Stephen
Terry, Director
Worship in Education
Commentary
for the November 14, 2020 Sabbath School Lesson
"Do two walk together
unless they have agreed to do so?" Amos 3:3, NIV
As far back as I can
remember, I have felt the presence of God in my life. Even as a child, I felt
there was something "beyond," even though I had not yet understood it in the
sense of it being God. As I grew older, I began to understand that religion has
been innate to mankind throughout recorded history and likely before. Religion
gave some focus and definition to that perceived presence. I was like someone
standing on the shore of a lake and seeing ripples crossing from somewhere else
coming to the shore at my feet and awakening to the possibility that those
ripples had a source. The source of those tiny waves could be intelligent or
simply a reaction to some natural occurrence. In either case, it should
logically be possible to trace the chain of events that ultimately brought
those ripples to me back to a source. Then assuming discovery of that source,
the question arises, is it intelligent, indifferent, or perhaps both? But that
source also questions me. Do I have the ability, the tools, to even determine
that? If I choose to call that primal source God, and in so doing, define God
as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, how do I draw a picture, even in my
mind of those attributes? In the end, I only manage to decide that God is ineffable.
In that discovery resides everything that is problematic for the scientist, for
science is based on that which can be tested and declared thereby as false or
true. But God as often defined lies beyond that systematic approach to the
universe. Perhaps even science has begun to scratch at the surface of that nebulous
ineffability with the development of Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
of Quantum Mechanics which states that a particle's position and momentum
cannot be simultaneously determined. Perhaps this void, this inability to
visualize the ineffable is a quirk of our nature that allows, or even compels us
to a search for God, an ineffable being that by existing allows things like the
uncertainty in Quantum Mechanics to have a rational foundation in irrationality.
Contradictory as that might seem, it is no more so than the proverbial cat that
is both dead and alive in Schrodinger's box. It is even possible for an
ineffable God to be in that box. Reaching this point, we may be confronted with
the idea that neither atheism nor agnosticism is more correct than faith for
that cat will be just as likely to be saint as atheist for the very act of observation
or measurement may alter what we find.
If you have been with
me on the shore watching the ripples and have joined me in the shallow water, I
hope I haven't lost you, because it gets deeper farther from shore. Even if we
begin to accept the ineffability of God and the idea of living in a universe
filled with uncertainty that allows for the possibility of God's existence, we
are nonetheless gob smacked by the interposition of Jesus into all of that
structured yet potentially indefinable uncertainty. How does humanity, which
cannot even adequately reproduce God's ineffability, but can only represent it through symbols, even begin to contain
something like that. How does the finite human form of Christ contain omnipresence,
omnipotence, and omniscience or any other ineffable attribute? How can infinity
be drawn with boundaries? Yet that is exactly what we are asked to accept in
the person of Jesus. Some, challenging their own drive for rationality can live
with this contradiction and even thrive within that context. Others, having decided
that rationality allows them to make sense of their world concretely, may
exclude as inconsequential errata the nature of both Jesus and Schrodinger's Cat.
In fact, one does not need to understand either to function productively within
societal norms from cradle to grave. The exclusion from one's understanding of both
naturally results in life's boundaries being defined only by those two
goalposts of birth and death and nothing beyond. Our only purpose then may be
defined as simply passing on our genetic material, defective as it might be, so
that our descendants may be able to do the same in a continuous progression of
minute changes over time in a vain effort to adapt to an ever changing environment.
However, as life on our planet has shown, eventually the point is reached were
genetic variability cannot keep pace with the changes and extinction events
occur. If we look to science rather than faith for understanding, arguably the
most successful genetic pool may be that of the dinosaurs reputed to have
survived for 165 million years before meeting with their extinction. Mankind, claimed
to have been around for over six million plus years, is barely getting started
compared to those reptilians, but already we are beginning to question the viability
of our own existence in the face of global environmental changes.
The finiteness apparently intrinsic to all genetics, no matter the species,
could be a depressing consideration, but science responds with "Ad Astra!" Space
is seen as the ultimate frontier that will allow our species to essentially
become immortal, jumping from star system to star system, colonizing planets
and forming a vast network of humanity across galaxies and ultimately the
universe. While this makes for great science fiction and provides a basis for
hope within the scientific community, it is a denial of the very science it is
intended to support. Despite the many, many examples that no species continues
forever, those who believe this nonetheless appear to believe that humanity is
the one species to buck all of that and never end because of our ability to
become space travelers, colonizing the universe as we colonized this planet. The
indomitable spirit of our forebears will never fail us.
The interesting irony
here is that this supposed scientifically based immortality of the species is
simply a restructuring of the personal immortality looked for and promised to
the followers of Christ. The only essential difference is the scientific position
that the qualified immortality of the species derives from within humanity and
defines humanity's success, whereas the immortality of the Christian is in
spite of humanity's limitations and is derived from a source beyond our understanding.
The perspective we choose to adopt makes all the difference in how we live our
lives. For some, the boundaries of science give them security in an uncertain
world. As long as everything continues to function more or less according to
certain concrete principles, life goes on without a lot of fear engendered by
too much uncertainty, even though every once in a while, strange noises emanate
from Heisenberg and Schrodinger playing in the garden. The odds are great that
no matter what may happen down the road to humanity as a species each
individual may live their lives out today with only some outliers failing to
enjoy the average life span and the typical accretions to the family tree and
family prosperity defined by their culture. The point here is that if a person's
perspective is not immediately detrimental to one's happiness, there may be
little incentive for introspection and later change. This tends to be true
whether a person is leaving science for religion or vice versa.
Religion, while much
more comfortable with ineffability, nonetheless has some things in common with
those in the scientific community. While those outside the religious community
may believe that science has the potential to confront trends that may lead to
extinction events, religionists often feel compelled to confront such events as
a moral challenge supported by scientific data on one hand and altruistic faith
on the other. While differing in their basis for action, both groups can still
arrive at the same result for the environment. Admittedly, there is a subset of
believers who, based upon an expected apocalyptic deliverance, are more than
happy to let everything burn. All the better to hasten the Parousia. But this
is poor stewardship and likely would not receive the reward expected based on
what Christ tried to reveal about the nature of God and the expectation that his
trust in us brings.[i]
Instead, the Christian will be found faithful in his charge,[ii] and in that lies their hope
of the reward, eternal life.
But there is also an
advantage to the Christian in the present as well. God who is omnipresent is
always near, not constrained by time or space, and more available for
conversation than the closest friend. All we need do is begin the conversation.
It is better than a website with a 24/7 chat window. God who is omniscient is a
potential source for answers previously unknown. He does not replace the
educational opportunities we already have, but like an adjunct professor,
supplements our knowledge in ways we may not have considered, providing we are
open and listening. God who is omnipotent may be asked for help with difficulties
with as much ease as asking a friend for a ride when your own vehicle breaks
down. And maybe when you return home, you discover that someone has come by
with tools to help fix your car. God, since he is without limitations, is capable
of all of that. But even more important he is willing to simply sit and hear
you out when everything gets to be too much, even if we feel we do not deserve
it. That is the essence of worship and the promise of faith, vacillating particles and cats notwithstanding.