Are Aliens Among Us?

If we simply channel-surf a bit or scan through the offerings on Red-Box or stroll through Game-Stop, we can see a plethora of alien and futuristic "Star Trek" style stories.  Everything from "X-Files" to "Star Trek" to "Clone Wars" to the "Faster-than-light travel" of "Mass Effect." 

Simply stated, this is all fiction and obviously so.  But, where does this stem from?  Where does our craving for this kind of story originate?  What in society has made such a fiction become plausible enough for us to be interested in it without rejecting it outright? 

I wonder if this can mostly be traced back to the writings of H.G. Wells around 150 years ago.  Whether or not it originated there, most science fiction appears to try to be based, at least somewhat, upon real science.  That is, "Star Trek" would often use technical and theoretic physics terms.  Even more generally, there is often a theme of space being the "final frontier".  Here, we hearken the days when the 13 colonies of America were on the edge of a continent with thousands of miles of "uninhabited" land beside them.  There appears to be so much potential.  There appears to be plenty of room for growth and expansion.  Space would appear to be the next "Western" with all its opportunities and vices.

This is the myth that society has taught us.



But, how much truth is there in this myth?  Is there a possibility of life outside of Earth?  Are there habitable planets outside of our solar system?  There is much that is unknown and the little that we do know is often hotly debated. 

Serious scholars, from my perception, appear to fall into a gradient between two camps:
1. "17%, or one in six, of all the sunlike stars in the Milky Way host a rocky planet that orbits closer than the distance at which Mercury orbits our own sun."  National Geographic
2. On other planets, "Life is pretty improbable"  NASA

Agreed, this is a bit of a simplification of the matter.  But the essential debate is over the largeness of the universe and the fine-tuning Design necessary for life.  Both ideas are often misunderstood and must be accounted for. 

The modern myth often emphasizes the largeness of the universe as can be best expressed in Carl Sagan's belief that if there was no other life in the universe that it would be a lot of wasted space.  But, the often passed over aspect is the real fine-tuning Design that is necessary for life as we understand it.

Some argue, perhaps with some validity, that the fine-tuning Design adherants are unwilling to consider the possibility of life on other planets.  Such a possibility, from their perspective, has much greater probability than from the perspective of those who focus on the fine-tuning Design aspects.  Yet, the the possibility is still there, and it stands as a legitimite question.  If life exists on other planets elsewhere, and especially if that life is intelligent and sentient, where would this life come from?  Is it randomly generated from a chemical soup as proposed in the modern myth?  Is it created at some point?  If so, how? 

So many questions to answer and so many questions that we don't have an answer to.  It often reminds me of Job's response to God's list of questions in Job 38-39.  In Job 38-39, we see God listing a bunch of scientific questions out to Job, questions that Job does not (and would be unable to) have an answer to.  Sometimes, in the questions that we face, we can only respond as Job did:

"I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.
 I spoke once, but I have no answer—
twice, but I will say no more."  -- Job 40:4-5


Though the modern myth is of space as the "final frontier", Hamlet had a more theological approach of death as the "undiscovered country."  Indeed, Hamlet was not a theologian nor intending to speak theologically, but his focus on the realm of the dead shows a different focus and a different societal orientation. 

As a Christian, I look forward to this "undiscovered country."  It is our blessed hope.  2 Cor 4 teaches us that we can have hope in a resurrected body after our body corrodes and we die.  This is indeed a different orientation than often propounded in the modern myth. 

I like the response seen in Pilgrim's Progress:

Christian: I seek an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that
   fadeth not away, 1 Peter 1:4; and it is laid up in heaven, and safe
   there, Heb. 11:16, to be bestowed, at the time appointed, on them that
   diligently seek it. Read it so, if you will, in my book.

Meditations on the Trinity

Just this past week, I went to the ETS conference in Milwaukee.  While there, one of the sessions that I attended was a seminar by several professors on the Trinity.  The things that I learned in that seminar have led me to reflect on the Trinity.  Here are my reflections so far.


In my systematic theology classes at Moody Theological Seminary, I read through Millard Erickson's book, "Christian Theology", which guided me in my understanding about the essential attributes of God:

A table has attributes such as “red” or “round” or “four legs”, but a table’s essence is found in its function (i.e.: “able to hold objects”).  Yet, God’s essence is not in His function.  The essence of “iron,” on the other hand, is found not in its function, but in its essential attribute, “rock”, or in more specific terms: “substance with 26 protons and 30 neutrons”.  Similarly, God’s essence, at the very least, consists of His essential attributes.  Therefore, God’s essential attributes are permanent and intrinsic qualities which cannot be gained or lost.  God’s essential attributes are “spirit” (John 4:24) and “person.” “Spirit” is the invisible, not-of-the-flesh, renovative, creative, life-giving quality (Carson 1991, 225). A “person” has intellect (Isaiah 55:8-9), emotion (Exodus 34:5-7; Nehemiah 9:13-21), and will (Isaiah 14:24).  

Other attributes of God, which also are unable to be gained or lost, are eternality (Psalm 90:2), immutability (James 1:17), holiness (Psalm 99), infinity (Psalm 139:1-11; Jeremiah 32:17), light (1 John 1:7), and love (1 John 4:8).

  Now, with this understanding of God's attributes, I also reflect on the Trinity.  There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), but three persons (Matthew 28:19-20; 2 Corinthians 13:14). 

At the ETS Conference I came to understand that the definition of the word "person" as I defined in my discussion of God's essential attributes is different than the definition of the word "person" as used in traditional Trinitarian teaching.  And the question that came to my mind is "what exactly is a person in the traditional teaching?"  From my discussion with them, I was told that "person" merely refers to "one who generates", "one who is generated", and "one who proceeds" and nothing else.  Checking wikipedia, I find this confirmed.

Additionally, I heard a debate at ETS in favor of the three members (I'll use the word "members" instead of "persons" to avoid confusion) of the Trinity in perfect submission against the idea that each are exactly equal in authority.  This was essentially a recount of a Grudem vs. Erickson debate.  In the discussion, the traditional position was arguing against this because having three members in perfect submission implies that there are three wills, which would seem to imply three gods.  Thus, I learned of the social Trinitiarianism view.

Now, just simply looking at New Testament scriptures, we can see examples of each member of the Trinity having intellect, emotion, and will.  It is important to remember then that this is an essential element of God.  It is essential because, without it, we merely have a "force" in the Star Wars sense.  Yet, God, as defined in the Bible is not a "force" in the Star Wars sense exactly because God has personhood (i.e.: intellect, emotion, and will).

So, if each member of the Trinity has a will, and part of the essence (i.e.: substance, ousia) of God is His will,  would this mean that the three members of the Trinity are not of the same substance, but rather similar substance?  Oy Vay!  May it never be! 


There does seem to be clear evidence from scripture that the Son's will was completely obedient to the Father's will. But, how are we to understand this then?  

Yet, an analogy here is helpful.  The well-known analogy of ice/water/gas for the Trinity is modalist.  But, I think this analogy can perhaps be modified to make it traditionally Trinitiarian.  

We've all seen a block of ice turn into water and the water into gas.  But, imagine that the ice quickly turns to water and then to gas and then quickly back to water and then to ice.  Imagine that this happens over and over again.  Imagine that this happens so quickly that it appears that the entirety of the H2O is ice, water, and gas at the same time.  Now, imagine that the H2O actually IS, in its entirety, in the state of ice, water and gas at the same time. Each state is not a part of the H2O rather it is the entire H2O.  This is the Trinity.  One God, three members, exactly at the same time entirely God.

Now, if we apply this analogy to the essential attributes of God, namely Spirit and Person, I think this can bring some understanding out of confusion.  The description as seen in the New Testament shows us each person of the Trinity having a will.  This is like the ice, water, gas.  Just as there are to be three states in entirety of H20, there here are three wills in entirety of God's Will.  Just as there is one God, there is one Spirit, and one Person (i.e.: one intellect, one emotion, one will).

Thus, viewing the members of the Trinity this way, we can understand how each member in the Trinity can be described with different wills, yet there being only one single will of God.  Indeed, the three members are certainly in perfect submission.  But submission is only part of the picture.  If submission were the whole picture, it would almost be as if there were three homunculi inside that which is God containing different wills with an external single will being expressed out to the world.  Thus you'd have the Cerebus three headed dog, which actually is three similar substances tied together in a body.  But, in fact, because there is only one will of God as the essential substance, we avoid this.  The Father, Son, and Spirit are each entirely the same substance of a singular will. The Father, Son, and Spirit  are each entirely the same substance of a singular emotion.   The Father, Son, and Spirit  are each entirely the same substance of a singular intellect.  Yet, each member can be meaningfully described having will and submission toward each other.  

The distinction is indeed how they relate to each other.  The Father is the one who generates.  The Son is the one who is generated(begotten) but not created.  The Spirit is the one who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Amen.