Category: Science (Page 4 of 5)

The Possibility Is Just Too Wonderful – From the Daily Office – February 23, 2013

February 23, 2013 / eric / 7 Comments

From the Psalms:

Lord, you have searched me out and known me;
you know my sitting down and my rising up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
You trace my journeys and my resting-places
and are acquainted with all my ways.
Indeed, there is not a word on my lips,
but you, O Lord, know it altogether.
You press upon me behind and before
and lay your hand upon me.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is so high that I cannot attain to it.
Where can I go then from your Spirit?
where can I flee from your presence?
If I climb up to heaven, you are there;
if I make the grave my bed, you are there also.
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
Even there your hand will lead me
and your right hand hold me fast.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Psalm 139:1-9 (BCP version) – February 23, 2013.)

Multiple Worlds Illustration A few days ago I wrote about my interest in superstring theory, m-theory, and the multiverse concept which springs from my life-long love of science fiction and the especially the “alternate reality” sorts of tales. I suggested that Jesus’ miracles might have been accomplished by his somehow accessing an alternate reality to affect this world; that would imply some sort of access to knowledge of those other universes.

I’ve never believed that the human Jesus had access to the divine mind in that way, so I’m not sure how I feel about that implication. Or maybe a spiritual connection to another reality doesn’t require that; perhaps that sense of and access to a healthier reality is what the Celts are onto with their idea of a “thin place”. Perhaps there are places where the divisions between the universes are permeable, and perhaps there are people who, like Jesus can sense that, and draw the realities together. Perhaps the ability to do this is what Jesus promised his disciples when he said, “If you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” (Mark 11:23-24) I know that’s a lot of “perhapses” . . . . but that’s part of what meditation is all about, imagining the possibilities.

And it is possibilities and alternate realities, and the question of God’s knowledge of them, that grab my attention today as I consider the evening psalm. The psalmist sings of God’s knowledge, which is all encompassing; God’s understanding of the psalmist’s existence is inescapable. In theology this is call “omniscience”; God is described as “all knowing.”

If there is only a universe, a single reality, this would mean that God knows the past, the present, and the future of the one-and-only timeline, and this gives rise to the doctrine of predestination, a sort of determinism: if God knows ahead of time what will happen, then events in the universe are effectively predetermined from God’s point of view. I have a lot of difficulty with predestination because, if it is true, then Jesus promise that “the truth will make you free” (John 8:32) is hollow. There is no freedom in a single universe whose future is determined.

But what if m-theory is right and there are alternative realities, an infinity of them? What if what God “knows” is not the future of a single reality, but all the multiplicity of possible outcomes? What God “knows” in that case is not what must be, but what might be. God knows, for example, what will become of Schrödinger’s cat . . . in every possible outcome there may be.

The multiverse theory is much too complicated to lay out in a brief theological reflection (and I’m certainly not the theoretical mathematician who could do so, in any case), but at its highest level it simply postulates that any universe that is mathematically possible has equal possibility of actually existing: if the physicists and mathematicians can get it to work out on paper, even if it can’t exist in this universe, it would exist “somewhere”. And, I would suggest, the God of possibilities would know about that universe.

God’s omniscience over a multiverse reality truly is “too wonderful for me.” It is also, from my point of view, much more exciting than any deterministic, single-universe idea that God simply knows the future of a solitary timeline. It means that God is the God of possibility. “For God all things are possible,” said Jesus (Matt. 19:26) And again, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God.” (Luke 18:27) And again, “Abba, Father, for you all things are possible.” (Mark 14:36)

Søren Kierkegaard wrote, “Inasmuch as for God all things are possible, it may be said that this is what God is: one for whom all things are possible . . . God is that all things are possible, and that all things are possible is the existence of God.” (The Sickness Unto Death) For Kierkegaard, human existence is not confined to the known, to one concrete, “factual” reality; a multitude of possibilities is fundamental to human life. The human soul is released by possibility; it is possibility that makes us free.

Superstring theory, m-theory, the multiverse hypothesis . . . these are the new science of possibility. Our omniscient God is the God of possibility. And possibility is the truth that sets us free! That is just too wonderful!

====================

A request to my readers: I’m trying to build the readership of this blog and I’d very much appreciate your help in doing so. If you find something here that is of value, please share it with others. If you are on Facebook, “like” the posts on your page so others can see them. If you are following me on Twitter, please “retweet” the notices of these meditations. If you have a blog of your own, please include mine in your links (a favor I will gladly reciprocate). Many thanks!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Wedding Wine, Multiple Universes, Lenten Speculation – From the Daily Office – February 18, 2013

February 18, 2013 / eric / 8 Comments

From the Gospel of John:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now standing there were six stone water-jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – John 2:1-11 (NRSV) – February 18, 2013.)

Seems strange, doesn’t it, that the lectionary on the first Monday of Lent, this season of self-denial, would have us read a story of Jesus supplying a lot of really good wine for a party? Strange indeed! But I’m used to reading strange things.

Anyone who knows me well knows that there are two sorts of literature that I read for recreation and relaxation: science fiction and theoretical physics. I’ve been reading science fiction (and watching SF movies and TV shows) as long as I can remember. My bachelor’s degree is, officially, in “Contemporary English and American Literature” but, if truth be told, it’s really in science fiction; I went to university that allowed students to design their own major curricula, so that’s what I put in mine.

I might have gotten a degree in physics if I’d been able to understand the math. However, barely passing three courses in integral and differential calculus convinced me that the sciences weren’t going to be my life’s work. They would remain an active interest, but they would never be a career choice. (It always surprises people when I tell them that my first “real” job was as a laboratory assistant to two experimental physicists in the University of California system. It surprises me, too!)

One of the sub-genres of science fiction literature that I have particularly enjoyed over the years is the group of novels that explore the concept of multiple universes or alternate realities. Robert Heinlein’s The Number of the Beast and Glory Road, Roger Zelazney’s Chronicles of Amber, C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, and S.M. Stirling’s Conquistador are of this sort. So, too, is a novel given me by my son and daughter-in-law at Christmas, The Long Earth by Terry Pratchett and Steven Baxter. In the latter novel, people known as “steppers” move among millions or billions or possibly an infinite number of parallel worlds, either by natural ability or by using a simple “step box” powered by a potato (remember, Terry Prachett is a co-author).

This “parallel universe” idea has been a favorite of science fiction authors for years. What’s great fun these days is that it is now gaining some credence with the science fact folks, too! With the advent of superstring theory and then m-theory, the idea of alternative universes, in fact an infinity of them, is finding justification in the mathematics of theoretical physics. Last month, the science website Space.com published an article entitled 5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse which began:

The universe we live in may not be the only one out there. In fact, our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a “multiverse.”

Though the concept may stretch credulity, there’s good physics behind it. And there’s not just one way to get to a multiverse — numerous physics theories independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universes is more likely than not.

By now, I’m sure that anybody reading this is wondering what any of this has to do with Jesus changing water into wine at the wedding in Cana. Well . . . as one of the characters on the British sit-com Miranda is fond of saying, “Bear with! Bear with!” I’m going to make a sideways step for a moment and then pull this together.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the execution of the 16th Century Dominican friar and condemned heretic Giordano Bruno; he was burnt at the stake on February 17, 1600, for among other things suggesting an infinite number of parallel worlds.

Yes, you read that right. A Dominican friar more than four centuries ago proposed as reality a staple of 20th Century science fiction and a theoretical construct of 21st Century physics, and he did so in the context of a theological meditation. In 1584, he published De l’Infinito, Universo e Mondi (“On the Infinite Universe and Worlds”). In it, he argued that there are an infinite number of worlds inhabited by intelligent beings. The universe, he said, reflects God in God’s infinite nature, thus God must exist everywhere, not as a singular remote heavenly deity. Bruno is quoted as writing:

God is omniscient, perfect, and omnipotent and the universe is infinite. If God is all-knowing, he must be able to think of everything, including whatever I am thinking. Since God is perfect and completely actualized, he must create what he thinks. I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, but half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions. Therefore, either there is one unique Jesus who goes from one world to another, or there are an infinite number of Jesuses. Since a single Jesus visiting an infinite number of earths one at a time would take an infinite amount of time, there must be an infinite number of Jesuses. Therefore, God must create an infinite number of Christs. (Weisstein)

What if Bruno was right? Or at least partially right. What if there are an infinite number of worlds, as m-theory mathematics suggests there are? But instead of a single, unique Jesus needing “an infinite amount of time” to go from world to world, what if that single, unique incarnation of the Godhead had (and has always had) instant access to all of the infinite worlds? (I realize that words like always and instant become problematic when we begin to speculate about infinite parallel universes.) What if Jesus could “step” like the characters in Pratchett’s and Baxter’s The Long Earth, not in the limited way those characters can but in an omnipotent way, instantly from any of the infinite worlds to any other? What if Jesus were able in some way to bring into this disordered universe the proper, unfallen reality of a parallel creation? He could, when coming down from the mountain of the Transfiguration, heal the epileptic boy by bringing the reality of his good health from a parallel world into this world. He could, when feeding the 5,000, reach into an alternate reality of abundance and bring its plenty into this world of scarcity to more than feed the gathered crowd. He could, when the wedding party ran out of wine, supply this world’s need with the overflowing vintage of a parallel existence.

Perhaps that is why the lectionary steers us, at the beginning of Lent, to the contemplation of a wedding reception where the Lord provided an abundance of wine, to considering a story of God’s power and grace that, as Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine.” (Ephesians 3:20) I’ll admit that this all may be a flight of fancy, a fit of fantasy, but the question of God’s omniscience or omnipotence, attributes that classical theology insists God must have, becomes all the more intriguing if we do live in a multiverse rather than a universe, if creation is multiform rather than uniform. And our Lenten meditations become much more fun!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Then A Miracle Occurs – From the Daily Office – January 24, 2013

January 24, 2013 / eric / 1 Comment

From the Gospel according to Mark:

Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Mark 4:26-29 (NRSV) – January 24, 2013.)

And then a miracle occurs cartoon My late brother had a cartoon cut from some magazine taped to the door of his university office (he was a professor of political science and constitutional law) for years. I suspect it came from either Playboy or The New Yorker, but I really don’t know. It depicted two scientists working at a chalk board. To their left on the board was a complicated looking mathematical formula and to their right, another one. Connecting the two sets of numbers were arrows drawn from and to the words, “The a miracle occurs.” One of the scientists speaking to the other says, “I think you should be more specific here in step two.” (Of course, I’ve been able to find the cartoon on the internet and will post it with this meditation.)

That bit of scientific humor came to mind when I read this parable. I know this parable is meant to portray the church, the work of discipleship, the eschatological reality of the last judgement, etc. However, I am fascinated by the actual reality of planting seed, growing a crop, and harvesting the result, and Jesus’ words, “He does not know how!” 2,000 years after he spoke those words we truly still do “not know how” plants go from seed to harvest. We know a lot more of the “how” than we did, but we still don’t really have a clue what’s going on. We can name the elements and chemicals involved; we can describe the interactions and processes; we can pretty much point to the genes and DNA code that produce the end characteristics of the particular species. But when it comes right down to it, we don’t know how or why it happens, and we can’t actually produce it from scratch. We could mix all the constituent elements and chemicals together in exactly the right proportions and all we’ll have is a batch of chemicals, not a seed or plant or harvestable fruit.

Some day, perhaps, but not now. Research scientists keep pushing back the horizons of our knowledge, but there is still something we don’t know. Australian physicist Paul Davies put it this way in his book The Fifth Miracle, “Scientists still can’t quite put their finger on exactly what it is that separates a living organism from other types of physical objects.” Elsewhere, in an article in the journal BioSystems, Davies has said, “Living systems form a very special subset among the set of all complex systems. Biological complexity is distinguished by being information-based complexity, and a fundamental challenge to science is to provide an account of how this unique information content and processing machinery of life came into existence.”

In other words, the “how” (and especially the “why”) of what happens between planting of seed and harvesting of fruit remains a mystery. And, Dr. Davies helps frame the question: “Given a soup of classical molecular building blocks, how did this mixture ‘discover’ the appropriate extremely improbable combination by chance in a reasonable period of time?” I applaud the efforts of scientists to figure that out. I came across Dr. Davies’ writings because of my interest in quantum mechanics and string-theory; he proposes that quantum processes are at work in the origins of life. It’s an interesting hypothesis and might go a long way in answer the “how” question. It won’t, I don’t think, answer the “why”.

From my perspective (which I know some of my less religious friends and colleagues think is naive), what we don’t know (both the “how” and the “why”) is the second step in the cartoon’s equation. What we don’t know is the miracle that occurs, the miracle that occurred when the first primordial organism developed in the original soup of elements and chemicals way back when in the history of our earth.

It seems to me that this “then a miracle happens” unknown element is present in other parts of our existence, as well.

Two people meet, then a miracle happens – they fall in love. Sure, there’s a lot of interplay of pheromones and hormones and brain chemistry and what-not; we know a lot of the “how”, but we don’t know the “why”. Why these two and not those two, why each of these with the other and not with some other person, why sometimes two people once in love find themselves no longer so . . . . It’s in the second step, “then a miracle occurs.”

A human being grows to maturity and develops the ability to paint beautiful portraits or landscapes, to sculpt exquisite models of the human form, to write entertaining scripts, or to pen moving poetry. We can talk of environment and education and innate artistic ability; we can describe the “how” of her up-bringing and her craft. But we cannot answer the question “why” this person develops these talents and her sibling did not. It’s in the second step, “then a miracle occurs.”

The cartoon is right; we can’t just leave it at that! We need to be more specific in step two. So I cheer on the scientists who are seeking the answers. But I also celebrate the mysterious and the miraculous, and cheer on the mystics, the religious, the spiritual, the artists, the poets, the priests, and all the other seekers after truth. Let’s all try to learn what’s going on when a miracle occurs.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Understanding the Citizenship Metaphor – From the Daily Office – January 17, 2013

January 17, 2013 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Letter to the Ephesians:

So [Christ] came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling-place for God.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Ephesians 2:17-22 (NRSV) – January 17, 2013.)

Ant Hill For many years, I have rather liked Paul’s citizenship metaphor for our participation in the household of God. It made sense . . . but I’m not sure it makes sense any longer because I’m not sure we understand any longer what citizenship is!

A historical review of the understanding of citizenship going back to the earliest Greek city-states suggests that there are two basic classical theories: the humanist and the individualist.

The humanist conception of citizenship emphasizes our political nature viewing citizenship as an active process of involvement in the affairs of the state. Under this theory, being a citizen means being active in government affairs; citizens and the government are mutually interrelated. An ideal citizen is one who exhibits good civic behavior and acts out of a commitment to civic duty and virtue. The individualist view, on the other hand, assumes that human beings act not out of civic morality, but out of enlightened self-interest. Citizens are seen as essentially passive politically, as sovereign, morally autonomous beings primarily focused on their own economic betterment. Nonetheless, between citizen and state there is a mutuality of obligation. The citizen is expected to pay taxes, obey the law, engage in business, and defend the nation if it comes under attack; the state has the duty to respect and protect the civil and political rights of the citizen.

The Enlightenment vision of citizenship, which gave rise to modern democratic republics like the United States, incorporates both of these classical models.

At the recent Emergence Christianity conversation, Phyllis Tickle used the examples of a beehive and an anthill to contrast traditional and emerging notions of leadership. Beehives are hierarchies with a controlling matriarch, the “queen”, and all workers exist to serve her needs and follow her direction. Anthills have “queens” but they are non-directive. The ant queen serves her function in the community (producing young) but does not control what others do. Instead, anthills exhibit a collective intelligence which does not depend upon the decision-making or direction of any one individual or even small group of individuals; in fact, there are no individuals, only the collective. Ms. Tickle suggested that because of the increase in knowledge and communication, which the internet and social media perhaps exemplify best, human society is moving away from the beehive and toward the anthill. One might say we are becoming “ant-i-fied”.

She may be right . . . and that’s the problem with the “citizenship” metaphor now. Neither the beehive nor the anthill understands the concept of “citizen” and if modern human society has been or is becoming patterned on either, Paul’s use of the term to describe our relationship with one another and with God in the context of the church becomes meaningless. Furthermore, if we human beings are becoming nothing more than “ants” in a collective intelligence, there is push back against that, and that push back is also counter to the classical notions of citizenship. The reaction to the “ant-i-fying” of human society is equally destructive of the citizenship metaphor because it has emphasized the individual over against society rather than the individual within and mutually related to society.

We are, Paul wrote, citizens with the saints and members of the household of God. If we do not understand what it is to be citizens of a human society, if we are all simply workers in a beehive hierarchy, or faceless units in an anthill collective, or individuals over against a society, can we make sense of this metaphor? Let us hope we can so that our understanding of Paul’s citizenship model will shape not only the church, but our society as well.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Things That Are Not Visible – From the Daily Office – January 2, 2013

January 2, 2013 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Letter to the Hebrews:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Hebrews 11:1-3 (NRSV) – January 2, 2013.)

Strings Every so often something in Holy Scripture speaks to me of something other than the “purely” spiritual or “only” religious . . . and this little piece of the Letter to the Hebrews is one of those bits: “what is seen was made from things that are not visible.” Right!

One of my interests is theoretical physics; I’m interested in it but not knowledgeable of it because, quite honestly, the mathematics is way, way beyond my comprehension. But the broad outlines of the theories of quantum mechanics, gravity theory, and superstring theory I can grasp, and the latter postulates that everything that is is made up of tiny pieces of vibrating string too small to be observed by today’s instruments. What’s that sound like? Right! The Letter to the Hebrews!

Scientists of all sorts, I suspect, would bristle at the suggestion that their field of study involves anything that could be called “faith” in a religious, but the more I read of the literature of science the more it feels like theology. This convergence of superstring theory with the discussion of faith in Hebrews is just one example. Scientists all the time rely on the unseen as an explanation for the seen, just as this biblical author does.

Recently, a colleague made a distinction between a “scentific” outlook and a “scientistic” outlook. I thought it an interesting and useful distinction. Scientism (also known in philosophy as “positivism”) makes the claim that human beings can know only those things that are ascertained by experimentation through application of the scientific method. It makes the scientific method the exclusive approach to knowledge and reduces human inquiry to matters of material reality. Since the scientific method is emphasized with such great importance, scientism privileges the expertise of a scientific elite who can properly implement the method. However, such an emphasis overlooks and, indeed, devalues such cognitive tools as analogy and metaphor which help to frame the object of inquiry into familiar terms, or even mathematical models that simulate and predict the physical world. Scientism is a doctrinaire stance which leads to an abuse of reason and transforms a rational philosophy of science into an irrational dogma.

Although there are many who take such a stance, some of them well-known and popular pundits of science, it is hard to see how one could do so when faced with a scientific proposition such as superstring theory which posits that everything that is is made up of tiny pieces of vibrating string too small to be observed.

I could go on, and indeed many have, about the dangers of scientism, but that would be beyond the scope of these little meditations. Let it be sufficient today to acknowledge that both science and religion include a recognition that what is seen is made from things that are not visible. From that common ground, perhaps, a reconciliation can be forged and a way forward explored together.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

The Lonely Golden Years – From the Daily Office – December 7, 2012

December 7, 2012 / eric / 1 Comment

From Luke’s Gospel:

Jesus looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Luke 21:1-4 (NRSV) – December 7, 2012.)

All she had in her golden years were two copper coins . . . . The tale of the widow’s mite is a familiar one, an especially poignant one as we make our Christmas preparations in Advent. It brings to mind all those poor and under-priviliged who are unable to prepare as we do, who see the advertisements for goods and services, the news reports of Black Friday, the television specials featuring warm homes and large family meals and know that those luxuries are not for them. I have visions of the family of Bob Cratchit huddling before a poorly fed coal stove trying to keep warm.

I suspect, however, that the toughest thing for them, especially the elderly who may, in fact, be widowed, is not the poverty nor the meagreness of their meals. I suspect the hardest part of the holidays is the loneliness.

As I made mention yesterday, anyone who has lost friends or family can have a hard time with the holiday season. This is especially so with our elders. Growing old does bring the wisdom of years for many people, but there are unavoidable losses that come to even the healthiest. Many lose their mobility; they can no longer walk as well as they could before and many, for a variety of reasons, can no longer drive their own cars. A lot of older folks have had to relocate to assisted living facilities or nursing homes. Often even those well enough to remain in their own homes can feel friendless and isolated because their neighborhoods have changed. Worse are the losses of spouses, relatives, and friends who are ill or who have died. The holidays can bring the sense of loneliness and isolation to a head.

A recently published study found that people over the age of 60 who feel lonely and isolated have a 45% higher risk of death than those who feel well-connected and supported by family and friends. Researchers found that the risk of death for people who are lonely is 23%, as compared to 14% for those who aren’t. I have heard that the death rate among the elderly goes up during the holidays and I suspect that the increased feeling of loneliness has a lot to do with that.

What can you do for an elderly acquaintance during the holidays? Give them the most valuable gift you have, your time. Your time is precious. Most of us have a spouse, children, friends, and other relatives who need us, but if you know of an elderly widow or widower who is without family at this time of the year, can you stop by their home for a short visit? Do what you can without stressing yourself. Being relaxed when you visit is important; sensing that you are in a hurry can be distressing to the elderly. It’s better not to visit than to make a rushed call. But if you can make a relaxed visit to let them know someone remembers them, your best efforts will be more than good enough. They will be moments of gold for someone in their golden years.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Theodicy and Abortion – From the Daily Office – October 27, 2012

October 27, 2012 / eric / 2 Comments

From the Book of Ben Sira:

It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice.
If you choose, you can keep the commandments,
and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
He has placed before you fire and water;
stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
Before each person are life and death,
and whichever one chooses will be given.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Sirach 15:14-17 – October 27, 2012)

Grief (watercolor wash, artist unknown) Well, there it is! Bigger than life! Free will! Of course, I know that as an Anglican I am not supposed to use this text, or any part of the Deuterocanon, to settle matters of doctrine, but only read them ” for example of life and instruction of manners.” [Articles of Religion, Article VI, BCP 1979, page 868] But come on! There it is!

I probably shouldn’t go there, but the past 48 hours have made it impossible not to think about free will without thinking of Indiana senate candidate Richard Mourdock who stirred up controversy when he said during a debate that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” He tried to explain himself later saying, “God creates life, and that was my point,. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing.” He only dug a deeper hole. If it is true that politics and religion don’t mix, it is even more true that politics and the problem of theodicy don’t mix!

“Theodicy” is a little-used word theologians coined to describe what is generally called “the problem of evil.” It posits this rational conundrum:

God is all-powerful.
God is all-good.
God is all-knowing.
Evil exists.

Only three of these four propositions (says the issue of theodicy) can be true; since we know that evil exists, then one of the other three statements must be false. Many philosophers and theologians have wrestled with this issue and I’m not going to get into it in a brief meditation on the daily office lessons, other than to acknowledge that it exists and that one way it is answered is the very subject Jesus son of Sirach brings up in this reading: free will. In other words, in making the universe (and humankind within it) free, the all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God allows the possibility that evil may occur.

St. Thomas Aquinas affirmed in the Summa Theologica that God’s ultimate purpose for creation is so good, so great that it involves “allowing” the possibility of evil, but (as Aquinas points out) to “allow” is not the same as to “cause”. Furthermore, the enduring good that allows evil includes the possibility that good can redeem evil; because of this remaining good, a return path to good is always possible. I think this is the theological concept candidate Mourdock was trying to articulate, but doing so badly and causing himself and his party a good deal of trouble.

I can agree with Mr. Mourdock up to a point, but not about the conclusion he ultimately reaches. In his view, apparently, the return to good, the redemption of the evil of rape, is found in the conception of life which may result. For him, that redemption is (apparently) automatic and, thus, a pregnancy resulting from rape is redemptive; it is a good so great that it cannot be aborted. But neither Aquinas nor any theologian has ever argued that the return to good is automatic; it is always and only contingent – it is possible but never guaranteed. Furthermore, there is the counter possibility in the circumstance of a rape that further evil, not good, could result from the pregnancy and later birth. Indeed, the experience of women who have born the children conceived in rape shows a wide variety of outcomes, many extremely negative, many a continuation of the evil done to them.

That is why I cannot come to the theological conclusion reached by candidate Mourdock, nor to the political conclusion to which he comes, i.e., that abortion should be outlawed with no exception provided for conceptions resulting from rape. Indeed, I cannot come to any conclusion which entirely outlaws abortion. To do so denies to women the freedom of will given humankind from the beginning about which Ben Sira writes; this is a matter about which women should decide for themselves “in the power of their own free choice.” Therefore, abortion should be safe. It can only be safe if it is legal and regulated; if it is outlawed, it will nonetheless continue. The choice for our society is not between abortion and no abortion; it is between abortion which is safe and abortion which is deadly.

I cannot say that I would never, as a priest, counsel a woman to undergo an abortion, but I would nearly always argue for an alternative. In the end, however, it would not be my decision; it would be hers. And if she chooses to abort the fetus, then it is her right to have that procedure done in the safest way possible. Years ago, I participated in a panel discussion with an Eastern Orthodox colleague ordained many years longer than me. During the presentations he said, “I would rather console a woman who’s had a safe, legal abortion, than bury one who’s had an illegal abortion. And I’ve done both.” Unlike my colleague, I have not, thank God, buried the victim of an illegal abortion, and certainly I never want to.

We will always wrestle with the problem of theodicy, but we should do so in the context of theological schools and churches. It is not an issue to be solved in the halls of congress, nor in the operating suites of hospitals, nor in the offices of obstetricians, nor with the bodies of women whom God made free to act as a matter of their own choice.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Comprehending the Mind of God – From the Daily Office – September 25, 2012

September 25, 2012 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Book of Judith:

Who are you to put God to the test today, and to set yourselves up in the place of God in human affairs? You are putting the Lord Almighty to the test, but you will never learn anything! You cannot plumb the depths of the human heart or understand the workings of the human mind; how do you expect to search out God, who made all these things, and find out his mind or comprehend his thought?

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Judith 8:12-14a – September 25, 2012)

God from Monty Python & the Holy Grail The Book of Judith is part of the Apocrypha or Deutercanon, those books accepted as Holy Writ by part of the Old Testament by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, but rejected by Protestants and by rabbinic Judaism. As Anglicans, we Episcopalians adopt the position taken in the 39 Articles of Religion: they are the “other Books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.” (Art. VI, BCP 1979, page 868)

The story of Judith is relatively simple. She was a widow living in the city of Bethulia when it is under siege by Holofernes, a general of the Ninvite king Nebuchadnezzar. Facing starvation, the people of the city demand that their rulers surrender. The elders of the town, named Uzziah, Chabris, and Charmis, calm them by promising to surrender Bethulia to Ninevites unless God helps rescues the city within so five days. This angers Judith who upbraids the town rulers (the selected verses are from her speech to the three elders). She then takes things into her own hands, wins entrance into the enemy camp, finds Holofernes passed out, drunk in his tent, and decapitates the general. She escapes from the camp, brings the head to the town elders, and saves the city.

While I find the book a wonderful story of faith in action, and its heroine a woman to looked up to, the verses I’ve quoted from its eighth chapter are troubling. I believe that it’s perfectly all right to put God to the test and that searching out God, trying to find out God’s mind, and seeking to comprehend God’s thought are worthy endeavors that God encourages. In the book of Prophet Malachi, when the people fail to pay their tithes, God says, “Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.” (Mal. 3:10) I believe that it is not only in regard to tithes and offerings that God encourages us to “put me to the test;” God wants us to seek understanding, to try to comprehend God.

The Franciscan writer St. Bonaventure in his essay Itinerarium mentis in Deum (“The Journey of the Mind to God”) wrote of this comprehension or understanding as an ascent or journey and offered this advice:

He, therefore, who wishes to ascend to God must first avoid sin, which deforms nature. He must bring the natural powers of the soul under the influence of grace, which reforms them, and this he does through prayer; he must submit them to the purifying influence of justice, and this, in daily acts; he must subject them to the influence of enlightening knowledge, and this in meditation; and finally, he must hand them over to the influence of the perfecting power of wisdom, and this in contemplation.

Obviously, it takes effort and practice; it takes study and work. To make this effort is not (as Judith berated the Bethulian elders) to “set oneself up in the place of God,” but it is an endeavor to learn and understand. It is an effort blessed by God – we read in the Book of Proverbs:

My child, if you accept my words and treasure up my commandments within you,
making your ear attentive to wisdom and inclining your heart to understanding;
if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding;
if you seek it like silver, and search for it as for hidden treasures –
then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.
For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
he stores up sound wisdom for the upright; he is a shield to those who walk blamelessly,
guarding the paths of justice and preserving the way of his faithful ones. (Prov. 2:1-8)

So, as much as it pains me to disagree with a heroine of Scripture . . . Judith, you’re just wrong about this! You were right to cut off Holofernes’ head, but not to try to shut down the minds of those who seek to comprehend the Almighty!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Wonderfully and Marvelously Made – From the Daily Office – September 15, 2012

September 15, 2012 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Psalms:

For you yourself created my inmost parts;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I will thank you because I am marvelously made;
your works are wonderful, and I know it well.
My body was not hidden from you,
while I was being made in secret
and woven in the depths of the earth.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Psalm 139:12-14 (BCP Versification) – September 15, 2012)

I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to tackle what this portion of the evening Psalm for today brings to mind. After all, I love the Old Testament reading for today which is (as many have recently been) from the Book of Job; it is that wonderful chapter where God, having had enough of Job’s whining, finally answers him saying:

Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you, and you shall declare to me.
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.

I just love God’s reply which basically says, “Who the Hell are you?” But as I was reading this lesson, I came upon this question that God asks, “Who shut the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?” and that mention of a womb took me back to the evening Psalm and that took me back to a conversation I was part of earlier in the week. The conversation had to do with abortion, opposition to abortion, and what it means to be pro-life.

The conversation was sparked by this picture:

“Jesus,” said one party to the conversation, “commands us to care about both?”

“Where,” asked another party, “does Jesus command us to care about fetuses.”

Of course, Jesus does not; Jesus never made much mention of pregnancy or childbirth or care for the unborn. However, today’s Psalm might be read to lay the foundation for an understanding of God’s care for the unborn. The other party to the conversation didn’t go there, however. Instead, that person referred to Jesus’ citation of the second great commandmant: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Matt. 22:39) He continued with this assertion: “Since a baby in utero is a person and a child of God, the baby is your neighbor.” This statement is a logical as well as a theological stretch, I’m afraid, and here is where I started giving the issue some thought.

The reference to “a baby in utero” is fraught with issues. There is considerable debate today as to when a fertilized egg achieves the status of “baby”. It is not, however, at the moment of conception. Technically, from a medical point of view, a baby isn’t a baby until it’s born; “baby”, medically, refers to an infant, a newborn. From two months after conception until birth the child in utero is considered a fetus. During the first two months after conception, it is an embryo. (And then there are the theological issue of “ensoulment”, which is said to happen at “quickening”, and the legal issue of “viability”, which is the ability of the fetus to live outside the womb. Neither time nor space allow exploration of those issues.)

The second issue with the statement is in referring to whatever it is that is in utero as a “person”. Personhood is a legal concept and, in law, personhood is achieved at birth. (I’m not going to get into the currently hot political issue of whether corporations are people; that’s a whole other legal question.) Legally, a person is an autonomous being, a natural born man, woman, or child. The fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus in utero may be a person-in-potential, but is not yet a person-in-actuality. There are, of course, a number of proposed bills or constitutional amendments in several states that would change this legal definition, but as of now this is where American law stands.

Now, having said that, there are good reasons for being opposed to abortion, but basing that opposition on the supposed personhood of the in utero embryo or fetus, and stretching that personhood to neighbor status, and attaching Jesus’ “second great commandment” to that supposed neighbor just is not one of them. I’m opposed to abortion because I truly do believe, as this Psalm says, that God is involved in the procreative and developmental processes, that the development of the embryo into a fetus and the growth of the fetus are not simply mindless biological operations, that there is a mystical, spiritual “knitting” taking place, that we human beings are wonderfully and marvelously made by God. Abortion interferes with God’s work whereby we are “made in secret and woven in the depths of the earth.”

But I am also opposed to the outlawing of abortion because I hold what I believe is a fully consistent “pro-life” philosophy. I believe that one who is opposed to abortion must also be in favor of safeguarding the health and welfare of mothers before, during, and after giving birth. I believe that one must be in favor of improving the lives of children after they are born. A truly pro-life position would promote child and maternal welfare and health programs, feeding programs, education programs, and (I believe) access to safe and legal abortion in those circumstances where the life, health and safety of the mother are at risk, where the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or where there is medical reason to believe that the person-in-potential will be born with severe physical or mental developmental handicaps which would make life an intolerable burden. To be truly pro-life is to be pro-choice, because the choice is not between abortion or a baby; the choice is between a safe, legal abortion and an unsafe, deadly one. No woman should ever have to choose the latter!

To oppose abortion without supporting infant and maternal health programs, child welfare programs, good education, and access to safe and legal abortion when needed, is not a pro-life stance. It is simply to be pro-birth, but there is so much more to life after birth!

We are wonderfully and marvelously made, knit and woven together by God in our mother’s wombs, not just to be born but to have a life, a good life. That’s why, as opposed to abortion as I may be, I hold to a pro-life pro-choice position in favor of the availability of legally regulated, medically safe, accessible abortion for women who need to choose that path.

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Job Is Fiction, But It’s True – From the Daily Office – August 23, 2012

August 23, 2012 / eric / 0 Comments

From the Book of Job:

One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the Lord, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.” The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and turns away from evil.” Then Satan answered the Lord, “Does Job fear God for nothing? Have you not put a fence around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face.” The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

(From the Daily Office Lectionary – Job 1:6-12 – August 23, 2012)

Realistic Dice Illusion A later selection from the Book of Job was called up by the Sunday Eucharistic Lectionary several weeks ago. In my sermon I said to the congregation that the Book of Job is fiction (which it is). You should have seen the look on one of my parishioners’ face! There’s a fellow in the congregation who is, shall we say, conservative with regard to the Bible. While I don’t believe he actually considers the Bible to be the inerrant word of God per se, he’s pretty sure that it is to be taken with the highest degree of certainty and words like “myth” or “fiction” applied to Scripture are not to his liking. I swear I thought he might have an apoplectic fit right there in his pew! But let’s be honest: do we really think that God and Satan are engaged (or have ever been engaged) in a game of chance involving the lives of human beings?

Because, when you get right down to it, that is the set up of the Book of Job – a bet between God and the Devil as to whether this good man, Job, will curse God if his life turns to garbage. If someone in the church does think that that’s the way God runs the universe, perhaps that person is following the wrong religion because that surely is not the way the Christian faith sees the world! In this, Christianity is not at odds with science. Albert Einstein once famously remarked, “God does not play dice with the universe.” And while quantum mechanics, chaos theory, superstring theory, and a whole host of new scientific and mathematical suppositions rely on the concept of probability rather than certainty, they still don’t posit a game of chance as determining the structure of reality.

If a game of chance is not the way the universe runs, then what are we to make of these verses from today’s Old Testament reading? If they are not factually accurate, then we have only two choices: they are a lie, or they are fiction.

If they are a lie, then they undermine the whole concept of Holy Scripture as an embodiment of Truth. If they are fiction, however, there is no problem. The Bible is not, as everyone ought to acknowledge, so much a book as it is a library. It is a collection of books, as we readily admit whenever we refer to the works found in this collection. We don’t refer to the “chapter of Genesis” or the “section of Isaiah”; we refer to them as “books”, books within a library. Just like a library, the Bible includes many kinds of literature. There are histories (the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and the Acts of the Apostles, for example). There are works of poetry (Psalms). There are books of etiquette and advice on good living (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes). There are memoirs (the Gospels). There are collections of letters (the Pauline and other Epistles). There are law books (Leviticus and Deuteronomy). And among various other forms of writing, there is fiction (Job is both an example of fiction and of poetry).

The question for the student of Biblical literature is “Does fiction embody truth?” Do any of these non-historical, non-scientific forms of literature embody truth? What is the truth of a poem, for instance? Well, as an early 20th Century writer on the subject of poetry put it, poetry expresses the truth that

behind our daily occupation, beyond the business of the market and the pleasure of the circus, there lies an unexplored world of beauty – a world of complete satisfaction for the highest human capacity, a world from which we may derive courage, and hope, and faith, to help us in this world we live in. (Laurie Magnus, Introduction to Poetry, London:1902, pg. 68)

Fiction does the same thing. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “Fiction reveals truth that reality obscures.” Among the reasons fiction is worth writing, reading, and studying is not that it’s entertaining (although good fiction truly is), but rather that it teaches us important lessons about the world, about human beings, and (the religious person says) about God. It does so even if we’re not actively studying, not trying to learn these things; they get into us and into our thinking in unconscious ways. That’s what Scripture is supposed to do, too. And that’s why Scripture includes fiction and poetry along with history, memoir, and correspondence. And that’s why it’s perfectly OK to say, “Job is fiction.” It may be fiction, but it’s nonetheless true!

====================

Father Funston is the rector of St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Medina, Ohio.

Category: Science (Page 4 of 5)

The Possibility Is Just Too Wonderful – From the Daily Office – February 23, 2013

Wedding Wine, Multiple Universes, Lenten Speculation – From the Daily Office – February 18, 2013

Then A Miracle Occurs – From the Daily Office – January 24, 2013

Understanding the Citizenship Metaphor – From the Daily Office – January 17, 2013

Things That Are Not Visible – From the Daily Office – January 2, 2013

The Lonely Golden Years – From the Daily Office – December 7, 2012

Theodicy and Abortion – From the Daily Office – October 27, 2012

Comprehending the Mind of God – From the Daily Office – September 25, 2012

Wonderfully and Marvelously Made – From the Daily Office – September 15, 2012

Job Is Fiction, But It’s True – From the Daily Office – August 23, 2012

Looking for Something …. ?

The Archive

Subscribe

Blogroll

News Sources

Administration

Copyright

Looking for Something …. ?

The Categories

The Archive

Subscribe

Blogroll

News Sources

Administration

Copyright