Theology Matters 3

Theology Matters 2

Reflection Questions

1. The video talks about some of the differences between the view of the world espoused by classical Newtonian physics (e.g., mechanistic, perfect, timeless, unchanging, etc.) and the worldview necessitated by thermodynamics (e.g., changing, decaying, dying, etc.) How do you think these different understandings of physics have affected the the incidence of faith or belief? Does one view seem to "fit" better with the idea of God (or with the idea of no god) than the other?

A new generation of mathematicians and philosophers were convinced if only they could solve the problems and paradoxes that had defeated Cantor, maths could be made perfect again. The most prominent among them, Hilbert, declared: "the definitive clarification of the nature of the infinite has become necessary for the honor of human understanding itself." They were so concerned to find some kind of certainty. They had come to believe that the only kind of understanding that was really worth anything was the logical and the provable.

2. What do you think of Hilbert's declaration?

3. What's so bad about believing that the only kind of understanding worth anything is the logical and the provable?

Cantor had dislodged the pebble which would, one day, start a landslide. For him, it had all been held together the—paradoxes resolved—in God. But what holds our ideas together when God is dead? Without God, the pebble is dislodged and the avalanche is unleashed; And World War I had killed God.

4. Is it necessary for our ideas to hold together?

5. The claim that "World War I...killed God" is certainly not new. I'd like to know what you think of that claim. What do you think it means? Is it valid or not?

Theology Matters 1

What you’re about to read is a pilot program. It’s an attempt to address a fundamental danger facing the Church in America. Below is an excerpt from the proposal letter I sent to our elders—in case you’d like to understand a little better why we’re doing these lessons. The first three clips of the documentary Dangerous Knowledge follow. Later this week, I will post some thought questions to guide your reflection before next Sunday. As always, if you have any suggestions for improving the class, please don’t hesitate to share.

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?