Unity, Division, and a More Excellent Way

Syria, recently, has been the picture of constant violence, countless deaths, and unspeakable horrors.  Both the establishment and the rebels fight continuously as the world watches.  As we become repulsed by the inhumanity of it all, the question arises:   Why are they fighting?  Why all this bloodshed?  Is this really worth it?

James 1:4 (HCSB) tells us "What is the source of wars and fights among you? Don’t they come from the cravings that are at war within you?"

Indeed, war is a phenomenon that happens all over the world, in every culture, in every region, in every time period, at every level of society, both internally and externally.  Yet, what is the Bible's recommended approach to this situation?

Historically, Christians have often chosen either a Just War approach or a Pacifism approach.
In the Bible, we find a clear example of a right approach to this situation.  In the time of the kings of Israel, King Saul became aware that a young boy, David, was anointed to be next king.  In opposition to this, Saul became focused on trying to eliminate this potential threat to his kingdom.  Saul resorted to sending David to the front lines of battle hoping that he would die (an act that David himself would also do later on against Bathsheba's husband).  Saul tried to kill him at the king's table with a spear.  And Saul eventually went to all out war against David and his mighty men.  Yet, David was committed to the Lord's anointed, as Saul, though acting sinfully, was still the Lord's anointed for the time being.  Though David had a chance to kill Saul, God called him to submission to the current king of Israel. And so David lived in exile until the Lord's timing arose.

In this we see the principle of unity and submission.  There is a time when it is better for us to live with a hostile regime than to incite insurrection.  And by doing so, we preserve peace and prevent unnecessary bloodshed.

But, is there ever a situation where division is necessary?  Is divisiveness always wrong?
There seems to be three possible situations on this.

1. Blatantly Sinful Divisiveness:

In the Old Testament, we have a clear example of sinful rebellion in the rebellion of Korah who opposed Moses and was punished by the Lord.  Additionally, the New Testament gives the following direction: 

"Now I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause dissensions and obstacles contrary to the doctrine you have learned. Avoid them, for such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites.They deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting with smooth talk and flattering words." Romans 16:17-18 (HCSB)

"But avoid foolish debates, genealogies, quarrels, and disputes about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. Reject a divisive person after a first and second warning, knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, being self-condemned." Titus 3:10-11 (HCSB)

"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy,outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy,drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I tell you about these things in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21 (HCSB)

2. Righteous Divisiveness:

As the Bible is described as a sword, correctly teaching the Bible or "handling scripture" can be described as "rightly dividing the Word of Truth." 

In the Old Testament, there are several places where Israel is called out from the surrounding society.  In Israel's idolatry, men of God have called God's people to "divide" or separate from that which God hates.  In fact, because God is Holy, this means that God is completely separate from all of creation.  And God's people are called to demonstrate this quality of God.  This can be seen in the example of Phinehas who kills with a spear.  This can be seen in the example of Joshua who called Israel to worship God.  

In the New Testament, we see several places where separation is called for.  Jesus called for separation and division between a disciple and any other loyalties.  We are called to be separate and in doing so God becomes as a Father to us. Additionally, we see that many people separate from the Church because they were not truly of the Church.  Even more so, we are called to maintain the purity of the Gospel. And, in doing so, we reject false teachers. 

3. Stumbled Divisiveness:

Here, we have an example that is not exactly similar to blatantly sinful divisiveness.  The distinction here is that, in this case, people are genuinely motivated by a love for God.  In this situation, a person may have a sincere conviction from God, whether moral or doctrinal, concerning themselves or others.  And this conviction may be in opposition to the position of the community of believers that the person is a part of.  As this is not over the most important things (such as the purity of the Gospel), whether the person is correct or not, is separate from the matter.  The situation here is over differences between believers who both genuinely love the Lord and want to honor God, but have a difference of understanding.





But, a midst this, one wonders,
How does using the Word correctly keep us from minimizing important theological differences which we  otherwise might think are not that important? Perhaps three principles toward appropriate use of division could be:


1. When it violates the essential core of the Gospel. 
2. When it can result in harm to the church (indulging in clear sin, etc.)
3. When it violates the agreed upon doctrinal statement of the community of believers.



"But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." 
1 Cor. 12:31 (KJV)

Universal Beauty?

In the field of Software Engineering, you often come across a discussion on "clean" or "beautiful" code in contrast with "sloppy" or "ugly" code.  Upon further examination, we find that there sometimes is a disagreement on what exactly makes code "clean" or "beautiful".   Some find code to be beautiful when it is very compact and efficient.  Others find code to be beautiful when it is very easy to read and understand. Others find code to be beautiful when using patterns in architecture and design.

When one writes or sees code that is exceptionally beautiful, there is an emotional experience where we stand in awe.  This does not necessary happen only in the reading or writing of source code.  But, it can happen when writing or reading a paper that appears exceptionally beautiful.  In the realm of papers, it could be eloquence such as one would find in the writings of Cicero.  It could be perfection of poetic form as we happen to judge perfect form to be.  It could be perfection of function as we see a persuasive paper move people persuasively.

Some people associate the word "beauty" with anything which produces this emotional reaction in us.  But, the root behind this experience often lies in our beliefs about perfection and the ideals we hold to.

For example, in some parts of the world, a woman is considered beautiful if she has a nose-ring, while others might find this unusual or non-ideal.  In some parts of the world, a woman is considered beautiful if she has a neck-ring, while others might find this unusual or non-ideal.  In America, many people might consider a woman beautiful if she is able to wear a size-zero dress, while others might find this unusual or non-ideal.

In each of these cases, there's a belief of what the theoretical ideal woman should be like.  It extends beyond the item itself (nose-ring, neck-ring, size-zero dress) and goes to symbolic characteristics such as "delicate", "petite", "slender", "soft", "curvy", etc.  Thus, except for some notable exceptions such as Amazon women and Baby Got Back, many societies throughout history have maintained many overlapping ideals for the ideal woman, though expressed and implemented differently.

Some of this points to a question of whether there is a universal beauty or ideal.  And if so, where would it come from?  Would it be merely something that societies negotiate together and agree to as a whole?  Would it be something built into all of us (such as the genetic predisposition for males to be physically stronger than females)?  Despite some perhaps due criticism of superficiality, some efforts toward a world-wide beauty contest seem to be attempting toward one or more of these directions.

Yet, as there perhaps might appear to be a universal beauty and ideal in God's general revelation of creation, there most certainly is a clear beauty ideal in God's special revelation of the Bible.

Of women, the Bible teaches that true beauty is found inside and not outside.  That one's personal charm is merely a deception and one's outward beauty will soon fade away, but the fear of the Lord is true beauty.

Yet, more importantly, the Bible teaches:

14 But how can they call on Him they have not believed in? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? 15 And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those who announce the gospel of good things!

Romans 10:14-15 (HCSB)


For everyone who calls on the Lord will be saved. 

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.