Sunday, September 03, 2006

Keith Ward: Beyond Boundaries


The following article comes from The Tablet. Keith Ward is one of my favorite contemporary theologians. This is worth a read.

Beyond Boundaries - The Infinite Creator

Pope Benedict and his former doctoral students meet this weekend to discuss creation and evolution. Despite their apparent differences, the idea of the evolution of human life and its intelligent design by God are not in conflict, says one leading philosopher of religion.

I was surprised to discover a survey of over 1,000 students last month by Opinion Panel Research, an independent research group for recording student opinions on a wide range of topics, which purported to show that over 30 per cent of UK students believed in "creationism or intelligent design, rather than evolution". I was not quite so surprised when I found that "creationism" was defined as the view that God created us within the last 10,000 years, and "intelligent design" as the view that some features of living things are due to a supernatural being such as God. The trouble with this is the vagueness of the definition of "intelligent design". For every orthodox Christian, it is necessarily true that some features of living things are due to God. In fact all features of living things are due to God, and the cosmos is indeed designed with supreme wisdom and intelligence. So any student might say that they believe in intelligent design, but that would not compete with belief in the evolution of life.

God creates adult human beings as organisms that have developed from a single cell over a period of time. It is not in principle different to say that God created human beings on earth as a species that developed from single cell organisms by a process of development over four thousand million years. The evolution of human life, and its intelligent design by God, are not in conflict.

I guess that some students were rightly puzzled by the question. This is not surprising, because there is a school of thought in America that propagates what it calls "intelligent design". These theorists, like William Dembski and Michael Behe, do not deny evolution. They propose that some specific and identifiable phenomena, like the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade, are "irreducibly complex", and cannot be accounted for by the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection alone. They require specific intelligent planning, presumably by something very like God.

The vast majority of biologists regard this as an extremely weak hypothesis. Most informed Catholic theologians agree with the American Catholic philosopher, John Haught, that it is also a very questionable view of how God interacts with the world. It suggests that God has to interfere with physical processes every now and then in identifiable ways. This theory was christened the "God of the gaps" hypothesis by the British mathematician Charles Coulson. It seems at odds with the Christian view that God is constantly sustaining and directing all creatures.

So it is important to distinguish the American "intelligent design" school from the general Christian belief that the universe, and the evolutionary process as a whole, are indeed designed by a supreme intelligence. If the students surveyed were indeed confused by the question, then only about 12 per cent of students questioned in the survey were "young Earth" believers - that is, they thought the universe to be less than 10,000 years old. This is still very sad, since it is the virtually unanimous testimony of astronomers and cosmologists that the cosmos is 14 billion years old. It demonstrates a huge conflict between the best modern science and the Christian (or Muslim) beliefs of some students. It means that such students will regard modern science as the enemy of faith.

Modern science originated in a context of Christian belief that God had created the cosmos through reason, through the Logos, and that the human mind could discern the glory of God in the works of creation. It is regrettable in the extreme that some Christians have now abandoned this belief.

Neither the Pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury nor the overwhelming majority of Christian theologians are creationists, so what accounts for this strange state of affairs? I think two main factors are at work. First there is a loss of a sense of the importance of metaphor and poetic language in religion. Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos, or that the stars are lamps hung on the dome of the sky, above which is another great sea. Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says. So all agree that we cannot read the Genesis creation account (or two accounts) literally.

Once you have made that step, the obvious thing to say is that here is a piece of inspired poetry, depicting the dependence of all things on the creative wisdom of God. There is a literal truth expressed in the text - the dependence of all things on God - but the text expresses it in a poetic way that is both more emotionally affective and more evocative of associated ideas. The problem is that some people think poetry is not important, or cannot express things which go beyond what can be literally described. This is the death of religious imagination, and it is sad to see the profound symbols and metaphors of religion reduced to literal descriptions of purely physical facts.

Second, there is a failure to see the amazing cosmic vision that modern cosmology provides for Christian faith. That God should, over thousands of millions of years, by laws of incredible beauty and simplicity, bring out of the basic matter of the early universe all the complexity of galaxies, planets, living beings and intelligent moral awareness, is truly wonderful. As the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians depict it, Christ is the eternal wisdom of God through whom this unimaginably vast emergent cosmos was formed and in whom it develops, working towards what the writer calls the "final mystery" of the divine will set forth in Christ, the unity of everything in the cosmos (the writer says, "everything in heaven and earth", and we might say all the stars and galaxies), in Christ (Ephesians 1, 9).

This is a religious vision of the utmost grandeur. Christ is Lord of the galaxies, and foreshadows on this planet the final goal of all creation, to be united in God. The cosmos is moving towards a great goal, it groans as in childbirth waiting for the revealing of the children of God (Romans 8:19). For a Christian, evolution is not just intelligently designed; it manifests a divinely intended purpose, that the material universe itself should become a sharer in the life of God, as it grows towards its fullness in Christ.

What a grandeur of vision those who cannot accept evolution are bound to miss. How much smaller and more restricted is a God who has only one little planet to worry about, and that not for very long. How much greater it is to worship the creator of innumerable worlds of beauty and wisdom, and to be grateful that this infinite creator has been pleased to be known in human form on this planet, at this point in cosmic history.The argument about creationism in our schools is not really about science, because the creationist theory is based not on scientific study, but on a particular literalistic interpretation of Scripture. There are important questions at issue about the proper understanding of science. Some scientists say science gives an adequate explanation of everything, that evolutionary science shows human life to be a random accident in a purposeless universe, and that science excludes the possibility of divine action in the world or of miracles. It is important to see that these are not scientific statements. They are philosophical remarks about what science is. No believer in God could accept them. So Christians would wish to say that God, who is most truly real, is beyond the range of scientific explanation. Evolutionary science does not rule out a belief that the evolution of human beings is purposive and eternally planned by God. God can act in the world, but God's actions cannot in principle be explained by any scientific laws.

There are arguments here, but they are about philosophy, and classes in philosophy are the right place to discuss them. Yet as part of that discussion it is important to see that Christianity is not a sort of physical science, which rejects what the best physical scientists say. It is about the existence of God as the supreme spiritual reality, and about how God relates to the human world through the person of Jesus and the Church.

Creationism seems to be gaining strength because people are failing to see or to convey the deep truth and distinctive nature of religious language, and failing to see the truly exciting cosmic vision that Christianity has to proclaim. These are the things a properly Christian education should seek to convey; if they are seen, then the debate about creationism might simply fade away.

27 comments:

John C. said...

"Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos... Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says."

Where?

"The argument about creationism in our schools is not really about science, because the creationist theory is based not on scientific study, but on a particular literalistic interpretation of Scripture."

In fact, there is virtually no science that supports evolution. It is a religion.

Karl Popper (heard of him?) has said, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."
-Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151.

"That God should, over thousands of millions of years, by laws of incredible beauty and simplicity, bring out of the basic matter of the early universe all the complexity of galaxies, planets, living beings and intelligent moral awareness, is truly wonderful."

More wonderful than doing it in six days, or an instant?

"For a Christian, evolution is not just intelligently designed; it manifests a divinely intended purpose, that the material universe itself should become a sharer in the life of God, as it grows towards its fullness in Christ."

What is the term for this, creeping pantheism?

"What a grandeur of vision those who cannot accept evolution are bound to miss. How much smaller and more restricted is a God who has only one little planet to worry about, and that not for very long."

What Christians believe that God did not create other planets?

"God can act in the world, but God's actions cannot in principle be explained by any scientific laws."

This is akin to Muslim irrationalism, the koranic implication that God can make a square circle because He is "not bound as the Jews believe."

To summarize Popper, science can only deal with the empircal, and cannot pronounce upon what cannot be scientifically disproved. Hence, the question of origins is not one of proper scientific endeavor - at least according to the greatest scientist of his generation.

I would add, it is properly a religious consideration only, and particularly one that must be considered in the light of divine revelation, given the limits of science that Popper asserts are necessary. Do you know of any source of divine revelation other than the Bible, including Genesis 1?

This is one of your favorite theologians?

lexorandi2 said...

"More wonderful than doing it in six days, or an instant?"

If you are measuring "wonderful" by how fast your God can create the universe compared with someone else's, then you have a point.

But God is timeless, so the race to see whose god can complete the universe in a fastest time is irrelevant, theologically speaking.

I think Ward's point is to say that modern science reveals the vast complexity of the universe as created by God, and, I agree with him here, it is more wonderful than anyone in previous ages could ever have imagined.

"What is the term for this, creeping pantheism?"

Nope. Good ol' fashion Christian Orthodoxy. As Athanasius would say, God became man that man might become god.

Johnny! said...

Very poetic, but it amounts to deism to me.

jbrim said...

Johnny says "It amounts to deism to me."

Deism? Really? Could you explain that a bit? No doubt you believe anything other than 7 day creationism is gnostic too.

John C. said...

Ward: "Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos... Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says."

Again, where is this asserted, ch. & v.? Why did you ignore my first request for ch. & v.?

DKD-If you are measuring "wonderful" by how fast your God can create the universe compared with someone else's, then you have a point.

The Bible says that God made the earth in six days (yom = day). If God actually made the earth and populated it in an instant, then the Bible is off by six days, an acceptable "error" if the text is meant to be allegorical. The Fathers believed that the six days were allegorical, and that God created the earth in an instant, but none believed that the six days were a wax nose stretchable by x6billion. Or is it x10billion? Or x14billion? I can't keep up with the assured conclusions of modern science.

DKD-But God is timeless, so the race to see whose god can complete the universe in a fastest time is irrelevant, theologically speaking.

But not biblically speaking. This is only a problem for those who would rather throw the Bible overboard than defend it against The Cultured Despisers of Religion. I am not arguing for the fastest God, but the God of the Bible. All other gods are idols. Right?

DKD-I think Ward's point is to say that modern science reveals the vast complexity of the universe as created by God, and, I agree with him here, it is more wonderful than anyone in previous ages could ever have imagined.

Gee, and I always thought that the Bible was THE MOST reliable revelation of God. Who woulda guessed that modern science held the trump card over Scripture?! I should think that we start with the Bible, and work backwards, not start with evolutionists, and flush the Bible.

>"What is the term for this, creeping pantheism?"

DKD-Nope. Good ol' fashion Christian Orthodoxy. As Athanasius would say, God became man that man might become god.

Ward says, "the material universe itself [becomes] a sharer in the life of God, as it grows towards its fullness in Christ." The universe is not growing towards fullness, the sons of God are being manifest, bringing the universe to fruition. Ward has his materialistic cart before the covenantal horse.

Ward: "...the general Christian belief that the universe, and the evolutionary process as a whole, are indeed designed by a supreme intelligence."

Your "favorite modern theologian" begs the question AND erects a straw man. There is no "general Christian belief" in any "evolutionary process," is there? If there is, let's have a few dozen names, and the chs. & vss. for their arguments. If they are the general representatives of the faith, their names oughta be ready at hand.

Ward: "Nobody believes that the Earth is a flat disc floating on a great sea of chaos... Yet that is what the Book of Genesis literally says."

Why did you ignore my request for ch. & v. for this straw man argument? Can you provide us with one non-snake handling Christian who believes this?

Ward: "Modern science originated in a context of Christian belief that God had created the cosmos through reason, through the Logos, and that the human mind could discern the glory of God in the works of creation. It is regrettable in the extreme that some Christians have now abandoned this belief."

Please name one Christian who has abandoned this belief, aside from "The Episcopal Church" bishops. And please name one Christian considered to be a founder of "modern science" who believed in evolution - aside from Darwin, to whom Karl Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital, since "natural selection" provided an atheistic basis upon which to erect a godless state.

BTW, here are some of the great evolutionists of the recent past: Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, and Pol Pot. Is Ward willing to plight his troth with them? I mean, if evolution is true, then they are almost Christians, right?

Evolution is Baal and Molech.

lexorandi2 said...

Theology makes a crucial distinction between creatio ex nihilo and creatio conitinua. I wouldn't think that any theistic evolutionist would have any problem with the Patristic notion that God created (ex nihilo) everything "in an instant." They'd also agree with the Fathers that the six days are allegorical.

The only thing I've been able to glean from all of your verbosity is that you agree with neither the Fathers nor modern science.

I will concede that Ward steps out on a limb a bit by assuming that an ancient cosmology (i.e. falt earth, domed sky) lies behind the language of Genesis. But he's no more out on a limb than you are in assuming that a modern cosmology (i.e. round earth, gaseous atmosphere, distant universe) lies behind the language of Genesis.

jbrim said...

john c...please...give it a rest. Your posts are embarassing to read.

I dont know anything about you but it sure sounds like your parroting certain Presbyterian theologians.

Kay said...

Just wanted to say thank you for posting this. Keith Ward is my all time favorite theologian.

I'm currently reading "Pascal's Fire."

lexorandi2 said...

Thanks, Kay. Do we know each other? I just visited your site. Looks interesting. I'll cruise by for a better look-see later in the week. Cheers!

lexorandi2 said...

Now boys (JC & JB), play nicely. Remember, I control the delete button.

Thomas said...

This issue – as with virtually every other aspect of the encounter between faith and modern science – is one which, I believe, could benefit from the Thomistic synthesis of faith and reason. The medium of dialogue between faith and science is philosophy - not exegesis - and too often this discussion lacks philosophical cogency. As Stanley L. Jaki once said to me, we must distinguish between the theory of evolution and the ideology of evolution. In other words, the subject of evolution – if it is true – can only be that part of the Universe traditionally made the subject of natural philosophy – i.e. Aristotle’s mobile being, which is characterized by local motion. Thus biological and other forms of physical evolution are consistent with the general character of the experimental world. Those who argue that the theory of evolution must logically lead to atheism or an assortment of less-than-Trinitarian theisms are not distinguishing well the physical theory from its false philosophical – and analogical – application.

Thomistic teleology, contrary to some who would identify it with ID, does not require that a single observable occurrence within the natural order lack an imminent cause. The reason is that nature itself, although material, is primarily form (intelligible order). Materialism and other types of anti-Supernaturalism are ideologies not scientific hypotheses. At the same time, ‘creatio ex nihilo’ is not a scientific hypothesis and is not within the bounds of experimental science – no matter how many big bangs we imagine.

So what if my corporeal form has a history on this planet? Is not my soul a special creation?

It’s not that I ‘believe’ in evolution. I am not a scientist and such things should not be taken on authority. However, as a theologian, I see no reason to think that evolution – as long as it remains a hypothetical account of the origin of species – conflicts with the Christian worldview.

John C. said...

"The only thing I've been able to glean from all of your verbosity is that you agree with neither the Fathers nor modern science."

I allow for creation in an instant, as I noted. There is no science for evolution, so you got me there. Take it up with Karp Popper.

"I will concede that Ward steps out on a limb a bit by assuming that an ancient cosmology (i.e. falt earth, domed sky) lies behind the language of Genesis. But he's no more out on a limb than you are in assuming that a modern cosmology (i.e. round earth, gaseous atmosphere, distant universe) lies behind the language of Genesis."

First, he puts things into Genesis that aren't there, such as saying that Genesis portrays the earth as a flat disc, which of course it does not. Anyone who would say this is either an ignoramus or a liar. If he needs straw men to make his point, then his argument fails.

"john c...please...give it a rest. Your posts are embarassing to read."

Why don't you refute anything I said rather than throw stones like a child?

"I dont know anything about you but it sure sounds like your parroting certain Presbyterian theologians."

Please quote me where I do this and reference the theologians' writings that I am supposedly parroting. You won't do this because it's so easy just to call names like a child.

"...as a theologian, I see no reason to think that evolution – as long as it remains a hypothetical account of the origin of species – conflicts with the Christian worldview."

Karl Popper said that it doesn't even qualify as hypothesis, let alone a theory. I am in favor of theologians pronouncing on things theological, and scientists sticking to science. Evolution is not science, and the Bible asserts that man was created on one day in an instant. If I preach on that fact I canot go wrong. If I renounce this assertion in the pulpit, I don't belong there.

Anonymous said...

Genesis 1:6-7 seems to be more meaningful with a flat-earth model than with a round-earth one.

lexorandi2 said...

I agree, Anon, though obviously I'm no flat-earth advocate. The Hebrew for "firmament" implies a hard dome canopy holding back the waters "above" from those "below." Later the narrative states that the heavenly bodies are set in this firmament. This language obviously assumes a different cosmology than what we know today.

It would seem that the limb Ward is out on is much stronger than John C's.

John C. said...

Anonymous said...
Genesis 1:6-7 seems to be more meaningful with a flat-earth model than with a round-earth one.

First, the theologian in question said that Genesis literally said that the earth is a flat disc. To say now that this is "more meaningful" is completely arbitrary and begs the question, since in fact it does NOT say this. I could with equal justification say that the text seems more meaningful from a creationist view. At any rate, it says NOTHING about the shape of the earth.

lexorandi2 said...
I agree, Anon, though obviously I'm no flat-earth advocate. The Hebrew for "firmament" implies a hard dome canopy holding back the waters "above" from those "below." Later the narrative states that the heavenly bodies are set in this firmament. This language obviously assumes a different cosmology than what we know today.

Yeah, because between then and now we have this incident called THE FLOOD. I guess that belief in a literal worldwide flood is anti-scientific too.

LEX-It would seem that the limb Ward is out on is much stronger than John C's.

You guys are over-using the word "seems," evidence of uncertainty in my view. Ward either lied about what the Bible says, or doesn't know any better. In either case, you think that he :seems: to be on more sure footing than me? Your beef is not with me but with the Bible.

lexorandi2 said...

My beef isn't with the Bible. My beef is with those who misuse the Bible, e.g. Flat-earthers, Geo-Centrists, and so-called Six-day Creationists.

jbrim said...

"Why don't you refute anything I said rather than throw stones like a child?"

Touche. I admit my comment was childish. But then, I was genuinly embarassed at reading what you wrote. I didn't say that simply to belittle you and your comments. I could make a list a mile long of refutations to your position but it is clear from what you have written that you subscribe to a fully Protestant understanding of the inspiration of Holy Scripture.

Nevertheless I'll argue one point. It is bad science to isogete modern cosmology into Genesis. A few points. Genesis is not a scientific text. It is Divine revelation intended to instruct us in faith and morals. Second, what it teaches about creation is not an object of faith. In other words, it is not necessary to believe a certain view of creation for salvation. Third, Genesis was written by Moses, a man thoroughly studied in the wisdom of his age. What reason do we have to believe that he held to any other cosmology than other ancient cultures? You can only assume so if you read modern science back into the book, which is a no no. The language of the OT seems, to me anyway, to be perfectly clear that the ancient cosmology of the sky being a dome above which is a sea etc is the assumed cosmology. Why do you have a problem with this? Scripture uses something called the language of visual appearance. It says the sun rises and sets but we know that it doesnt really. It only appears to. Or dont you believe that?


""I dont know anything about you but it sure sounds like your parroting certain Presbyterian theologians."

Please quote me where I do this and reference the theologians' writings that I am supposedly parroting. You won't do this because it's so easy just to call names like a child."

First of all, I don't see where I called you any names. Secondly, that you are a creationist is beyond obvious. You must then be familiar with the Institute for Creation Research. It has been my experience that primarily fundamentalist Baptists and Presbyterians use their materials. P&R Publishing was the only publishing house for ages that would publish Whitcombs work. The late Greg Bahnsen, Joe Morecraft, Ken Gentry, RJ Rushdoony (who really wasnt presby) and any number of others. I can't point to specific books or quotes because my library is quite packed away in boxes and I do not have access to it at the moment. However, I was not claiming that I could point to chapter and verse that you were referencing. Very simply, I have been in the camp where you now appear to be and recognize the jargon and arguments.

Thomas said...

I think it is vital to sound biblical exegesis to recognize both divine and human authorship of the sacred text. The literal sense especially should not be interpreted in such a way as would be impossible given the historical and cultural conditions of the sacred writer. This is not a denial of divine inspiration but rather an insistance upon its mysterious reality as opposed to superstitious misconceptions of it.

lexorandi2 said...

Whaddya mean, Thomas? The author of Genesis didn't know that the earth was round? :-)

Thomas said...

Dr. D.,

In fact, I think the Yhawist knew about plate tectonics, although he had to consult with the Elohist on barometrics…; )

The proper subjects of revelation are supernatural mysteries whose character it is to transcend every possible historical and cultural milieu. The Trinity, for example, is no more “discoverable” in the modern age than in more primitive or unphilosophical or prescientific ones. Thus, the revelation of such mysteries through the instrumental agency of a human writer assumes, without violence to either his freedom or the truths of revelation, particular historical and cultural limitations. On the other hand, according to St. Thomas, certain “discoverable truths”, such as the existence and the unity of God, are revealed along with and in relation to the proper subjects of revelation (i.e. the “undiscoverable” articles of faith) for the sake of those (the vast majority of people) who are practically prevented from reaching them (the discoverable truths) through unaided reason. I doubt, however, that the biblical account of creation, given its obvious kinship with other ancient near-eastern mythical creation stories, qualifies as one of these ‘preambula fidei'.

At the same time, is it correct to say that the Genesis creation stories are allegorical? They may have been interpreted by the Fathers in an allegorical way, but what was the intention of their author. In other words, they must have a literal sense. What is that sense? Are we simply saying that “Moses” adapted ancient cosmology to fit the covenantal history of Israel? Or is that going too far?

John C. said...

"The literal sense especially should not be interpreted in such a way as would be impossible given the historical and cultural conditions of the sacred writer."

On what basis is a literal intepretation of Genesis 1 impossible, given that Moses was divinely inspired? I mean, after all, divine inspiration is the historical and cultural condition of Moses, right? Right? Or did Moses hear it all from some Egyptian magi?

"Are we simply saying that 'Moses' adapted ancient cosmology to fit the covenantal history of Israel? Or is that going too far?"

*WE* are not saying that, but some are. It is interesting that we began talking about evolution - man evolving from primordial soup -but quickly went right to cosmology - the alleged "dome" over the earth, etc., which now people want not to talk about.

lexorandi2 said...

What's there to talk about, John? It is plain as the nose on your face that the cosmological description in Genesis One corresponds with how the world would have appeared to someone living in very early anitquity, and NOT AT ALL to the discoveries that have been made in the modern age (e.g. that the earth is round; that the atmosphere is gaseous; that the sun, moon and stars are distant bodies, some millions of light years away; that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun; and that there is no great body of water in the heavens held back by a solid structure called the "firmament," whether dome-shaped or not).

John C. said...

Nothing you mention is contradicted by Genesis 1.

"there is no great body of water in the heavens held back by a solid structure called the 'firmament..."

So because there is none now, you know for a fact that there was none then? Ever heard of the flood? I guess that was just a local event... The firmament was called heaven. It was the space between the waters above and those below. It is not described as a dome but as open space.

Why is the topic now cosmology and not evolution? Is everyone running away from Darwin already?

lexorandi2 said...

The topic is cosomology at your insistence, not mine. You wanted an answer to Ward's assumptions, and I gave you one. And then you didn't let it go.

"So because there is [no firmament] now, you know for a fact that there was none then?"

Where did it go? Why would it disappear?

"Ever heard of the flood?"

Sure, but I don't recall that Scripture says anywhere that the firmament on which the sun and the moon are suspended (v. 14-19) suddenly disappeared when God brought the flood upon the earth.

And do I think that Genesis requires our affirmation of a flood on a global scale? No.

Anonymous said...

Recently I took a class in astronomy and was getting alot of distances and times shoved at me. I asked the professor,"Are these distances not arbitrary since we don't even know the speed of light is constant, as well as if the universe is expanding post "big bang" are we not observing light in a curve?" He admitted we don't really know. I have to admit that the class did great damage to any notions I had left of young earth creationism.

I have always found the explanations concerning anthropology a bit simplistic, whether they came from creationists of evolutionists. Like how did Hawaiians or other remote island peoples get there? Packing up the family and navigating the Pacific in a crude boat doesn't sound plausible.

Joseph Alormene said...

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Phillipians 4:6-7

Joseph Alormene said...

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Phillipians 4:6-7