One of the greatest needs in churches today is for Christians to receive thorough grounding in a Christian worldview. This is a bit of a new challenge for American churches. For most of our history, we have existed in a society that tacitly (if not overtly) accepted and reinforced basic presuppositions about the world and life that can properly be considered “Christian” (e.g., that the Bible is an authoritative text and ought to be treated so; that there is, in fact, such a being as “God” etc.) Such cultural presuppositions enabled earlier generations to focus sermons, Bible classes, and personal work largely (if not exclusively) on things like the proper mode of baptism, organization of the church, etc. However, such questions are ONLY relevant if the person one is speaking to has already accepted a “Christian worldview”.
It seems that the shared worldview of earlier generations is, if not gone already, eroding very quickly. No longer is it enough to answer the question “What does the Bible say?” for there are many people who simply do not accept that the Bible is a unique book. It is not enough to ask someone what they think God would have them do, for there is no common consent that such a being even exists.
This is an issue that I am deeply concerned about. It is not the sort of challenge that can be effectively dealt with in one or two sessions...nor even in a sermon series. The reason for this is because worldviews are constructed over a long period of time and are the result of a great variety of factors/inputs. Very often, the groundwork for the dissolution of faith is laid without people being aware of its presence. Consequently, I propose that the church would benefit from an ongoing class dealing with larger issues than the exegesis of a particular text. I envision this as a class that would cut across and integrate a variety of disciplines (e.g., theology, physics, logic, biology, history, hermeneutics, etc.)
Reflection Questions
If all that Cantor had seen was mathematics, then his story would be of limited interest; But from the beginning, Cantor realized his work had far wider significance…Cantor’s god was the Creator God…the god who set the planets spinning in their orbits. Whose mysteries were the eternal and perfect laws of motion.
Had Cantor been teaching in a theology department, his work would have been classified as “natural theology.”
1. What does this term mean? What do you think is the proper relationship (if any) between natural theology and special revelation?
2. Are there limitations to “Cantor’s god”?
What was inspiring for Cantor, frightened his critics. They saw mathematics as the pursuit of clarity and certainty. Everything Cantor was doing…seemed to them to be eating away at certainty. He soon faced a deep and implacable hostility.
3. What does Cantor teach us about the consequences of pursuing truth? Is it “worth it” to investigate?
4. What is “faith” and is it essential for human life? Why or why not?
Question 1: It seems to me that if ever special revelation and natural theology seem to be at odds, the special revelation ought to be privileged over the natural theology. Otherwise, why have special revelation at all?
ReplyDeleteIn class today, my loving wife opined that these two forms of theology "shouldn't" be in conflict...and I believe she's right in that assessment. It seems very important to remember that sometimes the seeming "contradictions" may simply be the result of our own misinterpretation of either the special revelation or the data from the natural world. It seems that the great challenge, in any discipline and for any individual, is to seriously entertain the possibility that what they have believed heretofore was tragically mistaken.
Question 2: It seems to me that the fundamental weakness of Cantor's god, is that he does supply meaning or purpose. In other words, natural theology can tell us THAT God is...but not WHO God is. It tells us what He's done...but not what He's like.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: Cantor demonstrates that the relentless search for the truth often puts one at odds with one's culture. As a rule, we do not like people who upset the applecart--even when the applecart needs to be upset. In that respect, Cantor's experience was not unlike that of Jesus, John the Baptist, and basically all the heroes of faith.
ReplyDeleteA closely related truth, it seems to me, is the importance and redemptive value of relationships. Jesus experienced horrible rejection and suffering, but was sustained through relationships, first with His Father, and secondly with people like the apostles. It strikes me in studying the lives of men like Cantor how frequently they appear to be lonely...how often their lives end in despondence and insanity(or suicide). Conversely, it's also interesting how frequently the uber-intelligent scientists and physicists who don't come to such ends have positive relationships. They may have a VERY small circle of people with whom they "commune" but they have them nonetheless.
So is the search for truth worth it? I say, "yes" with the caveat that we engage in that search without the hubris that demands we "must" find all the answers to all the questions. The search is worth it, so long as we can enjoy the search for what it is and take joy in the learning. If we seek knowledge in order to establish our own "mastery" over Creation, that will not end well. The blunt truth is that we never meant to be "Masters of the Universe" merely stewards of it.