(8) Some Essential Differences in Perspective

Author:  BOB
To:  Steve, John listening

I appreciate what you have written. I have been giving it a lot of thought, trying to pinpoint some of the essential differences in assumptions or perspectives that lead us to differing conclusions about the Bible, the nature of God, and the nature of God’s plan and purpose. As a result, I have identified five propositions that I hold and which I think lead me to a different perspective than is expressed in your response to John. As a forewarning, I don’t anticipate that you will much like these propositions. However, they could help form a basis for some further dialogue on the Bible and faith.

1. Human beings in today’s society have a relatively advanced sense of right and wrong. We are therefore capable of making moral judgments (albeit imperfectly), including judgments about the morality of Biblical passages written by human beings in ancient times.
2. God as portrayed in the Bible, particularly as portrayed in the Hebrews scriptures, does not appear to be a consistently great and worship-worthy God. A number of laws directly attributed to God appear to be immoral.
3. The notion of Jesus’ crucifixion as a pre-ordained sacrifice for our sins violates human free will. Jesus’ execution was implemented by human beings. These human beings were free to choose between good and evil. Therefore, Jesus’ execution was not inevitable.
4. Faith as the litmus test for eternal salvation is inherently unfair and unjust. It is a litmus test that would not be applied by a fair, just, and loving God.
5. It is hard to believe that a loving Creator is most pleased by the maximum subservience of the creations.

         Rather than reject God as a consequence of these points, I assume that God is imperfectly revealed in the Bible. I also do not think that God has been perfectly revealed in the traditional views of the Christian Church. Therefore, we each need to engage in study and examine our own experiences to evolve (as John said it) “toward an understanding of and possible union with God.” The remainder of this product discusses the five preceding propositions in a bit more detail.

1. Today’s Society: A Society in Which Anything Goes, or a Society With a Relatively Advanced Sense of Right and Wrong?

“The desire to go our own way, departing from God’s guidance and will, is ‘sin’. (A politically incorrect word in today’s ‘anything goes’, relativism society in which there is no absolute right or wrong)."

At first, I reacted to that parenthetical thought (above) in your response to John as a dig – at political correctness, of course, but perhaps also at searchers such as John (and myself). Perhaps the idea is that modern people – and particularly the searchers -- don’t want a real God, a “hard” God, a tough God, a God who is unafraid to tell us what is right and wrong and who expects us to go his way, not our own. Modern people just want a God if that God will let them do whatever they were inclined to do anyway, without consequence. I recently found this thought expressed somewhat humorously in the writing of C.S. Lewis:

"An ‘impersonal God’ – well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads – better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power we can tap – best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord… that is quite another matter. There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly; was that a real footstep in the hall? There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling in religion (“Man’s search for God!”) suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing He had found us?"

        But it is often the dig, the irritant, that provokes action, or in this case, further thought. And the more I think about your parenthetical, the more I thank you for offering it, because it helped bring a thought into greater focus for me than it has been before.
        My discomfort with the Bible is not at all rooted in an “anything goes” soil. In fact, it is rooted in quite the opposite. It is rooted in the conviction that after 43 years of life, if I can claim to have learned or know or understand anything at all, it would be to claim some bedrock principles or beliefs about what does not go, such as:

• Slavery does not go – it is wrong.
• Physical abuse of others does not go – it is wrong.
• Treatment of people with physical disabilities as inferior does not go – it is wrong.
• Societal justice / punishment that exacts far more retribution than the offense committed does not go – it is wrong.
• Punishing the innocent does not go – a person is innocent, if not at least until proven guilty, then at least until they have committed an offense.
• Jealousy does not go – it is an understandable human emotion, but it is not a positive emotion and seldom leads to good.
• Justice that fails to account for any mitigating circumstances does not go.
• Killing does not go – and certainly mass, undiscriminating slaughter goes least of all.

        We do not have an “anything goes” society. We have a society with too much violence, too much promiscuity and unfaithfulness, too many abortions, too little civility and common courtesy, and too much dishonesty. But I do not interpret the phrase “anything goes” to refer to whether or not all sorts of poor or sinful behaviors exist. Rather, I interpret it as referring to what is held as morally acceptable by society. And I would not trade the common core of values, the collective sense of right and wrong, that exists today – with any era in human history that I am aware of. Given prevalent ideas of right and wrong with regard to racial and gender issues in the storybook 1950s, I would not even trade today’s sense of right and wrong with that time, and – and here is the point – I certainly would not trade it for the sense of right and wrong that I find in books of the Bible, in laws and words attributed directly to God. (See more on this point in the next section).

2. Is God as Presented in the Bible, Particularly the Hebrew Scriptures, Consistently Great and Worthy of Worship?
        I appreciate your discussion of Biblical accuracy. One of the things that struck me in your response to John was the high degree of parallel I saw between what you describe as “trick questions” and “traps” and what Bishop Spong describes as a “sterile choice” between literal Biblical belief and atheism. Your plea (paraphrased) to “not get bogged down in the literal account of the story and lose sight of the message” seems similar to Spong’s argument (again, paraphrased) of “don’t miss the experience of God because you can’t fully buy the surrounding explanation.
        However, I think that in working with the Jonah story in your piece, you do not have to fully grapple with the problem of attributing divine authorship or inspiration to the Biblical text (“All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, 2 Timothy 3:15). You conclude “If you pick the nits, you’ll miss the magnificence of the message. Don’t get lost in the trees, you miss the wonder of the forest.”
        But what about the Biblical passages where it is not just the complete authenticity of a Biblical account that is at issue? What about instances where the problem is not with nits, but rather that the forest is not so wonderful, and the message is not so magnificent? In fact, what about instances where it is the teaching itself – in fact, laws directly attributed to God – that appears immoral? What about instances in which the Biblically-reported behavior of God challenges the view of God as a God of goodness and trustworthiness.
        Personally, I believe that the Bible does not consistently provide evidence of a good and trustworthy God. Among the books that I find very problematic are books containing the creation story, the Ten Commandments and the God-given laws that surround the Ten Commandments, the Passover story, and the Noah story. The following passages of the Bible provide a moral view that does not pass muster, even in our allegedly “everything-goes” society:

     

Slavery and Physical Abuse

Exodus 21, God to Moses shortly   following upon the heels of the Ten Commandments

“These are the laws you are to set before them… If a man beats his male or female slave   with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the   slave is his property."

        Is the above the word of God? Do we seriously believe that this is the counsel, the decision rule, a timeless and immutable law that God choose to offer on slavery and the beating of slaves?

     

The Physically Disabled

Leviticus 21, the Lord to Moses

“No man who has any defect may come near; no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles… He has a defect; he must not come near to   offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his   defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so   desecrate my sanctuary. I am the Lord   who makes them holy."

 
        Is this the word of God – Jesus embraces the leper, but God says that the presence of a physically disabled person desecrates his sanctuary?

                 

Retribution Commensurate With the Offense	Exodus 21, in a continuation of God’s laws to Moses:	“Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”
	Leviticus 20	“If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.”
	Deuteronomy 21	“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not   obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town… Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.”

                 

Retribution Commensurate With the Offense	Deuteronomy 22	“If… no proof of   the girl’s virginity can be found [a newly married woman whose husband finds no proof of her virginity], she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town will stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel   by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.”
	Leviticus 10	“Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died   before the Lord… Then the Lord said to Aaron, ‘You and your [remaining] sons are not to drink wine or other   fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting or you will die.”
	Leviticus 21, the Lord said to Moses:	“If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.”

 
        Is this the word of God? The man who directly murders his slave must be subject to “punishment” (see top of the previous page, no specific punishment required), but the cursing child or the stubborn child shall die? Any women who is not a virgin at marriage shall be publicly stoned in front of her father’s house because she disgraced him?

     

Jealousy

Exodus 20, the Second Commandment

“For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the father to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love and keep my commandments.”

 Is this the word of God – I am a jealous God who not only holds a grudge for now, but for generations, against children because their forefathers sinned?

 

     

Killing and Mass Slaughter

Genesis 6

“So God said to Noah, ‘I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and   the earth… I am going to destroy both   them and the earth… I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every   creature that has the breathe of life in it.”

        Is the word and actions of a loving God – I’m very disappointed with the violence of mankind, and the best solution I can come up with to address this violence is to destroy all life? 

     

Killing and Mass Slaughter

Genesis 8

“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of   all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.” [ I hope Noah did not sacrifice   too many; after all, there is only two of each left.] “The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and   said in his heart: Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart   is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.”

       Is this the word of God – Noah, I smell the pleasing aroma of your sacrifice, I’m done with my rage, I feel bad, so I won’t do it again? I will not do it, even though, from childhood, every inclination of man’s heart is “evil”?

     

Punishing the Innocent Children for Offenses of Their Parents and Mass Slaughter Combined

Exodus 12

“At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in   Egypt… there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.”

        Again, is this the best solution to the problem that a great God could come up with?
 
        There is not a legislature in the United States that would enact a law like some of the laws attributed to God in the Bible – death to disobedient children, death to rape victims as well as rapists if the rape occurred in town and no screams were heard, rules for when the beating of slaves is to be punished and not. Is this further evidence that anything goes in America – evidence that our legislatures who do not require us to follow these laws of God are evil? I would submit that if a legislature did enact some of the laws Biblically attributed to God, the rest of the country, including the vast majority of Christians in other states, would consider that State barbaric and deserving of condemnation, and appropriately so.

        I do not see a way around these passages that does not recognize the human authorship of these texts. If this is what God stands for, is this what we wish to worship? A defense of the law attributed to God for beating slaves might assert that it was intended to advance the laws of the people beyond a primitive state. However, note that the Biblical author was not content to have God assert the law. The Biblical author asserts that God went on to articulate the logic of the law, which included that punishment was not appropriate in certain circumstances “since the slave is his property”.

        If the claim can be made that people such as myself wish to selectively use the Bible, deciding which passages resonate with meaning, and rejecting others, I would argue that the Biblical faithful already do the same. In spreading the word of God, why have we seen no campaigns to restore all of these laws and punishments that are Biblically attributed to God?
        I ask myself:

• When I strip away all of the factual detail issues that do not matter, what is the nature of the God that the Bible presents?
• What is the nature of the God that has been incorporated into the traditional systems of Christian belief?
• As presented in the Bible and in the traditional Christian belief system, is this a great God?
• Am I attracted to this God and to this God’s presented laws?

    The answer to these questions, for me, is that while I think that the description of God that is given in some parts of the Bible is wonderful, the God that is described in other parts of the Bible is a terrible God. This God, as described in some of the passages used earlier, appears at times to be petty, vengeful, temperamental beyond comprehension, unimaginative, violent, unjust, and unfair. As revealed in these moments of the Bible, I cannot say to my children “Here is a God that I want you to meet. Here is a God that I want you to know.” We have no control over whether or not the God who exists is just as the Biblical authors describe in these moments. However, if that God as described exists, then life in the 20th and 21st century to me is a complete joke. Why? Because this God as sometimes described in the Bible violates fundamental principles of decency, compassion, right and wrong, and fairness and justice. These principles are so fundamental that, if they are not true in God’s eyes, then we in the 21st century know and understand absolutely nothing about life, love, right and wrong, and what is good and what is great.

3. Is the Notion of Jesus’ Crucifixion as a Pre-ordained Event Consistent with Human Free Will? Also, In What Sense Was the Crucifixion a “Sacrifice”?
        Jesus’ execution was ordered and implemented by human beings. If these human beings were given free will, as I think they were, then they were also free to choose between good and evil. If we accept that premise, then I think that it is clear that Jesus’ execution was not inevitable.
        I also have problems making sense of the interpretation of this event as a sacrifice. I have always thought of a sacrifice as the act of offering something to a deity to appease or honor that deity. But certainly the Romans who put Christ to death were not seeking to honor or appease the Christian God. So in what sense was this a sacrifice? Who was responsible for this sacrifice? Was it Jesus, sacrificing himself? (“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men”, 1Timothy 2:5-6). This would make the crucifixion an event of suicide, albeit for a high purpose. Or was it God making a sacrifice of another? (“God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice”, Romans 3-25).

4. Can Faith Serve as a Fair and Just Litmus Test for Human Salvation?

        “…free will extends to believing or distrusting Biblical evidence of God’s power, grace, sacrifice, and love… Believe the preponderance of evidence, even though it is not 100% provable. That is faith.” (from your response to John)

        In Reaching for the Invisible God, Philip Yancey, editor-at-large for Christianity Today magazine, addresses the question of “How do I relate to a God who is invisible when I’m never quite sure he’s there?” Since we live in a time in when Jesus does not walk among us in human form, when the spectacular (burning bushes, voices of gods, the appearance of angels) is not being observed, and when God does not appear before us, the question is what evidence is left for faith in God? As addressed in your response to John, Biblical evidence is probably the primary source of evidence we have.
        Marcus Borg, professor of religion and an Episcopal, has written:

"For many people, believing ‘iffy’ claims to be true became the central meaning of Christian faith. It is an odd notion – as if what God most wants from us is believing highly problematic statements to be factually true. And if one can’t believe them, then one doesn’t have faith and isn’t a Christian." 
            
        I have some concerns as to whether the full presence of a faith that is primarily derivable from Biblical texts with ancient and problematic statements can be fairly and justly used as the basis to determine our fates for eternity. I also have the concern expressed by Bishop Spong regarding the appropriateness of “infinite punishment for finite sin.”
        But moreover, we all know that exposure to the Bible and biblical teaching varies tremendously among peoples and individuals. Furthermore, the exposure of individuals to skepticism in their environment, and the capacity of individuals to raise logical, skeptical questions, also varies. I cannot accept the notion that an individual steeped from birth in Christian faith, with little exposure to any skeptical ideas and little desire to question any matters of philosophy, including religion, is saved for eternity through faith and forgiveness, but an individual raised in another culture and a non-Christian faith, who is exposed to Christianity but does not convert, is eternally damned for the failure to accept Christ.

5. Is A Great God Most Pleased When We Fully Depend Upon Him?
        Who among us knows God so well as to clearly define God’s way? Our consciences are a fairly strong guide on some matters as to what likely is not God’s way. Also, we have some innate sense, I think, of what actions feel valiant or noble. But beyond that, God’s way is somewhat difficult to discern. As I have discussed throughout this piece, I find the Bible a problematic source for making such determinations. 
        For this reason, I find your definition of “sin” interesting. Sin is the desire to go our own way, “departing from God’s guidance and will”. But how do we know if we are going our own way, or if we are going God’s way? Further, if God is a part of each of us, is there no meaningful sense in which “going our own way” is also going God’s way?
        I look at the quote from Hebrew 11:6 (“We can never please God without depending on him”), and I think of a statement I read many years ago: “The most preposterous notion known to man is that the Lord our God, creator of the Universe, requires our saccharine adoration and dependence and becomes petulant if he does not get it”. The writer’s use of the word “saccharine” in this statement is inflammatory, and I do not see a call for that in what you have written. But I think I could fairly substitute the words “unceasing” or “constant” for the word “saccharine” in the quote and it would fit what you are saying. And while the word “saccharine” is a bit over the top, I would have to say that the choice of the word “petulant” in the statement actually gives the traditional Christian concept of God the benefit of the doubt. I interpret your response to John to indicate that if God does not receive that full dependence, it is sin, and the result is eternal separation from God.
        I think God does want a relationship with us and wants us to generally follow his ways, which I tend to interpret as allowing our conscience to be our guide. I do not think that God’s vision for man is to be the ultimate “brown-nose”. I would apply what Marcus Borg said about biblical literalism to this issue also: it is a very odd notion, to me, that what a great Creator wants most from us is complete dependence and faith. I tend to think that God views the relationship with human beings as a two-way street. Even the Bible suggests to me that God is not perfect, and can learn from interacting with humans. I look at the Noah story, for example, and what I see is the suggestion that God learned something from the interaction with Noah. I see the story of the creation, and I see that God wished to make for Adam “a helper suitable for him”. And therefore God brought “all the beasts of the field and all birds of the air” to Adam, “but for Adam no suitable helper was found” (Genesis 2:18-20). Again, for God, this appears to have been learning process.
        I think that John Put it well when he said in his credo that actually, we are “separated from God” but that “at some level we are God, little bits of the God consciousness that have been allowed or encouraged to explore certain issues through our incarnation in this physical world.” To me, this means that God does not communicate a path to us that we choose to heed or ignore, but rather that we have the freedom to pursue our own paths to some degree, without an inherent attribution of sinfulness to that quest.

Seeking a Relationship with the Essential, Worship-Worthy God – Is This Notion Human Arrogance, or Faith?
        I can accept and have faith in a God whose scriptures are manifestly written by human authors – replete with inconsistencies, errors, and stories that are not literally, factually true as indicated by reason or science. I can accept and have faith in a God who fails to appear or provide clear evidence of existence. I can accept a God who works in somewhat mysterious ways. I can accept and have faith in a God who allows free will to reign and does not intervene even in the face of practically unimaginable evil and suffering (the Holocaust, for example). I can accept a God who is not all-knowing and is not perfect. In fact, if this God is good and corrects mistakes, I find a bit of imperfection to be an appealing quality in God.
        On the other hand, I have trouble accepting and having faith in a God if that God is defined by mysterious ways that are contradictory to basic human values, or a basic human sense of right and wrong. I can’t believe unless I perceive the God I am worshipping is more fair, more proportionately just, more loving, and more grandly humble than the best human being(s) among us.
        Therefore, I hope for a future in which I can explore Biblical scriptures, reflection, and life experiences to find and develop a relationship with a fair, proportionately just, compassionate, and loving God. I already believe that such a God is revealed in some scriptural passages in the Bible, including many of the actions and teachings that are attributed to Jesus.
        However, the Bible for me can only point to faith. It is not a document that I believe I can accept cover to cover. The task for me becomes one of separating the wheat from the chaff. It is here that I probably enter the realm of what you consider to be relativist – I am taking what I can respond to, and rejecting what I can’t. But don’t we all do that? I would argue that Biblical fundamentalists do it, not by their choice of what to reject, but rather in their choice of what they ignore.
        And, I would argue, there is faith in John’s vision and in my vision. If John’s vision or my vision of God is accurate, that God will be eager to accept you into the kingdom. But if your view (and the traditional view of the Christian church) is accurate, then the price for having an alternative vision will be quite steep. To take that kind of risk, must one not “be sure of what one hopes for and certain of what we do not see”?