There are many reasons why the Son of God, second person of the Blessed Trinity, became incarnate as Jesus Christ. Thomas Aquinas provides an interesting but somewhat overlooked reason.

“Therefore, to get greater familiarity in friendship between man and God it was helpful for man that God became man, since even by nature man is man’s friend; and so in this way, ‘while we know God visibly, we man [through Him] be borne to love of things invisible.’” (SCG IV, Ch. 54, A. 6)

Aquinas makes the case that the Incarnation of Christ creates a bridge for us to move beyond the tangible and visible realm of material things to the things of God which are invisible. As we love Christ we are moved beyond the “here and now” to the eternal. Aquinas, though, was not the first person to suggest the importance of loving the invisible. In Paul’s powerful letter to the Colossian Christians he spends a couple of chapters securing them in their identity “in Christ.” He makes sure that they understand that their true identity is hidden with Christ in God. However, at the very beginning of chapter 3, Paul moves from what God has done for Christians to what Christians are to do for God.

Colossians 3: 1-4 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.

Paul declares that what God has done for us in Christ demands a new mindset. As Christ came down from heaven to become our friends, we are now to move our minds from worldly things—no matter how good they may be—to heaven. No longer are we to allow the cares, distractions, and interests of this world to dominate our thinking. What is to dominate our thinking is the heavenly realm.

Jesus also said something very similar to what Aquinas and Paul wrote.

Matthew 6: 19-21 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

In Matthew 6, however, Jesus adds a couple of nuances. Jesus tells us that where we invest our time, talent and treasure is where our hearts will be. It is all about location, location, location. In other words, if I want to have a heavenly mindset then I need to invest into heavenly things. For instance, people that have invested a lot of their resources into the stock market are very, very interested in the daily Dow Jones. Nobody has to instruct them to focus mental energy on Wall Street.

So here it my point; you can be sure that Christians who demonstrate little interest in heavenly things have certainly not invested much of their personal time, talent and treasure into the things of God. Where your treasure is, so is your heart.

I am sure you have heard about the brouhaha over Barack Obama's spiritual “mentor” the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Even though I don’t watch television news, I could not avoid hearing about Rev. Wright. According to the Wall Street Journal, Rev. Wright “proclaims himself an exponent of ‘black liberation theology.’ He cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having ‘systematized’ this strain of Christianity.”

Before I comment about James Cone’s “black liberation theology” I should mention that I came across what is known as “Liberation Theology” when I was in seminary. This was back in the 80’s when “Liberation Theology” was all the rage before the fall of the Berlin wall and about a decade after my conversion from Marxism to free-market economics. I immediately recognized “Liberation Theology” for what it is—Marxism dressed up in Christian garb. I know that I caused some of my seminary profs and fellow students a lot of acid-reflux because I heard through the grapevine that my nickname was “the student from hell.” At any rate, “black liberation theology” is the next-generation of “Liberation Theology.”

In the following quote, Dr. Cone gets right to the heart of the matter in regard to “black liberation theology.”

“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love." (“The Religious Wright,” http://online.wsj.com/)

My purpose here is not to get political. What I want to examine are what I consider to be some of the false premises of Cone’s theology.

One of Cone’s premises is that God can be completely for one racial group and against another. This is built upon the premise of Liberation Theology which posits that God is “for the poor” and against the “rich.” First of all, there are a lot of rich black people, but, that is a side point. Biblically, God is not “against” rich people. Nor is God per se “for” poor people. The Bible teaches that God is the God of justice. He is no “respecter of persons.” Therefore, if poor people are being oppressed unjustly, He is their defender. However, if a person is poor because of his own profligate behavior, God is not “for” him in the sense of defending his actions against the bad “rich” people. Read the story of the Prodigal Son. After blowing all of his inheritance and ending up in a pig pen, the Bible says that he “came to his senses” and repented of his sin. The law of God also tells us not to pervert justice by favoring a poor man.

Exodus 23: 2 You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.

Another false premise which Cone propagates is that God in his “love” is desirous of destroying the “white enemy.” Obviously, this statement is a far cry from Martin Luther King’s dream of a “color-blind society.” Cone assumes that “white” people are only capable of “systemic” evil and somehow blacks are inherently innocent of all wrongdoing to the point that God sides only with them against the “white enemy.” It would be more accurate to say that Cone visualizes God “participating” with blacks in their destruction the “white enemy” “by any means at their disposal.” Apparently, Cone does not want God to be the defender of blacks; rather, he wants God to join blacks in their campaign to destroy whites.

Cone, obviously, has a horribly distorted view of God’s love, mercy and justice. God is colorblind. He is no respecter of persons. Additionally, God is not only not on a quest to destroy any particular racial group; He is overwhelmingly expressing His mercy and love by working overtime to save all of humanity. This is not to say that God fails to protect the innocent. He does. But this can include His protection of innocent white or Asian families against black criminal intruders as well as innocent black grandmas against slum lords.

In conclusion, you can better understand what Cone is getting at by simply changing some words in his quote. Change the words “white people” to “Jews” and the word “black” to “Aryan” and you will better understand his reasoning and its source. Cone teaches at the prestigious Union Theological Seminary. That says a lot.

Unless you are a Pelagian; virtually all Christians believe that humans need the aid of God’s grace for salvation. That being said, through the course of history and even today, there are different views as to how God’s grace works within a human to bring that person to the fullness of God’s salvation. Sometimes this process of bringing about the fullness of salvation is termed spiritual healing.

As we all know, there are times when physical healing comes about strictly from the healing powers within the human body. I’ve just recently struggled through a bout with the flu and a head cold. While I used over-the-counter decongestants, I didn’t have to go to the doctor to have him prescribe an antibiotic. A doctor’s prescription, though, is often needed to aid the curative powers of the body. The medicine assists the human body and represents a simultaneous cure coming from both inside and outside the person. On the other hand, it never happens that a person is cured entirely from an outside source. Medical procedures and medicines aid the human body.

As for spiritual healing, it can never be the case that a person is cured simply from within themselves. Humans cannot deliver themselves without the supernatural assistance of God—by grace. Yet, spiritual healing must also engage the internal powers of the individual. The reason this is true is that the main thing that has to be healed is man’s mind. In order for one’s mind to be healed the human will must be involved.

The thing that is most damaged by sin is the mind. The temptations and impact of sin draw a man’s mind away from God toward all manner of other things. This disordering of man’s mind must be cured. Additionally, sin tends to weaken human resolve in the will so that by habitual sin, a person is prone to further sinning and becomes resistant to doing God’s will.

Consequently, the first thing that God must do through His grace is reorder the human mind toward Himself. God does this by nothing less than His love. God’s love demonstrated in the humiliating and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross causes the human mind and will to be melted in humble contrition. It is this contrition that is the inner cure for man’s mind and comes from man’s free will. However, the enabling ability to humble oneself before God actually comes from God’s grace demonstrated on the cross and infused by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, spiritual healing—which cannot be simply an inward action of man—comes about from both God’s grace and man’s willful contrition.

Romans 5: 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Luke 15:20-24 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.

By invitation of one of the contributors to Theology for Dummies, I was privileged to participate in a fascinating discussion pertaining to the care of persons in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS). The discussion centered on the moral obligations incumbent upon Christians toward those in a PVS. One person defended his belief that a person in a PVS has come to the end of his divinely appointed purpose and, therefore, to prolong his life by providing food and water was not a necessary moral obligation. As this person explained it, man’s appointed purpose is intimately related to his soul’s ability to cognitively relate with God. Consequently, when—in a PVS—the body is unable to function properly and supply the human soul with sensate input which can be used to form rational thoughts, the ability of the person to willfully relate with God ceases. Hence, to unduly prolong the life of a person in a PVS is not a moral obligation and—in come cases—may be improper.

The arguments are certainly more subtle than I have described here; however, I’ve done my best to keep things short and easy to grasp.

The argument against sustaining the life of a person in a PVS is based upon the Christian belief that man has a rational and immortal soul. Though this belief is grounded in Scripture, theologians like Thomas Aquinas thoroughly developed our understanding of the human soul in order to deal with false notions and teachings that opposed the Christian view. Therefore, I will offer a few thoughts here from Aquinas that counter the belief that Christians do not have a moral obligation to sustain the life of a person in a PVS.

Christians believe that man is a composite being made of both a soul and a body. However, Christians also believe that man’s soul continues to exist after death (defined as the separation of the body and soul). The question, though, is what—if any—functions of the soul continue after the death of the human body? Aquinas held that certain operations of the human soul are not inherently connected directly to the body (including the brain); therefore, those operations could continue after death. Now, we need to be careful here. Aquinas would caution us that these operations—though capable of existing separate from the body—are still reliant upon the body. Here is how he states this:

“Indeed, although the soul, while united to the body, enjoys an absolute being not depending on the body, nevertheless the body is the soul’s housing, so to speak, and the subject that receives it. This explains why the soul’s proper operation, understanding, has its object, namely, the phantasm (we would call this “sense data”), in the body, despite the fact that this operation does not depend on the body as trough it were effected through the instrumentality of a bodily organ. It follows that, so long as the soul is in the body, it cannot perform that act without a phantasm; neither can it remember except through the powers of cogitation and memory, by which the phantasms (sense data) are prepared…” (SCG II, Ch. 80, A. 12.)

In summary, Aquinas is saying that though the human soul can exist apart from the body after death, it is still dependent upon the body to be able to function properly. This is why he notes that after death (and before the Resurrection) Christians will receive from God an “abundant influx” of “perfect understanding.” He means by this that God will supply to the souls of Christians what their bodies would have supplied (sense data and information)—only better.

Aquinas makes the point that the principle underlying the “abundant influx” of “perfect understanding” is that when a “soul is freed from preoccupation with its body,” the human soul “is more fit” to understand “higher things.” He notes that people who temperately control their bodily passions are better suited for understanding the things of God. This is just good commonsense and clearly taught in Scripture. This, then, is why a disembodied soul will be able to better understand the “higher things.”

Interestingly, Aquinas also notes that certain people who are in a “fainting condition or in ecstasy”--which are states of withdrawal from the body--are able to comprehend things beyond the scope of human reason (Paul’s spiritual experience in 2 Cor 12). He also notes that people sometimes receive powerful insights from “higher beings” when they are sleeping (Peter in Acts 10). Therefore, I believe Aquinas would not allow us to use his theory of the human soul to justify refusing care to someone in a PVS. I believe he would say that such a person may actually be better equipped to receive “higher things” precisely because their bodies are not functioning at full capacity.

Pollster George Barna reports in “Most adults feel accepted by God, but lack a biblical worldview” (The Barna Group, Aug, 9, 2005) that the only group in which a majority of its adult adherents believe in absolute truth is Evangelical Christians (70%). He also reports that 42% of Christians who are not associated with Evangelical churches yet consider themselves to be born-again believe in absolute truth. From there the percentages drop of perceptibly. Only 25% of Christians who do not consider themselves born-again believe in absolute truth while—surprisingly—27% of agnostics or atheists do believe in absolute truth. 16% of followers of non-Christian religions believe in absolute truth.

Okay, what can we make of this. Well, we can also throw into the mix the figure of 9%. That is the percentage of Evangelical Christian teenagers who believe in absolute truth (William Lobdell, "Pollster Prods Christian Conservatives," LA Times, 2002-SEP-14). From this one might guess that the general secular culture and America’s public educational system may be influencing students to accept the notion that there are no moral absolutes. Certainly the ideology of modern American “tolerance” and multiculturalism seems to be based on the assumption that there are no inherent truths by which one can identify competing ideologies as better or worse. According to this notion, all cultures and ideologies are simply “different” and not inherently good or bad. Though this is a self-defeating claim in-and-of-itself, we will leave that for another time. The point is that it appears Americans are drifting toward relativism. Specifically, I believe Americans are becoming emotive-subjectivists who make value judgments based upon “feelings” rather than reason. This is another brand of relativism.

I seriously question, however, whether anyone can actually be a relativist. I’ve become convinced that humans are hardwired for moral truth. Therefore, they can claim all kinds of subjectivist opinions about things, but, when it comes down to living their “real” lives, they live by a clear standard of truth. My proof for this goes something like this. It is not what people say or even how they act that determines their beliefs about moral truth. Their real beliefs are always expressed in their reactions (not their actions). It is when people react to a situation that you see their true beliefs.

Let’s look at the group of people in America who come the closest to actually living like true relativists. College professors, despite their claims regarding relativism, are not the best group to use for this thought-example. The best group is hardened criminals. Life-long criminals are notorious for violating the “rights” (actually a useless term when speaking of relativism) of others. They don’t just postulate that there are no moral truths against stealing and murder, they actually act on their beliefs by robbing and killing people. Okay, so you would think the most lawless, chaotic place on the planet would be a prison. You would be wrong. Prisons are famous (infamous) for having extremely strict moral codes enforced by the inmates. Imagine if you will, stealing a cigarette from a life-long criminal who had made a career of burglary, mayhem and murder. What do you think this criminal would do? Of course you know what he would do. If he found out it was you, you’d likely end up with your throat slashed in the shower.

The point is this, the criminal feels free to violate anyone’s rights he chooses. He doesn’t think there are any inherent moral truths that should restrain him. At least that is what he may tell you. However, his reactions betray his true beliefs. The second you disrespect him in the slightest or do anything to him that he believes is “unjust” he will instantly react. If he as the opportunity, he will act against you right on the spot. If you don’t believe me, try stealing from a thief some time.

Other relativists are the same way. Imagine having the ability to walk into the classroom of a professor who is a notorious philosophical relativist. Imagine telling him that since there are no inherent rights or wrongs, you have convinced the university to cut his pay in half. He will now have to work the same hours for half the pay. What do you think he will say? Again, it is our reactions and not our ideology or actions that betray our true beliefs about moral truth.

Aquinas said: "It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude is the same for all, and is equally known by all" ( ST, First Part of the Second Part Q. 94, A. 4.).