Marriage as Between a Man and a Woman - Some Resources

 

                                                           (Leland, Michigan)

(I am re-posting this for a friend.)

Here are some blog posts I have written that relate to marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

The Church and Same-Sex Relationships: Changing your mind on one thing does not justify changing your mind on anything.

Addressing Same-Sex Marriage

For Jesus-Followers: How to Discuss Same-Sex Unions

Same-Sex Marriage is Not About "Marriage Equality," But About the Definition of 'Marriage'

Same-Sex Marriage Is Not About "Rights"

The Bible and Homosexuality - What Do We Do?

How to Have a Civil Discussion on Gay Marriage

What Do We Do When Loving God Conflicts with Loving Our Neighbor?

Gay Marriage and Gluttony

(More On) N T Wright on Gay Marriage

David Gushee's Failed Attempt to Affirm Same-Sex Marriage

David Gushee's "Embarrassingly Bad Exegesis"

My Views of Marriage Remain Unaffected by Ad Populum Reasoning

A Change of Affection: A Gay Man's Incredible Story of Redemption

Welcoming and Sometimes Disaffirming

To Disagree Is Not to Hate

To Love Is Not to Agree

A Letter to Christians About Gentleness and Respect

Craig Keener on Homosexuality and the Bible

The Bible Is a Heterosexual Book

"Arsenokoitais" (ἀρσενοκοίταις) in 1 Timothy 1:10 (et. al.)

Homosexuality: What About Shellfish? Or Wearing Garments with Two Kinds of Fabrics?

Should We Worry About the Sexual Behavior of Others?

***

I am against the legalization of same-sex marriage for two reasons, one religious, the other non-religious (sociological and legal).

As regards the religious reason, I do not expect non-religious people to agree with me. Of course not. Just as I don't turn to their irreligious worldview to make sense of anything, neither do I expect them to partner with me. That's the way worldviews work. Everyone has one. They do not, at significant points, overlap.

If the non-religious person objects to my religious views, they question my worldview, not my reasoning. The irreligious person is a non-player in the intra-religious and intra-Christian dialogue.

Regarding non-religious reasons, here is where the irreligious and religious can join in principled (we would hope) dialogue, rather than ad hominem stereotyping (sadly, some on both sides do this.). We can dialogue without name-calling, right?

These are a few of the resources I have read.

The Intra-Worldview Discussion

Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, by Dan O. Via and Robert Gagnon

The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, by Robert Gagnon. This is probably the book to read, within this worldview and from this perspective.. 

Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, by Wesley Hill.

God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships, by Matthew Vines.

Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding with Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality, by Michael Brown.

See my friend Phillip Lee's website His Way Out Ministries. 

Legal and Philosophical Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage

Why Marriage Matters, Third Edition: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences, by Bradford Wilcox. 

Debating Same-Sex Marriage, by John Corvino and Maggie Gallagher.

The Meaning of Marriage: Family, State, Market, and Morals, eds. Robert P. George and Jean Bethke Elshtain.  

What is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense, by Sherif Gergis, Robert P. George, and Ran T. Anderson (forthcoming Oct. 16, 2012) 

I contacted Robert George re. this issue and he graciously sent me the following links. He's also gracciously offered to field questions I have,

From Prof. George:

For a fuller account of my own views, here is the link to a more recent paper I wrote with two of my former students. (It is a free one-click download.)

“What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy:   http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

Kenji Yoshino of NYU published a critique on Slate, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2217

Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern published a critique on Balkinization, to which there is a link in our reply, available here:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2263

Barry Deutsch published a critique on the Family Scholars Blog, to which there is a link in our reply, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/12/2277

Kenji Yoshino published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2295

Andrew Koppelman published a response to our reply, to which there is a link in our reply to that response, available here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2350

Also, here is an essay in two parts (written with Patrick Lee and Gerard V. Bradley) on the link between procreation and marriage – a link we believe is badly misunderstood by many on both sides of the debate. Here are the links:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638 “Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Link”

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637 “Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad
Arguments”

Prof. George also sent me:

The Good of Marriage and the Morality of Sexual Relations: some Philosophical and Historical Observations, by John Finnis.

Marriage: A Basic and Exigent Good, John Finnis.

DECLARATIONS of THANKSGIVING

(Flowers, in our green room)

DECLARATIONS of THANKSGIVING

THE SCRIPTURE

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. (Philippians 4:6)

THE DECLARATIONS

• My heart is filled with thankfulness because I am encountering God’s goodness and enduring love. (1 Chronicles 16:34)
• As I listen to worship music I find I cannot stop giving thanks to God. (2 Chronicles 5:13)
• As I share with others what God is doing in my life, my gratitude overflows onto them. (Psalm 9:1)
• Today I am approaching God with thanksgiving, music, and songs. (Psalm 95:2)
• I never fail to remember how God has rescued me. (Psalm 118:21)
• Sometimes I wake in the night and find myself saying “Thank you” to God. (Psalm 119:62)
• I see God transforming deserts into gardens, causing joy and gladness to flourish in my soul. (Isaiah 51:3)
• I am being supernaturally delivered from sin and darkness. (Romans 7:25)
• I live each day with a victorious mindset. (1 Corinthians 15:57)
• An ocean of God’s grace is overwhelming me, causing an overflow of thanksgiving that glorifies God. (2 Corinthians 4:15)
• God is using me to supply the needs of the Lord’s people, resulting in many expressions of thanks to God. (2 Corinthians 9:12)
• As I remember my brothers and sisters my soul is saturated with prayers of thanks for them. (Ephesians 1:16)

(Special thanks to Steve Backlund.)

Potato Chips and Thanksgiving

 

(From my book, Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God, Kindle Locations 3590-3612)

There was a man in our church named Floyd. Floyd died several years ago. It was my privilege to do his funeral. 

When I met with Floyd’s wife, Grace, she shared something I had never heard before. “Floyd,” she said, “was a thankful person who was always thanking God for what he had been given.” 

Floyd had not come from a wealthy family. As I heard about him and his thankful heart, it reminded me of my mother who, as a young girl, sometimes received only an orange for a Christmas present, and cherished and savored it, and was thankful. 

How deep did Floyd’s heart of thanks run? 

“Whenever we had snacks, like potato chips,” said Grace, “Floyd would stop, bow his head, and thank God as the bag of chips was passed to him.” 

“You’re kidding me, right?” I said. “Floyd would give thanks, in front of everyone, for potato chips?!!” 

“Yes. He was grateful to God for anything that came his way.” 

I thought: I’m not that thankful. I take too many things for granted. 

“For granted” - to expect someone, or something, to be always available to serve you in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone, or something, too lightly. To “take something for granted” - to expect something to be available all the time, and forget that you have not earned it. 

A “for granted” attitude presumes. A “for granted” attitude has a sense of entitlement. Like: “I am entitled to these potato chips.”

“For granted” - to fail to appreciate the value of something. 

“Entitlement” - the belief that one is deserving of certain privileges. Like: “I deserve these potato chips.” 

Floyd, it seems, had no sense of entitlement, as if God owed him something. He didn’t take provision, in any form, for granted. From that framework, giving thanks logically follows. And, in yet another “great reversal,” God is deserving of, and entitled to, our praise and thanksgiving. God, for Floyd, was not some cosmic butler whose task was to wait on him, and make sure he was satisfied with the service. 

The apostle Paul instructed us to “always give thanks for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” “For everything” is all-inclusive. Nothing exists outside the realm of “for everything.” Everything is a gift from God, even my very life, even my eyes as I read this, and my breath as I inhale. If I gave thanks for everything, my gratitude would be unceasing. 

If I realized how God-dependent I actually am, I would stop now and say, “Thank you.” And then, in my next breath, I would say it again.

The Great Invasion: 31 Days of Christmas - INTRODUCTION

 

This is from my Christmas devotional book The Great Invasion: 31 Days of Christmas.

The book's thesis is: The more we know about Jesus, the greater our worship of Him will be.

This book offers a deep dive into the story of Jesus.

Thirty-one days that will enrich the Christmas season!

***

INTRODUCTION

This is a book about Christmas. Which means, a book about Christ.

I have thirty-one thoughts about Christ that I want to share with you.

As I was completing the book, I had some “Oh no!” moments. “Oh no! I left this out of the book!” “Oh no, I should have also added this!” So many important things about Jesus are not in my book.

I want you to know that I recognize this. Which is, I think, a good thing. The life of Jesus the Christ is deep, wide, long, high, and vast, as is His love.

I have ideas about this. I have spent over fifty years studying Jesus. This includes doctoral research. I wrote one of my doctoral qualifying exams on the Christological controversies of the first four centuries of the Church. These controversies led to development of the great Christological creeds of the Christian faith. (‘Christology’ is the study of Christ.)

I did another doctoral comprehensive exam on hermeneutics. Which is: theories of interpretation. How to interpret texts. Beyond that, how to interpret anything at all. I have studied this in depth, and applied my studies to the interpretation of the biblical texts.

My doctoral dissertation (Northwestern University, 1986) was on metaphor theory, and how it refers. I looked how words are used, literally and figuratively, to speak of events and concepts in the Bible.

Since my seminary and doctoral studies, I have amassed a significant library of books about Jesus. I have not stopped reading, praying, and following after the life of the Living Christ.

This includes seven years of preaching, in my church, through the four Gospels, chronologically.

All this has led me to the conclusion that Christ is the Immanent One and the Transcendent One who cannot be fully captured by my tiny cognitive capacities. He is the familiar stranger. He is the mighty invader. He is the incarnate Word. He is the irresistible force. He is…

The thesis of this little book is: To study and learn more about Jesus shapes and deepens our understanding of and experience of Christmas.

I offer this to you as an opportunity to join me on a deep dive into the glory and majesty of this universe’s rightful King.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

The Role of a Pastor

 

                                                                   (Cancun sunrise)

Happy Thanksgiving Season to my pastoral colleagues!

I'm reading some Eugene Peterson today. Peterson keeps me focused. 

In The Unnecessary Pastor he writes:

"Pastors are in charge of keeping the distinction between the world's lies and the gospel's truth clear... 

Our place in society is, in some ways, unique: no one else occupies this exact niche that looks so inoffensive but is in fact so dangerous to the status quo. We are committed to keeping the proclamation alive and to looking after souls in a soul-denying, soul-trivializing age. 

But it isn't easy. Powerful forces, both subtle and obvious, attempt either to domesticate pastors to serve the culture as it is or to seduce us into using our position to become powerful and important on the world's terms. And so we need all the help we can get to maintain our gospel identity."

Two Modes of Thankfulness

 

("The One Who Showed Mercy")

Not every mode of thankfulness is to be applauded.

One misguided form of thankfulness is seeing a beggar on the street, and thinking, "Thank God I am not like this beggar; that, while she does not have a roof over her head and food to eat, I do. And for this, I give thanks." 

This is hierarchical gratitude. One sees people who have less than I. This is accompanied by a feeling of gratitude for having more than they. 

"More than they" means things like: more giftedness, more opportunity, more stuff, more money, more beauty, more experience, more square footage. The "prayer" that rises to God out of one's place on the status-honor hierarchy sounds like: "Today, God, as we approach Thanksgiving Day, we know there are people who do not have food enough to eat. We see them on TV. We read about them on the internet. But we do have enough to eat. For this bounty, we give You thanks."

That is Pharisaical thankfulness. It's a gratitude that grows in the soil of confidence in one's own righteousness and status.

Luke 18:9-14 says, "To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'  "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."" 

Pharisaical thankfulness is comparative, based on the idea that one's physical condition and circumstances indicate the approval or disapproval of God. The man born blind must have sinned, or at least his parents must have sinned. Thus, he deserves his blindness.

"The Pharisee stood up and prayed about." His self-prayer ("I... I... I...") only makes sense on the honor-shame hierarchy. His occasion of thankfulness is someone else's infirmity. Pharasaical thankfulness looks like this: I see someone who has less than me, and I thank God that I am not them.

This is not true gratitude. Real thankfulness, having a thankful heart, comes out of one's relation to God and not to others. The core recognition is: I need God, and God's love came down and rescued me. This kind of praying says:

• God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
• You have had mercy on me!
• Thank you God.

True thankfulness is a function of an awareness of one's own neediness, and not that of others. It contains the realization that God has displayed, and is displaying, his mercy towards me. When you realize how in need of rescue you are, and rescue comes, you will feel thankful. 

At this point prayers of thanks can become passionate. One outcome of a God-directed thankful heart is the heart-desire to be used of God to rescue others, rather than looking at them and feeling good about your own abundance. 

There's no honor-shame hierarchy in the kingdom of God. We're all beggars in need of bread. Give thanks in the right direction, and for the right reasons. 

Physics and Philosophy of Time

 

(I have aged. Linda has not.)

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

I am seventy-four 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.

Willam P. Alston – Religious Experience as Perception of God

Self

Today I've been looking over some old notes on religious experience, mysticism, and properly basic beliefs. Theistic philosopher William P. Alston is a central figure in this discussion. Here are my notes/thoughts on Alston re. religious experience as perception of God.

1 - The thesis Alston defends is: If God exists, then mystical experience is quite properly thought of as mystical perception. [If God exists, then we should expect mystical experience.]
Alston is not here arguing for the existence of God. Alston is showing that it is rational to be a theist, and rational to experience God immediately (as distinguished from mediately).

2 - Alston restricts this discussion to “direct awareness of God.” Which means: Unmediated, not mediated, religious experience. [Alston is interested in direct, not indirect, experience of God.]
Alston: “My reason for concentrating on direct experience of God, where there is no other object of experience in or through which God is experienced, is that these experiences are the ones that are most plausibly regarded as presentations of God to the individual, in somewhat the way in which physical objects are presented to sense perception, as I will shortly make explicit.” (Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, 52)
Alston is not talking here about, e.g., becoming aware of God through nature, or through the Bible, or through a sermon. Or through a logical argument. He means something like: “I hear the voice of God speaking to me.”

3 - Alston advocates a “perceptual model of mystical experience.” (53) [Alston claims mystical experience is like sense experience.]
Alston’s view of perception is called the “Theory of Appearing.” Which means: “perceiving X simply consists in X’s appearing to a subject S, for example, or being presented to one, as so-and-so. That’s all there is to it, as far as what perception is, in contrast to its causes and effects. Where X is an external physical object like a book, to perceive the book is just for the book to appear to one in a certain way.” (53)
A direct awareness does not essentially involve conceptualization and judgment (such as reasoning from premises to a conclusion). Perception consists of something presenting itself to me in a certain way, apart from my conceptualizing it or making judgments about it. E.g…, Now I see the keyboard, directly.

4 - Alston concentrates on nonsensory experiences. Why? Because God is understood as a purely spiritual being.
Because God is purely spiritual, “a nonsensory experience has a greater chance of presenting Him as He is than any sensory experience.” (52)
Alston says: “I shall refer to nonsensory experience as “mystical experience.” (52)
“Mystical perception” is the kind of perception that experiences God.
“Mystical experience” refers to “supposed nonsensory experience (perception) of God.” (52)

5 - Alston admits that many people will find this idea incredible, unintelligible, and incoherent. What idea? The idea that there could be something that counts as a presentation like a sense perception but is without any sensory content.
But Alston doesn't think experiences should be limited to sensory experiences. He asks: “Why should we suppose that the possibilities of experiential givenness, for human beings or otherwise, are exhausted by the powers of our five senses.” (52)
This is obviously contrary to logical empiricism; viz., the idea that experiences are real only if they are seen, smelled, touched, tasted, or felt.
Alston is arguing:
i. Mystical experience is the right sort of experience to constitute a genuine perception of God if the other requirements are met.
ii. There is no bar in principle to these other requirements being satisfied if God does exist.

6 – You can’t argue for the validity of such experiences without assuming such experiences. That’s the nature of doxastic practices. [Doxastic practices are properly basic beliefs. You can't argue for them.]
They are “properly basic.”
We can’t argue for the reliability of our sense perceptions without using sense perception. What does Alston mean by this? Elsewhere he writes: "The supposition that there is a physical world (that there are physical things spread out in space, exhibiting various perceivable qualities) is constitutive of the practice of forming particular beliefs about particular physical things on the basis of sense experience in the way we usually do. (Call this "perceptual practice".) ... [I]n learning to form physical-object beliefs on the basis of sense experience we are, at least implicitly and in practice, accepting the proposition that the physical world exists (and that we are aware of it in sense experience). Thus the question of the rationality of this belief is the question of the rationality of perceptual practice."
Or, to cite another example of doxastic practice: We can’t argue for the reliability of logic without using logic.
So, our arguments for the reliability of these basic doxastic practices exhibit epistemic circularity.
Should we then be skeptical and not trust in our sense perceptions or in logic? Alston argues that it is reasonable to continue to engage in those doxastic practices which are well established socially, and which would be psychologically difficult to avoid. Therefore, we should continue to regard our sense perception, memory, introspection and faculties of rational inference as generally reliable.

7 – We describe mystical experiences by using comparative language. This is, in essence, no different than using comparative language to describe sense experiences. [Mystical experiences are described like sense experiences; viz., by using comparative language.]

8 - Alston concludes: "If my arguments have been sound, we are justified in thinking of the experience of God as a mode of perception in the same generic sense of the term as sense perception. And if God exists, there is no reason to suppose that this perception is not sometimes veridical [true; representative of] rather than delusory." (57) [Alston thinks religious experience is justifiable and rational.]

*****
From “Mysticism,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Q1 - “Is a person warranted in thinking that his or her experiences are veridical, or have evidential value?”

This is the question Alston is answering “yes” to.

The Doxastic Practice Approach

“William Alston has defended beliefs a person forms based on mystical and numinous (in the terminology of this entry) experience, specifically of a theistic kind (Alston, 1991). Alston defines a ‘doxastic practice’ as consisting of socially established ways of forming and epistemically evaluating beliefs (the “output”) from a certain kind of content from various inputs, such as cognitive and perceptual ones (Alston, 1991, 100). The practice of forming physical-object beliefs derived from sense perception is an example of a ‘doxastic practice’ and the practice of drawing deductive conclusions in a certain way from premises is another. Now, Alston argues that the justification of every doxastic practice is “epistemically circular,” that is, its reliability cannot be established in any way independent of the practice itself. (See Alston, 1993) This includes the “sense-perception practice.” However, we cannot avoid engaging in doxastic practices. Therefore, Alston contends, it is rational to engage in the doxastic practices we do engage in providing there is no good reason to think they are unreliable. Now, there are doxastic practices consisting of forming beliefs about God, God's purposes for us, and the like, grounded on religious and mystical experiences such as “God is now appearing to me.” Such, for example, is the “Christian Doxastic Practice.” It follows from Alston's argument that it is rational for a person in such a practice to take its belief outputs as true unless the practice is shown to be unreliable. Thus we have an affirmative answer to question (Q1).”

***

One of my books is Praying: Reflections on 40 Years of Solitary Conversations with God.