One of the things about myself that sometimes puzzles me is that I am not very good at mathematics. I failed to study much of math beyond algebra and geometry when I was in school. I know that mathematics are a young person’s game and that most true mathematical breakthroughs have come from young minds. Still, I think i would have been intrigued by math if i had disciplined myself to study it more in my early life.

The reason this is such a puzzle is that philosophy and theology and mathematics go together so well. All three disciplines are interested in logical patterns and ways of thinking that avoid contradictions.

Mathematicians and theologians both employ the concept of paradox, though the usage may be slightly different. Mathematicians tend to see paradoxes as problems to be solved. Theologians are perhaps quicker to live with paradox.

A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet appears to be true. A simple example is, “less is more.” From a mathematical perspective the paradox doesn’t exist. The statement is simply mathematically false. But from a philosophical perspective, there are times when having less possessions can lead to more quality life, less options makes for more freedom of choice and many other places where less is more appears to be logically valid.

Some of my theological colleagues love the concept of paradox so much that they use the label to avoid a complete logical examination of their beliefs. Using the label paradox does not make the statement true. In fact from a logical perspective most things that are called paradoxes are, in reality invalid statements. Other statements only appear to contain contradictions but in fact do not. An example of the latter is “death is not the end.” The key to that statement is probably in the use of the word “the.” If one used “an” instead the statement would be false. Death is the end of some things. It is just not the end of everything.

At the risk of getting hopelessly lost in a game of words that might at once be boring and also confounding, it is probably important to at least attempt to state Russell’s paradox in a blog post on the topic. Bertrand Russell was a turn of the twentieth century philosopher and mathematician who first published a paradox of lists. He, of course, posed a mathematical problem, but it might be stated as a word problem like this: Does a list of all lists that do not contain themselves contain itself? If it does, contain itself it is no longer a list of things that do not contain themselves. If it does not, then it should be added to the list because the list would not contain all of the lists that do not contain itself unless it is added.

Trust me, mathematicians and philosophers have invested countless hours pondering problems like this.

Here is a paradox from one of the sayings of Jesus. in Matthew 25, Jesus compares the realm of God to a shepherd separating sheep from goats. Some people are put into a group that is welcomed into God’s realm because they saw Jesus hungry and gave him something to eat, they saw him thirsty and gave him something to drink and the like. These people were not aware it was Christ they saw, they had, rather done it for “one of the least f these brothers and sisters of mine.” The second group are cursed and cast into eternal punishment because when they saw Jesus hungry they gave no food, when he was thirsty they gave no water, etc. Like the first group, they were unaware of having seen Jesus. Once again Jesus reminds them of “one of the least.”

Here is the paradox: Most of us could easily be put into both categories. There have been times in my life when I saw a hungry person and offered food. There have also been times in my life when I passed by a hungry person and did not respond. The same is true with thirsty, strangers, naked, those who are sick and those in prison. I could be judged to be a member of both groups. But in Jesus’ description everyone is assigned only a single category. They are either saved or cursed.

People have been pondering that problem for thousands of years. Some try counting and comparing: “Did I offer food more times than I refused?” “Did I visit the sick more often than not?” I suspect that most of us would come up short in that way of counting.

I think that Jesus told the story precisely because it calls into question our ways of counting and judging. From one point of view, if the judgement is by our standards, we all fall short. No person, not even Mother Teresa never failed to visit a sick person. There are simply too many sick people in the world. If someone had fed all of the hungry persons there would be no hungry people. The fact that there are thirsty people in the world means that no one has responded to all of the thirst. In a sense we all belong in the group of the condemned.

But it is also true that the standard for acceptance into the group of the blessed is incredibly low. One visit to a sick person. One morsel of food to a hungry person. Virtually all of us have responded with compassion at some point in our lives. That meets the criteria for being in the other group.

The point of the story, it seems, is that we are at the same time guilty and saved. That is a true paradox.

I don’t think that it can be solved by mathematics.

Boatbuilders like to ask this question: If you have a boat and you replace one part of the boat is it the same boat? Most answer, “yes.” So if you replace one part at a time until every piece of the boat has been replaced is it sill the same boat?” It is called the “Ship of Theses” paradox.

Perhaps we ourselves are ships of theses. In 2 Corinthians 4:6 it is written: “Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, inwardly we are being renewed every day.”

Something new is emerging.

Copyright © 2013 by Ted Huffman. I wrote this. If you want to copy it, please ask for permission. There is a contact me button at the bottom of this page. If you want to share my blog a friend, please direct your friend to my web site.