All Music Sunday

While waiting for answers from Marshal, I thought I'd post something hopefully a bit more pleasant. We had an all music Sunday at church, yesterday. Here are a few snippets from the service.

Trying to Answer Misunderstandings and the Topic of "sin"

 

Craig, at his blog, recently invoked my name and his confusion about my actual positions on a variety of topics... heaven, hell, forgiveness, a Good God, what is and isn't just or good, and sin. He says he's working on a post on the topic and is still mulling it over and requested no comments yet while he mulls. This is what he said so far...

For example scripture tells us that we are "dead" in our sin, and the Jesus offers us "life" free from sin.  Or scripture tells us that we are "slaves" to sin, and the Jesus bought our freedom from :bondage" or "slavery" to sin.  

That language doesn't sound like there is room for "trivial" or "minor" sins, does it?   Death/Life or Slave/Free sound like mutually exclusive categories don't they?  Can you really be 95% alive and 5% dead?  Or 95% free and 5% enslaved?  

Craig is, I believe, operating out of some version of the human traditions of Calvinism or Reformed Theology. Because he rarely answers questions directly, it's hard to tell, but I believe he believes that all humans are "sinners" from birth, meaning NOT the obvious (that people commit "sins" from their first day on earth - a rather preposterous claim, seems to me, and certainly not provable) but that we're born with a theoretical "sin nature." And, I believe he believes, this "sin nature," means all humans are irredeemably corrupt and "sinful," incapable of doing good on our own.

I say, "theoretical," because this human tradition IS a human tradition, not a given. And there may be many permutations on what Calvinists/Craig believe on this human theory. It's hard to tell with Craig because, again, he rarely directly answers these sorts of questions.

I think everyone can agree that humanity, every one of us, is imperfect. Maybe many of us could even agree we're "prone to sin or do wrong..." It's objectively observable that none of us are perfect and that we all engage in at least some misdeeds and bad behavior in life, so I don't think that's in question by most of humanity, religious or not. But whether or not we have a "sin nature" is, of course, not proven nor provable, as far as I can see.

Now Craig begins, as many traditional conservative religionists do (whether Christian or another religion) by appeals to "scripture" to begin making his case.

Here, I believe, is where the problems begin.

As a Christian, I am a lover of the words found in the Bible, of the teachings of the Bible, of the language of the Bible. I strive to take the Bible more or less seriously. And I certainly strive to take the words of Jesus seriously, as I identify as a follower of Jesus.

But as any serious student of the Bible will affirm (and this is whether or not they're traditional or not, whether they're conservative or liberal or otherwise) that the words found in the Bible are only as solid as the interpretation that people reading those words assign to them. If a "christian" says that God never condemns slavery and indeed, commands slavery in at least some cases, and if that christian decided, "Therefore, slavery is not immoral and indeed, even god-ordained!" then most of the world and most of Christianity will say that this is not so and that guy's crazy, using "scripture" to advance a set of bad behaviors - evil, even. I believe most conservative Christians would say the same thing. They would say he's not interpreting the Bible correctly, I believe. I certainly know conservatives who would say that.

Thus, when reading the words of the Bible - if you value them - they are only as good as the interpretation you assign to them.

Secondly, most conservative and other Christians would, I believe, gladly affirm that not every line in the Bible is to be taken literally. They would affirm the obvious, observable reality that there are portions of the Bible - maybe vast portions, even - that are poetic, figurative or otherwise use metaphors or non-literal ideas. Thus, "the four corners of the earth," does not mean that the earth is a flat rectangle/square. When Jesus tells the rich man what he must do to be saved is "sell his belongings, give it to the poor and follow him," conservatives (and probably most progressives who love the Bible) would say that this was more of a situational or figurative idea, not a universal command. I could go on and on with examples in the Bible that conservatives would agree is metaphorical, not literal.

Thus, with ANY LINE in the Bible, one must begin with the question of, "is this some sort of literal command or notion? Or is imagery at play here?"

And now, with that prelude, here we are with Craig's list of questions.

For example scripture tells us that we are "dead" in our sin,
and that Jesus offers us "life" free from sin. 

Of course, these are clearly figurative words to describe human relationship with sin. No one is literally "dead in sin..." What would that even mean? Their heart keeps beating, their blood pumping, their brain thinking, hopefully.

And "life free from sin..." what does that mean? Do we become perfect and sinless? No, observably not.

Craig continues...

That language doesn't sound like there is room for "trivial" or "minor" sins, does it?

And I ask, as I often do... ? What? The Bible DOES use language like "we're all dead in sin..." For instance, this line from Paul in Ephesians...

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked,
following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air,
the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh,
carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and
were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
even when we were dead in our trespasses,
made us alive together with Christ...

All kinds of language that sounds, on the face of it, quite figurative. We didn't "walk in sin" and what or who is this "prince of the power of the air" that "you" were following? (Of course, in the context it's speaking of "the devil..." and who or what is that?). What does "dead in trespasses" mean? Or what does "children of wrath, like the rest of manking" mean?

So, first of all: "That doesn't sound like there is room for trivial or minor sins...?" Craig asks. Yes, of course it does. It does not rationally or biblically preclude the notion that some "sins" are minor or relatively minor and some are greater.

And here is where we who, like me, were raised conservative start going down a bad path, rationally and biblically, it seems to me.

The conservative tradition is trying to take these sorts of passages fairly literally because that is their tradition (was mine). Then, they say, "So, how can we make literal sense of this?" And from there, they say, "Well, what it MUST MEAN is that we are all - all of humanity, from the newborn infant to the mentally ill, to those with extreme intellectual delays to every day people who are, on the face of it, good and decent people living good and decent lives, helping out others, taking care of their families and friends and even strangers... that ALL of humanity is hopelessly "sinful" and even "evil," entirely incapable of doing anything good outside of God. And that even the smallest misdeed - for instance, taking the last cookie from the bag when you know your wife was wanting that cookie... that low level of selfishness - is a great evil or sin and that their notion of "god," can NOT ABIDE that "sin," and that "sin" must be punished not just with an appropriate response, but with an eternity of torture or torment in "hell..."

"Even just one sin will send you to hell, where the fire you are burning in is NEVER quenched and your torment goes on and on for ALL of eternity!" the fiery evangelists regularly preached to us when I was growing up in that world.

But think about it: One sin? Eating that last cookie you KNEW your wife wanted... that "deserves" an eternity of torture? How is that rational? How is that just, moral or good?

Because we, as humanity, recognize the notion that justice, to be justice, must deal with misdeeds in an appropriate manner. I sure as heck shouldn't have taken that last cookie that I knew my wife wanted! Shame on me for doing that! It was wrong!! But... if the state made it a law criminalizing taking that last cookie and the punishment for that small selfishness was to be tortured for the rest of your life, I'd reckon that ALL of humanity would call such a punishment a great and horrible evil. And they'd be right.

So, even though the Bible uses words speaking about "dead in sin," that just doesn't preclude rationally or biblically noting the reality of the range of sin/misdeeds and that, indeed, some behaviors are relatively minor and some are truly a great evil.

If we relegate the selfishly taking the last cookie to a great an awful evil, then that has to minimize the seriousness of rape or genocide. And just as a point of reason, it does not reasonably follow, Craig's claim that there's no such thing as degrees of awfulness of bad behavior and that, indeed, some misdeeds are literally actually relatively minor.

That's just a small start at Craig's small start of thinking about sin and the principles I'm pointing to today:

I. Of course, we can recognize the notion that there are small misdeeds and great evils that might all be considered "sin;"

II. That there is nothing unbiblical about this. And certainly nothing irrational or unmoral about it;

III. That indeed, it would be irrational and immoral to say otherwise;

And additionally...

IV. That just because there are phrases and ideas gleaned from the Bible that traditionalists have traditionally understood one way does NOT mean that they are understanding them correctly;

V. And that understanding any moral idea or biblical notion correctly and rationally is a vital starting point.

To Craig's other questions...

Death/Life or Slave/Free sound like mutually exclusive categories don't they? 
Can you really be 95% alive and 5% dead?  Or 95% free and 5% enslaved?

I would respond by saying, that first, we must rightly understand what these ideas mean and what they don't mean. Is there some figurative language at play here? Yes, of course there is. Is Paul trying to say that it's a fact that those who aren't "saved" (and what does THAT mean?) are literally (somehow) dead in their sin and "incapable" of doing any good? Clearly that can't be the case because we see what conservative Christians would say are "unsaved" people doing great good in their lives. So, what does it mean? And EVEN IF they could prove somehow (and they can't) what Paul meant objectively, does that mean that Paul was correct?

Which leads to another principle:

VI. When reading a sacred text, if we are interpreting its words to mean something that is, on the face of it, irrational or greatly immoral or objectively false (ie, that "unsaved people" can do NO good actions), then we should question that interpretation.

That is, if we value the Bible (or any sacred text) as speaking The Truth.

And that's all for now.

Trying to Answer Misunderstandings... and it's Not Easy

 [I tried to post a picture here. It doesn't appear to work for reasons unknown.]

 

Stan, at his blog, tried to answer questions I submitted for him regarding the human tradition/understanding of the notion of Election (that God only elects a few certain people to be saved and literally to hell with the rest). He no doubt thought he was answering my questions. He wasn't.

Here is my response to his post which he will not address, given past history.

For what it's worth, the problem is that you're not addressing the points I'm making. You're just reiterating the same mistakes I believe exist in your eisegesis (ie, his reading into Scripture that which Scripture does not insist upon).

You see, the problem is this: JUST BECAUSE there are lines in the Bible that say This or That, this is NOT sufficient to say "'This' and "That' are so." You almost certainly don't think so, yourself.

That is, just because slavery is repeatedly and consistently throughout Scripture accepted and not condemned and is even promoted or commanded by God (apparently) does not mean that we should read into the Bible, "Therefore, slavery can be moral and commanded and approved by God." Indeed, we should REJECT out of hand such an atrocious, immoral claim. That would be reading INTO the Bible a bad rational and moral conclusion.

Hopefully you can agree that the enslavement of innocent people is ALWAYS a great moral wrong/evil. (This is a question that nearly always goes unanswered or, IF it is answered, they will say that we should not regard slavery as not always a great evil!)

With that example (and others I could give - Jesus' apparent routine consideration of wealth as a dangerous threat and that giving away one's wealth is what might lead to the salvation for some, which is pretty compelling and strong and yet which you, Stan, don't take literally... and perhaps Jesus' claim that "blessed are you who are poor... and woe to you who are rich..." is not something you take literally... for two examples), we see an instance where we can't assume that just because a behavior/action/policy is condoned or endorsed or allowed in the Bible does NOT mean it's a moral option.

The principle here being:

The mere acceptance or condemnation of a behavior or circumstance
found in the pages of the Bible
is NOT sufficient to say, "Therefore, it must be understood this way."

You don't do this, nor do I. We must seek understanding. Ideally, Godly, moral and rational understanding. We must not be literally wooden in our reading of any text. We must use our God-given reason and moral reasoning - God's Word written on our hearts and minds, as the Bible says - to rightly understand and interpret the words in the Bible.

So, YES, there are many verses that say something about the notion of "election." AND there are many verses that clearly condemn riches. AND there are many verses that accept and even promote slavery. AND there are many verses that say God wants EVERYONE to be saved. etc.

But what do we read INTO those passages/ideas? How do we use our God-given understanding to interpret them and assign them meaning?

Back on slavery, again: Yes, there are verses in the Bible that accept and promote slavery.

AND there are verses in the Bible that promote human liberty and dignity and "doing unto others."

What do we do with this apparent dichotomy? Insist that slavery is sometimes moral and not evil? God forbid!

And we're not limited to comparing ideas within the Bible that might be apparently in conflict. We can also go with known observable reality, that which we can know with our God-given senses and reasoning.

For instance, there are verses in the Bible that make it seem like the universe may only be ~6,000 years old AND there is just the reality that the data doesn't support that conclusion. Must we accept the notion of a young earth, just because the Bible nowhere suggests a universe that is billions of years old?

No. Of course, not.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Yes, there are verses that speak to the notion of Election and God appearing to say God is going to - for reasons completely unknown to us - choose to simply condemn the majority of humanity to eternal torment for the "crime" of being imperfect humans. AND there are verses that say God is not willing to see anyone perish, but wants all to be saved.

Why must we assume the former must be taken literally but not the latter? ESPECIALLY when the former paints that god as such an evil, tyrannical and irrational beast-god, just using common sense?

At the very least, can you see how people of Good faith can disagree with taking election literally and the very biblical and rational and moral reasons we have for doing so? That we do so out or RESPECT for God and the Bible, NOT because we don't care about God or the Bible?