And these almost inevitably lead on to a third thing that is sometimes called patriotism. This third thing is not a sentiment but a belief: a firm, even prosaic belief that our own nation, in sober fact, has long been, and still is markedly superior to all others. I once ventured to say to an old clergyman who was voicing this sort of patriotism, "But, sir, aren't we told that every people thinks its own men the bravest and its own women the fairest in the world?" He replied with total gravity - he could not have been graver if he had been saying the Creed at the altar - "Yes, but in England it's true."
C. S.Lewis, 1898-1963, The Four Loves, Likings and Loves for the Sub-Human, (Harcourt Books, 1988, p.26)
Is this attitude indeed misguided? Is there a better approach?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This sentiment is on full display in the OT. Would that men were lovers rather than fighters.
ReplyDeleteA stiff-necked and obstinate people does not seem to be an expression of this sentiment. But I agree with your basic wish.
DeleteI suggest that tribalism or patriotism is germane to understanding the OT.
ReplyDeleteThis all depends on whether the commands of the OT were really given by God for the reason stated or this was merely an excuse on the Israelites part for their patriotism or tribalism. If you want to open up this question again we can. But I have not changed my opinion on it and believe to OT should be taken at face value rather then reading ulterior motives into it.
DeleteNo ulterior motives but simply human nature. I am fine with taking the OT at face value but do not believe that one needs to believe that every "thus saith the Lord" is actually God speaking. To do so would elevate prophets and other people to a different order of human being.
ReplyDeleteI do not see a necessity to elevate gifted people in that way. History has proven over and over again that it is wrong to see humans in this form of perfection. One does not need to read the OT in that kind of black/white either/or light. Life is certainly not that way. Why impose such an irrational view on humanity? Why not choose to see the grays instead of the black and white?
And yes, it is doubtful that we will agree. Wonder what you think of this from CS Lewis himself.
Dear Mr. Beversluis,
Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.
To this some will reply ‘ah, but we are fallen and don’t recognize good when we see it.’ But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen as all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: ‘Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?’ — ‘What fault hath my people found in me?’ And so on. Socrates’ answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham’s, Paley’s) leads to an absurdity. If ‘good’ means ‘what God wills’ then to say ‘God is good’ can mean only ‘God wills what he wills.’ Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.
But of course having said all this, we must apply it with fear and trembling. Some things which seem to us bad may be good. But we must not consult our consciences by trying to feel a thing good when it seems to us totally evil. We can only pray that if there is an invisible goodness hidden in such things, God, in His own good time will enable us to see it. If we need to. For perhaps sometimes God’s answer might be ‘What is that to thee?’ The passage may not be ‘addressed to our (your or my) condition’ at all.
I think we are v. much in agreement, aren’t we?
Yours sincerely, C. S. Lewis
July 3, 1963, letter from C.S. Lewis to John Beversluis. Letter quoted in full in John Beversluis, C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion
If you want want to go through this one again for 40 some more comments we can. But I repeat my previous position. I do not see this as matter as simple conflict between the concept of inerrancy and my sense of morality. I do believe God does in justice punish sin. The Canaanites burned their children as sacrifices to gods who demanded such. I do not know nor claim to know when a people have behaved so wickedly as to bring upon themselves God's judgment. But I do not believe it is wrong for God to do so. Therefore while I sympathize with Lewis in principle, I disagree with him in fact.
Delete"The Canaanites burned their children as sacrifices to gods who demanded such."
DeleteSo the answer is to not judge the perpetrators but the innocent victims too? This seems to besmirch the image of God.
Lewis simply points us to the irrational way that people sacrifice the image of God in the name of their dogma And I do think that one has to bend (contort) the definition of good to allow for the killing of innocents by a God whom we believe to be good. I simply cannot agree with such a wishy-washy definition of good that embraces such relativism.
You seem to be working on the assumption that if I just dumped inerrancy I would see that you position was true. It is not so. It is not that I do not value inerrancy, I do. A revelation from God where you get to pick and choose which parts you believe seems meaningless to me, how could you ever know which parts to believe. And if Scripture cannot challenge our preconceived notions what good is it.
ReplyDeleteBut while it may be from too many years of reading Scripture seriously I do at feel that your position is the obvious right position and it I would just drop inerrancy I would see it. I frankly find the idea that wrong-doing does not in principle deserve punishment repugnant and destructive of all moral principle. I am convinced the idea that God is not the One who enforces this or is even in sympathy with this, implies something higher than God He is forced to submit to. I believe and strongly believe that God forgives sin. But I am convinced that there is something there that needs to be forgiven.
"if I just dumped inerrancy"
DeleteI really do not care all that much about inerrancy unless it leads to a place of besmirching the image of God.
"A revelation from God where you get to pick and choose which parts you believe seems meaningless to me, how could you ever know which parts to believe."
People already pick and choose how they read the scriptures. Many do through the lens of words like inerrancy. Some through preconceived notions of who God is (the OT Jews did this a lot).To me, interpreting through the lens of Christ's life, ministry and teachings seem to me to be a valid way to discern the true teachings of the scriptures.
"I frankly find the idea that wrong-doing does not in principle deserve punishment repugnant and destructive of all moral principle."
Depends what you mean by punishment. After much discussion I still do not understand (apart from end times judgment) what that word means to you with relation to God. In my view sin has consequences. God has ordered the world that way. Yet one need not invoke the name of God when bad things (be they wars, sicknesses or earthquakes) happen in the world.
"I am convinced that there is something there that needs to be forgiven."
On that we agree. We see it in the ministry of Christ as he hung from the cross and prayed that the unbelievers would be forgiven. In a sense the first sin that needs to be forgiven is the sin of unbelief.
Much of what you have said here I agree with. The one thing which I seem have been totally unclear on, let me try to explain again. I would almost ask you to forget everything I have previously said on the subject since much of it, possibly due to my own fault, has been misunderstood.
DeleteI would hold that it is very clear in Scripture that not all bad things that happen to people are a result of their wrong-doing. Sometimes God allows bad things to happen to those who are genuinely following Him to built their faith and make them better followers. But I do believe there are cases where God uses adversity in people's lives to correct them and bring them to repentance. I also believe He may bring calamity on people who are doing evil to prevent them from hurting or influencing others. I am also convinced there are many events that are simply beyond our understanding. Maybe someday we will understand , but not now.
Because there are many different reasons for bad events to happen I am very reluctant to interpret them unless I am personally directly involved (and even then I would urge caution) or I have some clear prophetic insight that tells what the purpose of the event is. In fact I suspect the same event may have a different purpose for different people involved.
But I do not believe that there will be anyone who will experience the full measure of God's judgment or the full benefit of His forgiveness until judgment day. This is an act of God's mercy to allow people more time to repent. Before this I would hold that all judgment is mixed with mercy, because it is never simply judgment, but is designed to grow our faith, or correct us or in the extreme case prevent further harm or influence on others. It is only in the last judgment that full justice and grace are manifest. Much of what happens in the present time is cryptic and hard to understand. But this does not prevent me from saying that a particular event is God's response to sin, if Scripture says it is.
"Sometimes God allows bad things to happen to those who are genuinely following Him to built their faith and make them better followers."
ReplyDeleteMy view is that bad things are caused from within creation and from not outside of creation. Bad or evil things happen in the world because God has ceded some sovereignty to governments and individuals. God is good and loves humans. Yet he has permitted humans to choose to do good (i.e. to love) or to do bad (i.e. not love). To recap: God is good and always does good; man has the ability to do good but sometimes does not do good.
"I am also convinced there are many events that are simply beyond our understanding. Maybe someday we will understand , but not now."
There are certainly things in life we do not know. But we do know that God is good and always does good. Any time that anyone says that he does something that is clearly bad (i.e. ordering the killing of innocents) then we must seriously challenge the one that is making that assertion - be they Muslim jihadists or people we consider prophets.
"It is only in the last judgment that full justice and grace are manifest."
I think that we should be careful when we use the word justice. OT writers sometimes defined justice as an eye for eye. Yet in Jesus we see that real justice is about reconciliation and loving our enemies.
Lastly, I have to say that I was surprised that you wanted me to forget everything you have previously said on the subject. I will try but it may mean that you will have to repeat yourself or tell me why you disagree with something that I write. :-)
I may have over-emphasizing forgetting about what I said previously, but I did feel I had said things that I may have not made clear and you seemed to misunderstand. But just to avoid confusion I will repeat some of the things I said before. :)
DeleteBefore I respond to your remarks I do have to ask the obvious question. What do you do with natural calamities such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes that are not the result of human will. I am saying you have no answer for this but I would like to hear it.
I believe that God does not directly cause evil but rather allows other agents to commit it (see Job the first two chapters), but I do not see that as the same thing as saying it is out of God's control. I see throughout the Scripture OT and NT, from Joseph in Egypt to the Cross, that God controls the events of history (including the minutiae) to accomplish His purposes. You can always say I suppose that this is a mistaken Jewish concept that never got eliminated. But I cannot say I see the idea of a helpless God as attractive, nor do I see any necessary basis for it.
I do not see how any war can totally avoid killing innocents. Even many of the combatants are largely innocents who are there to serve their country and may not even understand their country's policies. I would distinguish between killing innocents and specifically and deliberately targeting innocents to produce terror, which is what the Muslim jihadists do.
I do not believe there is a distinction between the OT and NT ideas of justice. I believe the OT law tells us what we deserve and the NT gospel tells us what we will receive instead. I therefore do not believe in either of your two types of justice as they are stated, but believe they are both parts of a complete understanding of the subject. As such I have tried to avoid the word, but I do not know another that can be put in its place.
"What do you do with natural calamities such as tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes that are not the result of human will."
ReplyDeleteWhy do the earthquakes and tsunamis occur? Are they acts of an angry God? I do not believe they are. They are the result of the movement and collision of the earth's tectonic plates ... a process driven by the earth's need to regulate its own internal temperature. Without the process that creates earthquakes, our planet could not sustain life. So one can say that God is indirectly responsible for natural calamities (as he created the earth) but I do not think that one can categorically equate them with judgments as uninformed ancient peoples once did. The world is not flat. We have learned much about why these things happen. Why hold to ancient ideas that no longer seem to hold water?
"I believe that God does not directly cause evil but rather allows other agents to commit it"
I think that he allowed it by giving humans the choice to love or not to love. But to say that God could prevent the abuse of a child but chose to allow it maligns His character. It presents an image of God who can help but refuses to help.
"I do not see how any war can totally avoid killing innocents."
I agree. War is a result of people choosing to hate instead of love. Some of these blame God saying that He commanded them to kill innocent infants. Again, this maligns the image and character of God.
"I do not believe there is a distinction between the OT and NT ideas of justice."
Probably. But there is a difference between human and divine justice. Human justice is about fairness (an eye for eye) but divine justice (as define in the Sermon on the Mount) is about reconciliation and loving our enemies.
Lastly, I feel that you do not seem to be addressing the image of God in your views about natural disasters and the awful things done by human beings. When you say that God allows people do do evil things you communicate an idea that God could but does not prevent awful things from happening. For example, I do not think that it is valid to say that God was involved when Joseph's brothers abused him and sold him into slavery. To me the message is not that he was involved in this evil act but He was able to work it together for good because Joseph loved God and was called by God.
Your answer seems to imply that God is somehow subject to the physical laws and is therefore unable to make a world where calamities do not happen. This seems to imply something above God which I reject.
DeleteYou seem to be advocating a fairly helpless idea goodness in terms of the character of God. I do not not see goodness as something passive but something that is actively involved in using events to accomplish His purpose. Nor to I see how He can work things for good if He has no control over the events. Most of the events in the life of Joseph involve human actions. Did these just happen by accident to go the way God wanted them to. It is clear that God allows evil (it happens) the question is does He allow it with a purpose or stand passively by.
The question of the Canaanites is hard to deal with apart from the larger question. There are undoubtedly those who would agree with me that God acts to judge sin, but thinks that command to exterminate the Canaanites is overkill. But I cannot see any way that the command can be reconciled with the idea God does not act to judge sin. Unless we can agree on the broad principles there is no way to agree on the specifics.
"God is somehow subject to the physical laws and is therefore unable to make a world where calamities do not happen."
ReplyDeleteI am saying that when God decided to give humans the ability to love or not love he ceded a bit of his sovereignty to humanity. He could have made us differently but he did not. God is not powerless but it obvious (to me anyways) that he uses his power in a way that rarely overrides human sovereignty. But perhaps he does allow child abuse in the name of the "greater good"? If that is true then he is not much different than humans. But perhaps he has designed a world in which good ultimately trumps evil? Perhaps he is more like Jesus than Moses or Samuel?
"Nor to I see how He can work things for good if He has no control over the events."
Is there only one way to make us like Jesus? Is not the good that he works for to that end? Are you saying that God was limited in the way that Joseph would one day rule in Egypt? I think that God's will is wrapped up in we who love God becoming more like him. Is not the way that he works things for good wrapped up in his working in the people he loves? Regardless of the circumstances was not the issue about how he was working in Joseph to accomplish his will regardless of the circumstances of Joseph's life?
"Unless we can agree on the broad principles there is no way to agree on the specifics."
Here are the broad principles I am advocating:
1) God is good and always acts in ways that are good. Sometimes biblical authors call good evil and evil good.
2) God is love and always acts in ways that are loving. Man wants and eye for and eye but Jesus tells us to love.
3) God uses, but does not directly allow or order, all things. He even uses evil to work the good of those who love him in order that they might be conformed in the image of Christ.
I see these principles throughout the bible and find it helpful to keep them in mind when I read how some thought that God ordered them to do something that was not good or loving.
I understand the idea of God ceding some of His sovereignty to allow for human choice. I would even to accept the concept to a degree, though not to the degree you do. But I not see what this has to do with tectonic plates. Has God ceded some of His sovereignty to the physical laws. Why? I understand the point of it with humans, in order to allow for moral choice. But I do not see why God would allow nature to get out of His control.
DeleteIt certainly seems like God had specific plan in mind for the life of Joseph and that it did not involve his being speared to death by Potiphar in a fit of anger or left permanently in prison because the cup-bearer was too chicken to ever saying anything. It is true that any of these might have still contributed to Joseph's spiritual growth (at least while he was still alive), but there seems to be a more definite plan included, to provide the descendents of Israel a safe refuse during the famine. Now He could have accomplished this some other way, but this is clearly stated to be His plan in this case.
1) I do not see the total dichotomy you see between man's view of justice and God's view of justice. I find it strange God would define justice so totally different then we do. I see justice, as I have described it, as a necessary part goodness and a passive goodness that does not under any circumstance fight or even punish evil if necessary as not fully good. I do believe God in His goodness works to forgive and repair evil, but I do not believe He is merely helpless to intervene.
2) I do not believe love stands by and allows evil and oppression in the world without ultimately intervening to put an end to such behavior. I believe God is very patient and long-suffering allowing people time to repent, but I do not see love as purely passive.
3) While I do not believe God directly does do evil, I do believe He does order and allow it to accomplish His purposes.
I see these principles clearly taught throughout the Bible OT and NT and nothing that clearly contradicts it.
So where does that leave us?
"So where does that leave us?"
ReplyDeleteOne in heart but not in thinking.
I appreciate your passion for the Lord and for the scriptures. It shows in what you write. Grace also is on display in your comments Mike.
Perhaps we will try again on another day?
Blessings, Bob
Another day then,
DeleteBlessings to you too, Mike