Why I refer to God as a he

I don't think God has gender. The Bible makes reference to God as both a father and a mother, I don't think this means that God is neccessarily just a combination of both genders but rather that all of our attributes as humans made in the image of God, come from the complexity of God that we will never fully understand. I believe that God transcends gender. So why do I refer to God as a him? I think its because I am a guy. It just seems natural for me to relate to God as a guy as it helps me to feel a common link between me and God, its a way of speaking about God that doesn't seem so vague and obscure. Also I think in the english language it is common to refer to androgynous things as male... but i could be terribly wrong about that, I really don't know anything about linguistics. Point is that although I refer to God as a male I don't think that God can be limited by gender.

Free will

So if God knows everything, does he knows what choices we'll make before we make them? because if he does do we really have free will? I think God sees all the possible realities that can be made by every possible choice we make, and so he is never surprised by what decisions we make, because he has accepted the fact that we may do that, whether or not he knows which plane of reality we will choose I don't know. Honestly, I don't think this is an issue of great importance to my faith right now, it may be an issue I look at in the future but right now there are many more important issues I feel I should look at first. I think it is important to ration how many questions we take on at a time and sort out what we believe on the issues we currently are thinking about before moving on to taking on more questions. If we try to question everything at once we won't ever find the answers to everything. At the same time I think its important to always be willing to question anything so that we don't become too set on our own opinions that we are ignorant of other ideas.

EVIL

One issue that I am continuously forced to question my beliefs on is evil. Its not so much issues of divine providence or theodicy but rather what I believe evil is. What one defines evil as influences all of ones beliefs as to what is good, how God is good, and what sin is. So many issues are influenced by evil that I believe it is an essential first step to theology to determine what you believe evil is. A relativist point of view would define evil as different for everyone or could say evil doesn't exist. Others believe that evil is caused by the influence of fallen angels, spirits, or demons. I firmly believe that evil does exist. I also firmly believe that there is no such 'thing' as evil. I believe evil to be a negative state of existence. It is like the cold or darkness, neither of these actually exist. The cold is merely a lack of heat (or lack of movement of particles if you want to get picky), the dark is just a place that is without light. So if God is all good is evil a thing that occurs when God is not present? well, seeing as God is omnipresent thats kinda hard to believe as God is everywhere. I believe that evil is created when the will of God is not present. So then, if God created everything did God create evil? yes, and no. God is all good and can not create evil, but i believe God can create the possibility for evil. By giving man freewill God created the possibility for his will to be ignored, and when God's perfect will is not followed evil is created. So basically that summarizes where I am at my beliefs about evil at the moment, they'll most likely change, this is not the same view i held a few years ago, but then any thoughts to do with God, theology and spirituality are always likely to change, we can never fully grasp all of their content and as we gain fuller understanding our thoughts and views change accordingly. I think everyones definition of evil is slightly different and I think we can grow by listening to and considering the views of others, and so to those reading this on my blog (and Prof. Frick if you want you can leave a comment in the margins while marking this) I would like to hear what your own personal definition of evil is.

Christianity and Education

In the middle ages monasteries were the center of learning. They studied the bible but also secular topics. Over time education has been largely secularized. This has lead to a rise of two separate institutions for education: the secular university and the Christian seminary. Theology has remained as a possible field of study in some universities but with the rise of multi-culturalism this field has been replaced in many universities (including the university of waterloo) by 'religious studies'. Religious studies looks at a variety of religions giving one a good base knowledge to understand how religion affects the world around them (such as how it affects society and how it affects international relations) but one must ask: 'if one is studying every religion can they adequately fully understand any specific one?' ... this may explain the popularity of Christian seminaries as an alternative to the university. At a Christian seminary one can study Christianity in depth as their education is focused on the understanding of this one religion. I believe that there are many positive aspects of both of these methods of education. Those, like myself, who are persuing an education in Christianity can benefit from the approaches held by both places of education. I believe that it important for clergy and those in ministry to understand the values and beliefs held by other religious traditions so that we can communicate and be respectful of each others' beliefs and practices. It is for this reason that I am studying at a university rather than a Bible college. Also I believe that by looking at the texts of other religions we can better understand some aspects of christianity. For example in Christianity we will say God is omnipresent, this term is very exact and correct but can difficult to fully comprehend. On the other hand Hindus when speaking of the Brahman being in all creation describe it as salt dissolved in water. Even though the Brahman doesn't fit into Christianity the descriptions used to describe some of its aspects can help us better understand the Judeo-Christian God. The downside to taking religious studies is that one is not as free to delve into the study of the one religion they are focusing on. The generality of religious studies has led me to start considering transferring to a Christian seminary in the later years of my study. By studying religious studies at a secular institution first and Biblical studies at a Christian seminary later I believe I would be able to gain both an adequate knowledge of Christianity but also have some knowledge about other religions that would allow for better inter-faith relations than if I studied solely in a Christian seminary. In the end I don't believe that neither the secular university or the seminary is superior. Both have specific strengths and weaknesses and serve to give different sets of knowledge in terms of religion. Where one chooses to study may best be decided based on what they plan to do after their education and what knowledge set would be most beneficial to what they plan to do.

The Church: An Unfortunate Community Masquerade.. at least at times

Is a church merely a building with a steeple, a place for christians to congregate once a week for their service rituals? No, the church is a community that encompasses all those in the body of christ despite nit-picky disagreements that cause us to separate into denominations. This community is to try to live like Christ, to live in the kingdom of heaven on earth. This means that the church needs to be concerned with social justice. Now, it is true that in todays society the government takes care of a lot of people who would have previously been taken care of by the church (such as government pension to seniors and the disables who can no longer work). However, there are still many social issues in which the church should be involved, we would live quite differently if we really considered 'What Would Jesus Do?' before every action. For example: would Jesus really toss a tin can on the ground? or would he recycle it so that it could be reused instead of harming the earth his Father created? The church often loses sight of this. We become more concerned of keeping those who may not necessarily live a 'christian lifestyle' outside of our neighborhoods than with loving them. We need to remember that Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors who stole. The original church, that is those who first started following Christ, were open about their downfalls, their lifestyle changed when they started following Christ and everybody knew it because they knew who they had been and who they were after following Christ.
Today I believe that we see this change and often believe that we must show no remnants of our old lives. This often leads to a false from being put on by Christians that make us appear like we have our entire life together and do not struggle with sin. The early church used to have a time at their meetings for public confessions of sins in front of the entire congregation. Now i recognize that with our current society and legal issues that go along with some sins not all sins can be told to the entire church meeting, but i believe that it is extremely important to talk about our struggles and shortcomings with each other within the church body. When we fail to share our struggles and get encouragement from one another we become hypocritical preaching against that which we hide and let grow in the dark corners of our lives (which leads to situations like the one that involves Ted Haggard). I believe that the Church exists largely to fulfill the function of James 5:6:
" Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. "
As a Church we exist to help and support each other and the world around us, not judge.

More on Sin

ya this isn't anything really deep on my part, more just me rambling while considerung another idea presented to me... so, in other words its just filler for this journal I have to hand in


After posting my previous entry on my blog I recieved a response from a friend named Jordan Dyck who is a third year biblical studies student. He stated his view on sin:
"I would view "original sin" as the fact that we are born into a community which will at some point give us choices between two things, neither of which are God's best. The best we can do is try to live a life which is as close to Godly as we can get on earth. This is why we needed an external redeemer, to perfectly live human life. "
Although not a creditable theologian I believe that as followers of Christ, we are all able to make statements that cause each other to think theologically. This quotation raises a very important factor in understanding our state of sin. We live in a society created by those with sin and therefore our society is imperfect and causes further imperfection. This statement suggests that the Blank slate view held by the Pelagians could hold true without compromising the need for salvation in Christ. This view holds that we are predestined to fall into a state of sin by tarnishing our blank slate by sinning in a situation beyond our control (such as a child being forced to either lie or disrespect their parents). It could be argued that this predestined fall into a state of sin supports Augustine's view of original sin, which although delayed in its creation is very present in this view. Overall I believe this to be a very well thought out theological view that I should consider and possibly see how it fits within the views expressed in my previous entry as it seems I am looking for a balance between the views of Augustine and of the Pelagians on this issue. The situation of society forcing one into a situation where one must sin could quite possibly be linked to the realization of right and wrong which I previously mentioned. In the end I believe this is an issue which has too many facets to be understood entirely by man but hopefully as we mull over the concept he can continue to understand it on deeper levels.

Original Sin vs Blank slate

I'm really not sure if i agree with all i wrote here but its the current thought going through my mind...hope its coherant


The Pelagians believed that we are born as a blank slate free from sin and that we sin because we are given bad examples as all that have gone before us have also sinned. Augustine believed that we are born into a state of sin. I find both of these ideas very tempting and yet can't agree with either of them. If we all start without sin and only sin by imitation we should all just shelter our children so they never are exposed to sin and therefore keep their innocence as they never will be able to imitate sin. On the other hand if we are born into a state of sin than even a child who dies minutes after being born would be guilty of sin and therefore would be separated from God. I believe when Jesus says "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." in Matthew 19:14, he is acknowledging that children have a grasp on the kingdom of heaven (which i believe to be as much of a state of living on earth as a state after death)... I think that this implies that there is a further separation that occurs as we grow older. So in a sense I do believe in original sin, as without an inherited sin we would be able to achieve salvation without Christ, but I also believe that our state of sin is acquired. Original sin began with mankind gaining the knowledge of good and evil, therefore I think that original sin is linked to that concept. If a child is too young to understand the difference from good and evil I believe that they have not yet entered into our state of sin. Once a child is able to grasp this concept of good and evil I believe that a change takes place. The child now is able to recognize the sins that they have committed and therefore enter a state of sin (note the connection between sins and sin, this is very close to the pelagian view) ... therefore I think that both the Pelagians and Augustine had a grasp on the concept of sin, but in the end i believe that sin is an issue much bigger for the human mind to understand completely. Now just because we don't understand every aspect of the problem of sin doesn't mean we can't know the answer. God is much bigger than the mind can comprehend and therfore I believe very much that God can solve any problem, even ones we can't understand completely.