God is With Us

Last Sunday I heard this great sermon from down here in New Zealand, preached by Matthew Guddatt. He is a Britain, come down to NZ and is currently a youth pastor.

So what is the big deal about this sermon?
I haven't often heard a sermon where God's sovereignty and power is connected to our daily lives.

Here is a summary of what the sermon covers:

- Matthew talks about the greatness of God and how we cannot limit God to one name, but He encompasses many names describing Him.
- He also talks about how the church today can have a tendency to go back to Old Testament ways by having super spiritual "priests" (pastors, and elders) who harbour spiritual connection with God for the lay people. Matthew points out that we are all called to be priests and all can access God.
- Lastly he talks about how God is omnipresent. I like how he says that God is in the very breath of the atheist, and that church is not the only place to find God. Matthew points out that God can be found anywhere and we don't need to chase conjured up feelings and emotions, but to know and have faith that God is with us anywhere.

Matthew has a good sense of humour and is easy to listen to. Click the link below to listen -

http://christianrenewal.org.nz/god-is-with-us-2/

Photo Retrieved from:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6gDvNsJRUMUMcJWOAGf2kzikQvzrJUIgNIwZ7J6IpGxid8USzNElMBDO_LZAEXL9EHgvutQXCaYRRCRzP9Jk2CMjgonXZKoo6rUdHl1haH3cpVy8WH29l0AXnDmIoPE_Od-WLziO2zq0/s1600/galaxy_universe-normal.jpg

        

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 7 - HOW TO READ)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities / etc all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimize our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead, we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read (this post)

So far I've spent a long time justifying my belief that God is more interested in the meta-cognitive goals of person-hood, expression, and relationship. Now I want to start exploring the practical aspects of reading Scripture. 

Scripture's purpose, specifically, is to be a collection of some of the individual progressive revelations of God's person-hood throughout history, which taken together He has deemed to be the most universally useful expression toward encouraging relationship with Him. It does this in an incredibly dynamic way. If we focus on cognitive information and a harmonious synthesis of theology, we can miss a lot of what the Bible has to offer toward relationship with God, and at its worst it can lead us to minimize aspects of Scripture to the point that they are almost useless to us. How should we approach Scripture keeping relationship in mind, and balancing the usefulness and limitations of cognition toward this ultimate aim? I have some general principles to share, but this is something I'd like to grow in more, so please share your own thoughts!

How to Read Scripture:

1) Immerse yourself in the passage, allowing every aspect of yourself to be impacted by the experience. We don't expect each expression of a person to be perfect and balanced - and likewise with each revelation - but they are unique and beautiful and insightful. By reading Scripture and inviting the Holy Spirit to speak through it, you are touching an aspect God, a deliberately designed expression of Himself! Never let this slip by you. 

2) Utilize flawed cognition to your relational advantage. Despite its limitations - which I have emphasized in my defense of God's relational aims - cognition is central to our approach to Scripture for obvious reasons. Firstly, Scripture is written in a language, meaning cognition has to be engaged to even start experiencing it with your other non-cognitive faculties. Secondly, 'Immersing yourself in the passage' is something that's not under much of our direct control, since all our faculties are overwhelmingly influenced by external circumstances, our subconscious, and each other. However, cognition is unique in that it is also (at least partly) consciously controlled, which gives us an avenue to steer and focus our other faculties of experience. If we are discussing how we should control our approach to Scripture, this control has to occur through our cognition. 

3) Attempt to cognitively understand what God intended for people to experience from his designed expression in Scripture. How Scripture's designed relational purpose is realized - or whether it is realized at all - varies between individuals. Our cognition needs to understand the intended experience if it is to steer our experience in the right direction. 

4) Deliberately consider multiple different experiences of God from the passage in mind. I think this is one of the most productive ways to attempt to properly experience God's expression through Scripture. These different perspectives help us break out of our worldview and so avoid subconscious worldview hijacking of our cognition, so we can consider God's intentions for the passage more clearly. But more profoundly, they help us stick to the first principle of relational experience (rather than cognitive accuracy). If we understand another person's relational experience, it allows us to experience an echo of God ourselves. In addition to the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' we're trying to understand from a passage, it's as if we were experiencing a personalized expression of God by proxy (albeit one with greater potential for error in our understanding, and with less universal benefit than Scripture itself). 

5) Start with some 'high yield' perspectives. Perhaps most useful is that of the original intended audience or of the author, since these are clearly going to be integral to God's intended experience of his expression in that passage of Scripture[1]. Also helpful to consider are the experiences of early and/or orthodox church consensus[2]. A final group of helpful perspectives are those of individual saints who you discern to be relating well to God in a holistic sense - these may be dead or living saints, famous or privately known[3]. 

6) Allow your cognition to function naturally and form a harmonized view of God as a person. Try to see God through each of the expressions you experience which you deem to be intended by God, or genuine healthy relationships. Remember you are trying to understand a person in the light of all their complex expressions. Don't make a God up who wraps perfectly around all these 'experiences' (this can never take into full consideration the dynamics of person-hood). Instead try to understand the God who expresses Himself in these ways. 

7) Don't let our modernistic worldview hijack your cognition and make an idol of it. This is an imperfect process and does not define 'relationship', though it is useful and natural.  Do not be distracted away from the aim of relationship with God.  Remember that the hypothetical 'universal intended experience' is actually going to be a spectrum of experience, just like any public expression in earthly relationships. Do not become obsessed with the difficulties of forming a harmonized view of God. Focus on God's intentions for Scripture (rather than picking 'the best' interpretation), and focus on God as a person (where Scripture springs from Him, rather than the reverse). Where cognitive perplexity exists, relate to God through this (some perplexity is a normal part of any relationship).

Its more (or less) intuitive

This approach is fairly intuitive and natural - read the passage for what it is, and consider the spectrum of legitimate ways to experience God through it (even if they contain different mixes of cognitive gaps). Despite its simplicity and intuitiveness, this approach IS difficult - because our worldview isn't happy with cognitive gaps, and because this approach requires us to put aside our preferred priorities and seek God as HE wishes to be found.[4][5]

Summary:

Reading Scripture should utilize cognition to focus the rest of our faculties and allow our whole being to experience God as He intends. At the same time we need to be vigilant not to focus excessively on our cognition, or elevate its importance above other aspects of relationship. One way to do this is to deliberately consider the spectrum of legitimate experiences of others through Scripture - including the original audiences and authors, church consensus, and individual saints. We should let our cognition form a harmonized view of God, a God who would express Himself through all these experiences. But there will always be perplexities of person-hood and relationship that our cognition cannot 'solve', and we need to be careful not to assume that this means something is 'wrong', and not to let this distract us from relationship.

• Are there any other reading / interpretation techniques that you feel are important to enhance a proper relationship with God?
• Do you agree that considering a variety of perspectives is important?
• Do you agree that considering the whole experience - not just the cognitive aspects - is important?
• When deciding which experiences are useful to consider in your interpretation of Scripture, how much attention do you pay to the cognitive aspects of that experience?
• How do you feel about accepting inevitable perplexities when it comes to forming a harmonize cognitive view of God?

Coming soon...

• Next I'll deal with some further issues people have with this approach to Scripture, specifically how it can seem to threaten traditional theological processes and the concept of 'inerrancy'.
• After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a relational approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 

Footnotes:

[1 - When attempting to understand the experience of the original audiences and authors, it can be helpful to remember how progressive revelation functions to serve relationship with Christ. Each passage was written to enhance as much as possible the revelation of Christ to the intended audience, taking into account their interpretive bias, and the historical processes God intends to drive as part of his expression to mankind. Thus this consideration can be helped a lot by an understanding of the times and cultures and language etc (which can seem daunting), but a lot of this can be gleaned from the Scripture itself. Important things to remember is that these audiences did not have subsequent revelation to balance their cognitive experience of God, that they had different priorities and worldview to us, and that they had genres of language that we aren't too familiar with in our modernistic society .]

[2 - Church 'concensus' is clearly not unanimous, and has also frequently been plagued by political and selfish motivations. However, the greater unity there is among those who seem driven by a desire to relate to the God of Scripture, the more authority this consensus has as a legitimate intented experience of God.  After all, the church - functioning this way - is the means by which we trust God to have chosen and preserved Scripture in the first place. This kind of concensus can allowing many doctrines labeled as heretical by the modern American/Western church, and can also be troubled by the influence of the current worldview (e.g. Greek thinking paved the way for modernism and tended to idolise cognition).]

[3 - The more you know a person yourself and are persuaded of there relationship with God, the less 'orthodox' their cognitive views need to be in order to be useful. Conversely, some 'orthodox' saints may have an experience of God that is less than convincing, and so may not be worth considering.]

[4 - Our modernistic mind will search for reasons to avoid worldview reform - e.g. by disregarding it as 'post-modernism'. This view is post-modern in the sense that it recognises the problems with modernism, but it is NOT postmodern in the sense of denying the reality or importance of cognition, absolutes, truth, consistency, etc. This approach relies upon the essential foundation of absolute reality and consistency in the person of God - but our experience of God should not derive all its meaning from how well we grasps all the cognitive details of God's absolute reality and consistency. The incarnation reveals how God is more than willing to 'empty himself', forgoing some aspects of His reality in order to better express others (e.g. His willingness and ability to relate to us).]

[5 - Even if we agree with this approach to Scripture, it doesn't make the difficulties go away! Our preference for cognitive information is deeply ingrained in our culture, and makes us constantly think about how this approach deals with cognition. What a shame to miss the beauty of the big picture, because we are thinking too much about how the picture is bigger than the sum of its parts and can't be contained in a cognitive description of it! What a shame to miss Jesus because we're thinking about how a person can't be described well with words alone! It can be good to understand how cognition and relationship interact - but Satan can use anything to distract us from actually relating to Jesus.]

Expressing Doubt Builds Faith

Introduction

Many of us have felt guilty for feeling doubt regarding our faith, whether it be our whole faith or parts of it. I hesitated about using the word doubt in this article because of its potentially negative connotations. However, I choose to use it because it captures the emotion behind what many of us feel when we question or enquire about areas of our faith that we don't understand. Interestingly, Fuller Seminary completed a study on what is most helpful for young people to retain their faith and build maturity, and found that wrestling with doubts was a key. Experiencing doubt can be emotionally draining and a fearful experience, and this needs to be recognised and addressed. When looking at the Bible, it seems to portray God as being merciful (in some cases praising) towards those who express questions or doubts. Faith doesn't seem to be an unquestionable act of trust in God, but more a choice to trust God, whilst acknowledging and wrestling with our doubts.  

 Retrieved from http://www.redletterchristians.org/wp-content/uploads/Faith-in-times-of-uncertainty.jpg

Opening questions to consider:

Is it right or wrong to question our beliefs?

Is it unhelpful or helpful to question our beliefs?

What does God expect us to do?

What does evidence suggest we do?

Two Mindedness is not Necessarily Helpful

I admit that the Bible does emphasise that it is not helpful to be two-minded in our beliefs according to James 1. After looking at many scriptures relating to uncertainty and faith, what James appears to be referring to here is a person who is permanently indecisive and without conviction in life. Most people would say that a person having no conviction about social injustice or various issues would be a person who is unhelpful and impractical to reality. Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Scripture and Doubt

There are many situations in the Bible where people experience a type of doubt and it is not always seen with disdain. What God appears to respect in His Word is the sincere seeking of truth that people partake in. As the Bible says "seek and you will find".  The prophets would repeatedly appeal to what God has done in the past as evidence of God's power and glory, rather than just claiming that God is God. This suggests that God does not expect blind faith, but faith based on evidence. Paul also took time to argue the gospel reasonably and based on evidence. If faith is based on evidence, then it is based on conviction of that evidence and not a fake conviction of nothing. God is more concerned about the sincerity of heart than about shallow publicly espoused allegiance to Him, as Jesus so often accused the Pharisees of doing. 

Mark 9 shares a story where Jesus answered a doubting man's prayer. Jesus said that he needed to believe in order to receive His assistance. The man replied that he believed, but also asked Jesus to help him with his unbelief! What the man requested seems to be an oxymoron, but Jesus had mercy on him and granted his request. It seems that an admission of faith while experiencing doubt can even have prayers answered! God doesn't seem to need our unwavering faith to bring about His purposes. This story suggests that Jesus is more interested in a sincere pursuit of Him, even if that pursuit involves admission of doubt.

Paul says at the end of Roman 14 that we need to be congruent (consistent) or true to ourselves. He says that if we go against our conscience, it is more or less akin to sin. In the context of doubt, this could mean that acknowledging the doubt and wrestling with it, rather than going on pretending it isn't there, is the more helpful way of living.

Matthew states that even Jesus expressed a form of "doubt" when He cried "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". I am not saying that Jesus necessarily intellectually doubted His Father's existence, but that He existentially doubted (experiencing emotional or intellectual doubt) God's faithfulness to Him while He was on the cross. We all go through periods in our lives where we experience doubt about God's existence, goodness, or our understanding of "correct" doctrine - whether it be emotional or intellectual. Christ seemed to be free to express his anguish without worrying about the judgement of religious lofty eyes.

Jude 22 also chimes in on how to deal with doubt. He emphasises the mercy that we need to show to those who doubt. Rather than thinking less of those who experience doubt, he appears to imply being slow to judge and quick to hear. 

Expressing Doubt Builds Faith 

I have been reading a book recently by Nancy Pearcy called "Saving Leonardo: A call to resist the secular assault on mind, morals, & meaning".  In it she brings to our attention a fascinating study by Fuller Seminary that investigated High School graduate's tendency to lose their faith after school. In the study they found a key factor that influenced whether youth kept their faith or not. They found that the most effective factor was not prayer or Bible studies, but the safe exploration of questions before leaving home. The college students said that the more they felt they could safely express their doubts meant that they developed higher levels of faith and spiritual maturity. Pearcy believes that the best way for teens to be prepared to give an answer for their faith (1 Peter 3:15) is by personally wrestling with questions. Jesus interestingly said that we are to be child in like some way. Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer said that being childlike is not about believing the first thing we have been told, but about a tendency to ask questions! Pearcy concludes that we need to have the attitude of Paul "Test Everything; Hold fast what is good". 

As counselling theory has well established, safely and honestly exploring our realities (without fear of judgement) helps us to have a greater awareness and understanding which equips us to live more fruitful and sincere lives.   

Doubt and Fear

The alternative extreme to double mindedness is when people engage in a blind following of one belief without questioning it or hearing and entertaining another's viewpoint. I wrote a post recently on the subject of Group Think, its' dangerous tendencies, and how to combat it. I do believe in the usefulness of constructive talk around what we generally see as evidence for the faith (and there is a lot), but if this talk is not balanced it can produce fear amongst people when they doubt something that is taken for granted. Why do we fear? It could be because it has been ingrained into us to believe blindly or else be condemned, instead of engaging honestly with our doubt. I have felt at times that the attitude within church culture can be that to doubt is a sin or a weakness. However, there is a more helpful and God honouring way to view doubt.If I love truth, and God is truth, then I love God. The search for truth comes first, if it doesn't, then we just believe whatever we first come in contact with, or whatever suits our fancy. That would not be honouring God to believe something for the sake of it. On a similar note, if I expect someone else to question their world view in the humble pursuit of truth, then I must also too. God wants us to love Him with our heart, strength and mind. I am not saying that we blow about in the wind 24/7, but how C.S. Lewis put it: "Faith... is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods". People believe things for many reasons, and it would often take a huge amount of evidence before their belief would change anyway. I believe the honest pursuit of truth is the attitude that God would find most helpful to work with, rather than a dogmatic adherence to creeds with the suppression of doubt.    

Conclusion

Scripture suggests that it is not evil to experience doubt, but part of the process of finding out who we are and why we believe what we believe. Instead, we can be true to ourselves. The Fuller Seminary study shows that being real, and safely exploring our doubts leads to a stronger faith. It suggests it is more dangerous to not safely question your faith. However, it is not helpful to always be wavering and double minded, but instead having a humble conviction about what we do have evidence for. Experiencing doubt is not something people can always avoid due to the enquiring minds God has given us, but it can be extremely frightening and painful. One way to help relinquish this fear is by sincerely searching for truth while having an attitude of trust towards God, that if He is truth, He will guide our sincere searching in the most helpful direction. We cannot ever understand everything. Being true to ourselves is the best we can do, and what I believe God wants us to exhibit. I am not suggesting giving up on faith, but suggesting the necessity to express doubt as a part of our faith.

P.S.

Joshua Griffiths is currently doing a series talking about how relationship and the existence of knowledge gaps is essential for a full understanding and experience of faith - Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 3 - RELATIONSHIPS)

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 6 - COPING WITH EVIL II)

This series explores the nature of Scripture (specifically those aspects which many of us find uncomfortable) and what our approach to Scripture should be as a consequence. This exploration is needed because our intrinsic human biases cause us to assume that God's nature / aims / priorities all line up with our modernistic worldview, which focuses on detailed accurate synergistic information. However such an approach to Scripture clashes with many of its properties. Our response tends to be to curate Scripture, or to minimise our engagement with the aspects we find difficult to explain. Instead we should engage with all of Scripture as God designed it, and challenge our perspective on it when needed. What does it look like when we value the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture?

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II (this post)
7. How to Read

We've discussed how Scripture suggest that God is more interested in the non-cognitive goals of personhood, expression, and relationship, and deliberately utilises a thoroughly human Bible along with cognitive 'gaps' (biases or 'errors', according to our modernistic perspective) to achieve these aims. 

Many cognitive / experiential 'gaps' can be considered normal or conducive toward relationship. One challenge to this view is that not all 'gaps' easily line up with this supposed aim of God's - some gaps can legitimately be called 'evil' even from a relational perspective. We've been discussing how our relationship copes with these gaps in the form of faith, which again is not primarily cognitive. One strategy faith uses is to wrestle with God's purposes for these gaps, and to provide potential answers which sustain our relationship through these 'evil' gaps. These answers also demonstrate that 'evil' gaps do not ultimately conflict with God's relational aims. 

This discussion has led us to analyse 'progressive revelation' (with its obvious cognitive 'deficiencies') as a specific form of 'evil', recognizing that it still specifically serves God's relational aims, and discussing how faith grapples with Scripture.

We've already covered how the these 'gaps' are required for the expression of faith, which is the most vivid display of the authenticity and health of any relationship. To round off my defence of God's relational aims, we'll explore a couple of other potential 'answers for evil' that faith can grapple with.

Full Expression

First, In a broad sense Evil allows a more complete expression of God's character. God is not merely good, He is ANTI-evil - meaning ultimate evil (real persisting gaps in the expression of God) cannot exist. This very impossibility - God's anti-evil nature - itself needs expressing, and what better way than to give evil the opportunity to assert its own existence, only to be gloriously and satisfyingly overcome by Gods goodness?{1} Sometimes this is obvious and temporally relevant (i.e. God meets our needs when we pray to Him), but other times it is more subtle and eternally focused (i.e. by some of the other purposes for evil, discussed below). 

Progressive revelation likewise allows the more full expression of God's character. The ANTI aspects of God's nature need revealing - including the faults  of the previously biased views, which requires their existence to start with. Harmonious summary statements about God are not enough - certain aspects require a full and mature dealing, which may require a partially biased expression for a time. If these biases also produce evil gaps, it is so that they can be overcome by integration into the whole goodness of God, and so that we can enjoy the full spectrum of views and perspectives on our unified God. And the unity of God's people - under a common spirit-wrought love for Christ, in varying states of cognitive awareness - is meant to demonstrate the impossibility of evil ultimately winning, even if it is given opportunity (through the existence of cognitive bias and disagreement). 

Specific Effects

Second, evil performs its own specific purposes more directly. Some events - which are required in Gods expressive narrative - require evil in order to occur, or require evil to setup the context for another expression of God's character. Examples of these kinds of evil include huge parts of Israel's story (which gives so much meaning to the rest of God's revelation in Scripture), and the murder of God's son (which was ordained before the world was even created). Another big class of specific purposes for evil, is the individual development of our characters as free agents. Some character developments REQUIRE the existence of evil.{2} Gods relational nature wants a large number of different characters in heaven, which require various patterns of mixed experience, including (temporary) evil which is ultimately overcome by God's goodness.

Progressive revelation has direct effects as well, in terms of intended messages, directing historical events, and molding specific characters. Each revelation had an intended message and intended effect, which might change with the historical context. The bias, the truth content, and the omissions all have a necessary role in accurately conveying the message and creating the intended effects. 

Summary

Even 'evil' experiential gaps in God's expression are readily assimilated by God's relational aims. Relationships persist in the form of faith, a valuable self-evident manifestation of the health of any relationship. Faith can sustain itself by grappling with some of God's purposes for evil (such as allowing alternative expressions of God's goodness), and how it fits with his relational aims. Faith can also grapple with God's purposes for the 'evils' of progressive revelation, which (like all 'evil' gaps) allow the goodness of God to take on alternative expressive forms, enhancing relationship rather than posing a challenge to God's relational aims.

• Does it feel wrong to attribute deliberate good original purposes to 'evil'? 
• Do you agree that the it is better if you are given a chance to express your relationship in faith? Does this 'purpose' for evil give you any comfort?
• Are there other purposes for evil you can think of?
• Do you think that having good 'purposes' for evil, is enough to justify its existence? Or the existence of 'gaps' within progressive revelation?

Please comment below! I need feedback to tailor my views and stay faithful to Scripture...

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll attempt to summarise how to approach Scripture, with everything we've already discussed in mind.
• After that we'll explore some specific examples of progressive revelation and how a proper approach to Scripture leads ancient and modern saints to Him, but through different cognitive paths. 
• We'll also reverse course a little, discussing some cognitive 'gaps' that WE impose on Scripture (making progressive revelation seem more full of gaps than it really is, or than ancient readers saw it).

Footnotes:

1 - Some will object that God's goodness can't require even a temporary experience of evil for it to be expressed, as this would make Him dependant on something other than Himself for full expression of His goodness. This view has several problems, one of which is that it defines evil as something that does not originate with God. The Bible's definition of evil, however, includes things that originate from God. Also, this view simplifies the concept of God's expression down to a single mode (where everyone is aiming for an identical relationship, which includes only an abstract understanding of any evil and God's victory over it). I agree that God does not require every person to experience every form of evil and His victory over it, but people will experience varying degrees of isolated goodness vs. its victory over evil in a wide spectrum. This is a beautiful thing in the end, when we consider the natural and desirable variety of relationships God desires.

2 - God can't simply create specific characters from thin air, just like he can't perform other logical contradictions. Strength, experience, maturity, and other aspects in our souls exist precisely BECAUSE of how they are formed. They can't exist in isolation of their development - that doesn't make sense, and to try and fake them would result in poor substitutes, and we would easily and quickly discover that they lack any basis.

Christian Ethics in a Secular Environment

Can Christian ethics and a secular environment be reconciled? Here are some thoughts on the meaning of the “law” within Christianity and how it applies to Social Work ethics or even life in general.

Imagine that you see a sheep in a field. You see the sheep and exclaim “ah, there is a sheep in that field”. However, unbeknown to you, the sheep that you thought you saw was actually a rock in the shape of a sheep; and behind the rock in the shape of a sheep, there was actually a sheep.
-      Did you know that there was a sheep in the field?
-      Were you correct that there was a sheep in the field?
The statement was technically correct that there was a sheep in the field, but what you had in mind was incorrect.
Epistemology is the study of “how you know that you know things” and applies to ethics as much as anything else. As the sheep in the field scenario illustrates, knowledge is largely subjective, meaning that it is from our personal perspective.

Ethics and Social Work
Ethics in Social Work likewise are also subject to interpretation. Not every person will see all aspects of a given situation before them.
For example:
What does it mean to act in the client’s best interests? We may have a vague understanding of what it means, but how that is perceived and outworked varies greatly. This is largely due to our own interpretations.

Context plays a huge role in determining which ethical action to take. Depending on the context, what may seem in the client’s best interests may require an action that will vary from case to case. This calls for humility when working in these situations. We will never have all the knowledge in a given context. We may think we do at times, but one must remember that knowledge is largely from our perspective, even if we may think it is “common sense”… Knowledge is heavily influenced by our cultural background and life experiences. You can say that you believe there is a sheep in the field, but in actual fact, because of our fallible natures and limited knowledge, we should be aware that we could be very wrong. 
Depending on how much we can see of a given scenario or even how we see it from our perspective, no universal ethic will necessarily look the same. We may have a general understanding of what to do, just like we have a general understanding that there was a sheep in the field, but we are ultimately limited in our knowledge.


Even worse than working with a lack of knowledge, ethical practice may even directly conflict with itself. What if you thought you were looking at a sheep in the field and your client or colleague saw a rock in the shape of sheep? Both are looking at the same scenario. Who says who is right?

The Duck/Rabbit picture is a great example. Some people see a rabbit and some people see a duck. Both appear equally correct from each perspective. In an ethical dilemma one must be chosen and each choice with its own consequences.     
So how do we decipher what any particular ethic practically looks like when working with clients?  


Human rights v Moral rights.
Marie Connolly shares an understanding of practical Social Work values that I particularly like, which comes from a rights based perspective. She claims that there are two types of rights, human rights and moral rights. Human rights are concerned with the wellbeing of people, whereas moral rights are concerned about smaller issues in the grand scheme of things. From my understanding, moral rights which could come from asking “what is the right thing to do”, can become troublesome in Social Work because they are often from our personal values and don’t necessarily impact wellbeing greatly. On the other hand, human rights tend to be more helpful when making ethical decisions in Social Work. Instead of asking “what is the right thing to do”, a Social Worker coming from a Human Rights base may ask “what would be most helpful thing to do to produce wellbeing?”. Doing this enables us to sieve through the various decisions available.
An example could be a parent’s rights over their children. It is a moral right for parents to provide for their children, but if the children’s wellbeing is compromised, then the child’s human right comes into effect and overrides the moral right of the parent. It wouldn’t be helpful for the Social Worker or the child to value moral rights over human rights in this situation.

Difference in Christian thought.
Marie Connolly comes from a secular perspective, which I generally agree with. But what about Christians? Much of my upbringing consisted of encountering a variety of Christians that come from different schools of thought. Many Christians come from an objective law focus when it comes to moral rights and I did too for much of my life. Think back to the sheep in the field. An objective outlook would claim that there is definitely a sheep in the field, but a subjective outlook would believe there is a sheep in the field and would admit that due to limited knowledge, they could be wrong.

Congruence
An objective outlook is fine - we are all entitled to our opinion - but this type of Christianity may find it difficult to do social work in a secular context, because of the limitations that an objective outlook creates. I wrestled with this earlier on in the degree. How can I work in a manner that honours the “morals” of Christianity at the same time as “supporting” someone else’s opposing morals? Carl Rogers thought that a person’s psychological well-being was connected with how well they were able to live congruent lives. A person who is able to be congruent between their perceived reality and with their actual experiences, results in less anxiety. For me this has been true. The more I can reconcile my conscience with reality, the more at ease I feel with myself. This makes the place of ethics in Social Work and my interpretation of what these ethics mean to me, very important.


Laws made for man
The more I have studied the Bible I have found that I have misunderstood a huge part of the gospel, and much of what Jesus emphasized. Many Christians try to preach the Ten Commandments as a list of written “rules” from God. However, I over looked that Jesus Himself denied that these were “rules” per se. Jesus revolutionised the purpose of a law when he and his disciples picked heads of grain in a field on a Sabbath (which breaks the Sabbath law of doing no work). Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). Likewise I believe that laws are made for the benefit of people (therefore making them more like principles), rather than people being made for laws.


Fulfilled in love
To me, what the law produces is a motive of self-concern. E.g. if I follow this law then God will value me. However, more recently I see that Christianity teaches a rather different way of understanding morality and ethics.
The apostle Paul talked about how Jesus fulfilled the law, and summed up the law in what he called one word: “ For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”(Galations 5:13-14),
Living with the principles of dying to our selfish selves helps me to naturally look outward towards the needs of others, rather than following a law “just because”. This outlook ties in well with Human Rights ethics. Jesus was concerned about people’s wellbeing rather than a set of arbitrary rules. The “rules” or principles Jesus and the writers of the New Testament expected us to live by were for our wellbeing!

I have at times wrestled with Corrie Ten Boom type scenarios regarding lying versus telling the truth. For those who don't know the story, Corrie lied to the Nazis in order to protect Jews in her care. At times like these, I believe it is helpful to look at ethical dilemmas within their context and looking at things from a wellbeing perspective. Sure, it may not be right or helpful generally speaking to ourselves and society to be a false witness, but when it comes down to the wellbeing of another (like hiding Jews from the Nazis) wouldn’t it be more Christ-like to break a law for the wellbeing of another? I ask this remembering of course Jesus’ attitude to towards the law of the Sabbath. 


So how does this outlook relate to Social Work ethics? Just like with Social Work and ethical dilemmas, as a Christian, I will inevitably encounter ethical dilemmas. However, the difference is that I can work with more flexibility regarding what might be considered “Right” or “Wrong” in a given situation. I can live with greater congruence between my personal and professional values.

Following are some of the verses I found helpful to consider when thinking about ethics:

Matthew 5:43-44
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” 

Matthew 7:12
“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them…”

Ephesians 4:29
"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

Romans 14:4-6, 14-15
4 ”Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand…
 “14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love…” 

Mark 12:31
“You shall love your neighbour as yourself.”



I would also like to conclude with some words of wisdom from Captain Barbossa:

"The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules"

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 5 - COPING WITH EVIL I)

So far we've discussed that God uses cognitive biases (which many of us, with out modernistic worldview, would label 'errors') in his progressive revelation as he works toward his ultimate aim of relationship with us. Relationships include inevitable and healthy ‘gaps’ and ‘excesses’  of experience (and cognition). But some of the gaps God allows go beyond this to create 'evil effects' of limiting our experience of God BEYOND these normal and healthy experiences of relationship. In this post I want to talk about how our relationship copes with such messiness. And we'll start to think about why God allows gaps and cognitive 'errors' that he knows will have negative effects.

Love becomes Faith

In the face of these gaps of experience, our relationship takes a form known as faith. We go on seeking and living out the relationship, even while we are temporarily deprived of the experience of the relationship{1,2}. Faith has all the usual characteristics of a relationship. And as a relationship it needs a basis, which include all forms of experience (e.g. Scripture communication, the Holy Spirit's inner witness, The human character of Jesus, our experience of God through other people and events, reason and science, etc). It is not necessarily about any particular accurate cognitive view of the person we're relating to, but it nevertheless engages our whole being (including the process of cognition), and all experiences of the person (including cognitive understanding) will strengthen the relationship. Faith then uses the grounds it has, to bridge the relational gaps we are faced with, persisting when the relational experience is impaired. Faith thus simultaneously co-exists with both the grounds of the relationship AND the ongoing doubt and uncertainty. 

There are multiple ways to describe how faith uses its existing relational strength to bridge gaps. It can remember God's universal goodness expression which must pervade even the 'evil' we are facing (treating 'evil' as ultimately a matter of temporal perspective). It can grapple more intimately with what God's good purposes for these gaps might be. Specific answers can even be an experience of God which subsequently strengthens the relationship and faith. Faith can also remember that God’s ultimate solution to evil is an actual change in reality, not just in our minds - and so faith can work concretely to oppose evil, attempting to be the means by which God expresses Himself in these gaps. Faith doesn’t necessarily consciously engage in all these methods – it is a relationship, and so it will express itself in unique strengths and weaknesses. We can tend to react to some legitimate expressions of faith (within us or within others) as if they are actually opposed to faith, and squelch them in favour of our preferred expressions of faith. ‘Submitting to God’s will in suffering’, ‘questioning God’, and ‘fighting suffering’ may sometimes spring from a lack of faith (in which case they need redeeming by a right relationship with God), but often they can simply the unbalanced form a healthy faith naturally takes in the face of evil. We need to encourage our faith to express itself in all these ways in order for the relationship to flourish maximally in the face of evil{3,4}.

'Questioning' and working concretely against the 'gaps' created by the complexities of Scripture can likewise be an expression of faith, just like how faith deals with evil. And we can squelch faith (in ourselves or others) by squelching particular modes of its expression. It is common practice to focus on techniques and strategies that distance us from the reality and weight of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture, making it easier for us to dismiss them without engaging in other full flourishing-faith dealings (e.g. emphasising the harmony of Scripture, and engaging in rhetoric which belittles claims to the complexity of Scripture). These uncomfortable aspects of scripture are real and weighty and deserve a proper dealing{5}. 

God's purposes for Evil

So if faith grapples intimately with the specific good purposes God has for allowing 'evil gaps', what kinds of answers can it come up with? The first purpose to think about, is that evil allows relationships to take the form of faith. This is important because Faith (when understood as above) is the most undeniable demonstration of a relationship possible. Faith demonstrates the authenticity and health of a love relationship because the relationship it is based on persists even if the desired experiences are not there. Our responses to gaps reveal where our heart really lies - the degree of distress at gaps reveals the value of what is now lacking, and the degree of relational resilience DESPITE these gaps reveals the strength of relationship{6}. 

Progressive revelation allows for the demonstration of faith by leaving us with cognitive questions and challenges, with grey zones and apparent conflicts. How we navigate these based on our relationship to the person of Jesus, and not based on a commitment to a set of rigid interpretations of particular aspects of revelation, reveals our faith.

I’ve run out of room for this post, so the other two purposes for evil will have to wait for next post (allowing the full varied expression of God, and directly causing specific historical or character development effects). These are also important for faith to consider as it wrestles with God's purposes for evil and progressive revelation.

Summary

Faith is the form a relationship with God takes when there are experiential gaps in that relationship ('evil'), including the difficult aspects of progressive revelation. A healthy faith will deal with these things in multiple ways - one of which is to wrestle with God's purposes for evil and provide potential answers. One answer is that evil provides opportunity for relationships to take the form of faith, which is important to God.

What do you think of this relational definition of faith? Does it fit with Scripture?

How do you think faith ought to respond to evil and difficult aspects of Scripture / revelation? What do you think of the concept of 'questioning God' in a positive way, as opposed to the Devil's way?

Do you agree with that one purpose for evil is to allow the expression of faith? 

How do you think our faith is meant to interact with God's secret will when it comes to actively opposing 'evil'?

Coming Soon...

• Next post I'll discuss the other two major purposes for evil and progressive revelation. 
• After that I've got a couple of other interesting properties of progressive revelation to talk about, including our modernistic OVER-estimation of the bias that exists in progressive revelation. 
• Then I can finally summarise how I think God actually wants us to approach Scripture, how to practically use it faithfully in our relationship with God while still valuing those aspects we've been discussing that can seem uncomfortable and confusing! And then we can explore some practical implications.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil
5. Coping with Evil I (this post)
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read

Footnotes:

1 - This definition of faith fits well with Scripture. It explains why faith is the 'substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' - it IS the manifestation of a relationship that has real substance, but is nevertheless 'hoped for' and 'not seen'. It explains why God must first call people with experience before faith can arise. It explains why many of the qualities of faith in God (including exclusive rewards like grave and salvation) are also ascribed to individual components of this relationship (like love, humility, wisdom, obedience). It explains why sin (NOT living in a love relationship with God) is naturally opposed to faith, and why faith results in sanctification. It explains why faith is a constant integral part of our relationship with God here on earth, but disappears in heaven (by way of graduation to a form without ‘evil’ experiential gaps). It explains why faithful saints can still powerfully express strong doubts and wrestle with God.

2 - This description of faith still encompasses the more specific 'faith' we can have in particular promises or blessings. Technically according to Scripture we should not 'have faith for’ any particular blessing, but we can have faith in God’s goodness and faithfulness to His promises. This alters our hope / assurance / expectation / confidence regarding specific blessings - they can exist on a spectrum from possible to very likely to absolutely certain, depending on the context and God’s revelation on the matter.

3 - Faith which works to concretely oppose evil may seem at odds with a faith which submits to God's purposes in evil. But this is not necessarily true. Firstly, faith must express itself because it is relational - even if it cognitively understands that God has purposes for evil, our desire for the ultimate solution God promises (a changed reality in the new heaven and earth) MUST express itself in working toward this. Building on this, one of God’s purposes for evil IS to allow faith to express itself in this way - so God's purpose for evil may well include its defeat by the very faith it encourages. God may make it clear to us if He has other ongoing purposes for evil that require its ongoing existence – but many times, God wants both the demonstration of our faith AND the ongoing existence of that evil, in which case He keeps simultaneously encouraging our faith and thwarting faith’s efforts to defeat the evil.

4 - Also worth noting is that these abstract / concrete reactions of faith toward gaps, are also reactions our relationship can have on behalf of others. Our relationship with God is not self-centred, but God-centred - and as such, we seek ongoing experiences for ourselves AND for others. When others relationships are taking the form of faith and wrestling with gaps, we will bear their burdens and help them wrestle in abstract and concrete ways with these gaps.

5 - Some worry that wrestling with and questioning God's revelation is a lack of faith because this is what the devil tried to get Adam and Eve to do – but their ‘bad’ questioning was aimed at pushing the boundaries of God's revelation as far as possible in order to satisfy their own curiosity and independence and desires. Faith’s aim is to pursue a relationship with God. Some also worry about concretely working to oppose the 'evil' of the uncomfortable complexities of progressive revelation - as if this implies a deficiency in God's expression Himself. Faith views it instead as a designed opportunity to exercise itself - obviously valuing God's chosen expression, but seeking a more desirable relational state without as many 'gaps'. It utilises 'secular' disciplines (such as science, archeology, linguistics, history, logic and philosophy) to do so. All our efforts - as with our efforts to oppose generic 'evil' - are sincere but flawed. We rely on God to either work alongside us with His power, or to clarify our limits (as He has done by banning tampering with his revelation), or to simultaneously encourage and thwart our ongoing efforts.

6 - Obviously this is highly contextual - sometimes faith might be only mildly distressed at financial strife, because what ultimately matters is the relationship with God, which is persisting despite this 'gap', and is probably being experienced in a myriad of other ways. This same faith might be more distressed by more direct reflections of the relationship (e.g. besetting sin, a difficult ethical problem, or a lack of access to Scripture or fellowship). Or the financial hardship may become so pressing that our human minds simply cannot focus to appreciate the other more direct expressions of God, so that the immediate problem BECOMES the most direct relational expression of God that is possible in the circumstances - in this case, although the relationship continues to persist in the form of faith, there will obviously be a greater degree of distress.

Faithfully Valuing the Limits of Scripture (PART 4 - MORALITY & EVIL)

So far we've discussed the impact of our (extra-Biblical) worldview on our approach to Scripture. We've used progressive revelation as a practice engagement with the tricky complexities of honest Scriptural interpretation, and being willing to challenge our worldview. We've explored the nature of relationships, and discovered the cognition and communication fall short of defining 'relationship' because of their very nature, and not just because we humans can only handle them imperfectly. In addition, it seems as if God - technically capable of using 'perfect' communication and cognition - seems to have deliberately utilised bias in these things in His pursuit of what really matters to Him - a relationship of love.

Morality

A discussion of morality flows naturally from our discussion of communication, because it functions very similarly. Morality refers to the pattern of our behaviour. Like communication, it is inherently cognitive - we consciously decide what to do, and so it is a window into another person's cognition, but also suffers similar interpretation inaccuracies as communication. And just like communication and cognition, morality finds its true purpose in relationship. It is meant to be person-based, not abstract. We are meant to want to be like Christ and to please Christ, based on our flawed cognitive understanding of Him through our relationship. 

Because cognition cannot reach a static full encapsulation of a person, our morality will never be able to fully encapsulate them either. For this reason, some argue that we are meant to disengage our morality from cognition, and just follow the rules God has set down without question or interpretation, because this is the only reliable way to reflect God. I don't think this is the case, because the only way morality can reflect anything, is through people's interpretation of it - and they interpret it by trying to see through to the person that produces it. We reflect God by being a person that people see God in, and by behaving in a way that springs forth from this person. This cannot occur if our morality is disengaged from our cognition - it actually makes the reflection of God's character less accessible, not more accessible. Besides, the very nature of relationships and people means that things like morality and cognition could never capture a person, even if we disregard the link between morality and cognition. Relationships are meant to be dynamic processes that engage with the other person, and so a static cognition and a static morality cannot fully capture this. 

In other words, you cannot legislate the kind of morality God is after through fixed laws. They could never be nuanced enough, and there is always the possibility of life situations bringing together multiple conflicting values and unique considerations for the relationship which could NEVER be exhaustively described. No doubt God has a preferred way to behave in each situation, but we can only know this if we know God through relationship. So instead of prescribed living, there has always been a need for prioritisation, flexibility, and pragmatism BASED upon the right living relationship with God. I'm not advocating a liberal lifestyle - the relationship I'm advocating includes a desire to submit to God, and also a recognition of the complexity of applying God's values to real life situations. 

But God still legislated morality - if this was not for 'prescribed personal morality', then what was it for? We can argue for some specific purposes behind the OT law e.g. Societal coherence, which was difficult to maintain in a largely 'religious' society where God was never-the-less rarely relationally known, and where cognitive understanding of God was incomplete. But a big reason - the one that applies to ongoing legislation even in the NT - ties back to the purpose of communication. God wants us to see a prioritised understanding of His cognition THROUGH the commandments, and then base our morality on the relationship, which will include submission to our cognitive understanding of Him. Our morality will often look 'prescribed', but the different emphasis allows for deviations that please God when situations arise that aren't covered by the legislation with enough contextual relational nuance. 

Because morality is cognitive, it will change with progressive revelation and an evolving cognitive understanding of God. It needs to be emphasised that God does not want us to take the burden upon ourselves to guess / determine the 'next phase' of morality and progressive revelation. Its also worth mentioning here that morality (and to a lesser extent, communication) DOES have non-cognitive influences, which could potentially reflect non-cognitive aspects of the relationship. These are, however, much less precisely expressed and are readily overwhelmed by cognitive influences.

You can see that morality behaves much like communication and cognition - dim but important reflections of the underlying important spiritual love relationship. The intrinsic biases of morality must also be deliberately designed by God as they are natural consequences of deliberately designed cognitive biases. And just like we don't need to properly cognitively understand the God we love, we also don't need to legalistically and un-critically 'submit' to any particular legislation from God in order for the love to be real - but we DO need to engage in the process of submission. 

Evil 'Gaps' in the Relationship

I've talked a lot about what a relationship intuitively means to us, and about how our modernistic mindset can cause us to wrongly perceive many 'normal healthy' aspects as imperfections. But we all know that there ARE real cognitive deviations and gaps in our relationship with God, things that should not be considered healthy. And often it can sure seem as if its the 'healthy aspects' of normal relationships that become the culprits. Using our example of progressive revelation, it is often the intrinsic bias in communication and cognition that leads to problems in our relationship with God - and yet we've discussed them as natural and healthy, and something God has deliberately designed. What is it that makes some 'imperfections' normal and healthy, and others problematic? What is God's purpose behind allowing 'gaps' in the experience of Him through relationship, when He knows they will often cause problems? If modernism is wrong and many gaps are actually healthy and good, can we find another way to talk about the reality of bad gaps, ones that are real deviations from God's ideal relationship?

I think we can :) Lets start with some definitions - these are entirely my own definitions, which I think are supported by Scripture, but they're open to debate in the comment section! 'Good' and 'Evil' are terms which describe the quality of the experience of God through relationship. God is intrinsically 'good', and everything else is 'good' to the degree that it brings about the experience of God. 'Evil' is any lack of 'good' i.e. any gaps in the experience of God's goodness. This makes sense from a more Jewish perspective as well, where 'good' and 'evil' refer to something close to 'function' and 'dysfunction'. If God's fundamental aim is for us to experience Him in a relationship of love, anything which fulfils this function (i.e. our experience of God's character through His expression) is 'good', while anything that does NOT fulfil this function is 'evil'. Evil is intimately linked to sin, because sin harms our experience of God through relationship. Because these things are tied to relationship, you can see that 'good' does NOT refer to an attainable 'full' end outcome, but rather to an ideal uninhibited experience of a process (the ongoing relationship). Even from an eternal perspective, the 'good' all things work toward is an ideal ongoing relationship with God. Likewise 'evil' refers to the inability to have this ideal uninhibited experience of the process of relationship.

Note that both of these terms are dependent on your perspective. From an eternal perspective, we know that ALL things work together for 'good' i.e. are functioning (ultimately) to enhance our experience of God through relationship, even if it is 'evil' from a temporal perspective. And this makes sense, since ultimately all things are in some way an expression of God and Christ, even if you think He is merely 'permitting' their existence. God says that He Himself performs 'evil', where the experience of God in relationship is clouded or confused in a temporal sense - and yet he also says that all His actions are 'good' in an eternal sense. Also, both of these definitions are dependent on our interpreted experience of God from various perspectives, NOT on how well God is actually expressing Himself (I'm sure He is never actually limited in the expression of Himself, even temporally). This is why some 'normal' aspects to relationships, like incomplete cognitive understandings and varied and incomplete expressions of God, can be perceived as 'evil' when occurring in specific contexts. Its not these healthy normal aspects that are the culprit per-se, but the entire context has led to an impaired experience of God, which means the whole situation can rightly be called 'evil'. I believe 'evil' will not exist in heaven, but this is not because I think relationships will fundamentally change - I still think God will express Himself in varied and incomplete ways, and that our cognitive understanding of God will be incomplete and growing. Evil ceases to exist in heaven, because God will express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will experience clearly (in a temporal sense). In this life, 'evil' exists because God chooses to express Himself in ways that He KNOWS we will NOT interpret clearly, even though they ultimately work toward enhanced experience of relationship.

Scriptural 'gaps'

Its obvious at this point that Progressive Revelation ties into our discussion of 'evil'. From many perspectives it enhances our relational experience of God, and is clearly 'good'. But from some perspectives progressive revelation can also be called 'evil'. You've probably felt this already yourself, when considering the implication that God has deliberately introduced bias into our cognitive understanding AND into our morality . As I've discussed earlier, much cognitive bias is a normal part of healthy relationships, but in some contexts it can also function as an 'inhibition' of our experience of God through relationship, especially when we can sense the spirit-wrought ache in our hearts for a more accurate cognitive understanding. It is thus sometimes a temporal 'evil' designed by God as part of the 'good' of progressive revelation. The 'good' of progressive revelation becomes more obvious as the revelation accumulates to produce a more accurate picture, and as we learn things from God that would not make as much relational sense if not for the previous 'unbalanced' cognition, and as we realise the limited role cognition and communication can play in relationship anyway. We should experience these unbalanced views of God as part of the ongoing expression of our relational God - simultaneously acknowledging the 'evil' this can encourage / allow from our temporal perspective AND the 'good' from other perspectives.

Summary

Reality is not as idealistic as I've been suggesting in the series so far. 'Evil' refers to NON-healthy gaps in our experience of God through relationship. But its not a simple division between gaps which are 'evil', and gaps which are normal and 'good' (i.e. the nature of relationships and cognition and morality). These descriptions depend on your perspective, and since there are usually multiple appropriate perspectives, there is usually a mix of recognising 'good' and 'evil' in these gaps. And some apparently 'evil' aspects may in other contexts be considered normal and 'good' aspects to healthy relationships, and continue to exist in some form in heaven. Importantly, all forms of 'evil' are ultimately 'good' and serve to enhance our ultimate experience of God, because permitting their existence is still itself an expression of God, and He is ultimately good (which is why He works all things work together for good). Progressive revelation demonstrates this nicely, as this variously biased revelation - with all its 'problems' - is still 'God-breathed' and good and trustworthy as part of the expression of His character. 

Do you agree that morality should be relationship-based, and thus more flexible / pragmatic than mere legislation? 

Do you agree with my relational-experiential definition of 'evil' and 'good'? 

What do you think of the assertion that 'evil' is ultimately good (from an eternal perspective), and an expression of God? 

Would life or Scriptural interpretation be easier / better if things could be definitively  divided into 'good' and 'evil' categories, instead of being both from different perspectives?

Coming Soon...

• Next I'll explore how relationships deal with the 'evil' gaps we've just discussed - through 'faith'. This will open up some more possibilities to discuss, regarding what God is doing by deliberately creating / allowing these gaps (especially those we find in Scripture).  
• After that, I will have (almost) finished my defence of the bias God has created within Scripture :) And I can work toward positively addressing how God wants us to approach His Scriptures, given its divine inspiration, purpose, and 'gaps' / biases. 
• Then we'll  explore this in more detail over some of the phases of progressive revelation. 
• And then onto the practical implications of a  proper vs improper approach to Scripture.

The series so far:

1. Introduction
2. Progressive Revelation
3. Relationships and Cognition
4. Morality and Evil (this post)
5. Coping with Evil I
6. Coping with Evil II
7. How to Read