So Reconcepualization #1 begins with E=mc2. Particularly with ‘c’. But let me back up a bit. Almost everybody, I’m sure, has heard of E=mc2 - Albert Einstein’s claim to fame (well, not entirely- in fact he won his Nobel Prize in physics for something else, not this equation.) But what is it really about? In short it means that Energy is equal to Mass times the Speed of Light squared. Doesn’t really sound like a big deal does it? Again, sometimes it is not the idea that is disturbing but rather the implications of that idea that ruffle your tail feathers. However the full implications are for another blog. Here I want to look at ‘c’ and how a more complete picture of the nature of light and its speed has helped me better visualize the concept of faith.
The ‘c’ stands for either celeritas, the Latin word for light, or for constant because it is the peculiar fact that light travels at a constant speed that makes this equation, and its implications, so persnickety. What is so amazing about the speed of light being constant? When I’m driving down the freeway and maintaining a constant speed (the speed limit, of course) there is nothing particularly amazing about that. Ahh- but say you’re driving down a road at 30 mph and another car is driving toward you, also at 30 mph. It actually appears to you that you are being still and the other car is approaching you at 60 mph, right? Similarly, if you and another person are driving side by side, you're going 30 and the other person is going 40- it appears that the other person is pulling away from you at a rate of 10 mph. Even if you didn’t know the exact math it’s just common sense that two cars moving toward each other would appear to be approaching faster and a car going faster than you would definitely be moving ahead of you but not at the full speed as if you were standing still. Truthfully, this is what relativity really is- and it wasn’t Einstein that discovered it- I think it was Galileo who first postulated it- some 400 years ago! Everything is relative to your vantage point- Go it? Okay.
Here's the rub- the big thing with light being constant is that it appears to be the same speed no matter what your vantage point is. So let's explore this in our car analogy only instead of cars, there is a beam of light. The speed of light is approx. 187,000 miles per second- yeah, a little fast. So say it is coming toward us and we are traveling toward it (just like two cars moving toward each other) at 100,000 miles per second. According to our analogy above the light would appear (ie. measure) to be approaching us at about 287,ooo miles per second. Nope- all experiments have shown it still measures 187,000 miles per second. Turn it around- we're alongside the light, again going 100,000 miles per second, and so the light is 'slowly' moving ahead of us at a rate of 87,000 miles per second- right? Wrong again- when we look over at the light it shoots away from us at 187,000 miles per second, no matter how fast we're going!!! So this speed, then, is a defining characteristic of light- in order for us to see light, it has to be moving at that constant rate.
As a visual analogy, say you had a jump rope and you wanted to see the oval shape that it made around a person while they were jump roping (jumping rope?)- It would be impossible to actually see that oval, let alone for the jump rope to even form that shape, unless it were moving round and round in constant motion.
So here are a couple of takeaways from this conception. First, I see in this scientific proof of an absolute. Philosophically people have pointed to "Einstein's theory of relativity" as proof that 'everything is relative'- ie. there is no absolute good, there is no absolute God. That's a load of dookie. In fact, Einstein's equation supplies the link that unifies everything that is relative, rather than relativising everything that was once thought absolute. I think that is an apt description of one aspect of God- that when we are on His wavelength (pun unintended but consciously kept once realized) we are able to see everything in its proper relation and perspective. God is the great unifying constant.
Second, it posits another scientific basis for the existence of something in terms of movement or action. Usually when we define something we describe things like height, weight, color, etc. Characteristics that are all static. Light's description or definition requires its movement. Here's where it hit home for me. We were in Life Group discussing a passage in Romans and Ike throws out the question "What is the difference between professing faith and having faith." Well like any good church-goer my mind immediately jumps to the passage in James where he talks about faith needing to be active- bingo: faith has to be moving to exist. So maybe you can picture it this way. Imagine a repeating wave (you math types can picture, like, a sine wave)- in order for a wave to exist you need to have a travelling upwards to the 'crest' then back down then back up to the next crest and on and on and on. But to be a wave, which light is (sort of), this has to keep going, thus its constant speed. If faith is visualized as a wave, each wave crest is an 'act of faith', and so to maintain the wave there must be a continual stream of 'acts.' Now, I see professing faith as an act of faith, but left alone it cannot sustain itself. It's like when you make a wave by snapping a rope or a garden hose; give it one snap and you have one crest of a wave that then peters out at the end. But if you continually snap it you have an ongoing wave that stays more or less 'constant.'
Now here was the big insight for me, and the one that has the broader implications that are more difficult to deal with. Light is constant regardless of the situation, regardless of the frame of reference or vantage point. If faith is to be constant as well, it must be comprised of a continual series of acts that occur irregardless of the context in which they are performed. So we profess our faith by saying "Do not judge" until someone does something we don't agree with, then maybe we hold back a little of our good cheer, or our help, or refrain from taking actions because it might appear that we approve of their behavior. We profess our faith by saying "repay evil with good" then someone maligns your spouse and suddenly grand visions of violent actions enter your brain, possible recourses from which to choose. We profess our faith by saying "let the little children come to me", until one of those little children makes fun of your child, and suddenly your "inner child" wants to take over, armed with the knowledge that you are now much larger and stronger than when you were an actual child.
My actions toward others who harm me or my loved ones should not in any way arise out of that situation, or the memory of prior situations, or the possibility of future situations. Similarly, my actions toward people I like and love should not be based on my positive feelings for them. The 'speed' of my faith should be constant whether I'm in a car traveling toward someone or alongside them. It is constant. It is unaffected by frame of reference or situation. Faith in Jesus is dependent upon His actions. Just check out Romans 12- "Therefore, in view of God's mercies...."
