Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Christianity

Brief Reflection on Christianity and Politics

by Leave a Comment

I can think of two main errors made about the relationship between the gospel and politics. Each of them has multiple instantiations:

Over-Absolutizing Politics

In this case, Christians see that the gospel has specific political implications and then associate those implications with the gospel itself. 

Over-Relativizing Politics

In this case, Christians see that the gospel is central and supreme and therefore ignore domains, ideas, and policies not central to the gospel.

Both of these happen on the theological and political right and left. 

I think the relative importance of politics, in comparison to the gospel, does make non-participation necessary for some people (like some had to sell all their possessions in the gospels). Similarly, I think that the fact that there are right and wrong political positions, or at least right or wrong political aims means that Christians, generally, ought to care about politics to love their neighbor and see to the well-being of their children and grandchildren. 

But I think that it is wrong to elevate politics (particularly as understood in American civic life) to the center as a primary matter of discipleship. For instance, one can be a Christian with little to no understanding of what the Old Testament is for (see Romans 14). Understanding one’s local political system and how best to maneuver it for maximal flourishing and minimal corruption is a labyrinth far more complicated and far less central to the life of the individual Christian. 

Conserving a theory of human nature

by Leave a Comment

The conservatives in the Anglican church have run into trouble conserving a basic distinction fundamental to the Biblical narrative, having a family, the continuing of the church as a community in history, and the building and maintenance of civilization. The BBC reports that:

The Church of England’s governing body has voted to look into special services for transgender people.

Now, they haven’t voted, as far as I know, to have those services. But they’ve voted to look into it and this is how conservatives end up defending the values of the liberals of twenty years prior every. single. time.

The services, I predict, will be approved. Then they will be used as an excuse to move toward marriage between people with gender dysphoria. After that, sexual libertinism will be the norm. In fact, I predict that the only sexual sin in many mainline Christian churches in 20 years will be the sin of calling divorce a sin.

Carl Trueman rightly complains that:

If human identity is merely a psychological conviction, a social construct, or a personal choice, then those theologies and philosophies and social arrangements predicated upon human nature vanish as the morning mist. Yes, the Church needs to handle with pastoral care and wisdom the victims of the confusion generated by the identity anarchy raging around us. But that does not mean sanctifying the status quo or providing palliative care. To do so is to concede that “human nature” is a mere combination of an adjective and a noun—a couple of words that, one might say, have proved full of sound and fury, but ultimately signify nothing.

The fact of the matter is that human beings have a sexually dimorphic nature that, at the very least, can be discerned by looking at their DNA. In a strange confluence of ideologies, I also predict that it will be the evo-psych scholars and the conservative theologians who will be tasked with ensuring that people even know how sexual reproduction works over the next several decades.

What is a good person?

by Leave a Comment

Dallas Willard defines a morally good person:

The morally good person is a person who is devoted to advancing the various goods of human life with which they are effectively in contact, in a manner that respects their relative degrees of importance and the extent to which the actions of the person in question can actually promote the existence and maintenance of those goods. Thus, moral goodness is a matter of the organization of the human will called “character.”

This is a serviceable definition. It is a few words away from a definition of a mature Christian. I would alter it this way to make it Christ-centered:

The mature Christian is a person who is devoted to advancing the various goods of human life with which they are effectively in contact, in a manner that respects their relative degrees of importance and the extent to which the actions of the person in question can actually promote the existence and maintenance of those goods. The mature Christian recognizes that Jesus Christ’s teachings are the surest guide to the relative degrees of importance of those goods, especially Jesus’ focus on the kingdom of God and the righteousness thereof. They understand that God is the highest good and source of all good in the world, including any good in themselves. They also see that at any moment may reject the good and are therefore themselves in need of constant repentance and are necessarily in need of forgiveness and atonement. By treating Jesus’ words as the foundation of their lives, they thereby rely on God’s Spirit and receive transforming help from God himself. 

Willard also describes the morally bad person:

The person who is morally bad or evil is one who is intent upon the destruction of the various goods of human life with which they are effectively in contact, or who is indifferent to the existence and maintenance of those goods.

Of course, this is the person who is like Cain. Cain sees his brother Abel, wishes to have God’s approval just like him, and instead of sacrificing his own behavior and desires to achieve his ideal (to be like Abel) he slaughters his ideal. The morally bad person is similar. It’s not that they literally pursue evil. It’s that they take imprudent shortcuts to the good that destroy the good in the process or they pursue penultimate goods as the ultimate good (idolatry). Of course, the mature Christian sees the potential to become this person residing in their heart at all times. In fact, even an innocent person who has never sinned has the potential to become evil (see the Adam and Eve story).

Anything I’ve left out?

The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

by Leave a Comment

Main Point:

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is meant to impart knowledge of good and evil through the constant practice necessary to say, “No” to the desire to eat from a tree with tasty fruit.

Minor Point

God never offers instant wisdom in Scripture, but instead treats wisdom as a good to be sought over time. So whatever Adam and Eve receive when their eyes were opened in Genesis was either evil in itself or evil because they were not ready for it.

In my effort to make those two points, things got circuitous.

The Tree

And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
(Genesis 2:8-9 ESV)

Was there really a tree with fruit that conferred knowledge upon its eater? Initially, the idea seems silly. But eating an apple confers knowledge of the taste of an apple. And if you eat a fig and it kills you, your fellow tribesmen know that the fruit is poison. If it does not poison you, you now know a reliable food source. In this sense, knowledge is conferred by the consumption of fruit.

Knowledge of Good and Evil?

But how is it possible that the Bible, which lauds the value of knowledge of good and evil, starts out with a command from God not to eat of a tree which allegedly confers this very knowledge? In Genesis, it appears that God is opposed to the very knowledge that is apparently necessary to please him.

If we read this story in its canonical context, we can see some of what the Biblical authors thought it meant to obtain “knowledge of good and evil.” The Bible is clear that growing in knowledge and wisdom is a process which God intended to take place over time. For instance:

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
(Hebrews 5:14 ESV)

 

And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy; giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
(Colossians 1:9-12 ESV)

Maturity of the sort which allows for solid food (explanation of deep knowledge of God) comes from “constant practice” of discerning good from evil. And being filled with knowledge of God’s will is implied to be a process when it leads to “bearing fruit in every good work.” The road of easy knowledge and instant wisdom is a road unknown in Scripture. We know from elsewhere in Scripture that God’s will is that people grow in wisdom over time. We also know that God forbids some things that aren’t intrinsically immoral. An example of this can be found in various dietary and fashion restrictions in the Old Testament. So it’s not knowledge of good and evil that is forbidden. It’s knowledge of good and evil that could result from not eating of the tree.

My thinking is that in Genesis, the tree is named “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because having a moral prohibition helps human beings learn moral reasoning, particularly in a world in which things are made to be a hierarchy of goods (Genesis 1). For instance, many things God did not command are morally wrong. God never told anybody not to murder. Yet, Cain’s murder of Abel was immoral and led to punishment.

Similarly, God never commanded anybody to worship, but Cain and Abel innovated sacrifice. In fact, eating meat was neither commanded nor prohibited, Abel did it (as is evident by his sacrifice from his flock) and was not reprimanded. And so it appears that the point of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was to show that in the hierarchy of goods there are many conflicts and difficulties (it’s wrong to kill humans but not animals), but that explicit rejection of God’s instructions is usually bad (though at times, God has spoken things he apparently did not want obeyed or put into practice at all, see Ezekiel 20:25-26 and Exodus 32).

Possible Corollaries

If what I outlined above is true, it seems that the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were made innocent, but not perfect. This makes more sense to me. In Genesis 103, it is clear that they are not immortal. They understand death and they also can only obtain immortality by eating from another tree (the tree of life).

This is helpful for general theology/anthropology/theodicy as it is evidence to the effect that God’s purpose in making man was to make a being who would/could grow into moral and spiritual maturity in the face of risks to that process. In other words, the pay off for the possibility of moral development is worth significant potential and actual downsides.

It also helps us understand the fall. A being of perfect righteousness and wisdom would not be able to fall from grace.

 

 

Christianese: Don’t think about it, just let God tell you what to say

by Leave a Comment

The Christianese

Some Christians are unjustifiably skeptical of putting deep thought into their faith. This stems from misunderstanding key Bible passages, in this case, we’ll look at Matthew 10:16-20. I’ve written a lot about  this passage, but with regard to being wise like serpents.

The Passage

Let’s read the passage:

16 Behold, I am sending you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. 17 Now, beware of people. For they will hand you over to the Sanhedrin, and in their synagogues they will flog you; 18 then they will bring you before rulers and kings because of me in order to be a testimony to them and the nations. 19 Now, when they hand you over, do not be anxious over how you will speak or what you will say; for what you will say in that hour will be given to you. 20 For you are not the ones speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaks by you. (Matthew 10:16-20) [1]

A Course Correction

I’ve heard this passage interpreted to mean that “the Holy Spirit will give you what to say and not to think about what to say when you share the gospel” several times.

But here are some points from the passage and elsewhere in the Bible that give us a more well-rounded point of view:

  1. In Matthew 10:18, the disciples will be a testimony. In the New Testament, that word is typically used to mean testimony to the facts of the case regarding Jesus. In other words, Jesus expects his disciples to communicate his message to these people.
  2. Jesus says, “do not be anxious over how you will speak or what you will say.” This is not the same thing as saying, “do not think.” Do not be anxious means, do not obsess over it to the point of not making any decision to speak (see how Matthew 6 shows that Jesus’ teaching on anxiety about tomorrow assumes that his disciples will be working and planning for tomorrow).
  3. Finally, in John’s gospel, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will “remind you of everything which I said to you. (John 14:26)”

In context, it appears that Jesus can tell his apostles this precisely because they have been putting thought into how they will speak the whole time they’ve been with him. Not only so, but elsewhere, the Holy Spirit is said to help remind Christians of Jesus’ teachings. So in that sense, the disciples time with Jesus preparing. I’m not trying to say that there isn’t a prophetic element in the passage, but as I pointed out in #2 above, Jesus’ pattern for overcoming anxiety starts with observing the birds and comparing how they have food despite not sowing, reaping, and storing to our own circumstances. If we are doing what we ought, there is no reason to be anxious. Similarly, if Jesus’ disciples are doing as they ought, and memorizing, internalizing, interpreting, discussing, and synthesizing his teachings, they won’t need to prepare lengthy court defenses when asked questions like, “What are you doing/saying/teaching? Explain yourself for contradicting Torah. Why don’t you do the Sabbath? etc.”

Any interpretation of Scripture which claims that reflection about your life or about the gospel should be viewed with skepticism. Frequently, I think, the incorrect interpretation of Matthew 10:19 is used as a spiritual cloak for intellectual laziness, but I hope I’m wrong.

References

[1] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Mt 10:16–20. “16 Ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς πρόβατα ἐν μέσῳ λύκων· γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις καὶ ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστεραί. 17 Προσέχετε δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· παραδώσουσιν γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰς συνέδρια καὶ ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν μαστιγώσουσιν ὑμᾶς· 18 καὶ ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνας δὲ καὶ βασιλεῖς ἀχθήσεσθε ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. 19 ὅταν δὲ παραδῶσιν ὑμᾶς, μὴ μεριμνήσητε πῶς ἢ τί λαλήσητε· δοθήσεται γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ τί λαλήσητε· 20 οὐ γὰρ ὑμεῖς ἐστε οἱ λαλοῦντες ἀλλὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τὸ λαλοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν.”

Rebuilding the Foundations

by Leave a Comment

Bruce Charlton has a good post about the nature of the spiritual battle in the west:

Modern Man is sabotaged by an evil metaphysics – in other words, it is our fundamental assumptions that undermine and subvert good living for us.

We therefore need to discover, first that we actually do have a metaphysics; secondly what it is; and thirdly we need to reconstruct it so as to become true – insofar as we can discover true assumptions (which is a matter of intuition, revelation, direct knowing).

What are some of our evil metaphysical assumptions?

  1. That matter is primary reality.
  2. That meaning is imposed on the world by our minds rather than intrinsic to it.
  3. That life is therefore meaningless.
  4. That the scientific method is the only source for the only kind of knowledge.
  5. That cause and effect is only material.
  6. Truth is real.
  7. Truth is desirable enough to lose something to find it or say it.

It will generally be found (at least at first) that even when we have revised and improved our metaphysical assumptions; we nonetheless tend (partly by sheer habit, partly because of past social training and the prevalent surrounding culture); we nonetheless continue to use the old/ wrong metaphysics.

What he says here is one of the fundamental problems of most protestant forms of Christian discipleship. The protestant view is typically that belief leads to gratitude which leads to sincerely good works. But in reality, we get beliefs right on the level of intellectual assent or at least, pseudo assent for social acceptance. But we skip the fact that beliefs of that sort must be experienced to be true in practice. In other words, belief in doctrines not only leads to, but comes from practicing Christian practices. As an aside, the word translated “doctrine” in the King James Bible means, as far as I can tell, something closer to “apprenticeship.” It’s training in a whole way of life, not just transfer of beliefs.

One might observe that the metaphysical assumptions I mentioned above are not explicitly Christian, and that’s okay. In one sense, every true thing is Christian. But one need not be a Christian to hold to true metaphysical ideas. The gospel entails and assumes all of these ideas and one will have a hard time practicing the gospel without something like them in their minds. But many who do believe and live like those assumptions hold are not Christians.

What have I left out?