A Glorious Ruin?

One of the questions posed to me in Nashville was how I would respond to C.S. Lewis's contention that humanity is "a glorious ruin." Lewis bases his position on the classic theist idea that humans fell from a state of innocence to our current state of depravity. Chesterton went so far as to say that human depravity is an absolutely demonstrable truth; one only needs to look around. And no one can measure the harm that Augustine has done with his ruminations on original sin and human depravity. Luther, in his Bondage of the Will, may top all comers in this area though. Christian theology has been hopelessly entangled in this ridiculous doctrine from almost the beginning of the Church. Is humanity a glorious ruin?

I said no. I said we are what we are, and we've always been just that. If the Genesis 3 story means anything I think it means we all move from a place of ignorance to enlightenment and that we all achieve the status of gods in our moral development inasmuch as we exchange what we know to be right for a preference that is destructive, selfish, or just vain. Enlightenment in this sense not necessarily being a good thing. It could simply mean an awareness of the consequences of the choices before us and a perverse preference for the wrong choice.

I don't think there was a time when humanity existed in bliss and innocence. At some point in our development, we all choose to fall. The fall narrative is a psychological description of the process of becoming morally aware creatures. We're ruined by our choices and our participation in systems of violence, destruction, lust, gluttony, oppression, etc. The cure for this state of moral awareness and ambivalence need not be another murdered man on a cross; it seems that soteriology is best understood in the framework of friendship because friendship draws us out of our selfishness and helps us prefer another. Any discussion of "friendship with God" seems like nonsense talk to me since God is not there in any guise wherein she would be recognizable. Salvation is and has been available in the form of friends, family, and even strangers, but I've never known salvation in the Christian sense to be distinguishable from non-salvation. How do I know that I'm saved? The Bible says so. What should I feel? You can't trust your feelings; trust God's word. What then does salvation look like? Jesus on the cross. This is, of course, God of the gaps talk. It proves nothing, solves nothing, demonstrates nothing, and can't be discerned in any normal activity in human life. It is salvation from nothing to nothing. Salvation, even in the Bible, was always realized by the presence and activity of a person, even when that person was Jesus.

Comments

[Dino]

So Greg in your view do you see a need for humanity to be reconciled towards God or in need of redemption?

It seems that in your understanding of "sin" our preference for destruction,selfishness, and vanity are mitigated primarily against other human beings, which implies that salvation is attained through self directed reconciliation towards other human beings.

[Whisky Prajer]

Among the more personally helpful conversations I've had in my younger days was with a friend who was an Orthodox Jew. I can't recall the exact start to it, but I made reference to original sin.

"'Original sin?'" said she. "What's that?"

*blink, blink* "Uh ... don't you guys have original sin??"

Nope. Short conversation, HUGE paradigm shift - just one of several, over the years. Conversations with friends from other faith backgrounds can be like that. Perhaps this is what McLaren & Co. are alluding to?

[Connor]

The question that runs through my head as of late is, how can I have chosen to fall when I did choose to be here in the first place? Does it not ultimately fall back on those before me? Therefore am I required to pay or correct the orginal sin of Adam? Why?

It doesn't make sense I know but it's an argument in the forming stage.

[cheek]

It makes perfect sense Connor. It's why Calvinist theology is forced to bite the bullet of God being a moral monster by any earthly standard.

[fiodax]

emphasis on the "earthly standard"

[ward]

just heard an interesting sermon on this very issue last week - www.fcctn.org - i think you can stream it from there...

[cheek]

Fiodax, an earthly standard is the only one available to me. I realize I could just assert that God is not bound by earthly morality, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Why would he give us a morality that looks nothing like what she actually "thinks." Earthly concepts and values may be insufficient for discussing the divine and eternal, but they're all we have, aren't they?

[fiodax]

cheek,

That is apparently the crux of the whole debate here and on every thread and in every book and all over. My type believe that truth is revealed through scripture by the Holy Spirit and that this revelation is unique and different from our own ability to examine reality.

In essence Paul agrees exactly with you in 1 Corinthians 2:11 "For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." Meaning that who can really know what a man is thinking unless he is within than man experiencing what that man experiences.

However he goes on to say that for the Christian it is different, we see truth differently and can understand God more fully because "we have the mind of Christ." (end of vs 16)
And in so much we share in his experiences and can see the world from his point of view.

There in lies the problem because like I said in another thread, in order for the two "sides" of this debate to come in to complete agreement, one of them has to abandon the premise of their argument.

Not to sound preachy or anything, but before arguing this away realize that I realize that it seems stupid and unfair of me to simply claim a divine viewpoint. Because from your point of view it either is silly, or you have a hard time trusting me because of how many have abused and wrongly claimed that they are speaking from a "Holy Spirit" guided viewpoint (note the West Burrough Baptist Church with the signs that say "God Hates Fags").

However, just as I attempt to evaluate my premise from the earthly standard as well as from the divine, I would encourage you to do both as well. Prayer and faith (to and in the God of the Bible) is the tool for obtaining the divine viewpoint.

[cheek]

Thanks for the measured response. My problem with examining these issues from the "divine viewpoint" is that I don't know how that's done. I've prayed continually throughout my life, but it has never lead me to any answers that were not most easily attributed to the reasoned understanding that comes from long and careful contemplation. As far as faith, it's an unknown quantity for me. The other Christian virtues I readily understand, but I feel faith can't come prior to reason and justification and properly be called a virtue. Then of course, one could argue that after reason and justification there is no need for faith, and that I'm ready to admit. Perhaps you could go into your understanding of faith and it's value a bit here?

[Mike]

greg wrote:

"Salvation, even in the Bible, was always realized by the presence and activity of a person, even when that person was Jesus."

That's the key, isn't it? Actually I would say especially when that person was Jesus.

With regard to "original sin," as a parent I have often watched my children display certainly a less than peaceful approach to conflict resolution. My wife and I don't yell at each other, hit each other, or forcefully take things out of each other's hands, so they are not learning these things from us. If there is such a thing as "original sin," I would assume it involves our natural inclination toward selfishness and violence; it seems that peace, grace, and selflessness are traits that we must learn, and which take the better part of our lives to completely master. Our ultimate achievement of those traits occurs when we allow the Holy Spirit to guide our lives. This is how God truly makes us "at one" with Him.

I believe that forgiveness is as much of a communal effort as it is a divine one. Understanding that we are justified in God's eyes when we accept the Gospel is the fundamental step of course, because divine justification allows us to begin the process of inward healing and reconciliation. That is why it is important for us to know that there is no divine condemnation for those who are in Christ, and that Christ will be a gracious advocate for us when we do sin.

But the process of salvation and justification must be completed through the forgiveness and grace of our community. Through the Holy Spirit, we are to extend the same graciousness to others that God extended to us. When we embrace others in this way, the stains of their past do not interfere with the grace that they are shown today. Thus we become a living embodiment of the forgiveness granted by the Holy Spirit. Only when we see forgiveness and grace exhibited by others, can we begin to accept the validity of divine forgiveness and grace.

[fiodax]

cheek, I know where you are coming from, making the transition from leaning on my own understanding to trusting God was hard for me and it often still is. I struggled with many issues (particularly the moral monster issue). Here is some CH Spurgeon, he helped me to understand faith, this is from a little book he wrote called "all of grace", you could probably read the whole book in 30 mins:

"What is faith? It is made up of three things — knowledge, belief, and trust. Knowledge comes first. "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" I want to be informed of a fact before I can possibly believe it. "Faith cometh by hearing"; we must first hear, in order that we may know what is to be believed. "They that know thy name shall put their trust in thee." A measure of knowledge is essential to faith; hence the importance of getting knowledge. "Incline your ear, and come unto me; hear, and your soul shall live." Such was the word of the ancient prophet, and it is the word of the gospel still. Search the Scriptures and learn what the Holy Spirit teacheth concerning Christ and His salvation. Seek to know God: "For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." May the Holy Spirit give you the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord! Know the gospel: know what the good news is, how it talks of free forgiveness, and of change of heart, of adoption into the family of God, and of countless other blessings. Know especially Christ Jesus the Son of God, the Saviour of men, united to us by His human nature, and yet one with God; and thus able to act as Mediator between God and man, able to lay His hand upon both, and to be the connecting link between the sinner and the Judge of all the earth. Endeavour to know more and more of Christ Jesus. Endeavour especially to know the doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ; for the point upon which saving faith mainly fixes itself is this— "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." Know that Jesus was "made a curse for us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Drink deep of the doctrine of the substitutionary work of Christ; for therein lies the sweetest possible comfort to the guilty sons of men, since the Lord "made him to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Faith begins with knowledge.

The mind goes on to believe that these things are true. The soul believes that God is, and that He hears the cries of sincere hearts; that the gospel is from God; that justification by faith is the grand truth which God hath revealed in these last days by His Spirit more clearly than before. Then the heart believes that Jesus is verily and in truth our God and Saviour, the Redeemer of men, the Prophet, Priest, and King of His people. All this is accepted as sure truth, not to be called in question. I pray that you may at once come to this. Get firmly to believe that "the blood of Jesus Christ, God's dear Son, cleanseth us from all sin"; that His sacrifice is complete and fully accepted of God on man's behalf, so that he that believeth on Jesus is not condemned. Believe these truths as you believe any other statements; for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater."

So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. Commit yourself to the merciful God; rest your hope on the gracious gospel; trust your soul on the dying and living Saviour; wash away your sins in the atoning blood; accept His perfect righteousness, and all is well. Trust is the lifeblood of faith; there is no saving faith without it. The Puritans were accustomed to explain faith by the word "recumbency." It meant leaning upon a thing. Lean with all your weight upon Christ. It would be a better illustration still if I said, fall at full length, and lie on the Rock of Ages. Cast yourself upon Jesus; rest in Him; commit yourself to Him. That done, you have exercised saving faith. Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation. That is one way of describing what faith is."

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5

[cheek]

I appreciate the attempt to explain, but I take exception to the suggestion that the faith he describes is rooted in knowledge. The only knowledge I can see it being rooted in is the knowledge of what reformed theology tells me the Bible says. Such is not evidence that would prudently inspire trust from my perspective. Rest assured I've spent plenty of time reading the Bible as well as reading and listening to people try to interpret it. The problem I come up against, when confronted with the idea that the Spirit will impart it's meaning to me, is that She doesn't seem to speak with one voice. There are, it seems to me, more interpretations of scripture than there are believers. Most of the text strikes me as pretty clear though. The only time I've ever had extreme difficulty in understanding the text was when I tried to force it into the context of a God-breathed, perfect document.

Conversely, if I look at it as a compilation of historic documents rooted in a particular cultural and religious context, then I can take the midrash for the dialogue it seems to be. There is no need that I can see, to try to reconcile the competing visions of YHWH into one quotable logos.

[fiodax]

I don't think Spurgeon was asking you to accept what reformed theology says the Bible says, but simply to study it yourself to first acquire the knowledge, then decide if you believe it to be true, and if so trust it. And he (and I) are providing this prescription based upon our own personal experience with scripture. It is no different than anything else I read.

If I read the Daily Oklahoman, I first read the article that says I-35 southbound is closed for construction, then I choose to believe whether or not it is true, and then I choose to trust it and cancel or change the route of my trip to Norman or whatever. I may never even have to see the construction to be able to fully accept that it is there and happening and adjust my life accordingly. I may never have even read the Daily Oklahoman before but I can still trust it because of the experiences relayed to me by other people. (sorry for the Oklahoman comparison I hope it doesn't break down the metaphor too far).

As for "forcing" the text, it won't work. It won't work for me to force the text of the Oklahoman article about I-35 to somehow fit the conclusion that I-35 is not under construction because it doesn't say that, and it won't work for me to force the scripture to be anything else but what it is either. I think you are working to hard to make it something more complicated than what it is.

We apply this kind of thinking everyday with many things, like the newspaper illustration, (this would be the common faith Spurgeon referred to), but saving faith is simply the same thing applied to scripture.

If your response is "that's silly, how can I just put my faith in that document", then our conversation has once again returned us to the point where it began.

[cheek]

Your recap of his suggestion and the kind of knowledge he was talking about in step one are exactly what I was trying to say they where. That's not the same, though, as having knowledge of the biblical text because I do have that knowledge. I just parse its meaning in a radically different way.

I didn't mean that I'm trying to force it now but that in the past, when I believed in the dictum of a coherent text, I tried and struggled to do so. Now I accept the text as an evolving dialogue on the nature of god that speaks not with one voice, but with many voices out of an evolving culture. That's what my personal knowledge of the text leads me to believe.

I hope I'm much more charitable than your last statement suggests. I don't think we're back where we started even though neither of our views are significantly changed. I have an esteem now for your ability to engage the issue in a reasoned way, and even though I see your faith in a certain set of ideas as unreasonable(Please don't read this word as pejorative. I use it in a very narrow sense, stemming from my own understanding of the same issues.), I also realize that it is not so from your perspective. That makes a great difference I think because it allows me to continue attempting to understand your perspective instead of writing it off as uninformed or unnecessarily obstinate.

[cheek]

Your recap of his suggestion and the kind of knowledge he was talking about in step one are exactly what I was trying to say they where. That's not the same, though, as having knowledge of the biblical text because I do have that knowledge. I just parse its meaning in a radically different way.

I didn't mean that I'm trying to force it now but that in the past, when I believed in the dictum of a coherent text, I tried and struggled to do so. Now I accept the text as an evolving dialogue on the nature of god that speaks not with one voice, but with many voices out of an evolving culture. That's what my personal knowledge of the text leads me to believe.

I hope I'm much more charitable than your last statement suggests. I don't think we're back where we started even though neither of our views are significantly changed. I have an esteem now for your ability to engage the issue in a reasoned way, and even though I see your faith in a certain set of ideas as unreasonable(Please don't read this word as pejorative. I use it in a very narrow sense, stemming from my own understanding of the same issues.), I also realize that it is not so from your perspective. That makes a great difference I think because it allows me to continue attempting to understand your perspective instead of writing it off as uninformed or unnecessarily obstinate.

[Mark Z.]

I think you are working to hard to make it something more complicated than what it is.

fiodax, you (and Spurgeon) insist that it's very simple: just trust in God. Then, as you start to explain what that means, this turns into "just trust in the Bible". Then it explodes into Spurgeon's list of things to believe, which is quite a comprehensive chunk of Reformed theology. When "trust in God" implies this:

"Drink deep of the doctrine of the substitutionary work of Christ; for therein lies the sweetest possible comfort to the guilty sons of men, since the Lord "made him to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

I can't help feeling I'm getting camel's-nosed. And then when someone disputes Spurgeonism (for example, if I'm not comforted by the doctrine that my sins will be judged by a blind idiot God who can't accurately tell his own Son from the guilty sons of men), you go back to "just trust in God".

I'd rather we stipulate that all parties to this conversation are trusting in God, as well as we all know how, but reading the Bible with different premises.

(To forestall confusion: I'm not cheek. I'm jumping into the middle of this discussion.)

[fiodax]

cheek,

yes sorry for the uncharitableness, I am enjoying and do recognize the progress of the conversation despite the steadfastness of the premises of the parties involved. One other think, you had stated:

"The problem I come up against, when confronted with the idea that the Spirit will impart it's meaning to me, is that She doesn't seem to speak with one voice."

On suggestion I might make (and I'm seriously not being condescending here) is that the God of the Bible is a He, a Father. My point being in that we have to work pretty hard not to project to much of our own idea up God in regards to who God is, we have to let scripture do that for us, and then relate to Him for who He is. God is already real, we don't have to do any work in order to give him this attribute or that, he is and was and always will be he is unchanging.

"25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you will remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
27 but you are the same, and your years have no end." Psalm 102:25-27

Remember you asked my viewpoint on faith and this is part of it. I understand your argument against it.

Mark Z, I think it's more like drinking from a fire hydrant:)

And yes I think we all realize we are interpreting the Bible from different premises, but that is what makes this conversation interesting. I think it stretches what we believe if we can all be considerate enough to listen and consider the other person's viewpoint.

[fiodax]

On a completely unrelated subject:

If any of you have no plans for this evening or are willing to cancel the plans you have and live in or near Oklahoma, then you might want to head to "Jebb Stewart's Last Stand" at the Royal Theatre in Fairview, OK (Google "Royal Theatre, Fairview, OK" for directions). The show start's at 10:00 pm and it's $5.00 to enter BYOB (there will also be a theatre style concession stand). Admission money goes to help pay for the cool new retro neon sign on the Royal.

There'll be music till the wee hours of the morning and plenty of people to meet too. Jebb Stewart is a band that some friends of mine started about 15 years ago. No we didn't make it big but the band made a big impact on our lives. One of the guys is moving to KY so we thought we'd take to chance to officially get the band together for on last time. So if you would like to see what the music culture looks like in a very small town you will be very welcome to attend!

There's sure to be much theologizing as the night progresses!

[fiodax]

BTW: Ratatouille is playing at the Royal before concert showtime at 7:00

Good Mexican Food a the "Queen's Kitchen", it's not hard to find everything in Fairview is on Main street.

And for lodging there is the "Heritage Inn" and "Classic Inn".

Just FYI if anyone was looking for something to do this evening

[cheek]

Let me preface this comment with the fact that I am not a scholar of biblical languages. I do, however, know several who assure me that both feminine and ambiguous pronouns are used fairly often to reference God in both the Hebrew and Greek texts. Furthermore, "He created them in his own image, man and woman he created them." This passage seems to suggest that as far as there exist clear distinctions between genders, both masculine and feminine attributes can be ascribed to the Creator. And further still, I'm not sure how a being like God could be sexually male (or female for that matter) in the first place. Jesus, of course, seems to have been a man, but many of his "hands and feet" are not...

[fiodax]

Yes God is "above" being male or female, but He is primarily addressed with the masculine. Jesus said we should address Him "Our Father in Heaven ..." (Mathew 6:9).

I was just cautioning against the inaccurate projection of attributes of God that are contrary to His actual attributes (and I recommend finding those actual attributes in scripture, however this is where our conversations generally split).

It would be the same as me assuming things about you based on how I desire you to act towards me. That would be rude of me to do that without getting to know you first and attempting to interact with you based on your actual personality instead of the one I imagine.

In order for me to communicate with you in the most efficient way possible I should do it spending as much effort possible getting to know who you really are and allowing my prejudices or assumptions to influence me as little as possible. It's also good advice for marriage :)

[sepherim]

Fiodax,
It seems to me that your insistence on calling God "He" rather than "She" because that is how God is referred to "most" of the time in the biblical texts and in spite of the fact that you acknowledge that he is "above" maleness (whatever that means) is indicative of the problem that arises in almost any discussion of faith issues with someone who holds on to the Bible as revealed absolute truth. If God is truly male why are there any feminine references at all? If God is above being male, what difference does it make which gender is used to talk about him/her? (maybe we should just call God "slash"). Why is it that conservative Christians cringe when someone calls God, "she"? My suspicion is that it is because the history of interpretation and translation of the biblical texts has been dominated by WASMs (white, anglo-saxon males). While I cannot prove this, because as far as I know, no one has done the research necessary, there is a considerable body of circumstancial evidence that has arisen in the wake of third world theologians and feminist theologians who did not study the bible with WASM colored glasses.

[Dallas Tim]

Jesus was clear... we are to call God "Father." If that fact is indispute then we really have nothing to believe about Jesus anyway.

I haven't met anyone who had a problem accepting Jesus' instructions unless they just had a natural tendency to rebel against the "system" for no apparent reason other than... well... rebellion.

Ask your local white Anglo-Saxon Rabbi who wrote the Torah.

[fiodax]

Maybe Jesus was erroneously influenced by the history of white anglo saxon males interpreting the scriptures too.

[greg]

When people ask me why I no longer go to church I will remember this thread and say something like "because some Christians think that calling god he or she is actually worth arguing about." Seriously. I've not often encountered a God as petty as the one fundangelicals worship. If God gives a shit which gender we use in address, you might want to consider rebellion as a legitimate option.