What is time?

Is this what "time" looks like?

Can anyone actually answer the question of "what IS time?"

Is it, like some imply, a metaphysical reality - a "place" that we are "in" and God is "out" of? Or something else entirely?

Or is it merely just the measurement of events and moments in a way that makes sense to us so that we can plan and do things with some kind of order and structure?

If it's the latter, then time is only an illusion. We aren't "moving" through time, it only appears that way because of how we perceive the world, history and the future.
In reality, we are all just in a fixed point of moments that we comprehend and experience in our minds. Our bodies, our cells, deteriorate and fail and we get "old", yet we haven't really moved anywhere in time, we've just essentially, "broken down".

If time is viewed like this, then God being "in" or "out" of time can make more sense because God doesn't age or brake down, so the illusion continues due to our perspective.

But if it's the former idea, and "time" is a metaphysical place that we reside in, and it is also something that has points we move to and from, and is also, in theory, possible to travel within by jumping to a farther or previous point - then God being "in" or "out" of time makes sense in a literal way, but what does it really mean?
It's this idea that brings about the weird theologies that we can pray today for a past event and God can intervene because he is "out" of time and can go to that point and do something.

Now, does God 'jump' around in this place called "time"? Can he go to the future and see what will happen, or go to the past and intervene in order to affect the future?

Or does he just experience and have what we humans only have too: this moment. To act, to affect the course of our day, lives, futures? Only with more insight, wisdom and foresight than we could possibly know and have?

I propose that time is an illusion, it's not "real", or at the very least then, time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".

The past is just memories, the future only possibilities. All we really have is right now.

Update (27th March): After having this as a discussion on Facebook, I'm adding some further thoughts and/or clarification below to follow on from above.

In the case that Time exists as a fundamental aspect of all matter, then surely the "time" that is real, and the "time" that we often describe and think of, especially in theological matters, are two different things? At least, that's how it appears in conversation with people sometimes.

At the very least then, Time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".

Whenever I speak to people about this or people mention God is "in time" or "out" of time, their understanding almost seems like time looks like the blue tunnel from Doctor Who that we're all just zipping through and God just pops in at the right point and then pops back out to eternity, as though they are two separate places or worlds. This is more the illusion if time that I speak of; the idea of time like a road we travel along, which from the little I do understand about time in a physics sense, this isn't the right way of thinking about it.

I don't deny the fact that things (and us/our consciousness) had a beginning point and will eventually have an end point somewhere - I am really questioning the way we measure those two points. Yes, things have duration, they have some order and structure. This happens, then that, then the other. They may happen quickly or take long. "Time" in this sense it just a name for the measuring of the duration of these events and is generally the type of time of which I was speaking.

This type of time is just an illusion as it is a man-made structure. Things and events happen to us and around us, and we measure how long it takes and call it "time" - but is this real time? Is this the 4th dimension? Is this the time that God is either in or out of - a sort of giant cosmological calendar and clock that ticks forward from Gen 1:1 to the end of days (and also something that God can skip around within to any point he wishes)?

I would say no, but also "yes" to an extent in the sense that he appears so because of our perception of time in this way.

I think the verse that says "a day is like a thousand years" is probably as close as we can get to understanding God's timelessness because it basically tells us that time is completely relative. We can experience this to a degree ourselves when time "drags" when we're bored and it can feel like a hour has passed within only 5 minutes of a clock, or vice versa when we're having fun. Time in the dimensional sense I view as more fluid than a fixed line or speed.

But when I hear people talk or preach on God and time, the dimensional time doesn't seem to be the type they are envisioning, at least, that's not the way it's ever come across to me. It's always felt more like they see time as a big clock or calendar of events that God can sit back from and look at it all in real-time and pick and choose which moment to appear in, either past, present or future (especially when I've heard such teaching like I mentioned before about praying for intervention in past events).

From the discussion I was involved with, someone stated this:

"And I'll go so far as to say, that the Bible implicitly teaches that we are synchronized with the durative experience of God."

I can agree with this. I don't believe that God is, or can be, at any other point in time than which we are currently at right now. He may well be able to know all the events of the general past, plus our personal past experiences with a perfection we could only dream of. I'd say the same for the future possibilities of the world and our lives on a personal level, to the extent that God can orchestrate certain things to happen due to his foreknowledge of possible outcomes etc. by intervening at the right moment - not by "time-travelling" to a future or past point to change something.

Concerning the teachings and views I've heard about God and time, which I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure anyone has ever cited Scripture, except maybe that a "day is like a thousand years" to "prove" that God is outside of time with no other explanation. I know I've not cited anything really for what I'm saying here, but I'm not interested in making a doctrine, just rather pointing out the fallacies of this idea about God jumping around time, and how it isn't consistent with logic or anything we know about metaphysical time as a dimension, as the ideas seem to be based on a linear view that "time" is a big clock/calendar.

It's not always been in sermons per se either, but rather that this seems to be the general thoughts and beliefs about God that I've noticed when people speak or explain certain things that relate to time and God. Somewhere along the way in general church-peoples theology, this idea of a "time-travelling God" has crept in somehow (along with other strange ideas that I disagree with - but that's another topic for another post!) which I think is dangerous to the extent that it creates and leads to other false and flawed doctrines on prayer and intercession. 

Prayer is for now, not later. There's no praying in the present for yesterdays events (unless it's repentance of course), the urgency of our prayers should be because we believe God will hear and make a difference by our petitioning. These time-travelling sci-fi doctrines will make the people of God lazy and lax in their prayers as though they can pray tomorrow for something yesterday and still expect God's intervention.

This isn't a sci-fi film.

Organic Church

I was reading an article on Christianity Today (amongst other blogs) earlier on about the subject of "organic church" and its possible success and probable future failures. Now, I'll admit I didn't (don't?) know a great deal about organic church other than I've heard the name thrown about before. According to the article it includes " at least three ingredients" to be counted as "organic". First being "Frustration with the-church-as-we-know-it" - well I'm sure there's quite a few people who would fall into that category, I know I do! The second ingredient for this recipe for church is "a focus on people (vs. programs)" - now this is another point I reckon a fair few church-goers could relate to. I know we like to say the focus is on people, but there are times that come to mind where it's meant to have been about the people, but the project became the focus. With phrases like "it's our baby" and taking all the ownership of a project too heavily. Not that feeling a sense of ownership is necessarily a bad thing, but maybe when having a project means more to you than the impact it's having on the people it was initially intended for, then maybe it has become a bad thing and the program or project defines you rather than the other way around. We all like control and the feeling of our own little empires, but I believe Jesus was more about giving up those desires to follow the Kingdom and its principles - which is definitely people focussed. If a program isn't reaching people in a positive way, yet we cling onto keeping it alive and running, then we have lost the focus and care more for our own thing than for people.
I'm not saying all churches are like this, far from it, just that we ought to be aware of such things happening. Especially if we are serious about "doing" church right, doing it "the Jesus way" (if there is such a thing), expanding the Kingdom, being people focussed - being organic.
The third ingredient for this church-pie is "mission (vs. institutional maintenance)". Again, another heavily focussed people initiative, which is very similar to the second point, but at the same time much broader. Whereas programs are internal structures for members and maybe external but select groups of people, mission should be global. However local, local church may be, the mission field is still all the places outside of the church doors, and therefore global and not confined to a particular group of people. Yes, I'm aware that mission trips etc are often focussed in a particular area, or people group, but that doesn't take away from the fact that mission is a global endeavour - Jesus' words "to the ends of the earth" should echo through the very core of mission, and indeed, the Church as a whole in terms of where we should be going and aiming for.
Now contrast this with "institutional maintenance" - however you define that, it definitely doesn't sound much like "mission". Should we really be trying to maintain an institution? Is that really what people want in or as a church? But the real question I think is this: do non-church people want an institution?
The Church, the spiritual movement, that Jesus began and that was continued through the apostles should be transformational to people's lives. The love, grace and healing power that comes through Jesus is what should define and change people in the Church and those that come to be a part of it. Institution breeds apathy and comfort that's easy. A place that we can proclaim to be a part of and attend each week, and maybe on a Tuesday and Thursday as well for Bible study and prayer from 7.30 until 9.30pm. If we're honest with ourselves, after reading the Gospels and Acts and then looking at our own church, and maybe the Church as a whole (at least in the Western world), does it match up, even slightly? Is what we have really what we want for Church?

I haven't read lots on the subject of organic church, but from my brief reading today of websites and blogs from church leaders who advocate this style of doing church, but what I've wrote here is what I can gather organic church to, at least in a small part, be like or aiming to have these qualities.

And this is the kind of church I'd like to be a part of.

Hell and all that damnable stuff

So on light of all the Rob Bell controversy, it resparked my desire to look into the traditional doctrine of hell. My thoughts on it all began long ago before I went to study theology about 5 or so years ago now. A good close friend of mine was struggling in her faith over the traditional hell concept and found it hard to rectify or justify in her mind. It was the usual question of "how can a loving God burn people forever?" infinite punishment for finite crimes. I had thought about it before then but never in any great depth as I just didn't know where to begin, being a fairly new Christian at the time. I did my best to try work out an answer with my friend as we talked over Scripture, Jesus and God's nature but ultimately she lost her faith (though what her spiritual state of mind is now, I don't know). I don't know for certain if this was the cause or just one of the main deciding factors, but regardless, it damaged her once very passionate faith in God. And it was sad, I was quite upset and mainly at my own failings in being able to help more despite not knowing much in detail about the faith back then.
Nevertheless, this has always stuck with me all these years. I've never stopped thinking about the concept of hell and it implications and whether it really is as clear cut in the bible. I wasn't sure but in the times where i didn't understand fully, I just left it to God and decided that I'm sure he knows what he is doing with people once they passed on.
Then I went to Mattersey Hall and studied theology and biblical studies for 3 years. To be honest this didn't help much with the problem of hell. I studied the afterlife in the Old Testament as part of one of my courses and that just added to confusion. The afterlife is a vert strange concept in the OT. But I never got to study the New Testament concept of hell.
Now I'm taking the opportunity to really study it all properly and find what the Scriptures do teach rather than me just thinking of all the people who have said "well the bible says ... Doesn't it?" and never really being sure of what it really DOES say. I mean, obviously I known of the places where Jesus does speak of the afterlife but what I'm doing now is looking at everything as a whole rather than isolated verses and incidents.
A few months ago I had begun to think about it all again properly and have some discussions with friends on the subject but that's about as far as it went. Now all this Rob Bell stuff has made me begin to question it all again and now I've decided to actually write down my research and really look into the history and context of first century beliefs, rabbinic traditions, the apostolic and early church fathers writings and anything else that seems relevant, all to see what I can find and to see where our doctrine has come from and how it got to be what it is today.

And so far what I'm finding is surprising me! I'm coming from the approach that the earlier beliefs in the Church were possibly closer to the original Christians views. The early church seemed to have much different views on hell than we do now, possible more in line with later Jewish rabbinic traditions from the Mishnah etc and almost closer to Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory (but not quite) and maybe not as eternal.

Now, I haven't completed my research yet so there is still more to discover. I'm not set either way yet on what I think about hell, so I'm open to discover and learn whatever I can. If I come out believing the traditional view, then so be it, at least I've studied it for myself to feel confident and what I believe and have some conviction about it. But should I come out with a view that's not the "orthodox" in today's churches, and at the risk of being branded a heretic, well I'm happy with that too.

I'll write more about it once I've researched more to talk about properly.

The law is an ass

Today I read some articles on a court case against a Christian foster couple. They were apparently banned from fostering because if their beliefs against advocating homosexuality, despite them saying they would still look after and care for someone who was gay.
Now as annoying as this kind of "new" persecution against Christians can be, it's not really that which annoys me most. What gets me is that in one article it was quoted as saying that matters of sexual orientation take precedence over matters of conscience on the basis of "equality".
When.. Or rather, how, did the law end up like this? How has it become that having a clear conscience of your actions is second to whether you like men or women? I understand there are lots of issues with homosexuality and prejudices and hate towards people, but I still can't see how defending who people want to be with has become more important than some form of justice.
Plus, it's meant to be about being equal etc - well how is it equal to those with differing moral standards? This is why I think human rights and equality can't always work together; one way or the other something has got to give in order to let the other "right" be exercised. And once it does, the balance is tipped and it's not so equal anymore. But with homosexual rights being pushed so much by the govt., it doesn't matter who else loses their right to their freedom of expression and life or morals, as long as gay people don't feel marginalised.

Sometimes I think the law cares more about protecting peoples feelings than anything else these days...

Article Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html

Controversy: Rob Bell's "Love Wins"

So the other night I decided to try get into this whole twitter thing. Yes, I know it's been around forever now but I never really "got it" and just stuck with Facebook. So I go on twitter and discover the trending topics and see a familiar name at the top of the list: Rob Bell.
Now I do like Rob Bell and his nooma series etc so I decided to check it out and found what I wish I didn't.. Hate. Lots and lots of hating going on from so-called christians about Rob Bell and his new unreleased book about heaven and hell called: "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".
The marketing makes it sound sensational and a very brief video from Rob Bell poses some provoking questions but nothing says what he actually thinks or believes, yet everyone on the twittersphere is yelling condemnation and heresy!!
It's no wonder the world sees the Church in a bad light.

Here's the article and video that has been retweeted a bajillion times already: http://ow.ly/445Q5