An Unconventional Theology - Chapter 2

Chapter 2 – Creation, Humankind, and Hamartia

In this chapter I want to discuss in succession the events described in the first three chapters of Genesis. These events can be divided between the general creation of the earth, the creation of humankind, and the introduction of Hamartia or “sin” into the world. For my purposes which I shall later go into more detail, I will not be using the word “sin” when describing Hamartia, but rather will use more accurate translations (in my opinion) such as “disorder”, “malfunction”, and “fatal flaw”.

It has often been noted that the Genesis account of creation seems to be in direct opposition to the evidence which modern science has uncovered regarding the age of the earth, and the amount of time creation took from inception up til Moses recorded it approximately 1500 B.C.E. (for the purposes of this writing, I am assuming a traditional Mosaic authorship for the Book of Genesis). For the person who accepts the Book of Genesis as being divinely inspired, this presents a fundamental problem of logic. Either the Genesis account is telling the truth, or it is not. If it is telling the truth, then why does the scientific evidence suggest a much older origin point for the Earth? If animals and humans were directly created within days, why does the fossil and DNA evidence suggest a process of evolution from a common ancestor? It is my opinion that both the Genesis record and the scientific evidence discovered are describing the same events and are not at odds with one another. Rather, it is the traditional interpretation of the Genesis account which is at odds with the scientific evidence.

To give credit where credit is due, I was first introduced to this new way of looking at Genesis by the writings of Dr. Hugh Ross, PhD., an astrophysicist who came to faith in Christ from atheism, not in spite of the Genesis account, but because of it. In his writings, without any real former Sunday School or theological education, he describes the Genesis account as the only ancient account of creation which fully lines up with what is scientifically known about the evolutionary process. This may sound incredible given the traditional interpretation of a literal six days, but Dr. Ross, with his background, looked at it, not from a God’s eye planetary perspective, but from the perspective of an observer on the ground watching these events.

First, let’s look at the viewpoint of Genesis 1 in particular. Upon a re-examination, it’s not written from a God’s eye view. Instead the language suggests the first person viewpoint of a person at ground level watching these events as they unfold. Literally it reads, “In the beginning, Elohim fashioned the skies and the ground. And the ground was wasteland and emptiness.” Translating “aretz” as “Earth” in twenty-first century English suggests a view of the entire planet because we do not generally refer to the ground under our feet as “earth” unless we refer to the planet as a whole, or in poetic usage. This understanding however would have been a foreign idea to Moses who would not have understood the idea of a globe hurtling through space around a giant flaming ball of gas. The same with translating “shamayim” as “heavens” (which is an Anglo-Saxon leftover for sky/skies anyway). The language being used to describe the viewpoint is local to the observer on the ground in between the two.

Second, let’s look at the division of the creation event into six twelve hour and not twenty four hour time periods. Specifically, the text implies that these creative events occurred for the observer between morning and evening as there is an end to them each day and an implied period of inactivity between evening and morning. Why is this? The change between morning and evening and vice versa is observed local to the individual and itself changes based on where you are on the planet’s surface. From a God’s eye view, that the sun rises and sets in one location should have no bearing on what happens on the rest of the Earth’s surface. None of this makes any sense if we are attempting to force a 144 hour creation event into this passage. It does however make sense if it is a human being recording what he is seeing from a fixed position on the Earth’s surface during a twelve hour duration of time.

So then, what are we looking at here? The only hypothesis that I believe explains the language used in Genesis 1 is that Moses is here describing exactly what he saw as he saw it, but that he himself, being a man of the fifteenth or sixteenth century B.C.E., did not fully grasp what he was being shown. How could he have? Put yourself in Moses’ spot. For six days, from sunup to sundown on Mt. Sinai (possibly see Exodus 24:15-16), God is showing him four billion years of creation event right up until the advent of modern humans like a VHS cassette tape on fast forward. The images are moving fast for him because of the necessary speed and compression that they are flowing in a blur from one to the other. He writes down what his very human brain was able to process just as he understood it to have happened. God Himself makes Moses take a break for twelve hours every day to rest, sleep, and try to absorb what he had just seen.

Thus you have the formation of the earth itself around him, the surface ground and primeval oceans still being covered in thick, Venus like clouds that don’t permit light to pass through. The first thing he sees in this is the dense vapor clouds thinning out to allow the all important sunlight through activating the day/night cycle for the Earth’s surface. In successive days he sees the upheavals of land and ocean as continental plates shift and change; the growth of plant life activated by the energy introduced into the system by the new sunlight; the final thinning of the vapor clouds until the sun, moon, and stars can finally be seen; the evolution of animal life from the seas out onto the land and into the air (incidentally, it’s been demonstrated that many of the creatures we call dinosaurs were in actuality prehistoric, feathered and warmblooded, ancestors to modern birds both flightless and flying sharing similar DNA. A recent experiment which involved a single genetic switch in a chicken embryo’s DNA transformed the beak which should have formed into a fanged snout more at home on a velociraptor); and on the sixth day of revelation the final evolutionary stretch which resulted in modern mammals, reptiles, and of course, modern human beings.

The evolutionary history of modern humans, homo sapiens, fascinates me, especially as it relates to the rather swift account of our creation found in Genesis chapters one and two. From Moses’ perspective, watching our creation on the sixth day of this revelation, it must have looked like we and all other mammals emerged directly from the dirt. Of course, modern research into our origins tells a more detailed story from both the study of fossilized bones of our ancestors and nearest relatives, as well as the study of human DNA and comparing with our closest living cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos, who share 98.3% identical DNA with us.

The process of human evolution took place over a period of approximately two to three million years localized to what is now sub-Saharan Africa from a common ancestor which we shared with the chimpanzee. I won’t go into all of the “transitional forms” except to say there is a good amount of evidence to suggest that by the time home sapiens emerged roughly three hundred thousand years ago, there were several species of human living on Earth including home sapiens, homo neanderthalensis, and homo erectus. It should be noted that, as one scientist observed, we are neither more nor less evolved than the chimpanzee or any other of the “great apes.” Rather, we both evolved in different climates and habitats, and under different conditions. There is evidence to suggest humans evolved for lightly wooded savannah, grasslands and during several climactic upheavals where the other “great apes” evolved to survive in densely forested areas.

Given this, I would like to focus on the Biblical “Adam” himself. One of the things about the word 'adam in Hebrew is that it literally means “human being”. In every case where the word “man” can be understood to mean “human beings in general” in the Hebrew Bible the word is 'adam. When the Bible says God created man male and female, it is literally He created 'Adam male and female. In the first four chapters of Genesis, the word 'Adam is used almost exclusively when translated as “man” or “the man” with only about three apparent exceptions (Genesis 2:23, 24; 3:6, 4:1). For this reason, and following the logic of the preceding argument, I would present the hypothesis that the creation and person of “Adam” in the account was also an amalgam of at least one offshoot or family grouping of homo sapiens.

There are several points to consider here. As previously stated, from modern science, we know that we share 98.3% identical DNA with the Chimpanzee, and their related cousin, the Bonobo. From modern science we also know that there were other species of homo both before, and concurrent with what we now call modern humans. Also according to recent studies, we know that the 1.7% of difference between humanity and our hairier cousins developed relatively recently and at a rapid pace. Over the course of about a million years or so, recent studies seem to indicate that there was a definite and rapid increase in brain mass from the original primate ancestor. It can be seen today in the size differences between the chimpanzee and a human being. Still yet another observation comes from a relatively recently published study indicating that modern humans are the offshoot of the genetic tree and not the direct line. A group of scientists studying hominids along the family tree indicated, by forty or more minor points of change, in comparing Neanderthal skeletons and modern human skeletons to the previous “generation” of hominid that Neanderthal was, in actuality, the “expected” branch of evolution, while the modern human is a “freak,” or offshoot from the branch that should not have occurred naturally.

The Genesis record then explains that God removed the human being from where he had been initially created and set him in a garden to the east in a place called “Eden”. According to modern science, the earliest ancestors of human beings arose in Africa and then migrated eastwards. The first of these migrations took place approximately two million years ago with Homo Erectus. This was followed by further migrations not long afterwards both within Africa and out of Africa 300,000 years ago and the last major migration 70,000 years ago. It is my opinion that this description of “’adam” being moved to this garden may reflect what Moses saw regarding these migrations, .

Genesis gives a fairly specific location for this first garden home for human beings and describes it as being east of where four rivers meet at their headwaters, which then became a river which flowed through the garden. These rivers were the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Gihon (Gaihun Aras), and the Pishon (Uizon). All four of these rivers converge more or less in northern Iran around the valley of Tabriz. What is interesting about this location is that it is central to the emergence of human civilization in the ancient world with ancient Sumer and Babylon to the south and the Georgian caucasus to the north where evidence of the first domestication of livestock, agriculture, metalsmithy, and other foundations of human technologies has been found. It is also very close to the Black Sea which was essentially a valley which experienced a catastrophic flooding from a breach in a natural sea wall from the Mediterranean Sea around 5600 B.C.E. which could be the source of the universal deluge narrative found in almost every human culture.

Here in Genesis chapter two is also found the express prohibition by God of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death. I will treat this subject in more detail further on.

Where the account of the creation of the first woman in Genesis chapter two is concerned, the Biblical account tells us that after the first, male human being’s creation, there wasn’t a compatible mate available at the time. After seeing that there wasn’t, God put this first human being to sleep and took a rib from him to fashion a fully compatible female for him. Put in other terms, while this first human male was asleep, God took DNA from this person and made a reproductively capable female clone. We know from modern science that cloning human beings is possible, and we also know that the difference between a male and a female is a matter of chromosomes and reproductive organs.

Consider this, on the one hand, if the first “Adam” was born as some kind of an evolutionary positive mutation, then, in order to ensure the perpetuation of that “new” species, you would have to have a female of the same kind. As the odds against it occurring again in nature contemporaneously are beyond astronomical, to ensure the continuation of the species one would have to be formed from scratch and quickly. On the other hand, if Genesis is to be taken traditionally, you still run into the same problem. One “Adam”, one human being with no appropriate mate of the same species, does not make a world spanning population. We know that even if there existed a species of human close enough, but not exact, for him to reproduce, then the offspring would most likely have been sterile due to a difference in number chromosomes. This is the case with the mule (horse/donkey), the liger (lion/tiger), or other hybrid offspring. It would also, for immediate example, most certainly be the case with a human/chimpanzee hybrid (which is, though unethical, theoretically possible).

That Genesis records Moses as having seen God respond in such a way suggests, possibly, that the very first human being as such was in fact male, and was reproductively incompatible with the rest of the family grouping he was born from. It also suggests that God took a special interest in this single, unique individual and in preserving his genetic line. The natural question which accompanies this observation is, “why?”

This first human being, it is recorded in Genesis, could use spoken language. Genesis records that he began giving names to animals. That is, he began associating distinct vocalized sounds with individual species of animals he saw. Furthermore, he did the same thing with the female God had fashioned for him, calling her “woman”, “’iyshah”, which in the original Hebrew is simply the feminine form of the word for male/man, “’iysh”.

Human use of spoken language, as modern science tells us, is largely derived from our unique variant of the FOXP2 gene which developed approximately 4-500,000 years ago and is found in both modern human and Neanderthal DNA suggesting it developed in an earlier, common ancestor to both such as late Homo Erectus or Homo Heidelbergensis. Chimpanzees also have this gene, but it differs in our closest cousins by two amino acids. That tiny difference however is the only apparent reason why human beings can use the extent of vocalic speech we are capable of and chimpanzees cannot. Their relative level of intelligence has a lesser role to do with it than is often thought. As has been repeatedly demonstrated through numerous examples, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are all fully capable of not only expressing their wants, needs, and emotions intelligibly through sign language when taught, but passing on the knowledge of sign language to the next generation which then, learning it in infancy, is capable of more complex “speech” using sign. Given this information, I would offer the hypothesis that this first, unique human male, though not probably homo sapiens, was also the first to carry this FOXP2 mutation. And if so, in order to ensure the continuance of it, a female with the same gene mutation would have been necessary as, even if there was a reproductively compatible mate from the preceding evolutionary generation, there would be no guarantee of the passing of this gene unless that mate also carried it.

This brings us up to Genesis chapter three. Before I directly discuss Genesis three and the introduction of Hamartia, I would like to introduce several more things to consider which are pertinent to this discussion as I hope you will see.

First, according to modern science, human beings started wearing clothing roughly about 100,000 years ago. This has been determined by examining the DNA of body lice which hides in clothing rather than human body hair because there isn’t enough of it. Second, as I briefly mentioned earlier, you don't see the beginnings of human technology until between seven to ten thousand years ago, and it began in what is now Northern Iran or Southern Georgia (the former Soviet Republic, not the American state). Third, as previously mentioned, Anatomically Modern Humans (homo sapiens) arose approximately three hundred thousand years ago, and their brain sizes and shapes did not differ from those of human beings today. This would indicate that they probably had the same level of intelligence that human beings are capable of today (not the same amount of knowledge, mind you, but the same intellectual capacity). Fourth, it can and has been repeatedly observed and demonstrated that no other animal on Earth distinguishes between or are obsessed by right and wrong, or good and evil, like human beings do and are. We see compassion and empathy being demonstrated between animals. We see various levels of intelligence, communication, and even rudimentary tool making being demonstrated. We also see emotional expression such as joy as well as intense grief depending on the species. But we do not see anything resembling moral distinction in animal psychology.

So, all of those things taken into consideration, as far as modern research knows, for at least two hundred thousand years, anatomically modern humans (homo sapiens), not to mention all of our evolutionary ancestors, were as naked as every other animal on Earth, and they had no discernible technology for almost three hundred thousand years in spite of having the same intellectual capacity as we do today (there is evidence that Neanderthals wore clothing, had art, and buried their dead contemporaneously with our own ancestors as well).

This begs the question once more, “why?” If they were intellectually identical to us today, and had the capability for spoken language, why did it take almost three hundred thousand years for them to begin to develop the rudiments of civilization when we have gone from those hunter-gatherer roots to exploring other planets within our solar system within the span of about ten thousand years or so? Also, why did we peacefully coexist with everything and everyone else on this planet for at least two hundred thousand years, when in the space of ten thousand years we are on the verge of catastrophic, human induced climate change, and are personally responsible for the total extinctions of hundreds, if not thousands of other animal species including, possibly, other species of human such as Neanderthal (circa 35-40,000 years ago).

I believe that Genesis chapter three offers us the answer to this question. In this chapter is recorded the temptation by the snake to the woman to eat of the fruit of the tree which God had expressly forbidden. She does, gives it to the man, he does and thus we have recorded the first “sin” by human beings brought about by disobeying a simple command. And we also have the first record of a human being arbitrarily declaring something to be morally “wrong,” in this case the natural nudity to which every other animal on the planet subscribes without a thought.

The word “sin” which is most often used in the New Testament (and rarely actually used in the Old Testament) is the Greek word “Hamartia”. It is a term which comes largely from Greek philosophy and theater and means “fatal flaw”. It was originally an archery term which meant “to miss the target”. Hence, a better and more accurate translation is “error”, but also “malfunction” in the sense that something went wrong or something happened which wasn’t supposed to happen. Thus, I believe it can also justifiably be rendered as “a disorder” in the sense of a mental or medical disorder.

St. Paul in his letter to the Romans says two things about Hamartia. The first is in Romans 5 where he declares that the first human being, “Adam”, brought Hamartia into the world, and death through Hamartia (more on what is meant by death in a little bit), and that through this one human being death spread through all human beings because all have malfunctioned because the one human being malfunctioned. So, what does this tell us about Hamartia, especially if we are to look at it as a disorder? This tells us that it is hereditary. It is passed down through our very genes and doesn’t skip any generations. The second thing of interest St. Paul says is in Romans 7 where he declares, “for I know that within me, that is, within my flesh, nothing good dwells.” So what is he saying? That Hamartia is not only hereditary, it is biological in nature.

So, how can Hamartia be hereditary and biological? That is, how can eating a piece of fruit induce not only a mental disorder or imbalance in one human being, but pass that disorder or imbalance on to every succeeding generation? Well, actually, that’s not all that unbelievable. We know from countless examples that the consumption of certain toxic substances by a pregnant woman can lead to many different kinds of developmental and psychological disorders. Consumption of alcohol while pregnant, for example, can lead to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome which can affect intellectual ability, empathy, moral comprehension, etc. Consumption of a particular medication (whose name escapes me) can lead to a child being born without arms or legs but just hands and feet connected directly to the torso. And consumption of other drugs, doses of radiation, and other external factors can cause severe damage to sperm production and birth defects even long after the man stops being introduced to them. And once that offspring has that particular genetic mutation or defect, it is more than likely that it will be passed on to all succeeding generations.

So, in this chapter, here is one possibility of what Moses saw as an amalgam. There was a particular family grouping of modern humans, maybe several hundred individuals, at some point in time approximately one hundred thousand years ago residing in what is now northern Iran or Southern Georgia. They had been explicitly warned by God to not gather from a particular tree or grove of trees. Their women went out to gather fruit as is common in most hunter gatherer societies for women to be the gatherers and not the hunters. The Bible records a snake intervening by speaking their language. Either this is literal, or it is figurative of them observing other animals eating the fruit from these trees without repercussions. (Traditionally, this is one of the best ways for someone to determine if a fruit or berry is safe to eat. Watch and see if other animals eat it. The danger here however is that there are certain substances which are toxic to one species and harmless to others. Cocoa is a good example. It’s harmless to humans but toxic to dogs.) I personally believe either to be possible. Perhaps they were observing the animals eating the fruit and a metaphorical snake in the person of the devil put the idea in their minds that it was okay to ignore the command. They then went ahead and picked the fruit, ate some of it to test it for immediate ill effects, sensed nothing obvious, and then brought it home to their men who also ate it after their wives told them there was nothing wrong with it.

Here’s the problem. Changes to brain chemistry aren’t immediately discernible by the person to whom they are happening. That person’s progress, either negative or positive, generally has to be observed and monitored by someone else who can discern the changes in behavior. Changes to DNA and genetics are impossible to detect until a child is born with birth defects or psychological problems. In the case of this family grouping, the psychological effect was seen in the (moral) need to cover themselves.

So, why would this be an immediate effect? This would actually make the most sense with a group of people rather than two individuals. With two mated individuals, why would they see the need to cover themselves from one another? But with a group of people, men and women but especially the men who are sexually aroused on sight alone, who suddenly find themselves desiring mates that aren’t theirs to desire and empathizing with how that might emotionally hurt others connected to both of them, covering themselves to attenuate the previously controlled drive would be one reasonable solution. They know it would hurt possibly another family member or friend, but that isn’t enough anymore to stop them from wanting it. Even if this didn’t occur in the first generation that actually ate the fruit, as an amalgam of this family grouping (‘adam), it could have happened in the succeeding generation and the preceding generation might not have known how to deal with their psychologically damaged offspring.

Suddenly, because it was uncomfortable to one’s self and damaging to others, nudity became “wrong”.

So, what kind of changes to the human brain chemistry and possibly to its function could that fruit have incurred? Every other mammal on Earth appears to have a strong ability to empathize within its own species as well as with other mammals. Human beings have this ability to a lesser extent as well. This is due to a special network of neurons within the brain called “mirror neurons” that function exactly as they sound. These neurons are the reason why smiles and yawns can be infectious, and why when someone else gets hurt there’s a chance someone observing will feel it too. This empathetic ability is so strong that they appear even to be able to communicate effectively to coordinate hunts and govern family groups without the use of spoken language. Furthermore, this empathetic ability appears to extend to where other mammals don’t generally kill others of their own species unless they see them as a direct threat to themselves or their family group in some way. It is the total lack of this ability to empathize which also defines clinical, psychological sociopathy and/or psychopathy.

It is my hypothesis that originally, and for over two hundred thousand years, human beings had that same animal strength empathetic ability on top of their ability for spoken language. It was this much enhanced ability to sense what the other person was feeling which kept human beings, like other animals, from intentionally harming one another unless the other was a direct threat to themselves or their family group. It is also my hypothesis that the toxic substance found in this particular fruit (and who knows how long this family group went on consuming it until God put a stop to it) damaged this network of mirror neurons within the human genome so that successive generations were born with weaker versions of it which caused an innate and inbred mild psychopathy among all further human beings descended from this family group. Judging by the way “typical” human beings behave, I believe that it also might have predisposed human beings to paranoia and delusional behavior. In addition, when comparing the human amygdalae to a chimpanzee brain’s amygdalae, proportionately speaking, the human amygdalae are much larger. This is significant because when one lies, as has been shown by brain scans, the amygdalae in the brain light up during the test, but the more one lies the less they respond, thus connecting the function of the amygdalae to the human conscience.

It was the observation of St. Augustine that evil, as such, does not actually exist. When God created the world in Genesis, after each day of revelation, he pronounced it good. It can justifiably be said that evil, as such, does not enter the world until the event in the garden which led to the human psychosis called Hamartia. Human beings, after this event, began declaring certain things “evil” and certain things “good”, and these things were usually marked by whether the observer believed them to be either advantageous to himself, or disadvantageous or harmful to himself. In other words, after the garden event, evil entered the world because evil is a product of the psychotic human mind which resulted from the damage done by the toxic fruit which our ancestors ate. You remove the psychotic humans, and there is no evil.

When God does intervene, He immediately removes this family group from the region around where the toxic fruit grows and posts a guard. He tells them that as punishment, they would have to work hard, and eventually die, and that their women would go through painful childbirth (possibly another result of the fruit’s toxicity?). Not long after these events, Moses records what he believes to be the first intentional murder, the killing of another human being for no justifiable reason. The victim wasn’t a real threat to the murderer’s person or family group, but was seen as such by the murderer’s delusional thinking.

From this point on, it appears as though the descendants of this family grouping began to interbreed with other, non-affected, humans. That there were other, non-affected, humans is indicated by Cain’s fear that, because of his murder, anyone else who saw him would kill him. This would be a natural response of other non-affected humans to a human they might sense was deranged or a threat to them much like other mammals would respond in a similar fashion to a deranged or murderous member of their own species, as I have previously stated. The mark God put on Cain, out of mercy to him, ensured that wouldn’t happen. From there on in, having been removed from their garden home environment, it appears that this affected family group was allowed to interbreed with the rest of the world’s human population. There is also good evidence to suggest that those they didn’t interbreed with they conquered and killed until there was only the affected human population left.

So, why did God then tell the first human being he warned about the tree that he would die the day he ate of it?

First, it is my belief that God told “’adam” that “’adam” would die. That is, God told that first family group He settled in the garden they would die.

Second, even in the Biblical account, Adam appears to understand what God means. This should be no big surprise. Death is a natural part of life. A plant must die in order to feed an animal. The animal must die in order to decompose and be absorbed into the ground to feed the plant. In this context, death is a part of the whole system which perpetuates and sustains life. Death itself is a part of life, and, as a part of the creation up until the poor choices made in the garden, it too was very good as God proclaimed.

Third, the literal Hebrew text gives God’s warning as something like, “dying you will die”. Since it is clear that the eating of the toxic fruit did not result in immediate fatalities, it is my belief that something else was meant.

So, what else could have been meant? As was previously mentioned, within a relatively short amount of time in comparison with our species total length of existence (the blink of an eye in comparison), we have pushed not only ourselves, but almost every other species to the brink of extinction due largely to human selfishness, greed, and lack of empathy. Abandoning the previously sustainable hunter gatherer, probably egalitarian subsistence, we developed agriculture, animal husbandry, and large settlements which became ecologically damaging cities. We hunted animals, and other humans, to extinction. And eventually, if left completely unchecked, we as a species will destroy not only ourselves, but everything else living on this planet. Through a long process of dying, we will in fact die as a species.

An Unconventional Theology - Chapter 1

I have, on and off, been writing a work I have occasionally titled, An Unconventional Theology. I don't know that it will ever be published, but here is the first chapter.

Chapter 1 – The “What” of God

“B'Reshith ... Elohiym...” In the beginning, Elohiym. This is the very first phrase in the Hebrew Bible, which is the basis of the world's three great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Elohiym can be translated as either "gods" or "God". In the Hebrew Bible, the context in which Elohiym is generally placed is singular rather than plural, and virtually all pronouns used in connection with it are also singular unless the context gives an explicitly plural meaning. Therefore, to continue, I will understand it as most English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures understand it, "God" as opposed to “gods”.

The existence of Elohiym is never defended in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the attempt is never made by the authors of those Scriptures to prove it. Instead, the Divine is the first, and most fundamental assumption of Holy Scripture. It is also the first and most fundamental assumption of virtually all ancient cultures and world-views that the Divine existed before the creation or the world around us that we know. Whether it is in the form of many gods, one God, or the idea that everything is Divine, the common consensus of nearly every human society from ancient times up until the present day is that the Divine existed prior to everything else regardless of what form the Divine took in those individual societies.

“B'Reshith bara' Elohiym...”, that is “In the beginning God created...”

The Hebrew Scriptures, in Genesis 1:1, begin by stating that God created the heavens and the Earth. From the beginning of the Holy Scriptures, the existence of God is identified with His role as creator and source of all else within the cosmos as human beings understood it at the time Genesis was written as well as now. From the beginning, we are given to identify God within the context of His relationship to the creation.

There are several assumptions made in these first three words. First, that God exists. Second, that He existed prior to His creation of the known cosmos. In that He existed and created the known cosmos, He must also be greater than and exercise complete authority over that cosmos. It stands also to reason that He is larger than that cosmos. There is no mention within this first passage of the existence of anything prior to Him, or the existence of anything prior to the creation event except for Him. This also, of necessity, includes the concept of “ absolute nothing” or “empty space” alongside of or surrounding God. Therefore, prior to the creation event, the only existence was that of the existence the Hebrew Bible describes initially as Elohiym.

Furthermore, we must also consider the scope of the cosmos as we understand it today. The cosmos as the writer of Genesis 1:1 would have understood it consisted of the sky and everything in it being the dwelling place of the divine, the earth as the dwelling of mortals, and the underworld as the dwelling of the dead. In the twenty-first century, our view of the cosmos has expanded considerably. It is now a prevailing view, that the cosmos is composed of not just our tiny planet and what can be seen from a man's eye view, but potentially billions of planets around billions of stars inhabiting billions of galaxies within the confines of a ninety two billion light year diameter universe which is continuing to expand. Further, it is a growing consensus that our universe is only one among a potentially infinite number of universes in what is commonly being called a “multiverse”. To add to this, we must also not merely consider the spacial “size” of our cosmos, but also that it exists in not just three spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension as we experience, but that in all likelihood, it exists in eleven dimensions, most of which we have no experience of. In order for Elohiym to be the creator of this cosmos as we understand it now, He must, of necessity not only exist omnipresently within all of this, but outside of it as well. And if the multiverse is indeed infinite, then of necessity so must too its creator be. In short, the creation must be inferior to the one who created it.

We have now established that, by virtue of His pre-existence before the cosmic creation, Elohiym must be eternal, that is, there has never been a time when He did not exist. We have also established that He must be omnipresent and infinite. It should be noted as well that if one is truly omnipresent, than that one is also omniscient. And the existence which created the multiverse must, in relation to that multiverse, also of necessity be completely omnipotent.

Here, our modern, scientific understanding of the cosmos recognizes only one thing as possessing these attributes, energy. We understand from the first law of thermodynamics that energy itself, while existing in many forms (potential, kinetic, nuclear, etc.) cannot be either created or destroyed. Therefore, it is eternal. Through modern String or M-Theory, we also understand it to be the fundamental basis of matter, and that matter and energy are interchangeable through the equation E=MC². Therefore, wherever matter exists, so must also energy. From that energy was required for the inflation of our universe, it can also be inferred that energy is required for the inflation or creation of other universes within the multiverse. From this it can be justifiably inferred that there must be more energy in existence than there are universes. If there are a potentially infinite number of universes in the multiverse, than there also must potentially be an infinite amount of energy permeating within and without the multiverse.

To say that energy itself is inanimate is paradoxical and problematic at best. The presence of energy causes animation. That which is without energy is dead. How is it possible that an inanimate "object" is the universally recognized cause and source of all life and animation? We ourselves are also made of energy, and our intelligence is comprised largely of pulses of energy moving through organic circuitry that at its very foundational level is itself also energy. All matter is formed from energy becoming particles out of seemingly nothing at all, and it can be reasonably said that matter is simply a multidimensional disturbance of energy.

There is nowhere energy does not exist because all matter is also energy in a different form, and energy transfers from point to point in waves in various forms. Because all matter is energy in a different form, if energy itself were intelligent, it would be in full contact with everything and everyone at the foundational level of existence, thereby making it omniscient. And an omnipresent intelligent energy would by its very nature be omnipotent. Also, energy itself must, by nature, be omnidimensional and extend outside of our own spacetime. If God is the foundation of all existence, and if He is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and completely transcendent and yet imminent with His creation at the same time, then doesn't energy itself meet all of these criteria?

Is it unreasonable to conceive that energy itself is intelligent? For the human creature, intelligence is born from electrical impulses running through a complex circuit of neurons which function as logic gates thus enabling the human brain to make decisions. Again, energy in the form of electrical impulses is the basis of this intelligence. In terms of the infinite, pan-dimensional, and omnipresent, who's to say energy itself is incapable of this? And if it is intelligent, who's to say that it does not possess a will of its own and meets any definition of sentience? And if energy is the very foundational requirement of life, is it unreasonable to conceive that energy itself is living?

When we think of energy, it is so much a part of our existence that we treat it as common, mundane, and take it for granted because we are able to do so. Energy does not react negatively at being taken for granted. It does not appear to react at all in any way so as to indicate pleasure or displeasure. For this reason, we assume it to somehow be “inanimate” and “non-living” (despite the inherent contradiction this brings).

Let's assume for the moment that energy is somehow the manifest presence of the Divine. As energy makes up all that physically exists, it is in intimate contact with all human beings. It would be aware of every thought and feeling every individual human being has at any given moment, and would experience it at the same time the human being does. Isn't this the very definition of the word “compassion,” to suffer together with another person? Furthermore, the Divine would know that if He reacted negatively to every time someone took Him for granted or mistreated Him He could and most probably would cause great harm to that someone, and feel it Himself in the process. Wouldn't He be more concerned with maintaining the existence of those human individuals and desiring them to see things among each other as He does with them?

The biggest theological concern in this is to be certain that the Creator is not confused with the creation. That energy cannot be either created or destroyed is where this line of reasoning began. Either it has always existed co-eternal side by side with God, or else it is connected to God in some way as a part of His own existence. And if something has existed apart from God and yet shares His same attributes, doesn't that mean there is another divine existence apart from God Himself? To the teaching of Holy Scripture this is an unacceptable conclusion. Therefore, energy itself must somehow be connected in some way to the existence of God Himself.

Consider the metaphors used to describe the Divine in Sacred Scripture, "God is light", "God is a consuming fire" and so on. Consider Moses who, in Exodus 34:29-35, spent so much time in the manifest presence of God that his face glowed so bright he had to wear a veil. Most of the encounters with the manifested presence of God involved some kind of description of a manifestation of energy in some way. Consider also the personal name which Elohiym gave to Himself in Exodus 3, “I Am” (Heb. 'ehyeh), and the Hebrew form most are familiar with, “Yahweh”, which literally means something akin to “Existence Himself”. Again, Elohiym intimately identifies Himself not as an existence, but as existence, that is, the primal existence which everything else is founded on.

In the creation event, not even “absolute nothing” existed prior to the existence of Elohiym. Therefore, in order to create, Elohiym must have used His own existence as the basis or the foundation of the existence of all else that exists. One cannot create from nothing if nothing does not exist. As has been said, energy is the foundation of all created existence.

It is an interesting fact that the idea of creation from absolute nothing or total void is neither stated nor found in Scripture. Scripture states very clearly that God created all things, all things were created through Him, for Him, and within Him, and are held together by Him. It also states that the visible creation was made from things which are not visible. God was and remains the ground or foundation of existence, not “nothing”.

For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen. (Romans 11:36)

yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things are held together. (Colossians 1:16-17)

one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all. (Ephesians 4:6)

All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. (John 1:3)

By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible. (Hebrews 11:3)

St. Gregory Palamas writes:

Because both the divine essence and the divine energy are everywhere inseparably present. God's energy is accessible also to us creatures; for, according to the theologians it is indivisibly divided, whereas the divine nature, they say, remains totally undivided. ... Every created nature is far removed from and completely foreign to the divine nature. For if God is nature, other things are not nature; but if every other thing is nature, He is not a nature, just as He is not a being if all other things are beings. And if He is a being, then all other things are not beings. And if you accept this as true also for wisdom, goodness, and in general all. things that pertain to God or are ascribed to Him, then your theology will be correct and in accordance with the saints. God both is and is said to be the nature of all beings, in so far as all partake of Him and subsist by means of this participation: not, however, by participation in His nature - far from it - but by participation in His energy. In this sense He is the Being of all beings, the Form that is in all forms as the Author of form, the Wisdom of the wise and, simply, the All of all things. Moreover, He is not nature, because He transcends every nature; He is not a being, because He transcends every being; and He is not nor does He possess a form, because He transcends form. How, then, can we draw near to God? By drawing near to His nature? But not a single created being has or can have any communication with or proximity to the sublime nature. Thus if anyone has drawn close to God, he has evidently approached Him by means of His energy.¹

There are generally, in Christian theology in particular, eight characteristics applied to the “what” of God, and those are Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Transcendence, Uncreated, Infinity, Eternity, and Personality. Most of these characteristic flow logically from the fact that God existed prior to all creation and all existence has its foundation in Him.

Omnipresence means that He is locationally at every point in space simultaneously and in physical contact with everything else. This is the logical result of His being the foundation of all created existence. He cannot help but exist in all locations simultaneously because all locations could not exist without His existence.

Omniscience means that there is quite literally nothing He does not know or is not aware of. This is a natural consequence of being the underlying energy which is shaped into the particles of matter and transmitters of force which make up the entire created cosmos. Nothing occurs and He is not aware of it.

Omnipotence means that there is nothing He is unable to do or effect should He choose something to happen. Considering that nothing exists apart from Him, the manipulation of matter, energy, space, time, even the laws of physics are intrinsically within His power and subject to His whim.

Transcendence means that He is totally “other” than the creation. He is the medium, the creation is the ripple moving through the medium.

Uncreated means that He is the first and primary cause, the foundation of all existence. He had no previous cause and is therefore not an effect.

Infinity means that He has no limitations. Our universe has walls and limitations or boundaries, we know from modern scientific inquiry that it is ninety two billion light years in diameter. Those boundaries are in a continual rate of expansion, but they are boundaries nonetheless. And as we have previously discussed, if there are an infinite number of universe continuously coming into existence within a multiverse, than the originator of those universes must be Himself infinite.

Eternity means that He has no beginning and no end. He exists both within and without the dimension of time. Just as he exists at all points of space simultaneously, and outside of it, stretching into infinity, so He also exists at all points in time simultaneously, and outside of time, stretching into infinity.

Personality means that God is not a thing or an “it”. He is sentient, intelligent, demonstrates emotional responses to different circumstances, and has likes and dislikes. All of these are markers or demonstratives of personality. According to the Christian New Testament, "He that does not understand love, does not understand God, because God is love" (1 John 4:8).²

This understanding of the Divine as energy “Himself” automatically gives us the divine attributes of Omnipresence, Omniscience, and Omnipotence. He is literally everywhere and is in full “physical” contact with everything and everyone, thus He is fully aware of everything that has happened and as it is happening, and furthermore because of His relationship to the creation, nothing is outside the scope of His ability in terms of physically modifying that creation in any way He sees fit.

This explanation also fulfills the requirement that God be transcendent. That is, God is unlike any created thing. He is completely “other”. It also explains why no one has seen God (in terms of God the Father) at any time. It is physically impossible for a created being to observe God the Father in His “natural” state as that natural state encompasses the observer's own existence.

The consequence of this is that He knows everything every human being knows, and feels everything every spiritual being, human being, animal, and plant (that is, every living thing) feels at all times. This direct, constant contact with those thoughts and feelings would immediately result in absolute compassion and understanding for those beings. What affects us affects Him.

The Scriptures are also clear that God is Eternal, without beginning and without end. Remember the first law of thermodynamics. Energy can not be created or destroyed. God is all that existed prior to the existence of space and time.

Modern theoretical physics teaches us that space and time are not separate entities but merely four related dimensions among eleven. We know that all of creation moves along at least these four dimensions, but prior to creation, those dimensions could not have existed because God was all that existed. Therefore, God is not bound by this dimensionality, and does not move through it, rather these dimensions and everything existing along them move through Him. Therefore, even if space and time should cease their movement and cease to exist, this can in no wise affect the existence of God.

This also leads to the requirement that God be immutable. That is, He does not change. Change requires movement of position from one point to another, whether it is a point in time or a point in space. As was previously stated, time and space move through Him. Therefore, He remains static and motionless while the creation moves through Him.³

God is not like His creation. He is not a ripple, He is the Medium. God is not a composite Being made up of smaller and smaller components. He cannot be dissected or broken down. He does not change, and is not subject to time or space, as both time and space are ripples subject to Him. He existed prior to all other existences. Before time and space expanded from the initial creation event, He existed without anything else, and as such He exists exterior to time and space as space-time expands locationally within Him, and at the same time He fills space and time with His presence. He is totally distinct from and "other" than the natural or supernatural world which comprises His creation.⁴

1From St. Gregory Palamas, The Philokalia: The Complete Text. Vol. IV. Palmer, G.E.H., Philip Sherrard, and Kalistos Ware, trans. London: Faber & Faber, 1998. Pgs. 380-382

2The word used here for "love" is the Greek word "agape". The sense of this word is "to care about someone else and place their interests above yours irregardless of how you feel about them." It is love apart from emotion or passion. According to the New Testament, "Agape" is the defining characteristic of the personality of God. Also, God has always referred to Himself through His prophets using the masculine pronouns. He gives no explanation for it, and makes very clear that He is not human.

3Maximum entropy is when the water grows completely still and there are no more ripples in the pond. This isn't to say that the water is no more, it has simply achieved equilibrium and is able to be at rest. The same is true of all the energy in the universe. What we call the heat death of the universe would be all the energy achieving equilibrium so that it is evenly spread out. In other words, energy in its natural, undisturbed state is static. It wants to stop moving and be at rest.

4This includes time as well as space (being that time is also a dimension and is generally understood to be the fourth dimension) and as such means that while space-time may change position as it moves within Him in the expansion from the creation's "zero-point", He Himself does not change spatial-temporal location but rather exists as static and unchanging at all points of what we understand to be the space-time continuum. This is also consistent with scripture where He states emphatically, “I am Yahweh, I do not change...”

His perceived motion through time and space is in reality space-time's motion through Him. He is the medium, not the wave that moves through the medium. This is similar to the perception of the Sun orbiting the earth. In reality it is the Earth which orbits the Sun. The Sun remains static, while the Earth is in motion; however, from the perspective of the observer on Earth, it is the Sun which is in motion, and the Earth which is static. So also is God, in reality, Static as space-time moves through Him, but the perception from our point as observers is that space-time is Static as God moves through it.

A Ramble About Bhikkus

1 Corinthians 5:9-13, my own translation

“I wrote to you in the letter not to get mix up together with male whores, but not at all with the male whores of this world or the greedy and ravenous or idolaters since you would then be obligated to leave from the world. But now I wrote to you not to get mixed up together with him if anyone named 'brother' might be a male whore or greedy or idolater or verbally abusive or an alcoholic or a robber, neither to eat together with such as these. Because what is it to me to judge those on the outside? Don't you judge those on the inside? Yet those on the outside God will judge. Take out the deranged person from among you yourselves.”

“When is a bhikku not a bhikku?” This was a question that the Buddha asked his son after he received complaints that the young man wasn't following the dharma and behaving inappropriately. The question is literally, “when is a disciple not a disciple?”

I received news recently that a major denomination in the United States is considering the question of allowing pastors to have sexual relationships outside of the boundaries of marriage. The logic behind this is that the culture has changed and the church has to change with it, essentially. What is more troubling is that it is younger pastors within this denomination who are pushing for this.

And so the Buddha's question to his son comes to my mind. “When is a bhikku not a bhikku?”

I am not writing to lament the moral decline in our nation or culture, nor am I writing to lament the moral decline in our churches. It is the emphasis on morals, rules, and ethics which has brought us to this point. Morals, rules, and ethics are, fundamentally, whatever the society and culture says they are. This itself is a kind of rule of cultural anthropology.

It isn't the lack of morality, traditional or otherwise which has brought us to this point.

It is a failure by the church, both individually and collectively, to remain in Jesus Christ. It is a failure to obey his command to “Remain in Me and I in you.” It is a failure to recognize that “The person who says to remain in Him is obligated, just as that One walked, also he himself to walk in the same way.” It is a failure on the church's part to not just teach about Jesus Christ and their own traditions, but to live, breathe, and be Jesus Christ, allowing Him to express Himself through them.

It isn't a lack of, or failure of, morality. It is a lack of Jesus Christ and a failure of the church's people to remain in Him in action as well as word.

This failure, however, extends far past a single denomination. The proof of this is how many people are leaving the churches in general, regardless of denomination. The statistics tend to speak for themselves. And all the while, when asked, more often than not, they are leaving not because they reject God or Jesus Christ, but because they can't seem to find Him in the churches and they are hungry to do so.

Recently, I wrote a fan fiction story setting the Gospel narrative in the fictional fantasy world of Warcraft. I didn't think it would actually take off, and originally thought I would get a lot of hate mail for mixing the two. Instead, it's become my most popular novel on the website in which it was posted receiving dozens of positive and engaged reviews from readers. I followed a very simple rule for writing it. I sought to be faithful to both the lore of the universe it was set in, and faithful to the Gospel narrative as much as was possible, often having the gospels open in front of me as I wrote.

In writing that story, I reached hundreds of people with a very thinly disguised Jesus Christ, separated from the “safe” wrapping the church has put Him in. Many of them described themselves as “not religious”. All I did was give them Jesus.

We don't agree to be moral when we commit to Jesus Christ. We don't agree to be political. We don't agree to be ethical.

We agree to remain in Jesus Christ, and He in us. That's the contract He made in His blood. He was also clear in the terms of that contract what happens if we don't.

We dry up and eventually are incinerated along with the other waste.

This is why churches are dying and people don't want to hear it any more. They're tired of hearing perfectly prepared sermons and seeing human beings doing what every other human being does.

They want to see Jesus. They want to hear Jesus. They are hungry for Jesus.

Not you. Not me.

Jesus.

A Ramble About The Last Jedi

I went to see Star Wars: The Last Jedi last night with my family. As I was thinking about it, I realized that it was never a question of "if" we see it, but "when". then I realized that this was true of everybody I knew as well. There were never any conversations I had overheard where there was some question as to whether or not someone would see it. They always go something like, "So, when are you going to see it?" Or "Have you seen it yet?" (often followed by a mild rebuke if they haven't.)

Truth is, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that Star Wars as a whole "is" our modern mythology. It's as much a part of our mythos here and now as the Illiad and Odyssey were to the ancient Greeks. It's the sacred text most moderns proverbially sleep with under their pillows to draw inspiration from regardless of their official religious affiliation. I recall seeing a headline from the parody site "Babylon Bee" about a pastor who lost his license to preach because he failed to reference The Last Jedi in his sermon. It was tongue in cheek, but there was an underlying cultural understanding behind it. These are "our" stories.

To use this analogy further, if "The Force Awakens" was akin to the Odyssey, then "The Last Jedi" is the Illiad. It's the tragedy of Troy where gods and men alike wage a war where there are few if any winners. The Illiad is often referred to as the greater, more mature of the two works, and so it is with "The Last Jedi" in my humble opinion.

There are consequences to actions, no matter how noble the intents. This eighth movie displays this truth in multiple ways. Failure is the greatest teacher, says Master Yoda, and this too is a hard lesson learned for the story's heroes. Things don't always go the way you planned them. The wisdom of one's elders should not be ignored in favor of heroic, if rash action. There is divine purpose beyond what mortals are able to understand, and that purpose is often misinterpreted, and twisted for selfish ends until it is fully revealed. There is light and darkness in everyone. Even heroes and demigods (think about who Luke's "grandfather" was) must pass eventually. Death is not the end, but only the beginning. Mortals are indeed saved by their faith. All of these are lessons which "The Last Jedi" has to teach with spectacular battles both physical and spiritual, drama, humor, and sorrow.

There are those who don't like this installment of Star Wars (even trying to have it recalled). There are also those that would like to edit out certain uncomfortable passages in the Holy Scriptures, or at least leave them unspoken and untaught. Things like rape, genocide, incest, murder by proxy by a Biblical hero; these are the passages that are not taught in children's Sunday Schools, or, if they are, are so sugar coated that they are hardly recognizable. People are uncomfortable with their heroes being seen as anything less than perfect or "good". But "heroes" are human beings, and human beings are deeply flawed no matter how much they want to do the right thing. This was part of the lesson from ancient Greek literature as well. Our fatal flaws tend to be our undoing, especially if we don't learn from them.

Luke Skywalker was, above all else, human. He made mistakes. So also is Poe Dameron. So also is Ben Solo. So also is Rey. Human beings are not cut and dried "good" and "evil". Human beings are complicated. The hubris or humility of one human being affects all other human beings around them in both positive and negative ways. This is reality, and in the Star Wars universe, it is the truth of the Force as well which binds and connects everything one to another, and it is the "unseen" hand of the Force, itself neither wholly light nor wholly dark but a balance between the two, which is seen working to effect its will everywhere in this movie to achieve the equilibrium it wants its own "children" to understand.

I am reminded of an illustration from mathematics I learned years ago. The balance point on the number line is "0". There is no actual beginning or end. The starting point is "0". This can be represented by the equator around a spherical shape. As long as a motion remains locationally at "0", that is, running the circumference of the equator back onto its own path, it remains in balance. Any deviation from "0" however, regardless of how slight, results in the path of the motion spiraling off into infinity regardless of whether it is positive or negative, and balance is lost. The same is true if weight is added to only one side of a scale. Regardless of the amount of weight, balance is lost. Nature abhors a vacuum, and vacuum is imbalance. There are two sides to the Force, not one. This is a lesson both the Jedi and the Sith fail to understand. The Force is balance between them, as Master Skywalker says in the film.

I think that, like every great religious or philosophical text, there are going to be those who don't like what The Last Jedi has to say to them. There are going to be those who prefer the fictitious dichotomy between light and darkness, good and evil, and will militantly protect and advance their points of view, much like the Jedi and the Sith. Such do not understand the great truth which the Force is trying to teach: light and darkness, good and evil, are dependent on each individual's own point of view. Another, similar truth was expressed by Rose in this film, "That's how we are going to win this, not by destroying what we hate, but by saving those we love."

[There are, whether by brilliant deduction on my part, or most likely by sheer coincidence, a couple of things in this movie that share similarities with my own fan fiction stories involving the Jedi. The first is Luke coming to the conclusion that the Jedi must end. This is the same conclusion I had Yoda come to in my story, "Star Trek: Enterprise - The Last Jedi", written prior to the release of "The Force Awakens". The second was the ability of a force ghost to manipulate the physical world in an almost deity like way. Here as in the movie, I had Yoda as an ascended being summon a massive storm to bring lightning to destroy certain targets on a planet's surface. It's Lucasfilm's and Disney's property to begin with so they can do what they want. I was just stoked I wasn't completely off base.]

A Ramble About Being Wicked

A Ramble About Being Wicked

Probably my favorite musical of all I’ve seen is the musical “Wicked”. For those who don’t know, it’s based on Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West by Gregory Maguire, although it is a much more family friendly version of the story than the original novel (which is a well written, extraordinary work of fiction, but is also definitely not for minors). The storyline centers around Elphaba who would later be known as “The Wicked Witch of the West” and it recounts her early life as well as interweaving with events from The Wizard of Oz.

In the musical as in the book, Elphaba is born different from everyone else, and it is revealed in the book that she was assumed to be sinful and somehow worthless by her parents from a young age only because she was green. All affection is withheld from her and given to her sister whom her parents dote on. She is only able to attend university because her father in particular wants her there to look after her sister which is wheelchair bound. Throughout her life, she has demonstrated “unusual” abilities which she has been shamed into hiding but which come out when she is frustrated or upset. In the musical, one of these displays on her first day at college brings her under the wing of Madam Morrible who teaches sorcery and magic. She is given the hope that she could rise within the system and eventually serve under the Wizard of Oz himself, thus getting the approval, recognition, and even affection she had been denied for most of her life.

Sadly, it was not to be. Elphaba is a compassionate, sensitive person with an ethical code. She is horrified when one of her teachers, a talking animal, regresses into a bestial state. It is her hope upon finally meeting the Wizard that something can be done in order to reverse the regression of not only her professor but all the animals who have become mere beasts, and the discrimination rising against them. She comes to learn that the man she had put all her hopes on, the man she idolized, was the one actively responsible for the abuse and caging of the animals, including her dear friend.

In shock and anger, she turns away from the Wizard and when she runs, she is labeled “Wicked” by him and his government as an enemy of the state. In that moment plays the song which has come to represent the play, “Gravity”, where Elphaba declares “If anyone cares to find me, look to the western skies! As someone told me lately, everyone deserves a chance to fly! And nobody in all of Oz, no Wizard that there is or was, is ever going to bring me down!” It is her moment of self realization, and her understanding that in truth, while the Wizard had no magic and no miracles of his own, she had a rare and undeniable power within herself her entire life and now she was going to act on it.

Several weeks ago, I was listening to “Gravity” on the way home from class. The song had always resonated with me, and I was never entirely sure as to why. But as I was listening to it, and dwelling on a conversation my wife and I had earlier in the day, it hit me.

I was Elphaba. And I was still trying to prove to myself and those rejecting and disapproving authorities in my life that I wasn’t “Wicked.”

Like the Wicked Witch of the West, I too was born different. I was born with Autistic Spectrum Disorder. At the time in the late seventies, eighties, and early nineties no one, however, recognized my behavior and presentations as being autistic because the only version of autism which was recognized by the American psychiatric community (until 1994) at the time was classical, hand flapping, non-verbal autism. On top of this, my parents went through a divorce in the early eighties and I grew up without any kind of a stable father figure.

With my resulting behaviors, I was quickly labeled “the bad kid” for most of my childhood, and somewhat into my college years. No one knew what to do with me, or how to “control” me. I could not relate normally to virtually anyone, and in my frustrations I would often lash out violently towards either other kids or adults. Thing is, I didn’t want to be that way, especially as I came to understand that I was different as I grew older. I didn’t want to be the bad kid, but everything I did to try and be “normal” and “social” kept backfiring on me. I still remember when one after school daycare worker, after my mother had come to pick me up, responded to her “who would want him?”

This led to a period in late junior high and early high school where I was most at peace when I was at home by myself without having to deal with anyone else. I was absorbed into my own fantasy worlds where I felt “safe” without having to deal with the condemnation and rejection of other people.

But starting in High School, after God and I came to an understanding of our mutual relationship, I began to try to do everything “right.” I went to church every time the doors were opened, I started paying attention to, and passing my classes. I wanted to go into the full time ministry as either a pastor or a missionary.

I realized that night as I was driving home in my van, that a huge, subconscious motivator for most of my adult life had been trying to prove that I wasn’t “the bad kid” anymore. But no matter how hard I tried, no matter how much I tried to “toe the line” with my church, and later with the schools I attended, somehow I always ran afoul of those authorities in my life from whom I was seeking approval. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t stop being “Wicked” in their eyes.

I continued to seek after truth. Perhaps this is what got me into trouble the most. Being autistic, I didn’t want to be wrong or on the wrong side. So I continued to study, and when I was painfully rejected by one group, I subconsciously sought acceptance by another. I kept studying and studying and studying. And with whichever group I fell under, I rigorously sought to defend and uphold their doctrines and policies, even if they caused pain to either myself or someone I loved. I was trying desperately to not be “Wicked.”

But none of it made any difference to whether or not those people I had sought approval from gave it. They did not, but instead kept themselves and their approval apart from me as though I was a project that still needed guidance at best.

I realized in the van that night that this subconscious need to be legitimized by some “gatekeeper”, by some father figure perhaps, was what was keeping me from reaching the “Gravity” moment without guilt. And every time I share my conclusions from my studies and reflections, when they differ from the various “party lines” I had been taught to keep to, somewhere in the back of my mind are the voices of those men whose approval and affection I sought shouting at me, as with Elphaba, “Wicked!”

And I still don’t want to be.

The truth is that I’m not entirely sure where to go from here into the rest of my life. I think it a good thing that I have come to recognize this within myself, but what the fruit of it will be I don’t know. I suppose only time will tell. I only write this now, because I believe that there are others out there like myself who have someone screaming at them “Wicked!” in the backs of their minds. It often demands that we give one of two responses. We either fall in line with the disapproving voices, or we rebel wholeheartedly against them, as Elphaba did. I’m not sure that either is really the appropriate choice.

I think maybe a third option exists. Maybe we reject the “Wicked” label, but instead of being in open rebellion we see the ignorance, arrogance, and pride of the people behind those voices for what it is. To see that, in reality, the hold they still have over us only really exists within our own minds. And like the elephant tied to the stake in the ground by a mere rope, learn that we too can leave our bondage any time we wish.

I am one with the Force...

I recently saw a meme on Facebook which had a picture of a wand from Harry Potter and a lightsaber from Star Wars and asked “Which one would you choose?” This got me thinking, because just a few posts above it had been a picture of a scene from the latest Star Wars movie, Rogue One, involving probably my favorite character from the film.

I saw Star Wars: Rogue One the Monday after it came out. I’ve been a Star Wars fan since the original came out a couple of years after I was born, and my going to see its new, immediate prequel was inevitable. I really enjoyed this one, and the depth it brought to the story and the universe in which it takes place.

In it was a character called Chirrut Imwe, played well by Donnie Yen, a martial arts master and choreographer. We learn that Chirrut is a monk and a former guard of the Jedi temple on the planet Jedha, the source of Khyber crystals which are used to power the lightsaber weapons. He is also blind. It is made clear in the story, that neither Chirrut, nor his friend and constant companion Baze Malbus (who although also a former guard and monk has lost his his faith in the Force), are Jedi themselves. Neither appear to be able to make use of the Force in the supernatural ways that we have become accustomed to seeing in previous Star Wars stories. In spite of this, Chirrut has a deep faith in and understanding of the Force, and is easily the most spiritually attuned character in the entire Star Wars universe that we meet, with the possible exception of Jedi Master Yoda.

Throughout the movie, Chirrut’s constant meditation is, “I am one with the Force, the Force is with me.” We hear him chant it as a prayer over and over again, whether he is sitting at rest, or using his staff against stormtroopers. But what is more than this, in spite of his lack of Force talent, we begin to understand that it is not an empty mantra for him, but the foundation of his thinking and beliefs.

In his final scene in the movie, by his faith in the Force alone, he walks blind through heavy blaster fire towards a communications control panel that he can neither see nor yet feel nor hear, all the while chanting, “I am one with the Force, the Force is with me.” Through his act of absolute trust in the object of his faith, he is able, though physically blind, to locate a switch on the panel and make it possible for his team’s task to be completed.

It is shortly after that he is hit and succumbs to the blaster fire, and his companion Baze, who had lost his faith in the Force, rushes to try and rescue him. And as he lay dying in his arms, we hear him chant again, “I am one with the Force, the Force is with me.” And then he tells his friend, he is returning to the Force, and that just as the Force is everywhere, so he will be everywhere because he is one with the Force. In his final moments, the flame of Chirrut’s unwavering faith burns the brightest, and reignites the extinguished flame of Baze’s own faith, who then begins his own prayer and carries on their task, “The Force is with me, and I am one with the Force.”

The prayer and steadfast faith of Chirrut Imwe in the Force was more powerful than any of the skills or lightsabers of the Jedi in the series, and through it he brought about the redemption of his “lost” friend. I think if I was to choose, it would be neither lightsaber nor wand, but I would choose Chirrut’s faith as the most powerful and effective weapon.

As I have reflected on his mantra more, it keeps leading me back to a fundamental truth of the Christian faith. That through our baptism into His death and resurrection, we are one with Christ and He is always with us. The whole purpose of the Christian faith and practice is union with God through following Jesus Christ and remaining in Him, and yet this really isn’t emphasized or taught in favor of minor points of theology or morality which people shout loudly about but don’t really understand themselves. Like Baze, when things happen that tear down the world around them, they lose their faith because they didn’t understand the foundation of it to begin with.

Chirrut Imwe understood the foundation of his faith. His remaining steadfast in the Force saw him through the loss of all he knew, and gave him the strength and will to continue on because, in spite of his blindness, he saw deeply into the truth of things and knew that no matter what, the Force would always be there, and so would he through his union with it. In the same way for the Christian, we must look deeply into the foundational truth of our practice and come to understand that Christ is always there, and through our union with Him so will we be. When we remain in Him, we see our connection to Him and His life spreads through us like sap through a branch.

In closing, I submit a reworking of Chirrut Imwe’s prayer with a few lines from St. Patrick’s Lorica, something that we too can use to re-center ourselves in the truth of our faith in Jesus Christ:

I am one with Christ,

Christ is with me.

Christ with me,

Christ before me,

Christ behind me,

Christ in me.

I am one with Christ,

Christ is with me.

Amen.

Thoughts from my Abnormal Psychology Class

We had a fascinating lengthy discussion on Dissociative Identity Disorder last night in class. Coming from both a psychological and a theological perspective I've been trying to understand the symptomatic difference between this and classical demonic possession. One thing which stands out is that DID doesn't develop after age nine. Another thing is that, like with the subject last night, the alternate identities may attempt to protect and seek help for the host identity. And in reports of classical DP there are elements of abilities such as superhuman strength or knowledge displayed which the host body could not have been capable of. Further, in DID the average number of alters is 15, whereas in DP the average is one. Furthermore, DP can occur without any prior history of severe, extreme trauma, whereas this is necessary for the formation of DID. And DP can occur without warning. The key difference appears to be the supernatural element however. Also in classical DP as described in the New Testament and Ante-Nicene Fathers the host appears to exert no control over the body's voice and actions, where in DID the host is one of several identities that are displayed.

It seems to me that the problem occurs when you diagnose as only DID "or" DP and don't allow for the existence of both. The other problem occurs in that there have been so many misdiagnosed by pastors and priests as DP that were actually DID (or other mental illnesses) that there hasn't been enough viable observation of the differences to truly recognize DP when you see it, except perhaps for the aforementioned obvious supernatural or superhuman symptoms.

We were talking about Conversion Disorder the other night in class. This is where a person may lose the use of their eyes, a limb, or other physical ability for no explainable neural or medical condition. An example might be a woman who walks in on her husband cheating on her with the maid and the next morning wakes up blind. She isn't faking it, she really can't see even though there's nothing physically wrong with her eyes or neural circuitry. While there were a number of students who didn't understand how that was possible, what kept coming to my mind (from my electronics background) was a "driver malfunction". A "device driver" is the piece of software which allows the operating system to communicate with and use "devices" like video cards, printers, mice, network cards, etc. If it malfunctions, even if there's nothing physically wrong with the hardware or the connections, the device will not work. Driver malfunctions happen when either the driver software itself is corrupted, or when another piece of software or coding interferes with its regular function and it can't get past it. Conversion Disorder sounded to me a lot like a driver malfunction in the human brain. This then got me to thinking more about this idea. The traditional model of how the brain works tends to be all "hardware" based, that is, certain parts of the brain control certain functions of the body. But the human nervous system is essentially one enormous organic processor (neurons essentially being advanced organic transistors and functioning roughly the same way with the added chemical component for emotional response). And one thing about coding is that, any function you can achieve with digital hardware you can replicate with lines of code and a processor to run it through. This is the reason why modern computers can function as DVD players, CD players, radios, word processors, gaming machines, etc. All of these functions which would otherwise be achieved through a hard electronic circuit are achieved via lines of code. What if the function of the human body through the nervous system is more "software" controlled than hardware? What if there is organic "coding" controlling the various devices and systems of the body rather than it being all hard controller based? This would explain a great deal as to how psychologically traumatic events could physically affect the function of parts of the body with no medical or neurological reason. The traumatic event acts like new coding that interferes with the drivers and other software responsible for the normal operation of the system. Just some thoughts from Abnormal Psych class.

Continuing my train of thought from my previous post... Computer code breaks down essentially to 1s and 0s. 1 represents a switch turned on and 0 represents a switch turned off. Or another way to say it is 1 represents a single electrical pulse and 0 represents no electrical pulse. When computer code is written, it is written in human readable language and then that language is converted to what is called a binary. That is, it is converted to 1s and 0s that the processor can then use. The sensory inputs of the human body (eyes, ears, nose, taste buds, and of course nerve endings that transmit touch sensations) all feed directly into structures which convert those sensations into the electro-chemical impulses which the brain can then use and apparently stores for future use as memories. In short, from the time those senses are brought online, the brain is being coded on the fly and continues to be coded (programmed) throughout the lifespan of the individual person.

In my abnormal psych class, part of what I've been learning is the multidimensionality of psychopathology. That is, a psychological disorder has more than one cause. There can be several contributing factors including biological, environmental, and psychological. As I was finishing up Romans seven this morning, what stood out to me was Paul's insistence that the fatal flaw clearly has a biological cause and not a psychological one. He repeats it several times and in several different ways that the fatal flaw resides within the biological part of the human psyche (sarx) and not the mental component (noos). In other words, it is genetically inherited and doesn't skip generations.

Continuing my thoughts from earlier, if the fatal flaw is biological in nature, and hereditary, as St. Paul describes it in Romans 7, then it is genetic, passed down from parent to offspring and appears to be unique to the human species as no other animal life appears to display its symptoms. Furthermore, if it is biological and affects human thought, emotions, and behavior, then the fatal flaw is somehow physiologically centered in the human central nervous system and primarily the brain as it is the brain which regulates and directs behavior, thought, and emotions. The question that then comes up is what about the human brain is so very different from other animal species? The natural answer would be the size of the frontal lobes and the cerebral cortex in particular (as opposed to our nearest genetic relatives, the bonobo and chimpanzee). However, dolphins appear to have a larger cerebral cortex than we do and do not apparently share the same fatal flaw or predisposition to psychopathology. Among other regions, one of the more primitive portions of the brain that is important in the role of decision-making, motivations, and emotional control as well as the creation of short term and long term memories is the limbic system. Another thing we covered in abnormal psych was the ability of the environment to change genetics through epigenetics. That the environment of an organism can actually interfere with genetic "switches". Putting all this together, the thought occurs to me that whatever occurred, either the literal story of Adam and Eve's fall regarding eating from the wrong tree, or taking this as a metaphor for something else equally damaging, that it affected the human genetics surrounding the limbic system of the brain which was then passed down to all human descendants thereafter.