The Moneychangers and the Fig Tree

Mark 11:11-25 is a pretty intriguing passage. It’s one that tends to cross my mind every now and then, and credit where credit is due, a lot of light about its meaning has been shed to me because of a Thesis written by one Dana Ouellette. I read it a couple of years ago, and unfortunately it can no longer be found online (although the abstract can be read here), but I learned a lot from it which I feel is relevant to the Church today.

The interesting thing about the narrative is the way it combines the story of Jesus’ outrage at the Temple moneychangers together with His cursing of the fig tree. The two are not meant to be considered separately; the author of Mark wrote his version of the Gospel as a story… it was meant to be communicated orally to the greater population of Israel, most of whom were likely illiterate, and who would have seen the significance of two seemingly-distinct story segments tied together by narrative.

It’s important to dispel a couple of misconceptions regarding this passage. The first is the common idea that Jesus lost His temper upon seeing the moneychangers in the Temple. In this portrait, He walked in, saw them going about their business, and flipped out. Not according to verse 11 of this chapter. Bearing in mind that Mark was the earliest Gospel to be written (circa 70AD), this very easily-missed prologue states that Jesus was quite aware of the moneychangers’ presence in the Temple the day before He performed His demonstration. Far from being a spur of the moment action, Jesus’ attack on the “den of robbers” was indeed a premeditated one.

The second misconception, perhaps not immediately relevant to the point of the passage but important to note nonetheless, is that Jesus was violent in His demonstration. Certainly Mark’s narrative states that Jesus “did not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple,” but instruction like this does not necessitate violent action. John’s account is the only version which states that Jesus used a whip while driving the people out, but it is not clear on how He used it and certainly doesn’t infer that He brought harm to people. The same version states that Jesus drove out the animals present as well as the moneychangers, and the whip may simply have served the purpose of causing the animals to flee. In any case, the inference is there that although Jesus chastised the merchants, He did not inflict unnecessary suffering upon them.

Back to the narrative itself… exactly why was Jesus so vehemently angered at the moneychangers? And what significance does the story of the fig tree have to this?

The answer is most probably that the merchants were not simply doing honest trade. Not only were they mixing business into a place dedicated to worship, which might not have been enough reason in itself to provoke such a strong reaction from the Son of God, but their trade itself was a corrupt practise. Since the Markan narrative was directed at a peasant population, the portrait of this kind of business may very much be one which caused businessmen to become wealthy mostly at the expense of the poorer sector of society, particularly farmers whose land would have been tolled to provide their produce to richer landowners.

This may be where the symbol of the fig tree comes in. The fig tree, a farming plant, a bearer of fruit, was not found to have any fruit at all by Jesus in this story. Jesus’ reaction is a destructive one; “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” This happens before the Temple incident, before Jesus overthrows the tables. Upon returning the Bethany next day, Jesus and His disciples indeed find that the fig tree has now withered and died.

The fig tree was previously understood, particularly from the preachings of OT prophets, to have symbolised the State of Israel. Jesus may well have had this in mind as a criticism against the Nation State, but just as importantly is how the symbolism of His action relates to the intertwining Temple event. The fig tree is therefore a symbol for socio-economic corruption, for oppression from the wealthier classes toward the masses, for persecution that leaves people in destitution and poverty. As the Temple event and the withering of the fig tree interpret each other, Jesus is speaking His criticism directly towards those who have allowed the concentration of power to corrupt their hearts at the cost of their fellow man.

I don’t think Jesus is against all ways of gaining money. He does, however, expect us to act responsibly with the wealth that we have, and He certainly doesn’t want us (as this narrative demonstrates) to hoarde it to the extent that we live out our lives at the cost of others. We are expected, as followers of Christ, to live alongside each other under the most moral conditions of socio-economic justice possible.

Beyond this, what does Jesus say when His disciples ask Him about the fig tree?

22 “Have faith in God,” Jesus answered.
23 “I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

This isn’t just some random comment that Jesus spouts. In the context of the Markan narrative, this is exactly how He expects us to combat the forces of oppression in this world. In a statement that equals in terms of radical nature His teachings of nonviolent resistance in Matthew 5:38-48, Jesus grants us the true weapons of warfare against a corrupt and oppressive world: faith, prayer, and forgiveness.

Notice that Jesus instructs His disciples to stand praying. In ancient times, it was custom to either stand or bow when invoking prayer, but in the context of this passage Jesus uses the position of standing; an active symbol of confrontation and reaction. In the same way Jesus said “turn the other cheek” instead of “back down and walk away,” He says in the Markan text to stand. To combine the spiritual weapons of warfare with a heart set very much against the oppression that comes from corrupt individuals in this world. Be it with physical, social, or economic persecution, Jesus expects us very much to return these evils not with physical aggression or violence, but with faithful prayer and forgiveness. But in addition to this, He is also quite expectant that this strategy works. “Believe what you say will come to pass, and it will be done for you.”

What comes from this narrative is a direct encouragement to the disciples of Christ, not just back then but even today, that praying against darkness and meeting it with forgiveness will one day bring about its end. To stand in prayer is to present the world a foreshadowing of the coming Kingdom of God. Will we stand in prayer today? Will we have faith that this mountain of evil can be thrown into the sea and drowned?

Perhaps it’s time we started destroying the “fig trees” present among us today.

Where Science and Religion Collide?

A discussion with a friend of mine (thanks go to Gavin) has led me to think a little more deeply about the relation and conflicts between science and faith.

I have always maintained that these two fields of human thought do not contradict each other in the sense that they are very much separate disciplines and have their formulations developed and maintained in different manners. Science, for example, deals with fact, empiricism, and knowledge. Faith tends to deal with matters of value, experience, and morality. My opinion has always been, and continues to be such, that although these two schools are self-contained within their own right, it is quite feasible to see them as complimentary to each other if viewed in the right way.

Hearing the views of someone from a secular viewpoint always challenges me, and yet in a very good way. In the same way that science can make no progress if it constantly focuses on old knowledge without endeavouring to break any new ground, so religion will become stagnant if its proponents do not open themselves up to similar levels of questioning and seeking. In this sense, I am not merely talking about seeking new revelation from old knowledge (though that is very important as well), but also using the gift of reason bestowed upon humanity in order to determine what new revelations might be given to us by God today. I feel that religious faith, in much a similar vain as science, must be looked upon as a continual progression toward improved understanding. If we believe in God, then we must accept that He alone is perfection whereas the rest of us are limited to the shackles of our own finitude.

Secularism tells me from its own perspective that the position of God and/or divinity is not only highly improbable, but also largely irrelevant. Therefore, the things in life which we consider to have meaning, such as ethics, morality, and spirituality, may all be explained away by a matter of genetics and survival. As cold and dispassionate as such a philosophy might be, secularism argues, it is nonetheless how existence is and as such we ought to seek in constructing our own happiness, survival, and meaning.

The bemusing factor in all of this is that I actually agree to a certain extent. As a person of science and one who values rational, objective enquiry, I wholeheartedly accept that evolution and the development of humanity as described in contemporary scientific terms constitutes the best reflective understanding of our existence that can be attainted at the current time. I am quite open to acknowledging that all of my intellect, self-awareness, imagination, conceptualisations of morality, and sense of meaning, are all qualities which developed as beneficial evolutionary traits and which even now we utilise as a means to propagate the survival of ourselves as well as our own species, albeit on a subconscious level without our direct realisation.

Should any of this conflict with a state of spiritual faith? I don’t believe it should. If it does, then we should have to re-examine the credibility we give to a transcendent nature, as well as to the God we believe created us. After all, She would have to have, in one way or another, bestowed upon us all of the faculties common to humankind that we now possess. Does it really matter if we were created as Adam and Eve in a direct, immediate sense, or if we arose as the result of a series of gradual phenomena and scientific processes which culminated and, indeed, provided us with our human machinations? If I am to believe that God is seated upon the throne of eternity, being unbound by time and space, I am hard pressed to think that it makes one iota of difference to Him whether Adam and Eve came about in an instant, or if all humanity is the collective result of natural selection and speciation.

Another problem, however, is if religion and morality is simply a matter of conditioning and learning in the same way we would have to learn and be conditioned about any other discipline, then where does that leave the viability of such beliefs? After all, in the same manner that animals are unable to conceive of anything higher than their own immediately perceived reality, then why should it be any different for humans? Why should we feel, even if there is any reality beyond the realm of human perception, that this can be experienced by ourselves anymore than fish in a pond could experience the variety of perception and imagination available to us who peer down upon them?

The key difference, I feel, comes from the very self-awareness with which we have evolved. Our sentience exists on a much more complex level than those within the rest of the animal kingdom, and as such we have the power (gifting?) to conceive of higher realms even if we cannot perceive them in their fullness. It is within our grasp to have a concept of ultimacy in a way that is simply not within the realm of animal sentience.

Secularism might argue, how does that make the existence of transcendent reality any more tangible, or even give proof that we can tap into it? Well, it doesn’t; but it offers the possibility that the transcendent can be experienced, even if this occurs in a very subjective manner. We might not be able to experience such a level of reality in fullness, in the same way we perceive and learn about our own sphere of perceived reality, but the very fact that we can conceptualise it may mean that we can experience it in part, in but a tiny perhaps infinitesimal reflection of what actually is. In relation to my own faith, I would say this is quite probably an important facet of prayer; inasmuch as it is communication with the Living God, it may also be considered as an expression of the human self-awareness to align itself with the infinitude that it conceptualises in part. An endeavour, as it were, to reach into the depths of objectivity as far as our own limitations will allow us.

Then of course, comes the big question: why should any of this really matter? If we are given to understand that the transcendent, or God, can only ever be experienced in a highly subjective manner, then why can we not simply feel content to live our lives as we are immediately aware of them?

The answer must come from the idea that the expression of religious faith as a subjective reflection of objective reality is not an endeavour which is conducted in vain. The central theme of the Christian faith is the concept of love, and from this love, the concepts of compassion, forgiveness, mercy, and every quality in which we look beyond ourselves and embrace the entirety of humankind. The perception of an all-loving God must not be separate from humanism. We cannot on the one hand say that we believe in a loving Creator if we then in turn say that it does not matter to be concerned about the state of humanity. If in pains we seek out to make ultimacy our concern, then the painful concern for the whole of humankind must be a necessary condition of such seeking.

I feel that this points to the two main laws that Jesus gave humanity: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your strength, and all your mind; and then, love your neighbour as yourself. There are three targets of love in those laws: God, neighbour, and self. The expression of love toward all three is the reality of love itself. Even if, in scientific terms, true altruism cannot exist in the sense that we never realistically do anything out of entire selflessness, then the expression of religious faith does not conflict with this idea. Loving ourselves and being at peace with ourselves, is on equal a level of importance as the same goal for God and humanity. But in a similar vain, our slavery to the instinct of human nature is something spiritual faith assures us we can break in order to express loving selflessness toward all members of the human race, even as God loves them all.

All of this, of course, with the help which comes from above.

Agapé: The Love of God

Matthew 5:38-48

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

These words spoken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are among the most talked of in Christianity, yet sadly it would appear they are also the ones most taken for granted. What I mean in saying this is not that Christians today are not aware of them, but that very few of us say them without grasping the full impact of what Jesus is admonishing us to do. There is perhaps no other commandment more radical, and at the same time more difficult to follow, than that which drives us to love our enemies. Each one of us may even have a different interpretation of what this passage means, but let us put these aside for just one moment and get into the context of the situation here.

In the timeline that Matthew gives us, Jesus’ great sermon takes place after He has gained some prominence and a growing curiosity amongst the masses. Jesus has been baptised by John, He’s been driven into the desert for His fasting and temptation, and afterward he begins His ministry; His disciples are called, He’s begun preaching, and the author tells us that He is “healing every disease and every affliction among the people (4:23).” So Jesus at this point has already come in full force, His preaching and His supernatural powers drawing people in and getting them talking. And during the course of this epic speech, he intersperses this teaching about how we must react to evil and enmity with love. This is a concept so hard to swallow that it’s exact meaning has been debated, discussed, and dare I say it – even outright rejected in the process of enactment by those who feel that Jesus must surely have been saying something different than is readily apparent. With this in mind, I would like to take us through an unpacking of this passage starting with the words that Jesus references.
“Eye for an eye” are words which strike more of a chord with the human spirit. This mandate was emphasised in the Mosaic Law as a punishment which fit the crime; If you murder, then your life must be taken, if you’ve stolen then you must repay, etc, and it also stood as a deterrent against excessive retaliation. As long as this law was in effect, a person could only be given reparation against their offender in the exact measure they were victimised themselves.

Now, the words that Jesus uses when referring to this law are important to note, because although He is referring to a scriptural admonishment, He does not use the words “You have seen it written.” Jesus isn’t just referring to scripture, to something that has been laid down as divine law and set in stone. He’s addressing both the Mosaic Law itself as well as the prevalent attitude at the time. He does this with each one of His detailed commandments in this speech, and it infers that He is speaking not just to the Hebrew religion, but also to the human heart. In this sense as well, Jesus’ appeal to change our way of thinking isn’t just rooted in the Mosaic law itself, but rather every single way of thinking with which “eye for an eye” aligns, including Genesis 9:6.

The second half appears to be an expanding, as it were, on the first… where before Jesus was talking about the Mosaic law of retaliation, He’s now speaking of our attitude towards enemies. Again, using the words “you have heard it said,” He now speaks of our familiar attitude of loving only our neighbours and hating our enemies. It wasn’t a scriptural necessity to only love one’s neighbour, and in fact there are various places in the Old Testament where the concept of loving an enemy wasn’t alien at all (Proverbs 25:21-22), but of course this must again be balanced against the prevailing human instinct, and this is one in which loving the friend exclusively is a common attribute. It’s simply not in our nature to have compassion for someone who feels the exact opposite toward us. In fact, this was even taken for granted by those who were seemingly filled with love for God. Psalm 139 is one of the most quoted by Christians as a beautiful examination of the supreme love God feels for His children, talking about how God knows our innermost being, how He knitted us in the womb, and how we can never escape His presence no matter how hard we may try. But you’ll usually only see that psalm quoted about two thirds of the way through! In the last section, the Psalmist speaks of how he wishes God would slay his enemies, and appears to boast of honour in as much as he hates those who hate God! To the Psalmist here, there didn’t seem to be any great contradiction between loving God and having contempt for His opposition.

If we are to gain a greater understanding of what it means to love an enemy, then it might help to look at the precise kind of language that Jesus is using. We lose this in modern translations of the Bible, but there are actually three distinct words for love in the New Testament Greek, and it might be helpful to give an introduction to these terms as we go along.
The first kind of love is Eros, which infers a kind of romantic, deeply intimate love like the kind we would have for a partner or a spouse. It’s a type of affection which is expressed in a deeper way than the kind we might feel for a friend or a blood relative. Then there is Philia, which is a familiar, sentimental love. We feel this toward friends and family members. We love those toward whom we feel a certain kind of affinity, and we love them because we in turn are loved by them. The third kind, which we’ll be talking about in more depth now, is Agape.

Christian writers have generally described agape, as expounded on by Jesus, as a form of love which is both unconditional and voluntary; that is, it is non-discriminating with no pre-conditions and is something that one decides to do. Saint Paul described love as follows: “Love (agape) is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) Tertullian, in his 2nd century defense of Christians remarks how Christian love attracted pagan notice: “What marks us in the eyes of our enemies is our loving kindness.’Only look’ they say, ‘look how they love one another.’”

Agapé, the self-sacrifical love which God commands us to have both for Him and our fellow man, is a means of recognising our nature and God’s. It does not depend upon philia, which is a kind of familiar love we bear for our friends and family…. Agapé is a love God wishes us to have in common for all, whether we have philia for them or not. It is a universal love which places a person on the same standing as ourselves even if they hate us and wish us nothing but harm. It is a love we are expected to hold for both kind neighbour and hateful oppressor alike. The kind of love which seeks God’s goodness in their life as well as the lives of our friends, family, and even ourselves. A love by which we love each other as a church in the acknowledgement of the one who saved us, and the outside world in acknowledgement of the God who loves them despite of their unbelief. Agapé is indeed the means by which we become more like God in Christ.

It is the same love that Jesus is speaking of when He tells us to love our enemies. This love is unconditional, so we don’t offer it with any prerequisites. This Biblical concept of agapé is sometimes spoken of in psychological, biological, and sociological terms as altruism. This is a quality that some has when they show concern for someone other than themselves. We can say that the Good Samaritan expressed altruism when he came to the aid of the Jew on the road to Jericho; this is an act of selflessness, whereby we put aside the thoughts of ourselves, and focus on the needs of our fellow man. Altruism is quite well documented in scientific fields as something quite beneficial to the advancement of a species. In evolutionary biology, there is a school of though made popular by Richard Dawkins and thinkers like him that the progression of any particular species is simply a matter of genes. The genes are selfish, not in a personal, anthropomorphic sense, but in the manner that our genetic material only continues to replicate and our bodies are the vessels for which it does so. There is the self, and then there is the need to survive and fulfil all that comes with survival. To this end, even selflessness, this altruism, is beneficial to the propagation of the genes in what seems like a never-ending story of life, death, and reproduction. And all this is not to say that those views are necessarily inaccurate, but rather that they are incomplete. Many Christians get the wrong end of the stick because of the opinions of scientists like Dawkins, they feel that evolutionary science and other disciplines like it are against the word of God, or that they are somehow misleading and untrue, but that’s only because these scientists have largely missed the point. Science and religion are two separate disciplines, and they are conducted in different ways that we respond to them individually, and if viewed in the correct light then they can only compliment each other. The problem of course, is that many tough-minded scientists have failed to see the hand of God in their work, leading those among the spiritual to believe them. In a situation like this, neither side seems to see that science and religion work to interpret the other even though they are separate.
And even in this light, science may have missed what altruism truly is. Altruism may be a definite observation which is beneficial to the furthering of a species in its existence, but even this can only go so far when confronted by instinct. Even human beings, who prefer to think of themselves as exalted above the animal kingdom, have shown themselves to be slaves to the concept of instinct when the going gets tough. And when we are confronted by an enemy, this is where altruism ends and instinct takes over.

Agape, this Biblical concept, may well be greater than the scientific concept of altruism. If we were to compare the two at all, we may have to view agape as a universal altruism.

Certainly agapé is a very best an extremely difficult ideological goal, but I don’t perceive it to be so lofty that it is entirely unachievable. This is where many people miss the point… the kind of objective universal altruism of which Jesus speaks isn’t even possible apart from God. This is why I find it somewhat irksome when people say that they believe in the teachings and morality of the Bible but don’t believe in the spiritual foundation of it. Not because I have an objection to them holding such a belief, but because 9 times out of 10 it’s not going to be true. For example, when a friend of mine told me he believed in Jesus’ teachings but not in His spiritual nature, I asked him if he believed likewise that he could forgive someone who murdered his family. The expectant response: “Hell no.”

Now granted, rhetorical hyperbole in that instance is a somewhat extreme case, but it also serves to drive home the reality of what Jesus was attempting to get across. When He says “Love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute and spitefully use you,” He means it. This is what agapé truly is, and this is when its nature is made manifest… when a person can give of themselves even to the one who hates them.
This is where it is important to draw the distinction between philia and agapé… philia is what we feel for friends and family. It is impossible and impractical to feel philia toward the enemy, not because of reciprocated ill-will, but because of the nature of philia itself. Philia implies fellowship, mutual love and respect, and an intimate relationship. Agapé is not only different from philia in this regard, it is much greater… because it can be given to both friend and enemy alike.

In regards to the “practical” whys and wherefores in loving our enemy, we might be able to perceive conceptually why this would be spiritually beneficial. For one thing, returning hate for hate only causes to multiply it, in much the same way that Satan cannot be driven out by Satan. You can’t drive out darkness in a night already devoid of stars by making it even darker, only light can do that. The ultimate ends of hate are diametrically opposed to those of love. Love seeks to build, to heal, to repair, to reconcile. Hatred seeks to destroy, to damage, to obscure, and to drive apart. The ends of hatred are annihilation and detachment, and that would only plunge humanity further into annihilation if that were to happen. Jesus is aware of the stringent factors involved in loving one’s enemies, and He is as much aware of the gaping need to do so. That’s the physical reason why the love for enemies is an imperative course of action. What, however, of the spiritual reasons? The conclusion, the defining point of this entire passage, is given in verse 48: “You must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
In reading this, we must rid our minds of modern conceptions of “perfection.” We think of this term as meaning “without flaw,” and though we may debate about what exactly this means, we can all be virtually unanimous in saying that we believe God to be perfect, or the embodiment of perfection. In this verse, however, Jesus sees the state of being perfect as something which is held by God, and simultaneously achievable by the human grasp. What He is talking about, then, is not that human beings can become exactly like God, but there is something in the nature of God that humans can hold in common with Him. And what might this be, in the context of what Jesus has been talking about up to this point? What He is saying, quite plainly, is that God Himself has this same agape love. We are to love all humanity because God loves all humanity as well. The verse might as well say “You must love your enemies as well as your neighbours, because God loves them both.” Believe it or not, there are some people in this world who will tell you that God loves only those who love Him back, that He has exclusive care for Christians and either apathy or contempt for everyone else. Don’t you believe it. God loves all humanity impartially, with this same agape love. It’s because of this agape love that God gave His only Son to die upon the cross as the atonement for humanity’s sin, which was where the sacrificial component of this type of love came in for the Almighty God.

This is the ultimate end of agapé… it is so that we “may be children of our Father who is in Heaven.” The altruism which a follower of God is expected to feel for all humanity makes the follower more like his God with each stage of growth. The more we love, the more we are awakened to our spiritual nature. Because God loves humanity with impartiality and agapé, so we in turn when we show this same love draw nearer to God Himself. The paradox is, agapé comes from God and ends with Him. Apart from His power, the objective universal altruism of which we speak is not only unattainable, but it has no real purpose to it. This is why the one who is unacquainted with the love of God will find it extremely difficult if not impossible to love neighbour and enemy alike.

Therefore, one must be a believer in order for agapé to have hope of being achieved. I say hoped, because unfortunately many people who profess the Christian faith do not seem to have a clear understanding of agapé or how it is necessary in such a spiritual walk. It is not because the unbeliver is inferior or a less capable person than the one who believes… it is because if one does not surrender to the power of God, agape is unachievable as it finds its source from such power. Universal altruism is something counter-intuitive to the needs of humanity. In our most primitive state of being, we had the instinct to fend only for ourselves and our personal survival… as we moved into the next stage, humanity founded civilisation and we learned not only to fend for ourselves, but also our loved ones; friends, family, and those with whom we felt affinity and passion. Agape is the extension of this familiar love into an objective state… obviously it is not possible for me to love the 6 billion other people on this planet with the same vehemence I love my parents and friends…. but that is philia and cannot always apply. Agapé means I view the humanity of those other people in the same vain I view the humanity of my parents and friends… each one made in the image of God, each one fallen, each one equally redeemable. Agapé is the goal for me to view all my fellow man in the same way I perceive God to view them. This love has its source from relationship with God, and relationship with God is also its purpose. It is as if by agapé one loses themselves in the infinite depth of being, whereby they realise their place in the holistic structure of God, humanity, and existence itself.

Expounding Upon an Idea for Compatibilism

What I hope to demonstrate in this initial thesis is a possible solution to the age-old problem of how God’s omniscience and omnipotent personal qualities in the Christian faith may be reconciled with the paradox of personal responsibility and, dare it be said, freedom of choice. To begin, we must first acknowledge and establish a few qualities regarding God’s nature.

1.) He is omnipotent. He has within His nature the power to accomplish any course of action which is logically possible. What this means is that He cannot create square circles, or make a statement which is both true and false, since these paradoxes are dependent upon human categorisations without being woven into the overall fabric of reality. Beyond this, God is able to bring about any state of affairs.

2.) He is omniscient. Because spacetime, unlike human categorisations of logic, is an intricate part of our physical universe upon which frames of reference and physical processes depend, it must be rationally concluded that, assuming God exists, and spacetime being His creation, He transcends this quantity as He does matter and energy. This leads onto the implication that God sees no distinction between past, present, and future events, all of which are attributes of a linear, physical existence. This is the kind of existence we inhabit, where we are confined to a particular space and experience a flow of time whereby we only remember past events, experience the immediate present moment, and remain uninformed of future events.

3.) Following from (3), God is ubiquitous, being aware of all spatial points simultaneously in a similar manner to being aware of all temporal points. For the purposes of our argument and the sake of simplicity, we shall state from hereon that God exists within each and every point of spacetime in a perfect, “simultaneous” manner.

4.) God, as depicted in the Christian Bible, is omni-benevolent. He is ultimately loving, and His limitless compassion (at least as we know it in anthropomorphic terms) encompasses a need to see justice served as well as mercy.

Now the problems arise as follows. From the first three points, we acknowledge that the Judeo-Christian God essentially embodies what we limited human beings know as “perfection,” that which we might describe as an ideal state of existence. God is able to do anything, sees all, experiences all, remains unchanging (by virtue of existing outside the dimensions of time and space), and within the intricate nature of this state of being, He experiences love. Many a theologian has written countless books on the subject of God’s love, but it is enough for us to simply acknowledge this embodiment of love for humanity which is intrinsic in God’s “psyche.”
Herein lies the problem: As we see in (4), an essential part of God’s love is that He demands a divine form of justice which we see in the Bible described as “Hell.” All we see explicitly described in the Bible is that Hell constitutes eternal separation from the presence of God. Namely, we all die a natural, physical death, but then we also die a spiritual death as part of the progressive chain of events. This is what would happen in a state of affairs without intervention, but the cornerstone of Biblical faith is that the personage and revelation of God’s nature was fully revealed in Jesus Christ, who, as well as living a life of ministry and preaching the true nature of God’s love and compassion, also died a death once and for all in the hope of saving us from the condition of “sin,” that imperfect state which leads us to ultimately conduct ourselves opposite to God’s idea of goodness and morality, which subsequently leads to our spiritual deaths, the Hell state. This state is necessitated by God’s sense of justice, that no imperfection can come into His presence. Since He wants us in His presence because of His love for us, Jesus provides the perfect sacrifice and atonement for sin, and also symbolises the desire of God to share in our suffering, despair, death, decay, and taking upon Himself the condition of sin in order to demonstrate how all forms of human imperfection have been put to death. This atonement is perfect, needing nothing more, we are told, save that we have faith in Jesus as the Son of God and place our trust in His sacrifice.

And so we are left with a problem. We appear to have been left to choose our faith in Christ, or to reject Him. However, since God, in His omniscience and ubiquity, ought to know which of those people whom He created would ultimately choose Him, and since He brought about a universe by which all of our minds and consciousnesses are subject to well-defined physical laws, the argument exists that God has predestined us, as it were, to have faith in Him. This is the crux of Calvinist philosophies, and others like them, which argue that we do not cooperate in any way, shape, or form with God in order to be saved from sin… His Holy Spirit is the sole author of our salvation, and while some have been specifically saved, others have been deliberately prepared by God for destruction to the Hell state. The main arguments for this idea arise from specific parts of the Bible. The author of Ephesians writes:

Ephesians 1:4-6
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

And again:
Ephesians 1:11-12
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

The apostle Paul of Tarsus writes:
Romans 9:15-18
For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

So we are struck with quite a startling paradox indeed… on the one hand, it appears to be God’s wish that we should choose Him through Christ in order that we might be reconciled to Him in love. On the other hand, it seems as though God intentionally chose His followers already, and not just this, but also chose those who would rebel to be consigned to their eternal punishment! It would seem quite reasonable to come to such a conclusion if we are to acknowledge God’s sovereignty in all creation, and His transcendence of space and time. It may appear, unfortunately, that we really have no choice in whether we follow God or rebel.
The main argument from those who support the idea of free will comes from the idea that God’s foreknowledge does not preclude our ability to make our own decisions. Such an argument, in simplistic form, might say that God knows that a particular person will take the train in the morning, but that does not make Him directly responsible for that person taking the train. In much the same way, I know a ball will drop to earth if released, but that doesn’t mean I forced the ball to drop to earth.

It might seem reasonable, but upon further scrutiny there are problems. For one thing, I may know that a ball will drop to earth without forcing it, but I am not responsible for the laws of nature which compel it to drop. God, conversely, is the omniscient author of all natural laws, including gravity. Including those which allow me to be born and die. Including those laws to which my brain is subject, which allow me to make my decisions in the first place. From a strict reductionist viewpoint, it is difficult to argue that God, as the supreme foreknowing author, does not map out all of my decisions before I make them. Where, then, lies the argument for personal responsibility? Am I really not responsible for whether or not I choose to follow God? Is it entirely down to His sovereign work?

One thing we must account for, at this stage of our scientific understanding, is that there are two main dynamic collections of laws at work in the cosmos; the laws of relativity, which are deterministic, and the laws of quantum mechanics, which are indeterministic. It is relativity to which large scale structures, such as planets, cars, and all macroscopic structures hold. Similarly, atomic and molecular particles abide by quantum mechanics, which is, by its very nature, indeterministic. Without going into the highly-detailed science of this matter, it is sufficient for us to acknowledge at this point that quantum physics is not indeterministic because of our level of human understanding and measurement, but rather, these laws are inherently indeterministic on a universal scale. No matter how advanced our level of measurement, quantum effects are by their nature unpredictable.

What quantum theory shows (and numerous experimental observations have held its principles to be true), is that the universe, at least on a sub-perception scale, does not run on a clockwork plan. By quantum effects, particles can change direction, position, or even bring themselves into existence from unknown sources of energy for no apparent reason at all. This is in stark contrast to relativistic laws, which we can be observe and predict to great repetitive accuracy. These two main bodies of physics are currently irreconcilable, yet both hold to be experimentally true. In a great cosmic contradiction, the universe is somehow deterministic and indeterministic simultaneously.

The reader may be wondering what all of this science has to do with the philosophical considerations of God, choice, and free will. Well, for starters, it has everything to do with it. Heidegger and others have worked extensively on the notion that human freedom depends upon the ability of a particular state to bring itself into existence. If one state of being simply follows on from another state, then there is an inextricable dependence on the previous state of being and no freedom of choice has been expressed. What quantum phenomena ultimately serve to demonstrate, is that while we live in a universe where perceived events are predictable and non-chaotic, the unperceived behaves in such a manner that each state of existence is essentially coming into being of its own accord.

The prominent mathematician Roger Penrose has been one of a few scientists who have sought to directly attribute quantum effects to human behaviour, theorising (most notably in his book The Emperor’s New Mind) that the human mind does not operate on the same level as computers, but rather displays consciousness as a result of quantum effects occurring within the brain. These effects supposedly combine in a superposition of different quantum states in a macroscopic manner to be able to produce the highly complex and overall unpredictable behaviour of human beings. Now we might all say we have consistent character traits and personalities, but the point is that those would arise from the conditions which have contributed to the relativistic side of our brain… the quantum side, it is expected, would give rise to underpinning characteristics which are less easily definable, such as decisions we might make, what time to eat, whether a life-changing course of action is wise or unwise, how we might perceive a particular situation, etc. Those things which, although determined by our individual personalities, also require some measure of unpredictability.

Now we should see that if quantum effects hold to be true, and they do occur on a level within our brain, then there are a number of factors to consider. We are a product of our environment and we progress in our personalities according to our situations, the immediate people by whom we are surrounded, our education, and our overall environment. We are also equally a product, as it were, of ourselves. The ability of a state of being to bring itself about is hardwired into our brains, or whatever gives rise to our consciousness. Predictable in some respects we most definitely are, but indeterministic in how we compute, decipher, and discern information. It cannot be argued on sufficient grounds, therefore, that our actions and choices are nothing more than products of the previous state of existence if indeed our existence has some measure of in-built tendency to cause itself.

Now while this might indicate that we have some degree of choice, we are still left with the problem that, however unpredictable quantum effects might be, they are such only within the framework of this physical universe. God, as the author of all natural laws, knows how and in what manner quantum phenomena will occur since He is responsible for their behaviour. So an absolute prederminist may argue that, not only are we still slave to quantum indeterminacy, but also since God knows the ins and outs of those indeterminacies, our decisions are still subject to His causations.

However, in light of our acceptance at this point that the universe has a large-scale spatial-temporal structure which God perfectly perceives, and also in light of our acceptance that our universe is on at least some level inherently indeterministic, a new model is proposed which attempts to reconcile the concepts of determinism and human freedom. In this model, the Calvinistic concept that God chooses His followers is held to be true, but with one vital difference; the choices are made due to how existence has unfolded, rather than the other way round.

How this works is explained thus: God, in His omniscience and benevolence, brings about a complete state of existence (our universe, in its spatial-temporal scale) which is structured in the “best” way; that is, because God in His perfect wisdom knows all possible options and subsequently chooses the option that is most loving and is the morally better option by virtue of His perfect compassion. I propose that in doing this, God did not bring about a universe which would operate entirely on His demanded rules, but would operate with some measure of independence based on its own rules. The reason I say “some measure” is for the following reasons:

1.) A universe left to operate entirely on its own independent of God is a deistic worldview, and one which is irreconcilable with the Christian faith. Biblically, God has not only intervened in human history (most notably through Christ), but is also actively involved in sustaining and guiding His creation.

2.) Although God does and continues to intervene, there can be argued a case for extent to which He does so. As an example, there can be considered a difference between His current guiding of the universe and, say, His appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus.

From this reasoning it is argued that because there appears to be a measure to which God chooses to intervene in His creation, there must be a measure to which creation acts independently and also a measure to which God has relinquished His sovereignty over the universe. That is, while He is the ultimate author of creation and its laws, and while He constantly sustains and guides the creation within the confinement of these laws, there is an extent of independence of creation which allows it to shift between partially-independent states of being. It is hypothesised that this conduction results in the presence of both relativism and quantum law within our universe.

Now as to how all this relates to choice and predestination: God, although spatially and temporally ubiquitous, perceiving all points of existence in the universe as one simultaneous “structure” (it is necessary to speak in anthropomorphic terms although it is hoped the reader will understand that such expressions are written for the convenience of discussion), also willed the creation to arise from an initial singularity point of its own linear accord. With partially-relinquished sovereignty over creation, this universe and subsequently this planet spawned sentient life; human beings, whom God foresaw and for whom creation exists. The object of His love, God desires reconciliation with us through Christ, but we come back to the original question: can we choose that reconciliation in and of our own power?
The answer is neither yes nor no, but a mixture of both. Because we human beings have been left of our own accord to develop, grow, learn, and understand, we do so at different rates, different levels, and all according to the deterministic laws of the universe… but also due to those which are indeterministic. God has formed the human conscious mind, that to which we might refer as the “soul,” from a collection of qualities which express themselves in amalgamation as individuality according to how the conscious mind has been left exposed within a partially indeterministic framework. As individuals who each undergo different experiences, in different environments, and in different ways, all according to how creation has been allowed to unfold, we all possess a limited extent of freedom. Now for some more Biblical input:

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.

Numerous passages can be found expressing similar messages, but these two have been selected to serve the main point: God somehow wishes that all might come to Him in reconciliation, yet not only is the number of people who come to this fate obviously limited, but also Jesus chooses those who come to this fate through faith. In light of the model of relinquished sovereignty, it is proposed that the Holy Spirit does not select a limited few to beckon, but rather He reveals Himself in some way of beckoning to all people, in all times, and in all places. Such reasoning is based on the following verse:

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

So again we see Jesus reaffirming the idea that He chooses His people rather than them choosing Him, but here also lays the precedence that “many are called.” It is theorised that God’s Spirit, as described above, effectively “calls” all human beings to reconciliation, but among which only a few respond. The conditions of whether they will respond or reject is suggested to be based on the exposure of the human soul to conditions of creation which have unfolded partially due to God’s intervention, and also partially due to the ability of creation to progressively bring about its own independent states. So we are confined according to where in creation we are found to exist, but also are found with a very limited sense of freedom, depending both upon our individuality in the unfolded state as well as how our indeterministic mind will respond to God’s calling. Since God foreknows the ways in which we will respond, He is able to see where those individuals are who are in the position of both environment and individuality to be able to best glorify Him, and therefore He “chooses” those based on those factors. The result is cooperation between man and God to reach our salvation which maintains God’s position as the ultimate author of reconciliation beyond that of our own efforts.

In summation:

• God foreknows all of creation, including the decisions people will make.
• The decisions that people make are based on their own deterministic personalities as well as an individuality which expresses itself through limited indeterminacy.
• For these indeterminate states to exist, God has relinquished part of His sovereignty over His creation by limiting the extent to which He intervenes in the universe’s function, and instead allows it to unfold according to selected parts of its own laws while sustaining and guiding the remainder.
• The sacrifice of Christ was the final atonement sufficient for all people’s sin, and available to all people as propitiation for their imperfections. The calling of God’s Spirit is therefore made in appeal to everyone who has ever existed, and will ever exist.
• The ways in which people’s individualities find and express themselves according to how they are exposed within the partially-indeterministic universe allows God to see whether they are in a position to glorify Him. These people respond to God’s call, in such a way that He has “chosen” them.
• Because these people have been in a position to respond positively to God’s calling, God’s sovereignty as author of salvation remains intact even though it has been partially relinquished to give people limited freedom.
• Those whom God has chosen will never lose their salvation, since God has chosen them and foreknew them from the foundation of the world.

Five Calvinistic Points Revised:
T – Total inability of humanity to come to God through our own efforts.
U – Universal appeal, extended to all human beings.
L – Limited number of those given grace according to positive response to God’s appeal.
I – Irresistible choice on God’s part of those who are in a positive position to glorify Him
P – Perseverance of believers in their salvation.