Geoff's Miscellany

Miscellaneous Musings

Christianity

I’m Bigger Than You

by Leave a Comment

A friend recently texted, as a joke, “Calvinism is true because I’m bigger than you.”

But being big has advantages.

Physically

Being obese is unhealthy. And being too tall can be harder on your heart as you age.

But being physically bigger is good.

Height provides advantages to lawyers, salesmen, teachers, principals, managers, and most athletes.

Not only so, more muscle mass makes you harder to kill, even for diseases.

It makes you look more competent, to an extent more attractive, and requires a lifestyle that will typically improve your health all around.

Mentally

Becoming more expansive in your way of thinking, more capable of entertaining new evidence, strange ideas, or unexpected outcomes is generally better.

Reading more books, though not too many, gives you the thought world of another person without your having to go through their experiences.

Learning new skills gives you more opportunities to make money, to bless others, and to have fun. Man was made to tend to things, this can only be done with a skilled and active mind, lest reality become boring.

Psychologically/Spiritually

Growing bigger spiritually is something like this: “with every challenge or disaster, you learn to conform ever so slightly more to the logos or to nature in order to avoid that disaster next time.” This is very close to what Marcus Aurelius says. Jordan Peterson also says something like it. So do Nemeck and Coombs in their books.

For the Christian the spiritual growth must go further than this because the logos is not only available in nature, but is specified in Jesus Christ and revealed in bits and pieces through the Bible as well. And so we not only grow spiritually by seeking to avoid the catastrophes of nature in order to perfect our will and then impose it upon the world, but we also conform ourselves to the character and calling of Christ.

To grow bigger in the Christian sense is in some ways to shrink as Christ grows in our estimation (John 3:30). It is to go into the depths of ourselves and say no to every evil thing which resides there. But it is also to grow larger than we could imagine as we approach the full stature of Christ (Ephesians 4:13). There is often a chasm in the teaching of the church between the aspirational values of Proverbs and the condescension pattern set by Christ. In reality they are not opposed but in a hierarchy. But my main point is this, when the Christian faces the disasters of life and responds with love to God it will work to the good, especially the good of becoming like Jesus (Romans 8:28-29).

Being bigger is better.

David and Bathsheba: An Example of Narrative Plasticity in the Old Testament

by 2 Comments

In a previous post, I mentioned that the Bible itself includes multiple interpretations of the same passage from earlier in the Bible. Update: the technical term for narrative plasticity (my own term) is intentional ambiguity.

Now I want to see if I can demonstrate a moral ambiguity in a Biblical story which is meant to lead to reflection upon more than one moral issue. Below is the story of David and Bathsheba:

In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle, David sent Joab, and his servants with him, and all Israel. And they ravaged the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained at Jerusalem. It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her. (Now she had been purifying herself from her uncleanness.) Then she returned to her house. And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, “I am pregnant.”
(2 Samuel 11:1-5 ESV)

 

Immediately we’re led to suppose that there is a moral problem on David’s part: “In…the time when kings go out to battle…David remained at Jerusalem.” Now, David is married and so is Bathsheba. So both sin with respect to the law of God if we assume that each character is sexually interested in the other from the beginning. So from the get go, there is the “adultery is sinful and difficult to hide, even for kings and the wives of powerful, presumably rich soldiers.” But there are two more angles, all of which can be supported by the text and all of which are moral failures the Bible warns against:

  1. Simple adultery (mentioned above).
    In this scenario, both parties are guilty and the question of who initiated the affair is moot. But as I said above, the story can be seen from more than one angle.
  2. The Royal Rape Angle
    This interpretation is more popular today. The idea is that David, when he “sent messengers and took her” sent messengers to seize her and because she knew from whence they came, she acquiesced to avoid being murdered. So in that respect, the passage is purely an indictment of David’s character and a criticism of the very idea of a human king without checks and balances. And indeed, in the story it takes a seer with an advisory role to correct David and that seer is nervous enough that he uses a parable. And so the idea is that David did what the law said kings should do, he allowed his heart to be exalted above his countrymen (Deut 17:19-20)
  3. Don’t Give Your Strength to Women
    It could also be the case that Bathsheba bathed on the roof specifically to tempt David. This scenario is also familiar to the Biblical authors (Proverbs 7). It also matches up with the potential to be tempted to cheat on a husband hypergamously, with which the Biblical authors are familiar (Genesis 3:16). It’s also a direct warning in several places that men should not marriage idolatrous wives and that kings should not give their strength to women (Proverbs 31:3). And so the story, read from this angle, is about the fact that if you do not manage power correctly, and use your resources to avoid responsibility, then temptations which might have otherwise been easy to withstand become impossible to resist. In this version, both parties are complicit, but Bathsheba initiated.

All three versions provide useful warnings:

  1. Generally, don’t commit adultery.
  2. Don’t trust kings to be morally perfect and never allow political power to be absent accountability, especially moral/spiritual accountability.
  3. Seduction is real, but the moral failures that come from attempted seduction are usually the result of the situation the target placed themselves in.

Any of these interpretations is defensible from the text and all of the warnings that come from them can be found elsewhere in Scripture. Also, the exact details to say which version happened or which version did not happen were available to the writer.

If the goal had been to limit “the moral of the story” to an absolutely clear point, he would have. We know this because he does at other points (Eli’s sons, for instance). So either the story ends with the child of the union dying without any clear moral reason (obviously untrue), or the exact reason other than sexual sin of some sort leading to murder was left partially ambiguous for the moral education of the reader.

Update: I found this article Fraught with Background: Literary Ambiguity in II Samuel 11.

I had no idea that anybody had written about this particular issue before. My practice is usually to come up with my theories based on primary sources, then check the secondary literature. In this case all I looked up was “literary ambiguity in ancient literature.” Apparently this passage is a major test case.

Ephesians 4:1-6

by 1 Comment

Text

Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι τῆς κλήσεως ἧς ἐκλήθητε, μετὰ πάσης ταπεινοφροσύνης καὶ πραΰτητος, μετὰ μακροθυμίας, ἀνεχόμενοι ἀλλήλων ἐν ἀγάπῃ, σπουδάζοντες τηρεῖν τὴν ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῷ συνδέσμῳ τῆς εἰρήνης· Ἓν σῶμα καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα, καθὼς καὶ ἐκλήθητε ἐν μιᾷ ἐλπίδι τῆς κλήσεως ὑμῶν· εἷς κύριος, μία πίστις, ἓν βάπτισμα, εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.
(Eph 4:1-6)

Translation

Therefore, I (the prisoner in the Lord) urge you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called; in all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, working hard to keep/obey the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all, through all, and in all. Eph (4:1-6)

Interpretation

“calling” in Paul’s letters is a synecdoche for the personal event of hearing and believing the gospel message. It carries the same connotation as conversion does for us today. To walk worthy of the calling is to live in a way that reflects the dignity of the one who has called you. It is important to note that for Paul and Jesus in the gospels, the calling is to a particular form of community life. Jesus used the phrase “kingdom of God.” Paul said “church.” The idea is still important. Our conversion is personal and individual. Yet, it is not alone because it is a whole person conversion, and our social self is part of who we are. To be called as a Christian is to be identified with God’s elect people. But this calling is more than individual or social. Paul does speak of the evangelist calling people in his letters and of the individual’s responsibility to respond to the gospel. But even more, for Paul, the gospel call is a call from Jesus himself. So to walk worthy of the calling is to live in a way that honors Jesus with respect to his office and character. He goes on by listing character traits as to how this may be done. 

“unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” means divinely inspired unity which comes from the teachings related to the gospel. Paul tells them to be working hard to maintain this. There is a unity in the church which has its origin in God’s Spirit. But, this original unity must be maintained by God’s people in the sphere of “the bond of peace.” The bond of peace refers to the peace which Christ preached to those near and far. What Christ preached is the gospel (Ephesians 2:17). More evidence for this is that Paul uses this summary of the gospel story, “one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all, through all, and in all.”

Application

Christians must break certain habits. Habits of impatience, rudeness, and an inability to forgive all have to go. To do this, I think we must radically transform our approach to time, we spend to much time rushing that we’re short with God’s people. Instead, we need to slow down to learn to be patient with others. I also suspect that learning about our own sinfulness and not resenting it, but knowing it will help us to be compassionate and forbearing to others. 

Also, this passage tells us that Christians need to know the gospel well enough to have unity with other Christians based on our shared faith. To live worthy of the gospel, we must know it. Why? Because it’s principles are principles of peace. Once we know those principles, we must work hard to practice them so that we can have unity.

Finally, it is the calling of every Christian to put on these character traits. 

Recommended Reading:

Barth, Markus. Ephesians. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1984.

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2002.

Why I am no longer a Calvinist

by 1 Comment

I used to be a Calvinist. I’ve since slowly drifted away from that point of view.

A few years ago I wrote about why.

Below I’ve simplified/clarified those reasons.

I know how complicated these debates get, and we see through a glass darkly. Our understanding of time, determinism, human will and consciousness, moral goodness, the Bible, and our own limits are but a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of other constraints upon our knowledge of God.

Below, I’m defining Calvinism as “belief in the five points of Calvinism as articulated in the canons of the Synod of Dordrecht.”

  1. Limited Atonement
    While the Bible clearly teaches that God’s salvation is only acquired by some, it also says he is the savior of all humanity (1 Timothy 4:10). It also says the same in 1 John 2:1-2. Jesus (not just his death) is the atonement for all humanity. I think the implicit logic in both passages is that the believer can be confident of God’s salvation to those who believe precisely because it is God’s intent for all humanity. This leads to a psychological issue.
  2. Psychological Problem of Calvinism
    In Calvinistic teaching, the chief cause of salvation is unconditional election. What this ultimately implies is that your perseverance until the end is determined by God’s unchangeable decrees of history. This means that whether you persevere in your faith or lose your faith is entirely up to God. But we know that some people do, in fact, leave the faith. This means that God led them to believe they had saving faith when they did not. Therefore, you don’t know if you’re saved or deceived about your salvation while ultimately being destined to apostasize. It’s a serious epistemological problem which makes for an even more serious motivational one. In this viewpoint, assurance of salvation is, as far as I can tell, a chimera and only incidentally correct. If assurance of salvation is instead knowable based on what 1 John 2:3, Matthew 7:14-27, and  Romans 8:28 say (conscious allegiance to Christ), then you may be saved with or without assurance of salvation but any deception is self-deception, not a feature of the wheels of history or God’s plan to damn you.
  3. Romans 9-11
    Romans 9, does say why God rejected Esau, also says why God rejected the religious leadership in Jerusalem: Romans 9:30-33. I think this section of Scripture is about the death of Christ (see Romans 11:11-15) and the subsequent difficulty of sharing the gospel in Israel, especially Jerusalem. It is not, I submit, Paul’s total philosophy of every person’s salvation history. Israel’s rejection of Jesus and of Paul’s gospel about Jesus have resulted in riches for all the nations of the earth and will result in salvation for Israel as well. The big proof that Paul is not teaching that God picks some for salvation without regard for their life history can be found in Romans 11:17-24. Paul makes clear that those whose hearts were hardened can repent and those who were shown mercy can reject that mercy.
  4. The Calvinist Notion of Sovereignty is Incoherent
    In most Calvinist preaching I’ve heard, God’s sovereignty is not about his authority as the king of the universe or even the king of his people. Rather, the word signifies his algorithmic oversight of every discrete event in the cosmos. In the Bible, God’s kingship is a metaphor about the relationship between God and his people that implied a two-way street of care, protection, and legal enforcement on the one hand and loyalty, admiration, and obedience on the other. In Calvinist rhetoric and theology, sovereignty is precisely the opposite. It’s a doctrine of one-way causal management. It is in no way political or reciprocal.
  5. The Bible Doesn’t Seem Designed To Explain God’s Exact Relationship to Time
    The New Testament tells us that the Old Testament is inspired to prepare the world for Christ, to train us in righteousness, to rebuke the lawless, and to be fulfilled by Christ. It isn’t clear to me that we need to know how God relates to time to be righteous or understand the gospel. What is clear to me is that many people who hardly give the issues of Calvinism a second thought, whether they belong to Calvinist churches or not, live righteously. So these issues, while perhaps open to human scrutiny are not necessary for Christian discipleship or personal development.
  6. The Warnings of Apostasy
    While this is a bit controversial, if somebody can reject the gospel after having believed it genuinely, then a wrench is thrown in the gears of the idea that grace is irresistible, and that divine election guarantees perseverance of the saints. Teaching the Bible over the years has lead me to have to let passages like those below have their full force as warnings to the effect that the gospel promises are only for the faithful. That faith may be weak, even the size of a mustard seed. But it must persist for somebody expect God’s salvation. God can show mercy to whomever he wants, of course, but he promises to show mercy to the faithful. Which means that the apostasy passages are warnings to believers lest they die without faith and in their sins. Paul said that he needed to use spiritual disciplines lest he abandon his faith (1 Corinthians 9:27) and that believing gentiles could reject the gospel (Romans 11:21-24). Jesus told parables to the effect that those who believe the gospel should be careful how they hear it, lest circumstances lead them to reject the gospel (Matthew 13:3-9). And Peter warned that false teachers who used to believe will be worse off than those who had never believed (2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Peter 2:18-22). This isn’t the same as saying that one can “lose their salvation” by sinning here or there. Instead, it’s saying that through intentional definitive rejection or habitual disuse, one can lose one’s faith in Christ. If this is true, and I think it is, then Calvinism, as I held it, is not.

Anyway, there’s that.

Plasticity of the Old Testament Stories

by 1 Comment

On Christian presuppositions, the Old Testament is inspired by God in a way that makes it useful for understanding God, understanding human nature, understanding morality, and ultimately that foreshadows the gospel of Jesus. There is a sense in which the Old Testament, independently of the new does these things and another sense in which it needs the new to do it. But my main point is that the Old Testament was interpreted plastically, insofar as some of the stories were seen to have more than one meaning, on purpose. And it’s useful and even necessary for Christians to do the same.

But for now, let’s see how the New Testament authors interpreted the Old Testament in subtly different ways which may, nevertheless, do justice to the Old Testament. What this does for us is it canonizes (enshrines in canon) the notion that the Biblical stories signify more than one thing because the inspired writ is recorded treating them this very way.

Jacob and Esau

Below are the interpretations of Jacob and Esau in Romans and Hebrews. For Paul, the significance of the story is that God had chosen in advance (before right or wrong was done) to make the Israelite nation out of Jacob. But the author of Hebrews sees the point of the story as precisely the opposite, that Esau’s rejection of holiness is why he lost his birthright. Interestingly, if you read Romans 9-11, the implication is that Esau and those like him can repent (despite the rejection of Esau being foreordained). But in Hebrews, Esau could not reacquire his blessing after losing it, despite it being his own fault. When you read the Genesis version, Esau is blessed by God, he just is not blessed as the firstborn. And in fact, in Genesis 33, Esau having repented of his self-indulgence has now also repented of his hatred for Jacob. The story appears to be both about God’s election of Israel as a nation, the power of self-indulgence to ruin your life, and the possibility of repentance to a comparable, though not identical state of happiness.

For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
(Romans 9:9-13 ESV)

See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no “root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled; that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.
(Hebrews 12:15-17 ESV)

Abraham

For James, Abraham was justified by works “when he offered up his son.” And so his faith was “counted to him as righteousness” in the sense that it lead to righteous action and was thereby made complete.

On the other hand, for Paul, Abraham is justified apart from the work of circumcision by virtue of having his faith “counted to him as righteousness” before he was circumcised. Paul’s conclusion: it is faith, not works [of the Mosaic law] that justify.

From these two stories, neither of which deform the story of Abraham, radically different (but complementary) theological conclusions are drawn.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
(James 2:21-24 ESV)

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
(Romans 4:1-10 ESV)

Conclusion

These are just impressionistic reflections, but I think my main point is true: the Biblical narratives, as they appear in the canon, are supposed to be flexible in significance and application. I’ll point out some other texts just in the Old Testament w/out reference to the New another time. But I think that moral ambiguity in Old Testament texts is meant to get us to reflect on the several layers or levels of analysis at which life can go wrong.

Sacrifice and Social-Selves

by Leave a Comment

In Jordan Peterson’s lectures he makes a great deal of his interpretation of sacrifice as a dramatization of the fact that short term loss, especially of an ideal (perfect lamb, unblemished bull, etc) leads us to an ideal future. Or rather, sacrifice is a symbolic habit of future orientation as a result of human self-consciousness and fear of death. I would be hard pressed to think of an Old Testament scholar who puts it exactly that way. Peterson isn’t diminishing the fact that the ancients believed that sacrifice worked because of the gods. But he is pointing out that the principle motivation behind it comes from a line of reasoning that is profound and extremely powerful for civilization and individual self-realization.

I’ve written about how sacrifice is built into life and my view of sacrifice is similar to Peterson’s. I’ve thought for years that the Biblical evidence points to the idea that man, not God, invented sacrifice. But what are some precursor’s to seeing sacrifice as a dramatization of a psychological reality, and therefore efficacious independently of supernatural activity? My discovery of Jordan Peterson has led me back to the great writers in psychology and psychotherapy: Freud, Jung, Rogers, Paiget, Ellis, Seligman, and the greatest of them: James. Now, I’ve read James’ works periodically since high school, but they’ve taken on more significance to me lately. For instance, these paragraphs were just throwaways for me about 5 years ago:

In each kind of self, material, social, and spiritual, men distinguish between the immediate and actual, and the remote and potential, between the narrower and the wider view, to the detriment of the former and advantage of the latter. One must forego a present bodily enjoyment for the sake of one’s general health; one must abandon the dollar in the hand for the sake of the hundred dollars to come; one must make an enemy of his present interlocutor if thereby one makes friends of a more valued circle; one must go without learning and grace, and wit, the better to compass one’s soul’s salvation.

Of all these wider, more potential selves, the potential social self is the most interesting, by reason of certain apparent paradoxes to which it leads in conduct, and by reason of its connection with our moral and religious life. When for motives of honor and conscience I brave the condemnation of my own family, club, and ‘set’; when, as a protestant, I turn catholic; as a catholic, freethinker; as a ‘regular practitioner,’ homoeopath, or what not, I am always inwardly strengthened in my course and steeled against the loss of my actual social self by the thought of other and better possible social judges than those whose verdict goes against me now. The ideal social self which I thus seek in appealing to their decision may be very remote: it may be represented as barely possible. I may not hope for its realization during my lifetime; I may even expect the future generations, which would approve me if they knew me, to know nothing about me when I am dead and gone. Yet still the emotion that beckons me on is indubitably the pursuit of an ideal social self, of a self that is at least worthy of approving recognition by the highest possible judging companion, if such companion there be. This self is the true, the intimate, the ultimate, the permanent Me which I seek. This judge is God, the Absolute Mind, the ‘Great Companion.’ We hear, in these days of scientific enlightenment, a great deal of discussion about the efficacy of prayer; and many reasons are given us why we should not pray, whilst others are given us why we should. But in all this very little is said of the reason why we do pray, which is simply that we cannot help praying. It seems probable that, in spite of all that ‘science’ may do to the contrary, men will continue to pray to the end of time, unless their mental nature changes in a manner which nothing we know should lead us to expect. The impulse to pray is a necessary consequence of the fact that whilst the innermost of the empirical selves of a man is a Self of the social sort, it yet can find its only adequate Socius in an ideal world.

All progress in the social Self is the substitution of higher tribunals for lower; this ideal tribunal is the highest; and most men, either continually or occasionally, carry a reference to it in their breast. The humblest outcast on this earth can feel himself to be real and valid by means of this higher recognition. And, on the other hand, for most of us, a world with no such inner refuge when the outer social self failed and dropped from us would be the abyss of horror. I say ‘for most of us,’ because it is probable that individuals differ a good deal in the degree in which they are haunted by this sense of an ideal spectator. It is a much more essential part of the consciousness of some men that of others. Those who have the most of it are possibly the most religious men. But I am sure that even those who say they are altogether without it deceive themselves, and really have it in some degree. Only a non-gregarious animal could be completely without it. Probably no one can make sacrifices for ‘right,’ without to some degree personifying the principle of right for which the sacrifice is made, and expecting thanks from it. Complete social unselfishness, in other words, can hardly exist; complete social suicide hardly occur to a man’s mind. Even such texts as Job’s, “Though He slay me yet will I trust Him,” or Marcus Aurelius’s, “If gods hate me and my children, there is a reason for it,” can least of all be cited to prove the contrary. For beyond all doubt Job reveled in the thought of Jehovah’s recognition of the worship after the slaying should have been done; and the Roman emperor felt sure the Absolute Reason would not be all indifferent to his acquiescence in the gods’ dislike. The old test of piety, “Are you willing to be damned for the glory of God?” was probably never answered in the affirmative except by those who felt sure in their heart of hearts that God would ‘credit’ them with their willingness, and set more store by them thus than if in His unfathomable scheme He had not damned them at all.

So, as far as William James is concerned, sacrifice/substitution is a process of seeking greater ideal selves by means of seeking approval great higher and higher social ideals.

This seems correct. But how to reconcile it with the theological and anthropological interpretations given to Old Testament sacrifices and those of their neighbors? Hmm.