Robert Dryer

You can tell which white people are serious about racism because you don’t ever hear them talk about race, or you see them promote and empower other races to have a space in their world. It’s the white person who down plays bad behaviors as “not” racism and is outspoken about it that is part of the problem, because they don’t get it. But being ignorant of racism and trying to defend bad behavior under some other false flag doesn’t help. If these types were serious about not being racist they’d shut up, and let people overcome instead of trying to find ways of justifying bad behaviors. But that’s the point, people can’t shut up, nor allow people who cry for justice to have a space. The vicious circle stops when you allow people to find a way out, not perpetuate it.

But, even here, if I put my voice out, I risk being criticized rather than allowed a simple cry for the injustices I have to actually deal with in real life; and, not because of my race, I am very fortunate I can blend in very nicely, but because I can speak from experiences of my daily choices in my profession and life choices which force me to deal with the margins where racism is an actual factor for people. I don’t want a safe space. I want white people to shut up, if they don’t get my work and life and keep on scrolling and doing their life. My cry for justice doesn’t effect their ability to pursue their own happiness.

Matthew 10:7–8 (NRSV): The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment.

My wife and I were talking about the divisiveness of our age. It’s a sad dynamic change, I think; and, it’s one not easily remedied, assuming it can be remedied which is not clear.

She brought up that people don’t seem to like the “judgment of God” theme I play and work with on social media. And we reflected how personal people have taken something that is an obvious catagory in very limited and specific frames. And it’s hard NOT to see that the divisiveness of our age has lead to unnecessary defensiveness, it’s magnified emotions. And I don’t know why. But it seems to me, the Judgment of God is, at least in part, a way to navigate the issue of not only the divisiveness of our day, but the politics of our day too. The judgment of God-as a good biblical theological category-is a political message, it says something about the politics of God in contrast to the politics of people.

There’s never been a dogmatic claim by me that we’re under judgment. I have tried to point out the characteristic and the conditions which should spark one to consider that perhaps our world is under judgment, specifically our social and political world. The line of thought always starts in the negative because compare and contrast is a helpful divice to illustrate a category and its limits. So let’s start there.

Suffering is no great thing. If you read the Bible as though it’s to be pursued you missed the point. The whole Bible points towards hope, not masochistic desires. There’s a form of life given to live through and past suffering not create and accept it. Suffering is not to be acceptable, except the form of life which suffers in the Spirit and obedience of faith. But otherwise God cares about the condition of all people, because he’s love.

Anyways, I understand the words “judgment of God,” in a politically divisive time sound like I misunderstand God, theology, politics. Especially when one says it’s a relevant theogical category for our day. And I don’t mean to offend anyone, except into the obedience of Jesus Christ. But no one ever asks for clarity. No one considers despite all that’s right with our systems and worldly orders, suffering abounds. Why would where there is suffering there be Christians who find it acceptable, defensible, and expected? Call it what you want, but God isn’t a capitalist, he doesn’t care about our pet rights and values. He’s not reactionary. And his kingdom comes before ours does.

Is it so bad to point to a higher Lord than the messed up ones we have? Is it bad to remind Christians we are citizens of a higher political

Authority? Have we forgotten Jesus’ message is now and forever a political message?

God is not sitting idol, neutral, or passive to the social world we make, like, and defend. He’s not some magical force counterbalancing our mistakes. Frankly, hell if know the ways of God!? But I do know how to point to God. Jesus doesn’t want our horrible and worldly idols, he wants our commitment to his will.

This is sanctification: that you do the will of Jesus. Against such a form of life Jesus will not be mocked. He will judge. How? IDK. But I do know our world in all its glory is not comparable to the world Jesus is creating, one loved, forgiven, faithful person at a time. More importantly, he is head over his church and this is not the way it should be.

If you don’t see it, fine. Call it what you want but it should be obvious to people who claim to be his have plenty of room for grace and transformation. A good amount of judgment, perhaps correction would be nice, it would be loving. Is God not a father who corrects those he loves? Is Christ not the Lord who judges the powers of this world? Is not the Spirit calling us to be reconciled to the hope we claim to have?

If ones’ hope is in the shallow, then why be surprised when the shallow can’t handle the complexities and simplicities of God’s greater, and deeper offerings? For example, capitalism is a great way to distribute capital through markets. But criticize specific failings of capitalism that are not doing that well, or unethically and people will drop God’s will immediately. Frankly, capital distribution through captialism is not very deep a concept, and greatly deficient at meeting the needs of human relationships for example. Or criticize ones political leader for unethical behavior and people justify all kinds of evil for their political values. But what about the political values God demands? Yes, bad leadership and Christians defending it is the judgment of God whether people like it or not. Yes, if ones economic structures are deficient and they defend it never the less, that’s the judgment of God.

#racismsucks

#racismsucks

Racism in America: a Parable

I know of man who was the passenger in a major car accident. His dying son use to tell me stories of him. But the accident stood out the most to me. And I see a lot from this story of his.

His dad was the passenger of the accident. He didn’t want to be on the road that day, but it was his boss he was with and the flexibility of the job and the boss didn’t feel like it allowed for any decision but his lively hood or, driving with his boss. What he didn’t know was his boss was addicted to powerful pain killers and wasn’t in the right frame of mind during this trip. He sensed something was wrong when his boss refused to put on his seat belt just after oddly demanding to drive the long trip because it was his favorite company vehicle. The passenger nervously put on his seat belt, uncomfortable with his bosses’ reckless decision. The accident looked inevitable in hindsight.

His boss was flung into the air through the windshield and thrown 80 feet, suffering paralyzing injuries from the waste down. The passenger received pretty bad injuries too, but he had no insurance and no education. His boss went on to settle some debts and insurance claims and cashed out on half his assets. Although paralyzed he was able to acquire more than enough money and resources for the care of himself and his family for the rest of his life. The passenger on the other hand, got minimal treatment because he had no insurance, he lost his job because his boss closed the business, suffered from PTSD, and was never the same despite he being- in appearance-all right.

The drivers’ kids went on to go to an Ivy League school, and their dad was able to leave a lofty bit of cash from all his settlement benefits after the crash. The passengers’ kids were a mixed bag. Naturally, they became a product of their environment or their brain power given their background. The decisions they made in life are all wrapped up in their background and it’s saddening from an outside perspective.

One of the passengers’ kids went to a Junior College and eventually became an accountant for a business much like his dad use to work for. He hated that job and died with little to leave his lower middle class family. His other child, because he was raised in a bad neighborhood and had horrible education, ended up making bad decisions and going to prison till he was 50. He now lives his few last years off of social security. He looks like death but is a lively fellow despite his age. He had a daughter before he went to prison but doesn’t know her, and it’s questionable he even remembers her. I’m a social worker for the care home he lives in and have lots of case history files on this old guy. So much he’s told me, and yet so much he clearly doesn’t and can’t seem to keep because of his aged brain. I hope he rests in peace.

His dad was the passenger of the accident. He didn’t want to be on the road that day, but it was his boss he was with and the flexibility of the job and the boss didn’t feel like it allowed for any decision but his lively hood or driving with his boss. What he didn’t know was his boss was addicted to powerful pain killers and wasn’t in the right frame of mind during this trip. He sensed something was wrong when his boss refused to put on his seat belt just after oddly demanding to drive the long trip because it was his favorite company vehicle. The passenger nervously put on his seat belt, uncomfortable with his bosses’ reckless decision. The accident looked inevitable in hindsight.

His boss was flung into the air through the windshield and thrown 80 feet, suffering paralyzing injuries from the waste down. The passenger received pretty bad injuries too, but he had no insurance and no education. His boss went on to settle some debts and insurance claims and cashed out on half his assets. Although paralyzed he was able to acquire more than enough money and resources for the care of himself and his family for the rest of his life. The passenger on the other hand, got minimal treatment because he had no insurance, he lost his job because his boss closed the business, suffered from PTSD, and was never the same despite he being- in appearance-all right.

The drivers’ kids went on to go to an Ivy League school, and their dad was able to leave a lofty bit of cash from all his settlement benefits after the crash. The passengers’ kids were a mixed bag. Naturally, they became a product of their environment or their brain power given their background.

How do we determine the truth of the doctrine of the trinity? Is it by way of praxis or reason? Well, let’s start with the deepest under pinning to our reasoning and see if they help, then we’ll reflect on Christian praxis.

Take properties and propositions as a point of beginning of this reflection, as they seem to be important things to use to determine the truth of the doctrine of the trinity. At least, it would seem to me, upon first glance, that they are essential to pointing to the truth or falsity of something like the doctrine of the trinity. But, it doesn’t take long to question their helpfulness in the unique case of God. Are properties and propositions determinative enough to referee the truth of the doctrine? Hint, they’re not. But let’s see why they are not.

Let’s say properties are themselves contingent entities, which is my intuition, what than is God’s relationship to them? For example, some say God is one, like absolutely numerically one. But how would one determine God is such a set? Well one would have to say properties are NOT contingent entities but necessary so we could point to this set and then draw out a truth inference on such a wild proposition. In other words, God has either the property of being one, rather than a property or set of properties that would signify being more than one. But why would God have such a reducible thing be a part of him? Seems a bit weird. Maybe “property” is the wrong thing to point to here for God’s oneness? Maybe it’s the fact that propositions are necessary entities? And if that’s the case, then maybe the proposition that “God is numerically one,” is real in some sense. But that leads us to ask the question, does that mean it’s true? How would one determine such a statement is true without determining some essential property of God is both real, and necessary for making the proposition true. (Or we’d need some means to tie that essential proposition as not only necessary but somehow tied to the reality of God in some type of symmetrical relationship.) And here in lies the problem with this whole scheme, it’s outlandish! To answer the question this paragraph started with directly, God has no relationship to them other than to determine their being, and allow them a space in our lives to help govern and inspect our thoughts, but they have their limits and appropriation.

God is more basic a reality than properties and propositions, so how could we have either a property to consider or a proposition to determine the statement, “God is numerically one,” that would be sufficient to explain God’s identity as “1?” We can’t because God is a determining God who creates all ex-nihilo. Well, I guess we can if properties are necessary and God has such a property, or if the proposition “God is numerically one,” is necessary, real, and true as a brute fact and aspect of God. But there is no underlying reason that this should be the case other than ones’ intuitional predispositions. And in that case it’s one persons arbitrary determination between another’s. Furthermore, it seems that both entities could and perhaps could probably be contingent on God’s determination of them, beyond the powers of human arbitrary intuitions in such matters. If that is the case (as I’m arguing) one has simply to support some kind of divine conceptualism model or something like that, I think. They may be helpful entities for identifying regular world objects, but they are not sufficient for determining the truth of the statement, “God is numerically 1,” because his determination of their existence would also mean him determining them to be some kind of essential quality of his own, or are in fact what God is made of? That doesn’t make sense? Maybe he’s co-eternal with these entities? That doesn’t make sense either. One should see every logical option is problematic, and giving God the determining power over such entities, and thus making them contingent entities seems a wise reduction so we don’t over conceptualize God with these lesser things; and counting to such a move at least seems more politically correct even if it’s not true. It seems like a wise thing to organize God over all even something as basic as properties and propositions.

But of course it is true: God is over all. As Aquinas, Barth and Przywara show us, God remains transcendent over everything, even the aspects and characteristics that all beings share between themselves. God has no properties in and of himself but by way of analogy through the grace of properties we share with his creation, but we can trust those not to be similarities but are dissimilar to the being of God because he is more basic and transmundane beyond what analogously ties us to his reality.

What these thinkers teach us is that what we find in the actuality of God in our lives is that this analogy of being we share with all beings breaks down because he is determinative of the properties that are his way of life with and for us, he is not reducible to such realities. In Christ, by the Spirit we learn God’s essence is free, and only determined by the brute fact of his freedom to be whom God always is beyond the constraints of time and space. His way of being for us than is not analogous to our being but rather he redeems this discontinuity by assuming it and transforming it into a new creation and revealing the triune act of salvation is consistent with the internal life God is as the only triune one.

Now, in Christ, being is not limited by its properties and proposition and axioms, but is instead given access to transcend what on the plane of creation would be contradictory. Christ walks through walls, appears and disappears, is one with the father, gives his spirit, and is simultaneously the first and the last. It appears the entities we use to delineate identity, which rule our lives, are brought into submission, assumed and transcended by the grace of his freedom to love us with no end. God is love.

The trinity is a doctrine that tries to commit to this hope beyond all hopes. We may analogously share being with all of creation but we long for the day our being is in him and able to participate in a freedom with no bounds except to be determined by his knowledge and grace for us in the radical transformation of Christ’s eternal life.

Why doesn’t the trinity make sense? Because it’s not supposed to. It’s the best way of saying that what we’re trusting in is ultimately beyond common sense, it’s the exception to every rule, because in the grace of the father, by the son, through the spirit the triune God is by brute fact the Lord of every rule, and his rule beyond them is good, just, and eternal (and even triune!).

When we say God is triune we’re trying to say the best way we can, from the grace of revelation, that the way God keeps his oneness together as the ultimate triune transmundane reality is the same way he always was, is, and is to come; and in Christ God has hid us in him in this mystery.

The door to this truth is not through the properties and propositions that govern logic, but through obedience to every praxis of revelation he has given us to live by and in. We are baptized in the triune name, pray in a triune manner, and receive all the sacraments in the same Spirit. Ultimately, the truth of the doctrine is determined by the determination of the Holy Spirit who is the truth.