Thursday, March 25, 2010

JWs and Space-time

I've been noticing lately in my discussions with the JWs that their conceptions of the Godhead depend largely on how they incorporate space and time into their theology. For example, take an argument like this:

1. Jesus is God's son. (e.g. Mark 1:1)
2. This mean Jesus was born of God. (as stated in e.g., Col. 1:15, which JWs also understand to mean that Jesus was the first thing created)
3. Sons don't exist until they are born.
4. Therefore God existed before Jesus.
5. Therefore God and Jesus cannot be the same person.

What is interesting about this argument is how it changes depending on how we imagine that God and Jesus exist with respect to time.

Since shortly before I became a Christian, I have understood that God and Jesus exist outside of time. That is, they transcend it. They are present within the space-time complex that is our universe, and they are also present beyond it, and are not contained by it.

If I conceive God and Jesus as transcending time in that manner, then I will understand the phrase "son of God" to be referring to a relationship between two beings. Of course it won't occur to me (at least, it hasn't occurred to me) that the phrase implies that Jesus' existence started after His Father's existence started. I considered the term figurative, and never would have thought that they precedence aspect of birth was meant by it. In fact, thinking of "son of God" in that manner didn't occur to me until talking with the JWs about this last Tuesday.

On the other hand, if I take the far more concrete view that the JWs have, where Jesus (and perhaps God – I've yet to check on that) exist only in space-time like we do, then a phrase like "son of God" will imply the material creation of a child after their parent as we are familiar with, and will thus imply that point 3 is valid in the sense we usually understand "born" and likewise that the rest of the argument follows from it.

My point: depending on our preconceptions about God/Jesus and how they exist in time, from the same scriptures we will come to different understandings of God. And, on the basis of the Bible, I don't know how to distinguish which perception of God is correct. (This may well just be a limitation of my knowledge of the Bible – I welcome correction, if that is the case.)

Another interesting example is the JW's beliefs about the afterlife. Since they do not believe that any part of a human is exists outside of time, their conceptions of death and resurrection are a little different from the orthodox Christian views. The idea is that humans did not exist before they were born, exist for their lives on Earth (in the material world), entirely cease to exist when they die, and then are recreated eventually on an Earth with all of is problems fixed. The nifty thing is that they are recreated based on God's memory of them. Since He's God, He can remember and recreate them exactly as they were when they died.

If the material world of space-time is the only place for humans to exist, then this seems to me like a pretty reasonable way to understand life, death and resurrection. Where would people be between death and resurrection? They must simply not exist. And what could resurrection then mean? It must me recreating them in the material world. But again, if we are willing to allow that humans can exist (partly or wholly) outside of space-time, things change and we can arrive at an alternative understanding.

My understanding, given that I believe there is a material and non-material part to humans (the non-material part not existing in space-time – and maybe but not necessarily in some kind of time?), gives me no reason to think that the non-material part dies when the material part does. So it is quite possible for that part of a human to exist between their bodily death and resurrection.

Again, it has to do with weather we begin trying to work through things assuming it is all bound by space-time, or whether we do not assume that. In other words, whether we assume there is a supernatural, or whether we do not. I think JW doctrine, though it may place God in the supernatural, could be otherwise compatible with materialism.

So what are we left with? To me, it is obvious that there are non-material things. To the JWs – and I'm sure I'll discuss this with them at more length – it may not be evident. I doubt I will convince them otherwise, or that they will convince me otherwise. I've never been able to convince anyone that non-material things exist in the past, and don't expect that I'll start now. But there may be some benefit to showing them how things seem to me, and seeing how things look to them, in these matters. Perhaps we can recognize some truth in each others' worldviews.

A quick side note: To me, the JW beliefs are almost like a sci-fi story, with God as the great benevolent alien who creates a creature Jesus to help the people of Earth, and who through his great power and memory can recreate us frail and unenlightened humans after our deaths and allow us to live forever. It's a neat concept, although I'm not really sure what I think of such a God (he seems a short step away from the evil God in the His Dark Materials trilogy).

1 comment:

  1. Thanks for posting this! It frustrates me sometimes how often beliefs of Mormons, JWs, and others get stereotyped in Christian communities as weird. Wrong, sure—I certainly think they are wrong, as a whole—but none of their beliefs are any stranger than the wild craziness of orthodox Christianity. (God being killed by Romans soldiers—on purpose?!?!)

    When you are drawing a distinction between material and non-material things, you seem to be using different definitions than I'm used to. Do you say that anything in the human experience is by definition material? Or just that which is expressed by physical, material objects? For instance, do things like love, math, economic theory, etc., count as material or non-material?

    Regarding whether Jesus existing at the beginning or not, it seems like John 1:1-5 is really one of the critical texts. (I assume JW's believe that Jesus did the work of creation based off of Colossians 1:16 in addition to John 1:3?) Also, then the question is what does "beginning" mean: the beginning of time? The beginning of God's existence in some way? At this point I bail and realize I don't know Greek…

    It is interesting the practical implications seeming abstract theology can have!

    I'm curious: if JW's believe Jesus was created, what is His purpose (if any) in salvation? You imply that he was simply a near-deity that came to save us in a way similar to the orthodox belief. But I find that strange: why water down the utter craziness of God Himself sacrificing Himself? Was it just too strange to handle?

    ReplyDelete