A Minimal Introduction to Theological Minimalism

 

Here is a minimal introduction to something that continues to grow in me.

Leadership and Theological Minimalism

(Cancun - 2/25/19)

Pastors should do two things.

First, they should focus on their own ongoing connectedness to Jesus. They should live the abiding life.

Second, they should teach their people how to do this, how to be branches living in connection with Jesus, the Vine.

As you and your people do this, discernment will come. Your lives will bear much fruit.

That's it. No more steps. No "50 rules of leadership" to follow. No strategizing, just discerning.

Just...  follow... the Holy Spirit. Put all your theological eggs into this basket.

This is "The Lord is my shepherd." This is "He leadeth me."

This is minimalist leadership, minimalist theology. 

I pay a monthly fee to be able to access and listen to every music cd that exists. I listen to multiple genres of music. One of them is minimalism. I listen to Steve Reich and Philip Glass and Brian Eno and their like.

I like minimalist repetition. I like the breathing room it gives me. Mostly, I do not care for over-production. I have a musical suspicion of over-production, and tend to see it as a cover-up for poor musicianship.

The apostle Paul was a minimalist. As Paul traveled from church to church across the first-century Roman Empire, he was not dragging a production team with him. In First  Corinthians 2:1-5 Paul says he did not come to visit the Jesus-followers in Corinth with fog machines, black lights, powerful preaching, great intellectual arguments, stacks of Marshall amps, perfectly timed studio production, quality music, a fair trade coffee bar, tight jeans, stage lighting, creative videos, clocks, and full color glossy programs.

Instead, Paul came minimally, so that God might be worshiped maximally. He writes:

When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.² For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. ³ I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. ⁴ My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, ⁵ so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.


Paul came with two things:

1. Proclamation
2. Demonstration

Paul showed up with 1) his testimony about God; and 2) a demonstration of the Spirit's power. Nothing else. Because anything more would subtract. Because crowd-pleasing techniques would compete with Christ and him crucified. People might rest their faith on the coffee bar and the jeans and the fog and the volume rather than God's power.

In a Presence-Driven Church there is no need to "put on our best" for the visitors, because God always brings his best whenever two or more are gathered. If God leads you to bring out the special drama, or the kids choir, or the pancake breakfast, then do it out of obedience. Otherwise, God's earth-shattering presence will be more than enough.

Do church as usual. Worship, preach, and pray. Recently at Redeemer I preached about knowing Christ and the power of his resurrection. We prayed for sick people who were there. As far as I can tell, the man who came with the hip out of his socket, which caused him a lot of pain, experienced a healing. As someone told me afterward, "Did you see the smile on his face as the pain had left him? Did you see him walking, carrying his cane but not using it?"

Presence-driven churches are minimalist in these ways:

• They worship
• They experience God
• The gifts of the Spirit are manifested
• God demonstrates his power
• Everyone gets to participate
• Every Sunday is Easter

Beyond that, what more could there be?

***
I develop Theological Minimalism in my two books:

Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God

Leading the Presence-Driven Church

***

Jesus Was a Minimalist

(Wildflowers in our yard)

Christianity. It's not complicated. It was never meant to be.

It is deep. But "deep" is not the same as "complicated."

Jesus spoke simply and spoke deep. He is going after the human heart. Change the human heart, and behavioral change will follow. Jesus reduced all moral commands to one moral command.

Jesus was a theological minimalist. 

So was the apostle Paul.

For Paul, there was only one thing to know: Christ crucified and the power of the resurrection. Minimalist Theology is "One-Thing Theology." (1 Corinthians 2:2) Resolve to know nothing but this.

Jesus' theological minimalism is seen in his simple (not simplistic) counsel for us to become like branches, connected to him who is like a Vine. Everything follows from this. 

Do I like complexity? My PhD (Northwestern University, 1986) is in Philosophical Theology. That should say it all. My studies have taught me many things, one of which is: If there is a God who created us and loves us as his children, and who desires to communicate to us, all of us, then it has to be simple.

I think Karl Barth understood this. In seminary I took a class on Barth's theology. We were assigned portions of Barth's Church Dogmatics to read. One of the assignments was to read a twenty-page footnote. The footnote was in a font half the size of the main text. I see Barth's footnotes like nodules on a vein of a leaf attached to a twig connected to a branch attached to a limb that abides in the trunk whose roots go deep into the earth. For Barth the whole point was really about the trunk and the roots, which were "Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so."

It all comes down to Jesus, and his death and resurrection, which are demonstrations of his love. 

This is not complicated. It is simple. It is not simplistic. It is deep. "Jesus loves us" is the abundant, lavish, fruit-bearing, fertile Minimum. It is the Trunk, in which we as branches are called to abide. From this, all blessings flow.

***

The Apostle Paul was a Minimalist

(World Trade Center 1, NYC)

This is from my book Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

***
The apostle Paul was a minimalist. As he traveled from church to church, across the first-century Roman Empire, he did not drag a production team with him. In 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, we see that Paul did not visit the Jesus-followers in Corinth with fog machines, black lights, powerful preaching, great intellectual arguments, stacks of Marshall amps, perfectly timed studio production quality music, a fair-trade coffee bar, tight jeans, stage lighting, creative videos, click tracks, and full color glossy programs. Instead, Paul came minimally, so that God might be worshiped maximally. He writes: 

When I came to you, 

I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom 

as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you 

except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 

I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 

My message and my preaching were not with 

wise and persuasive words, 

but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 

so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, 

but on God’s power. 

Paul arrived with two things: 
1. Proclamation 
2. Demonstration 

Paul shared his testimony about God, and gave a demonstration of the Spirit’s power. Nothing else. No crowd-pleasing techniques would be allowed to compete with Christ, and him crucified. Because if it turned into a production, people might rest their faith on the coffee, the jeans, and the fog, rather than on God’s power.

***

Two-Step Leadership (The Presence-Driven Church)

(I gave these flowers to Linda on Mother's Day.)

The Presence-Driven Leader does not know where they are going. For the most part. This is because they are being led, by God's Spirit.

The Presence-Driven Leader has a long-term strategy, for themselves and for their people. It is simple: abide in Christ. Dwell in God's presence. Resolve to know only one thing: Christ, and him crucified.

Out of the abiding relationship comes The Call. This is a call to follow. The Presence-Driven Leader is the consummate follower.

Presence-Driven Leadership is Two-Step Leadership.

• Step 1 is: Abide in Jesus.
• Step 2 is: follow Jesus.

Then, teach your people to do the same.

That's it. (This is Theological Minimalism.)

In Hebrews 11:8 we read that Abraham went out, not knowing where he was going. Oswald Chambers comments:

"Have you ever “gone out” in this way? If so, there is no logical answer possible when anyone asks you what you are doing. One of the most difficult questions to answer in Christian work is, “What do you expect to do?” You don’t know what you are going to do. The only thing you know is that God knows what He is doing." (Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest)

Linda and I had never been to Israel. One day the opportunity was provided, as a gift. When we arrived we immediately got on a bus, and headed north from Tel Aviv to Mount Carmel. We had an excellent tour guide in the great Bible scholar Hal Ronning. Hal knew the land, we did not. Hal led us. We followed, willingly.

Presence-Driven Leaders lead by following. And teach their flock to do the same. This is more like adventure, a redemptive expedition, a clash of kingdom civilizations, led by the One who holds the future in his hands.


***

My leadership book is: 

Leading the Presence-Driven Church.

Inference to the Best Explanation & the Fine-Tuning Argument

Bangkok

In my Logic class I taught the form of reasoning known as "inference to the best explanation." I used our textbook (Vaughn), then give the Fine-Tuning Argument for God's Existence as an example of using inference to the best explanation in a philosophical context.

Here's the notes I gave the students. None of them have heard something like this, so went slow and did my best to explain.

***
The Fine-tuning argument for God’s existence reasons for God’s existence using “inference to the best explanation.” (IBE)


In IBE “we reason from premises about a state of affairs to an explanation for that state of affairs.” (Vaughn, The Power of Critical Thinking, 344)

The premises, in IBE, are statements about observations or evidence to be explained.

An explanation is a claim about why the state of affairs is the way it is.

So, given some state of affairs, what is the best explanation for the existence or nature of that state of affairs? “The best explanation is the one most likely to be true, even though there's no guarantee of its truth like there is in a deductive argument.” (Ib.)

IBE has this pattern:
1. Phenomenon Q.
2. E provides the best explanation for Q.
3. Therefore, it is probable that E is true.

THE FINE TUNING ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE

Imagine we finally arrive on Mars, and find a clear domed structure containing plant and animal life. Suppose the environment inside this biosphere is perfect for life. The temperature is 80 degrees F; the relative humidity is 50%. The biosphere has an oxygen-recycling system and a system for the production of food and water.

Call this state of affairs Phenomenon Q. What is the best explanation of its existence? Consider these two alternative explanations:

a. The biosphere came about as a result of natural processes alone.
b. The biosphere was made by an intelligent designer.

Clearly, using IBE, a is so unlikely and improbable that we would not consider it. Alternative explanation b, if true, makes Phenomenon Q unsurprising.

This example forms an analogy to our universe. Our universe is “just right” for life to exist. “It is, in effect, a biosphere with an environment fine-tuned to render life possible.” (Stairs and Bernard, A Thinker’s Guide to the Philosophy of Religion, 40) Phenomenon Q is: Our universe is fine-tuned to render life possible. The fine-tuning argument, using IBE, then looks like this:

1. Our universe is fine-tuned to render life possible.
2. The two explanations for this fine-tuning are:
a. Atheism: The fine-tuning came about by natural processes alone (and therefore by chance or coincidence).
b. Theism: an intelligent designer fine-tuned our universe for life.
3. If explanation a is true then our fine-tuned universe seems wildly improbable.
4. If explanation b is true then our fine-tuned universe is not improbable.
5. Therefore theism is probably true.

Crucial to this argument is the truth of premise 1. (P1) P1 is affirmed by atheists and theists alike. For example, atheists Hawking and Mlodinow, in their book The Grand Design say: “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is not easily explained, and raises the natural question of why it is that way.” (Hawking and Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 162)

Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson has said: “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such accidents, water could not exist as liquid, chains of carbon atoms could not form complex organic molecules, and hydrogen atoms could not form breakable bridges between molecules.” In short, life as we know it would be impossible. (Quoted in Stairs and Bernard, 41)

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies claims that, with regard to the structure of the universe, “the impression of design is overwhelming.” (In Ib.)

There are many physical examples of the fine-tuning, to include:

1. The strength, or value, of gravity must be just right. If the gravitational constant were a little weaker, all stars would have been blue giants, which burn too briefly for life to develop. If the gravitational constant were slightly stronger, land-based animals the size of humans would be crushed. If it were even greater, all stars would have been red dwarfs, which are too cold to support life-bearing planets.
2. The strong nuclear force must be just right. Just a 1% increase would result in almost all carbon being burned into oxygen. A 2% increase would preclude proton formation from quarks, preventing the existence of atoms.
3. By some counts there are over 100 physical, fine-tuned constants. (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence,” 4.1 – “Cosmic Fine-tuning.”)
4. Hawking and Mlodinow write: “Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that of they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life.” (op. cit., 160)
5. Hawking and Mlodinow, once more: “Were it not for a series of startling coincidences, in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. The most impressive fine-tuning coincidence involves the so-called cosmological constant in Einstein’s equations of general relativity.” (Ib., 161)

So, to repeat, Phenomenon Q is: our universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of life.

On atheism this state of affairs is wildly improbable, and would be like explaining our Martian biosphere as having naturally formed by chance.

On theism this state of affairs is very probable, and would be like explaining the Martian biosphere by postulating an intelligent designer.

Our existence is highly improbable on the atheistic hypothesis, but not improbable on theism.

Another way of putting this is:
1. The existence of the fine-tuning is a surprising state of affairs.
2. But if theism is true, the existence of this state of affairs is not surprising.
3. Therefore, there is reason to suspect that theism is true. (See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, op. cit.)

For these reasons I find it rational to believe in God. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, in regard to this: “Barring any viable alternative, cosmic fine-tuning via deliberate agency seems to many to constitute a live candidate for a design argument.” (op. cit.)

(Note: for objections to the fine-tuning argument Stairs and Bernard [op. cit.] is good.)

The Presence of God Is Disconnected from Performance

 

                                                        (Cancun)

Do not mistake the presence of God for performance.

It has nothing to do with entertainment.

Instead of an audience voting thumbs up or thumbs down on what they thought of the church “service,” faces and thumbs are on the ground before our holy God.

Our people don’t need great sermons or great music; they need a great God. Thinking and learning about God is vital, but the idea all along has been “Emmanuel,” God with us.

A. W. Tozer expresses this when he asserts: “The presence of God is more important than the program.” - A. W. Tozer

As Leonard Ravenhill said, “You can have all of your doctrines right—yet still not have the presence of God.”

It’s true that God’s presence can be mediated through preaching and worship. But, as people leave the sanctuary on a Sunday morning, we know the real thing has happened if they say, not, “What great preaching,” and not, “What an awesome worship band,” but rather, “What a great God!”

James McDonald writes: “God’s provision for all that we need is His manifest presence with us. God doesn’t dispense strength, wisdom, or comfort like a druggist fills a prescription; He promises us Himself— His manifest presence with us, as all that we will ever need— as enough! We must be terrified at the thought of a single step without it, without the Lord.”

Morality Is Non-progressive

 

 

(Mushroom on my lawn)

In my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity I burst the progressivist euphoria bubble by showing that, even as there is progress of a sort in science, the human race is collectively stunted when it comes to morality.

An example of non-progressivist morality is this article in the Wall Street Journal. (10/18/23)

In "Dostoevsky Knew: It Can Happen Here," Northwestern University professor Gary Saul Morson utilizes Dostoevsky and Alexander Solzhenitsyn to show that the heinous atrocities of Hamas and Isis are often perpetrated by intellectual sophisticates and elites. Theirs is a cautionary tale, telling us the same can happen today.

All that's needed are ideologues. Quoting Dostoevsky, 

“Ideology—that is what gives evil-doing its long-sought justification and gives the evil-doer the necessary steadfastness and determination . . . so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but receive praise and honors.”

Checkmated by My Five-Year-Old Grandson

 

(Levi, preschool grad)

Last night Linda and I had our two grandchildren for an overnight.

Harper is three. Levi is five.

As we put them to bed, Levi asked me a question. "Grandpa, does Jesus sleep?"

"Yes, Levi. Jesus sleeps." (I did not see this as heretical, since I was thinking of earthly Jesus, who once was sleeping in a boat. Historical Jesus sleeps. Resurrected Jesus-at-the-Father's-right-hand does not.)

"Grandpa, does God sleep?"

"No, Levi. God does not sleep." (I am unprepared to answer why God does not sleep, in words a five-year-old can understand.)

"Grandpa, is Jesus God?"

"Yes, Levi, Jesus is God." 

Checkmate? I did not say, "I know where you are going with this, Levi."

Universalism - The Opiate of the Theologians

 

                                                            (Sterling State Park, Monroe)

Years ago, when I was teaching as an adjunct professor at Palmer Theological Seminary, I was talking with Craig Keener (Palmer, at the time) in his office. I asked him, what are books you recommend on the subject of Christology? He went to a bookshelf and pulled out Michael McClymond's Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth. Craig said, "This is very good."

So, I bought another book. And have come to value McClymond as an excellent scholar.

His recent book is The Devil's Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism. Here's a synopsis.

"Will all evil finally turn to good, or does some evil remain stubbornly opposed to God and God's goodness? Will even the devil be redeemed? Addressing a theological issue of perennial interest, this comprehensive book (in two volumes) surveys the history of Christian universalism from the second to the twenty-first century and offers an interpretation of how and why universalist belief arose. The author explores what the church has taught about universal salvation and hell and critiques universalism from a biblical, philosophical, and theological standpoint. He shows that the effort to extend grace to everyone undermines the principle of grace for anyone."

And, from the book...

"Will all people eventually be saved? Will all evil finally turn to good, or does some evil remain fully and stubbornly opposed to God and God's goodness? Will even the devil be redeemed?

The question of the devil's final salvation has been continuously debated since the time of Origen. This comprehensive book surveys the history of Christian universalism from the second to the twenty-first century and offers an interpretation of how and why universalist belief arose. Michael McClymond explores what the church has taught about universal salvation and hell and offers a critique of universalism from a biblical, philosophical, and theological standpoint. He shows that the effort to extend grace to everyone undermines the principle of grace for anyone."

Wow. And... wow, $58. Some day, hopefully, in the near future.

Craig Keener reviews the book and writes:

"A timely and fascinating book on a crucial topic that probably only an omnicompetent historical theologian like Michael McClymond could write. McClymond shows that while the notion of universal salvation has attractive features, it does not have a very encouraging spiritual or theological track record in the history of the church."

Amos Yong (Fuller Theo. Sem.) writes,

"Erudite! Encyclopedic! Exhaustive! A universal discussion that leaves no stone unturned, no stream uncharted, and no argument untouched. Even as McClymond is unflinching in defending the historic orthodox consensus against the idea of universal salvation, his is a generous orthodoxy, the persuasiveness of which undoubtedly rests at least in part on his having taken time to listen to marginal voices and seriously grapple with the broadest extent of their claims within local and even global contexts. It will be a long time before universalist theologians will be able to make a compelling case that is as comprehensive as that of The Devil's Redemption."

CT interviews McClymond here - "How Universalism, 'the Opiate of the Theologians," Went Mainstream."

Five Days with Psalm 23

 

This morning at Redeemer I preached on Hebrews 4:11-13 - "The Bible Is a Two Edged Sword." (You can listen HERE.)

I spoke on the Word of God being living and active. It gets inside a person. It goes deep in the heart. (See the slides HERE.)

I shared how I have used Psalm 23 in my seminary classes, at retreats and conferences, in churches, etc. 

I felt led to invite our people to do Five Days with Psalm 23. This Monday (June 2) through Friday (June 6). One-half hour each of the five days.

Use this format below. 

If any of you feel led to share with me what God says to you during these times, send an email. johnpiippo@msn.com

Blessings!

PJ

30 MINUTES with Psalm 23 and God

-          John Piippo, PhD

 

Go alone to a quiet place, where there are few distractions, and meet with God. .

Turn your cell phone off.

When you find your quiet place stay there for 30 minutes.

When God speaks to you about you, write it down. (A spiritual journal is a record of God’s voice and activity in your life.)

Use Psalm 23 for your meditation. Biblically, to meditate is to ponder something. Meditation is repetitive.

If your mind wanders, write down where it wanders to. It always wanders to some kind of burden.

 

PSALM 23

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
² He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside still waters.
³ He restores my soul;
He leads me in paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.

⁴ Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil;
For You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.

⁵ You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You anoint my head with oil, My cup overflows.
⁶ Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
All the days of my life;
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

The Bible Is a Double-edged Sword (sermon slides)

 

I gave this message today at Redeemer.

You can listen to it here.

Here are the sermon slides.

DECLARATIONS OF HOPE

On Sunday mornings we call the kids to come forward, and sit on the steps facing the congregation. We lay hands on their heads and  pray God's blessings over them.

On one of these mornings I asked the kids to share what God has been doing in them. One of our little boys spoke into the microphone and said, "This is the greatest day of my life!"

This child's statement stuck with me. It reminded me of a card I sometimes carry with me. The words apply to you, too. It is no accident that you are alive, in this time, in this place, "for such a time as this."

This truth brings great hope.

***

DECLARATIONS of HOPE (adapted from Steve Backlund)

• Today is the day that God is going to show off His favor on me.
• I speak to any worry, stress, or anxiety, and I say you cannot stay. Peace reigns in this temple.
• There is nothing I am facing that Scripture cannot speak into.
• I am not who my past experience says I am; I am who God says I am.
• Today is the day of my breakthrough — I am free!
• Because I trust in God, I am kept in perfect peace.
• My hope, my finances, my strategies, and my partnerships with others are causing great positive change in lives and nations.
• Tomorrow is going to be one of the best days of my life.
• I will wake up with strong faith, strong love, and strong hope in my heart.
• My past prayers will be working mightily today in every situation that concerns me.
• As I attach faith to what I am hearing, He will do far more than I could ever hope or imagine.

Physics and the Philosophy of Time

 

(I have aged. Linda has not.)

(I'm re-posting this for a friend.)

I am seventy-six years old. Where has the time gone!? And what, anyway, is "time?" 

Here are some thoughts. For more you might read Now: The Physics of Time, by Berkeley physicist Richard Muller, and Why Time Flies: A Mostly Scientific Investigation, by Alan Burdick. Especially helpful is God and Time: Four Views. 

Scientific American as published several essays on the nature of time -  A Question of Time: The Ultimate Paradox. One of my favorite physicists, Paul Davies, has an essay called "That Mysterious Flow." Here are some of his thoughts on time.

"Nothing in known physics corresponds to the passage of time. Indeed, physicists insist that time doesn’t flow at all; it merely is."

Our commonsense view is that time is "slipping away." It feels like there is a "flow" to time. However, Einstein said, “The past, present and future are only illusions, even if stubborn ones.”

Davies writes: "Physicists prefer to think of time as laid out in its entirety— a timescape, analogous to a landscape— with all past and future events located there together. It is a notion sometimes referred to as block time. Completely absent from this description of nature is anything that singles out a privileged, special moment as the present or any process that would systematically turn future events into present, then past, events. In short, the time of the physicist does not pass or flow."

Time is just as real as space, but "the flow of time" is unreal. 

Time is unidirectional. For example, an egg dropped on the floor will break into pieces. But the reverse process - a broken egg spontaneously assembling itself into an intact egg - is never witnessed. "Nature abounds with irreversible processes." But there is no "arrow of time." Yes, time is unidirectional, but...

..."this does not imply, however, that the arrow is moving toward the future, any more than a compass needle pointing north indicates that the compass is traveling north. Both arrows symbolize an asymmetry, not a movement. The arrow of time denotes an asymmetry of the world in time, not an asymmetry or flux of time. The labels “past” and “future” may legitimately be applied to temporal directions, just as “up” and “down” may be applied to spatial directions, but talk of the past or the future is as meaningless as referring to the up or the down."

Remember - this is physics. We may feel some flow of time, but in reality time is not something that moves or flows. 

Note this: We do not really observe the passage of time. "What we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past, rather than the future, is an observation not of the passage of time but of the asymmetry of time." Think of individual movie frames. As we watch a movie we experience individual states of affairs that are different from previously experienced states of affairs. That's all.

Think again of the "broken egg" example. Imagine a movie of the egg being dropped on the floor and breaking. Then imagine the film sequence being run backwards. We would see that the backwards sequence was unreal, even though there would seem to be a "flow" to the backwards series. This shows the illusion of the "flow of time." Yes, time is asymmetrical, but "time’s asymmetry is actually a property of states of the world, not a property of time as such."

When I remember the past and the many birthdays I have already celebrated, but do not remember the future birthdays that (hopefully) are forthcoming, this is "an observation not of the passage of time but of the asymmetry of time." Note: only conscious observers register the "flow of time." "Therefore, it appears that the flow of time is subjective, not objective."

I think the biblical distinction between chronos and kairos may help us here. Chronos is "clock time," and the experience of a flow of time. But kairos is more like a discrete, individual frame in a movie isolated from all other events. Kairos is the "right time," or the "appointed time." 

All of this is good news for me. Time has really not "passed me by." Time is not "slippin', slippin', slippin'... into the future."  

Davies writes: 

"What if science were able to explain away the flow of time? Perhaps we would no longer fret about the future or grieve for the past. Worries about death might become as irrelevant as worries about birth. Expectation and nostalgia might cease to be part of human vocabulary. Above all, the sense of urgency that attaches to so much of human activity might evaporate."


*** 
Here's a review of some philosophical ideas about time. (Special thanks to Manuel Velazquez's excellent Philosophy: A Text With Readings, 11th edition)

PLATO (Ancient Greek philosopher, 429-347 BCE)

• "Time" exists independently of events that occur in time.
• "Time is like an empty container into which things and events may be placed; but it is a container that exists independently of what (if anything) is placed in it." (SEP) 

ARISTOTLE (Ancient greek philosopher, 384-322 BCE)

• Time does not exist independently, contra Plato, of the events that occur in time.
• This view is called "Reductionism with Respect to Time."
• This means that "all talk that appears to be about time can somehow be reduced to talk about temporal relations among things and events." (SEP)
• The idea of a period of time without change is seen as incoherent.
• Thus "time" cannot exist independently of what is placed in it. Apart from events, no time exists.

AUGUSTINE (Augustine of Hippo, 354-430)

• Time, in a sense, does not exist.
• The past no longer exists.
• The future does not yet exist.
• Only the present moment is real.
• But the present moment has, in itself, neither a past nor a future.
• The present moment is timeless.
• "Time," from God's perspective, is different from our perspective.
• God is outside of time.
• Time is like a line of events stretched out before God.
• Every moment - past, present, and future - lies on this line. Everything on the "line of time" is fixed. This is God's perspective. (Cmp. C.S. Lewis who, in Mere Christianity, employed Augustine's view of time.)

McTAGGERT (British philosopher M.E. McTaggert, 1886-1925)

• Compare McTaggert to Davies, who cites McTaggert in his essay.
• The flow of time as we experience it is unreal.
• "Time" is a fixed series of moments, each moment either "before" or "after" the other moments. This is "objective time."
• We can also think of "time" as a sequence of flowing moments. Each moment changes or flows from "future" to "present" to "past." This is "subjective time."
• "Past," "present," and "future" are incompatible with each other. Therefore it is impossible for the same thing (viz., the same "moment") to be simultaneously future, present, and past.
• But if time did "flow," then every moment would have to be future, and then present, and then past.
• So the idea of subjective time as a sequence of flowing moments is unreal.
• Subjective time is unreal. Our experience of time as "passing" is an illusion.
• Following this McTaggert said, "I believe that nothing that exists can be temporal, and that therefore time [subjective] is unreal." (The Nature of Existence)
• "Time" is an unchanging, fixed series of events frozen onto the "line of time" that makes up the series. But this is not really time, because there is no flow or change here. And, since subjective time is unreal, time cannot be real.

KANT (German philosopher Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804)

• Time - whether subjective or objective - is simply a construct of the human mind.
• "Time" and "space" are categories of the mind that the mind uses to organize the flow of changing sensations.
• Kant said, "Time is therefore given a priori." "Time" as a mental category is "prior to experience" and organizes or categorizes experience.
• Time is not real but is a mental construct.

HUSSERL (German phenomenological philosopher, 1859-1938)

• See Husserl's The Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness.
• Husserl is in the Kantian stream of thinking. He is not interested in the metaphysical status of time, but time as transcendental, as lying at the base of consciousness, and giving shape to our experience. 
• Husserl "considers the present, past, and future as modes of appearing or modes by which we experience things and events as now, no longer (past) or not yet (future)." (IEP)

BERGSON (French philosopher Henri Bergson, 1859-1941)

• "Objective time," the "time" of the scientist, is just a conceptual abstraction, a construct of the mind.
• The image of time as a line is simply an image; the concept of objective time is only a concept. Neither images nor concepts can get at the reality.
• Only what we directly experience is real; viz., what we "intuit."
• We directly experience or intuit the flow of time. Bergson says we have the "intuition of duration."
• Real time is subjective time. This is the "flow of time" that I experience moving from future, through present, and into the past.
• Objective time is an intellectual reconstruction and thus is an illusion. "Time" does not actually exist "out there" in the world (it's not a reality transcendent to human subjectivity).

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG (Christian theist, 1947 - present)

• Apart from events time does not exist.
• Prior to creation time did not exist.
• A personal God need not experience a temporal succession of mental events. "God could know the content of all knowledge - past, present, and future - in a simultaneous and eternal intuition." (See Craig, "God, Time, and Eternity")
• "The proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation."
• There are no "events" prior to creation. Therefore, since God exists prior to creation and is an "eventless" being, "time" does not exist prior to creation. At the creation of the universe time begins. On a relational view of time God now relates to the universe, "and God subjects himself to time by being related to changing things."

STEPHEN HAWKING (Physicist, author of A Brief History of Time, 1942-present)

• Time is understood in relation to events. Hawking writes: 
• 
  
• "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them... [T]he universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time would have been a singularity at which the laws of physics would have broken down." (See here) 

(For diagram + explanation, see here.)

FOR MORE READING: God and Time: Four Views. 

And: W.L. Craig, "God, Time, and Eternity"

***


In my book Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God I write about hearing and discerning the voice of God and not much about time. But subjectively praying brings us into kairos moments, felt timeless experiences that are nondirectional because one's heart has arrived in the presence of God.