This is part of the book I am working on, on creatio ex nihilo.

 

            This is a selection from my current book project, A Brief Process Reappraisal of Creatio Ex Nihilo.  I am citing and responding to my friend Tom Oord.  My respect for Tom is profound.  We agree on a lot!  This is about the only substantive disagreement I have with him. I thought this blog was a good place to share this.

My friend and colleague Thomas Jay Oord mentions on his website, Nine Problems with Creatio Ex Nihilo. (Tom's essay can be found here.) I honestly don’t see any of these as problems myself, but some of them are better ideas than others.  Overall, though, I do not find these objections very convincing.  I will list the nine points, and respond to each in italicized type.

1. Theoretical problem: absolute nothingness cannot be conceived. I do not see this as a problem.  Just because someone cannot conceive of something does not mean that no one could ever conceive of it.  At best that seems to me to be an unknown.
2. Historical problem: Creatio ex nihilo was first proposed by Gnostics – Basilides and Valentinus – who assumed that creation was inherently evil and that God does not act in history.  It was adopted by early Christian theologians to affirm the kind of absolute divine power that many Christians – especially Wesleyans – now reject.  Two things here.  I believe we need to be open to truth no matter what the source, so who proposed creatio ex nihilo has no bearing on whether it is true.  I also think that just because an idea was conceived to support another idea does not mean the idea is false.  Elton Trueblood used to say if Y is a consequent of X, and X is proven false, Y is also false.  But that is not what this is.  This is saying an idea was formed to support an idea, and that is not the same as being a consequent.  I believe again that has no bearing on the truth of a concept.

3. Empirical problem: We have no evidence that our universe originally came into being from absolutely nothing.  We also have no evidence that it did not.  And even if we have evidence that our current universe came from some precedent material, we have no conclusive evidence that matter has always existed.  At best, this seems to me to push the argument back a step, but does not settle the ultimate issue of creatio ex nihilo.
4. Creation at an instant problem:  We have no evidence in the history of the universe after the big bang that entities can emerge instantaneously from absolute nothingness.  Out of nothing comes nothing (ex nihil, nihil fit).  I have the same problem here as I did on point 3.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.   This goes to the heart of my earlier statement that physical science cannot verify metaphysical realities.  Assuming there are no metaphysical realities does nothing to address that deficiency.
5. Solitary power problem: Creatio ex nihilo assumes that a powerful God once acted alone.  But power is a social concept only meaningful in relation to others. The assumption here is one which could point either way.  If absolute nothingness cannot be conceived, then a single power acting alone cannot be conceived, perhaps.  But then again, neither of those assumptions clarifies or proves anything.  This is speculative, on Tom’s part and on my part also.  But I do not think this assumption is necessary          .
6. Errant revelation problem: The God with the capacity to create something from absolutely nothing would apparently have the power to guarantee an unambiguous and inerrant message of salvation (e.g, inerrant Bible).  An unambiguously clear and inerrant divine revelation does not exist.  I find this interesting but unpersuasive.  Keep in mind that the Bible was written by humans, who gave witness to their encounter with God.  There were no humans at creation, regardless of what creation model we operate from.  This is like saying that because I need help to build a house, I need help to make an omelet.  I don’t think that is necessarily the case.
7. Evil problem: If God once had the power to create from absolutely nothing, God essentially retains that power.  But a God of love with this capacity is culpable for failing to use it periodically to prevent genuine evil. This is more challenging.  I will address it in a later chapter, but I will say here I do not think this assumption is necessarily true.  It is entirely plausible that the power to create a universe from nothing has nothing to do with the power to prevent evil.  It is possible that God is not omnipotent, because omnipotence is simply impossible, whether or not God created from nothing.
8. Empire Problem: The kind of divine power implied in creatio ex nihilo supports a theology of empire, which is based upon unilateral force and control of others. I do not find this convincing. Tom and I share a concern and an opposition to unilateral force, although I do believe some things should be mandated for people to do for the common good.  I do not think vaccines should be voluntary, for example.  But I do still think it is possible for God to create from nothing without being coercive. It does not seem to me that creating from nothing is any more coercive than creating from something.  In fact, I think I could argue it is actually less coercive because creating from nothing does not force anything to become something other than what it is.  If creating from nothing is coercive, then any time a painter paints or a sculptor sculpts, that is also coercive because it is forcing something to become something other than what it is.
9. Biblical problem: Scripture – in Genesis, 2 Peter, and elsewhere – suggests creation from something (water, deep, chaos, invisible things, etc.), not creation from absolutely nothing. Tom is correct here.  But because we do not believe in biblical inerrancy, I do not think this point is conclusive.  This is where philosophical thinking also has to weigh in.

Again, I want to reiterate that my respect for Dr. Oord is profound.  His books have helped me make sense out of some of the most difficult issues in my own life—which range from being a man with a disability to being the victim of religious and spiritual abuse.  So none of these critiques are personal.   I know him well enough to know his disagreement with my critique will not be personal either.

      It is also necessary to reiterate here that by no means am I certain that I am correct.  I do think, however, in the best of the philosophical spirit, these challenges will help people on both sides clarify, sharpen, and refine their own positions, which is the ultimate goal of exchanges like this one.

I Changed My Mind About...

 This is the final chapter of my forthcoming book, I Changed My Mind About...

The book will be available on Amazon on June 1.  The kindle version is there now.  It can be found here.

Most people in this country who attend a church never struggle with the question of what the relation of a Christian to their country should be.  This is a rich area to think about, and has its own constellation of tributary issues.

            For most of my young life I did not question this either, until I went to seminary.  As I learned to think theologically, my understanding of what is involved in this issue began to profoundly change.  That change has made me an outlier among even my friends.  Even people who respect me personally and theologically have trouble with my thinking in this area.

            The shift in my thinking is connected to the change in my thinking about war, as I outlined in chapter 5 of this book.  When I had the life-changing experience of having my eves opened about Christian non-violence as I sat in a Mexican restaurant with Professor Wil Cooper, it was probably a natural development from that experience that my thinking about how a Christian should relate to his or her nation would also evolve.

            To me, the issue is the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  When Wil Cooper told me our job is not to calculate contingencies of what may happen if we do or do not use force, but rather our task is to simply do what Jesus said to do in the Sermon on the Mount, I knew immediately in a profound way that Wil was right.  As I have written, that shook me like nothing ever had in my life up to that point, and the vision of that has never waned in the subsequent 42 years.  I was tremendously shaken, and 42 years later I have been completely unable to shake myself  loose from the impact of this imperative.

            The issue, for me, with one’s relationship to one’s country is also one of the Lordship  of Jesus Christ.  Jesus said we cannot serve two masters.  (Matthew 6:24)  Jesus made that comment with regard to those who try to serve God and money, but I think the principle applies to so much more than out attitude toward finances.

            Something similar is found in the Ten Commandments.  People take the idea of you shall have no other gods before me to mean other idols or loyalties are okay, as long as God is on the top of the totem pole.  However, that is not what this means.

            I said on page 22 of my 2024 book, A Brief Process Response to Christian Nationalism, with regard to the idea that it is okay to have other loyalties if you do not put them before God,

 

But that is not what “you shall have no other gods before me” means.  The Hebrew for before here is al-panai, על הפני which literally means “before my face.” This was millennia before the current iteration of the phrase “in my face” or “in your face”, but the idea is very similar.

            I think when God says, “you shall have no other gods in my face,” the idea is that there be no competition for devotion at all. God is saying we are to have a totality of commitment. The picture of when the Hebrews wandered off into idolatry is not one of divorce, although God did say at one point, that most husbands would have divorced a spouse who had been as faithless toward a husband as Israel had been toward God. (Jeremiah 3)

God describes Israel’s idolatry as adultery in many of the writings of the prophets. Jeremiah, Amos, and Hosea are notable among them. Not having any other gods in God’s face means not even having the equivalent of an extramarital affair. The command to not have other gods in God’s face is a call to complete and total devotion.

            Herein lies the problem with Christian nationalism. It is the equivalent of being married in name, while having an affair all the while.  It is a profession of Christian faith (hence the term Christian Nationalism) even as it calls one to place concern for the nation as more important than devotion to God. 

            I find it impossible to deny that is what is implicit in Christian nationalism. If Paul Tillich is correct, that the essence of idolatry is to take something relative and finite, something which is contingent, and treat it as if it is ultimate and not contingent, then Christian nationalism is nothing less than idolatry. Draping it with Christian language and symbols does not make it any less idolatrous than when the Hebrew people would do their Temple duties and also make offerings to other deities at the High Places. 

            In the New Testament, Jesus affirms this first commandment, although he appeals to it in a different form, the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4. This is the command to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your might.”  The force of this is the same basic commandment of having no other gods al-panai. It is a call to single-hearted devotion to God.

 

            One of the things which bothers me—very much—is when I drive by a church and see a flagpole with an American flag (which alone bothers me because we are to be, as the hymn says, elect from every nation) and there is a Christian flag underneath it!  To me this says America comes first and Jesus comes second.

            You may say, “Oh, but you never put anything above an American flag.”  I would suggest that proves my point, not yours.  If you have something which you can never put anything higher than, it is an admission that such an item, country, or whatever, is what Paul Tillich calls your ultimate concern.

            I remember when I lived in North Carolina, the little town where we lived did have a McDonald’s.  It had a flagpole with the US flag on top and a McDonald’s flag beneath it.  Now, I guess the country is more important than McDonald’s, but the country is not more important than the cause of Jesus Christ.  To me, putting a Christian flag beneath an American flag trivializes the Christian faith, as though it is about as important as McDonalds.  Unfortunately, I believe that is how many American church members think.

            But the answer is not to put them side-by-side either, because that equates them.  At that point you have an al-panai problem. 

            I remember when Pope Francis, who I absolutely loved, said patriotism is good but nationalism is sinful.  I do not agree with the Holy Father here.  In the early church, the Romans tried to get the Christians to offer just a pinch of incense to Caesar.  The Christians realized they could not do that, because it created an al-panai problem for them.  It tacitly deified the emperor.  My view is nationalism is full-blown nation worship, but patriotism is offering a pinch of incense, so to speak.  I consider them both to be idolatrous.

            I was combatting Christian Nationalism in pastoral ministry in North Carolina around the year 2000.  I ended up getting fired there because I tried to say that in the worship life of the church there should not be a single hint of national loyalty expressed.   I still believed that. One of the men in that church who was very opposed to my ministry paid me the single highest compliment anyone has ever paid me in my life.  He said, “This world has absolutely no hold on that guy.”  I hope and pray that is true.  That is,  in my mind, the Christian ideal.

            When Jesus said we cannot have two masters, he explained why,  He said we will, when they make competing claims on us, cling to one and let go of the other.  I am afraid far too many people in the church, when that moment comes, cling to nation and let go of the kingdom of God.

            I never met the Christian missionary E. Stanley Jones, but I did know his secretary, Mary Webster, who told me on more than one occasion I reminded her of Stanley.  It was said of him one time, “Stanley Jones is obsessed with the kingdom of God.”  I hope and pray I am able to carry that same mantle.

            Like I said, this makes me an outlier even among my friends and colleagues.  What I am trying to do here is explain my own thinking and how it has changed over time.  People hear me talk like this and come to the erroneous conclusion that I hate the country.  That is not true.  I neither hate nor love the country.

            Over the centuries, some of the saintliest persons in the Christian tradition talk about the interplay of attachment and detachment.  They speak of being detached from the things of the world so we can be attached to Jesus Christ.  I believe American Christians are largely so attached to the country that it hinders their attachment to Jesus.  I am not asking people to hate anyone or any country.  I am asking them to love Jesus so much that they do not have an al-panai problem.  Jesus wants so much of my heart that there is no room for earthly attachments.

            This does not give anyone license to break the law.  The New Testament is very condemning of lawlessness.  The only time we should break the law is if keeping that law, obeying that law, would cause us to disobey Christ.  (Acts 5:29)

            I have never tried to get rid of the military, but I have tried to encourage Christians to refuse to be part of the military because being in a military organization creates an immediate al-panai  problem.  Again, what do you do if you receive orders to do something Jesus tells us in the Gospels not to do?

            We are to obey the laws, and respect authority.  We are to pay our taxes.  I think we should use our influence wisely in voting for people who will care for the most vulnerable among us.  I am not advocating for withdrawal from society.  I am, however, advocating for an emotional withdrawal from the attachment which hinders how much Jesus has of my heart.  I think Jesus wants so much of my heart that there is no room for national loyalties, under the guise of either nationalism or patriotism.  Emotionally, the Christian life is one of being an exile, an ex-patriate, in this world.  This is not my home.

            I do not say the Pledge of Allegiance for this reason.  The word allegiance bothers me.  I read a definition one time which said allegiance means unconditional loyalty.  I believe if that is so, because, as Jesus said, we will either cling to one and let go of the other, or vice versa, that  it is really only possible to have one allegiance at a time.  Most of my friends do not share this view.  Judging whether they are right or not is way above my pay grade.  I just know for me, it sets up an al-panai situation.  I do not want anything even to come close to competing with my Lord for my affections.

            I want the observation that this world has no hold on me to be true.   It may not be, only God knows my heart. My desire, however, is to be singlehearted in this regard.  I pray God’s blessing for all who have taken the time to read this book, whether or not you agree with me.