Blog Archives
Unity, Hegel, and the Universe
If everything is in conflict, unity is impossible.
For decades, Cosmologists have been seeking to proffer a “Grand Unified Theories (GUT)” of all things as a way to explain all of the phenomena that are observable in the universe around us. Theologians write systematic theologies with the same intention, hoping to set forth a “Grand Unified Theology (GUT)” of all things to explain all that God has revealed in His Word and in His world. More narrowly, sociologists talk about unified theories of learning, social change, and behavior. Yet, as one might suspect, there are many competing “unified” theories, and often these competing systems are mutually exclusive rather than being complementary to one another.
Enter the influence of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831). In his lifetime, Hegel introduced the philosophical paradigm known better today as “Hegel’s Dialectic.” For Hegel, all systems were in a constant state of evolutionary flux. Established ideas (known as Theses) were always seen in a state of tension with competing views (known as Antitheses). Out of that tension would arise a Synthesis which, in principle, united the best elements of the thesis and antithesis into a better system of thought. Then, the synthesis would in turn become the new thesis, and a new antithesis would later emerge. This way of thinking has shaped much of the modern Western world, and in many (if not most) fields, it has become the standard paradigm by which knowledge is advanced.
The problem with the Hegelian model is that it presents all things as being in a state of conflict. Further, it presents that conflict as ongoing and indefinite, that as long as there is the possibility of an antithesis, one has never truly arrived at a “Grand Unified Theory of Anything.” The problem, then, lies with the definition. Unity, derived from the Latin word unitas, meaning “one.” It speaks to the notion of an indivisible whole that is fully and completely at harmony within itself, and if one thing were added or taken away from it, the unity would be obliterated. The difficulty with the Hegelian model is that it is limited to human knowledge and experience and makes instruction from the divine an almost irrelevant matter.
From a Christian perspective, human knowledge is indeed limited, but Divine knowledge is not. Divine knowledge is infinite in its depth, breadth, and substance and it is absolute. Further, God has given us a Grand Unified Theory in the 66 books of the Bible. It is perfect and God the Holy Spirit has preserved it not just through the ages, but also across the cultures and languages. Indeed, some err, but their error always is a result of their own human limitations, not any limitation in the Divine.
As one might expect, the word “universe” also has its derivation from the word unitas. It comes from the combination of the word unitas and versus. Literally, the word means, “one thing that turns together.” It is applied to our universe based on two presumptions. First, that the universe as a whole, is a whole that is interconnected on some level. Second, while we do not yet understand it, there is a Grand Unified Theory that explains the whole. For example, while the speed of light is considered a standard of measurement, it is also recognized that the speed of light varies. These variations, though, can be explained within the system of the whole (for example, the medium that light passes through affects its speed).
As a side note, lately it has become popular to speak about a “multiverse.” In other words, people suggest that there are parallel universes that are not connected. Yet, if unconnected, it is impossible for us to know anything about these “other” universes or even if they exist. Further, if it were possible to know or observe said “parallel” universe, or if a bridge were to somehow interconnect these separate universes (as is popular in science fiction stories), then the “multiverse” ceases to be “multi.” It is simply a universe that has many branches but is still explainable through the same Grand Unified Theory.
In the end, though, the only way a Grand Unified Theory can be established is if we draw from that which has been revealed by the Divine who created the universe and has perfect knowledge over his creation. And that means leaving Hegel’s Dialectic behind. The best that Hegel’s dialectic can give us is pure humanism. God’s Law — God’s Word gives us truth. It gives us a truth that makes any synthesis with outside ideas impossible because syntheses are at best, compromises. It is only in light of the Scriptures that unity can be had.
The Unexamined Church
In Plato’s apology, he presents Socrates as stating: “The unexamined life is not lived by man.” More commonly, it is phrased as “the unexamined life is not worth living” or “the unexamined life is not worthy of a man.” In the end, he conveys that a life lived without introspection, self-examination, and a critical examination of the heart is a life that will amount to very little once all is said and done. One of the things that separates man from the natural order is that we have the ability to think and reason, but if we are not to apply that reason to ourselves and our lives, what good will that reason be to us?
Certainly, this notion ought to resonate with the Christian as he goes through life. We are called to examine ourselves and the way we conduct our lives to determine whether or not we are walking in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). We are called to examine ourselves before we come to the Lord’s Table for Communion (1 Corinthians 11:28). The very title that is given to Elders in the church is that of “Overseer,” implying that one of the roles that these men play is that they are to examine the church as a whole to determine where it is walking in truth or where it may have lost its first love and is walking in error (1 John 1:6; Revelation 2:5).
And, it is that latter notion that we often miss as Christians. We do understand the importance of self-examination (though often we are not as honest with ourselves as we ought to be because we have grown accustomed to justifying sin), but we also feel uncomfortable when others in the church examine us. To that, we often cry out the world’s mantra, “Don’t judge me!” Yet, we need that judgment. How can church discipline be practiced (Matthew 18:15-20) if judgment is not exercised in the examination of the body? How will the Elders root out the wolves from the midst of the sheep if examination is not practiced (Matthew 7:15) and distinguish the antichrists who are seeking to lead people away from the body (1 John 2:18-19).
In turn, we should note that it is not just the Elders who should be examining the body, but the individual Christians should likewise be examining the body as a whole to discern whether they are in a true church or a false church. Is Christ the King of the church or is man its king? Is there true worship, faithful to the Scriptures, being practiced or do people practice what they most like or according to the traditions of men? Are the Scriptures taught faithfully, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and is the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone proclaimed from the pulpit or are works somehow injected into the message of salvation? Are the sacraments practiced as Jesus presented them and is discipline used for the chastisement of sin?
It is my experience that churches are often happy to examine others but are want to examine themselves. They want to hold that their traditions are fine and that nothing needs to be changed and act like an ostrich, burying its head in the sand, ignoring any critical evaluation of their practices. Sometimes, they have practiced an unbiblical tradition so long that they are blind to it entirely. Yet, spiritual growth does not take place apart from examination. In fact, I would suggest that growth never takes place until a person, or a group of persons in a body, is willing to critically examine all of their practices in the light of the Word of God. And thus, just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined church is not worth attending.
Education Versus Programming
(the following is excerpted from my essay, “Teaching Image Bearers, not just Warm Bodies,” which is part of the compilation: Docens Coram Deo: Teaching Before the Face of God. This book is written as a festschrift in honor of Bob Grete and Harold Thomas, the founders of Rocky Bayou Christian School, on the school’s 35th anniversary. Copies can be acquired at the above link; I served as the editor of this Festschrift.)
As mentioned before, the naturalistic model sees the human mind as nothing more than a super-computer, capable of processing and retaining a vast array of data which is then manipulated by genetic programming in such a way as to output a result that we commonly describe as thought. Thus, in principle, educating a human is akin to programming a computer. Yet, if humans are altogether different than a computer, what must our approach to education be?
The beginning of the answer to that question is found in the very meaning of the word, “educate.” The English word derives from the Latin verb, educere, which literally means, “to lead out. Thus, the purpose of education is not so much that of putting in, but bringing out. Now one might argue that children are not born with an innate knowledge of history, mathematics, or even of the Bible and thus, “putting in” is an important part of education. And indeed, that is where instruction comes in—instruction coming from the Latin verb, instruere, which literally means, “to pile in.” Yet notice the relationship of these two terms. Instruction is not the end goal—education is. In other words, you instruct towards the end of educating a student—you pile in mathematics, history, science, and Bible not so that a student will be full of ideas (many of which a student may never use again in life), but you instruct so that something will be brought out in them. What needs to be brought out? It is the image of God that they bear which needs to be brought out.
In the fall, the righteous image of God in man has become warped, distorted, mangled, and bent, but not lost (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). We are born in the state of sin (Psalm 51:5), by nature we do not seek righteousness (Romans 3:10-11), we are at enmity with God (James 4:4), our hearts are corrupt (Mark 7:21), we commit sin through both action and inaction, and we sin with our intentions (Matthew 5:21-48) as well as with our activities. In addition, when we break a portion of the Law, we are guilty of breaking it as a whole (James 2:10). There is nothing good in us by nature (Romans 7:18)—we have been corrupted by sin in every aspect of our being. Of course, education is not a substitute for the work of the Holy Spirit in redemption and sanctification, yet it is a tool by which the Holy Spirit can and does use, both in the process of growth in grace and to enable parents to fulfill their God-given mandate to raise up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; Deuteronomy 4:9; Proverbs 22:6).
Thus, if our teaching reflects only the idea of giving students information, we are not fulfilling our calling. When little Billy asks, “Why do we need to study literature?”, it is not enough to tell him that he needs the knowledge of literature so that he will be able to communicate ideas with others in this world, nor is it enough to tell him that God has called him to take dominion of the world, and that means taking dominion of the literary culture as well as the geography. These statements both may be true, but they are yet insufficient. We must also be telling little Billy that he is made in the image of God and that God loves language and that God loves expressing himself through every form of language; thus, if he is to reflect that image of God faithfully, he needs to nurture within himself that same kind of love for language and the study of literature is designed to help nurture that love and appreciation for the expression of ideas through language. I have applied this to literature, but the same argument can and should be applied to every discipline of study. There is a reason that we expose students to a broad array of academic studies rather than allowing them to concentrate their studies in a particular area of interest, and it is not to make students more “well-rounded,” but it is because God’s character is reflected in each of these disciplines and to reflect the Imago Dei, each of these disciplines must be applied to our character. Thus, if we are to educate and not program, and if education is a tool used by the Holy Spirit in sanctification to bring out the Imago Dei, we must instruct in every academic discipline.
The Preacher's Study 