Lift Every Voice and Sing

What beautiful lyrics. What an amazing performance (not that I watched the ball game.)

(NOTE: I had put Ms Sheryl Lee Ralph's video here but apparently, the NFL is blocking it from being shared. Here's another great performance.)

Lift every voice and sing
Till earth and heaven ring,
Ring with the harmonies of Liberty;
Let our rejoicing rise
High as the listening skies,
Let it resound loud as the rolling sea.
Sing a song full of the faith that the dark past has taught us,
Sing a song full of the hope that the present has brought us,
Facing the rising sun of our new day begun
Let us march on till victory is won.

That some people are protesting that this song was sun is just another sign of brutalizing white fragility and their irrational fear of "being replaced." It would be sad if it weren't so dangerous.

I see white people saying things like, "Why do we need another anthem? Why one specifically for black people??" Not understanding that Lift Every Voice is not "just for black people." It's there in the title: Lift EVERY Voice and sing... we all who care about freedom and justice and human rights can join along.

And some of the same people who criticize black football players for not standing for the national anthem are also the ones who'd refuse to stand for this. I guess it's not harmful or disrespectful if it's white people refusing to stand.

Also, along those lines, when folks like me (anabaptist-ish and otherwise) don't stand for the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance, it's for reasons of religious liberty and opposition to war and the fetishizing of the flag, which the anthem glorifies. When the football players and others took a knee, they GAVE the reason for the protest - protesting the history of black oppression by white police officers. Now, whether or not you agree with us, we have a reasonable, respectful, conscience-based reason for not standing.

But for white folks who refuse to stand or otherwise mock Lift Every Voice (shame on them), what are they protesting? That they don't like the reference to a "black national anthem..."? Where is the moral grounding for that?

More about the brothers who wrote this soaring anthem:

https://naacp.org/find-resources/history-explained/lift-every-voice-and-sing

Sole Source? How About Love?

 Returning to earlier comments and questions from Craig on his blog...

The question then becomes,
since all of those things are completely dependent on how they are perceived by humans, isn't it possible that two people can see the same thing and reach conclusions about YHWH that are complete opposites?

Yes, of course it is. It happens all the time.

If so, then how does YHWH revealing Himself in such a subjective way actually reveal anything about Himself?

If we are OF/FROM God, "created in the image of God's own Self," "a little lower than God's Self," with "God's Word written upon our hearts (metaphorically speaking)," then why would we not expect some notion of understanding God within us? Just as I can understand something about my parents from my DNA, I suspect that we can understand something of God from our own psyche.

Indeed, CS Lewis (and others) even cite this "God within us" and the sense of morality generally shared amongst humanity as one of the evidences of a Creator God.

I suspect that your problem is with the "vagueness" of these various ways. You ask...

Is there no standard available for us to measure against?

No.

Just, no, not that God has ever told us about. As a point of fact, God has never said, "HERE is THE Standard to measure against. The SOLE SOURCE for understanding me, God, and my Godly ways." God just hasn't done that.

On the other hand, God did say (or Jesus and the biblical writers, anyway) some version of
Love is the way to recognize God and God's way and God's people.
That's probably the closest thing to a Sole Standard we find in biblical text.

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another”

~Jesus

"We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us.
God is love,
and the one who remains in love
remains in God, and God remains in him."

~Paul

But alas, Love, too, is subjective.

But this returns us to an earlier problem I've raised with you all:

EVEN IF "the Bible" was THE SOLE standard for recognizing God and God's ways, for recognizing Christian faith and practice, to WHOSE interpretation will we be able to reliably appeal for a ruling?

Some of us Christians recognize the great glory and love in straight and LGBTQ folks allying together, supporting each others' humanity and that of God within them, supporting the rights of LGBTQ family just as we support the rights of straight folk. We, on our side, recognize this as Godly and biblical and reasonable and moral.

Other Christians, as you know, have historically NOT accepted LGBTQ folks rights, to marry, who to date, whether they can raise children, to recognize their own gender, etc. To them, none of that is biblical or Godly.

EVEN IF the Bible were the SOLE authority, WHO DECIDES? Which set of fallible humans are understanding God and God's ways correctly?

Or, some Christians accept SS as biblical, others don't. WHO DECIDES if SS is biblical or reasonable or not?

We have not been given an arbitrator or decider to make such calls. When we HAVE had people assume that role in the past (the Pope, for instance), many of us have objected to that human's presumption in appointing themselves the Decider.

So, to return to answering your question: NO, we've been given no assurance of a Sole Source and even if we did have that - which we don't - we're still at a loss of a Decider to say, "Yes, that is the correct understanding of this Sole Source." Which raises the reasonable question: If a Sole Source of text to decide things comes with NO Authoritative Interpreter, is it really a Sole Source for understanding? Certainly not for perfect understanding.

Jesus and the early church all taught the very reasonable (ie, it appeals to that of God in all of humanity) line of "If we LOVE, that is of God," and "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," and, even more briefly, "Love God, Love humanity." THAT is THE MOST reliable source we have, both from a reasonable point of view and a biblical point of view.

You want a Sole Source? How about this:

One of the [Pharisees], an expert in the law,
tested him with this question:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Beloved, Humble Community and the Bible

I've asked many traditionalist Christians over the years, "Why Sola Scriptura? It's not in the Bible, so isn't it a self-defeating human theory?"

Some of my posts on the topic...

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2013/08/listen.html

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2015/10/i-can-do-no-other.html

https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2016/03/answering-question.html

Stan at his blog yesterday once again says he's answering this question. He isn't. He doesn't answer the question. I think he's missing the point, because this line of "answers" are what I always hear from traditionalist Christians who believe in this human tradition.

Just a reminder: Sola Scriptura is the theory that "The Bible the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice."

The problem? It's not in the Bible. And here, I don't mean the words, "Sola Scriptura" or the concept, "The 66 books of the Bible are the sole infallible source of authority for faith and practice," or even, "Scripture is the sole infallible source of authority for faith and practice."

There is no ONE (or multiple) biblical source that says anything like that. There just isn't. Jesus certainly never says anything like this. At all.

One problem with this? IF Sola Scriptura were a real thing, then the tradition of Sola Scriptura would undermine the teaching of Sola Scriptura, because it's simply not in the Bible.

And just for what it's worth, it's not like I'm a wild loner alone, making this self-evident claim that Sola Scriptura is not biblical and thus, is a self-defeating theory. There are folks like this guy and many other Catholics (and others) who recognize the obvious...

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2015/04/20/does-1-corinthians-46-teach-sola-scriptura/

Ultimately, when challenged on it, traditionalists who affirm this human tradition drop back to saying something like, "Well, there IS that one passage that says that 'all scripture is God-breathed...'" It's what Stan did yesterday. The passage in question says...

All Scripture is breathed out by God and
profitable for teaching,
for reproof,
for correction,
and for training in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

That's it. It literally says nothing like "all Scripture is the sole authority for understanding morality and matters of theology/Christian belief."

Is Scripture profitable for teaching? Sure, I think so.

Is it good for reproof and correcting people? Sure, why not?

Is it good for training people about righteousness? Yes, sure.

But, does any of that say it is the sole, or final or ultimate authority on deciding what is and isn't moral? What is and isn't right Christian thinking? It literally just doesn't say that.

What the traditionalists are doing are, in essence, saying, "To ME/US, it makes sense if it's 'God-breathed," and is useful for teaching, etc, then the pages of the Bible MUST be the SOLE authority to decide such matters." But no matter how much it might make sense to them to think that, it literally doesn't say that. THEY are reading into the text something that isn't there.

And I'm totally fine with them thinking that makes sense to them. But it's different to say that GOD HATH SAID sola scriptura, because God hasn't. It's their human interpretation and tradition, not what the Bible says.

I've never seen one traditionalist admit that distinction. Or even to seem to recognize that what they're doing is inserting their interpretation in place of what the text actually says.

And, as I note in one of my posts above, the Bible is plenty clear that we can understand about morality and God through multiple means. If we're believers, we can see that God might teach us through God's Spirit. God is an almighty God (as described in the Bible) and there are many examples of God telling people in the Bible what the right and moral thing to do is. There is nothing in the Bible that says God won't do this any more.

Further, the Bible makes it clear that God's will or God's word or God's thinking is written upon the human heart/psyche. We might refer to that as just our good God-given common sense. I don't need the Bible to tell me how evil it is to enslave another human, it's just obvious.

The Bible makes it clear that the Golden Rule (do unto others...) is a reasonable way of understanding right and wrong.

The Bible even says that all of creation, including human nature, is telling us of God.

And in none of that is there one suggestion of, "and THIS way is the ultimate, sole, authoritative way of determining what is right and good Christian thinking." It's not there, not in the Bible. Anywhere.

We can see that it's not there by the way traditionalists defend this human tradition by trotting out one, maybe two verses that don't say Sola Scriptura, and they have nothing else. Stan does that again in his post yesterday.

Here's how he put it (referring to this passage in Timothy)...

This statement gives us the two most important claims regarding Scripture.
First, we have its origin.
Second, we have its efficacy.

Okay, for believers who value the Bible, we might concede that "all Scripture" (and here we may include the Bible, but it isn't in the text) is originated from God. But what do we mean by that?

Well, some of us Bible believers say we affirm that passage that says "every good thing comes from God." Because, of course, if you believe in a good and perfect God, then all good things are OF God, if not FROM God. But that might be a minor distinction. But let's set that aside for now. The second conclusion Stan (and others) reach is that this passage teaches that "scripture" is effective for teaching morality and Christian belief.

But that is not what's in question. The question they need to prove if they want to is, but is the Bible the SOLE AUTHORITY for deciding morality and Christian belief. This text does not say that, and that it does affirm that Scripture is effective for teaching morality and faith, that's not the same as saying it is the SOLE authority.

Stan continues with some about "God-breathed" and what Stan thinks that means (note: NOT what the text says, but what Stan, et al, theorize about what it means...) and then Stan opines...

And how effective is this Scripture? The text says that it is "profitable"

Yes, indeed. That's LITERALLY what it says. But does profitable mean It is the SOLE AUTHORITY? That's just not what the text says. Stan, et al, overreach when they read into the text this meaning. As much as the traditionalists complain about eisegesis (reading into the text something that isn't there), that's precisely what they're doing.

Stan sort of concludes...

The logic is irrefutable. The source of Scripture is God, giving it God's authority, and the purpose of Scripture is to give us all we need to be what we're supposed to be.

But the logic IS refutable. I've just refuted it. And by acknowledging he's using his "logic" to reach that conclusion, it's all the more clear that it IS Stan's logic.

I know, I used to believe in these human traditions that were taught to me and it can be hard to overcome. But if the text doesn't say what they interpret it to mean, well, it just doesn't say it. And it doesn't say it. It's an interpretation. A human opinion. And as such, it is not biblical and as such, according to the sola scriptura traditionalists, it's not authoritative. Period.