself in a myriad of ways, can any man afford to snub Him, and act disinterested and, finally, to declare that those who acknowledge His existence are prideful?

No, theology does not have to be audacious. However, it often is, and when I say that I include all religions & religious ideas that are founded upon human reason rather than God’s revelation. With God’s revelation, comes the grace of theology. And in the end, isn’t ignoring God the audacity of non-theology? We cannot be so presumptuous as to encroach on God’s prerogatives, but when God bids us to come and to remove our sandals, what more can we do but to come in humility and to know Him as our God?