Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them 

will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, 

but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 

(Matt. 7:24-25)

By Stephen W. Hiemstra

Every house must have a foundation. A strong foundation anticipates challenges to the structure and permits the house to covercome them. A weak foundation neglects these challenges, leaving the house vulnerable to destruction. Our physcial and emotional stability is no different.

For a person, this foundation is religion. Religion structures how things knowable and unknowable come together. It is like the machine-language on a computer that sits under the software of the operating system directing communication with the hardware. As with physical structures, religions can be stronger or weaker.

This is why A key principle in ontology, the study of existence or being, is the realization that everyone has a religion, much every house has a foundation. The question is not whether one has a religion, but rather are you aware of your religion, its principles, and how it underpins and structures your life?

In formal religions, the basic components of its structure and influence are well-known, even if only known by experienced practioners, local experts, and scholars. The focus of theology is how the religion relates to God or some stand-in for God. This theology normally provides basic answers to life’s fundamental questions.

Religious Challenges

An important challenge today is that many prevailing religions are only informally articulated, do not provide basic answers to life’s questions, and may even forsake the idea of God altogether.

Informal religions acquire followings and promote pseudo-worship behavior, but their informality allows them to masquerade as something other than religion and infiltrate secular institutions that normally regulate religious affiliation and practice. They can present themselves as a political ideology, a product or practice, an activitiy, or an affiliation. A key weakness of these informal religions is that their activeness may lie in weak assumptions, like self-promotion or promotion of hinden agendas. When I may reject God simply because I refuse to adopt a disciplined lifestyle, my religion is essentially defined by what it is not.

Just like the presenting diagnosis of the body or mental state may be a poor proxy for the underlying ailment, the mask on informal religious can hide insidious preconditions or consequences that may not be understood or intended when tey are first taken up. The voluntary first drink, smoke, or dose may, for example, lead an addict to deny their addiction and delay their treatment indefinitely. In a political context, overconfidence in technological superiority can motivate a political leader to launch an inopportune war that cannot easily unwound. The religion of NOT is particularly addictive, because it promises freedom, but delivers slavery to a lie.

Religious Confusion

The coliseum in Rome, financed by the looting of Jerusalem temple in AD 70, promoted gladiator games for the professed purpose of strengthening political support for the Roman emperor, yet became the template for stadium sports games that we see daily today. Notice how the coliseum mixed religious, political, and atheltic activities together in a new, informal way. This mixing of incentives does not negate the coliseum as a religious paradigm, but it confuses the observer who may believe that it only has one dimension.

Refusing structure is like building a house on sand without a foundation (Matt 7:24-27). Ignoring structure in the case of a religion defined by what it is not, carries the price of increasing anxiety and can lead to an existential crisis—a self-implosion—because uncertainty and risk pose problems that cannot be ignored.

Self-Referencing Problem

To understand the heart of this existential crisis, it is helpful to understand a mathematic principle known as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem (1931). Kurt Gödel was a Czech mathematician who was born in 1906, educated in Vienna, and taught at Princeton University. His theorem states that stability in any closed, logical system requires that at least one assumption be taken from outside that system (Smith 2001, 89).

To recap, the Incompleteness Theorem is a system requirement for stability and implies that a system that only references itself is inherently unstable. Any perturbation (disturbance) of the system renders the system dynamically unstable, due to this self-referencing problem. Any reference outside the system offers stability to the entire system, but not all references are equally good.

Examples of Self-Referencing

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is taken from mathematics, but applications of the theorem are everywhere to be seen.

An example of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem can be taken from economics. International trade provides an external reference point that stabilizes prices within a particular country’s economy. When international trade becomes unstable, this instability is immediately transmitted within the country’s price structure. The same effect is present when a bank fails. The financial status of depositors is immediately undermined and panic ensues. This is why banking regulators are quick to intervene and provide liquidity. The self-referencing problem leads to a system that is inherently unstable when change occurs.

If an individual’s psyche becomes a closed, logical system without an external referent, it becomes dynamically unstable. Thinking the recent proliferation of people complaining that they are “triggered” by seemingly trivial difficulties. This language hides an epidemic of anxiety, depression, and suicide. These are private existential crises.

If creation is a closed, logical system (as having only one set of physical laws suggests that it is) and exhibits stability, then it too must contain at least one external assumption. One could say that the stability of the universe depends on the assumption that God exists because he created it.

Religion Not Optional

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem suggests why religion is not optional. Religion is an interpretive lens that is foundational to everything that we think or feel. Claiming no religion is not an ontological option unless one is willing to accept anxiety, depression, and/or medication. The frequent assertion that religion is a preference, not a requirement, ignores the role that religion plays in our own mental health.

A better position is to consider one’s options. If one has a problem with Christianity, then what options are available to replace it? First century Christianity replaced Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and many flavors of paganism for most new adherents. Today, many religious traditions compete for our attention, but claiming no religion puts one ontologically at risk of self-implosion—an existential crisis—which is why narcissism is so prevalent in our society. In view of the self-referencing problem, a substitute for belief in God is a better option, not one that places one at risk of anxiety, depression, and suicide.

Foundations
Also see:
The Face of God in the Parables
The Who Question
Preface to a Life in Tension
Other ways to engage online:



Author site: http://www.StephenWHiemstra.net
Publisher site: http://www.T2Pneuma.com


Newsletter at: https://bit.ly/Anni_July2026,  Signup

 

The post Foundations appeared first on T2Pneuma.net.