You can’t hit the target without “negative feedback…”

*   *   *   *

In his 1969 book Psycho-cybernetics, Maxwell Maltz compared the human subconscious mind to a goal-striving guidance system.  That is, the human subconscious is like a self-guided missile aimed (metaphorically) “at an enemy ship or plane.”

Maltz said such “missiles” need information to process positive and negative feedback.  If the missile is on the right course it gets positive feedback, and makes no change and stays on the the proper course.  But if it strays, it needs negative feedback to get back on course.

He said any goal-striving mechanism – e.g. the human subconscious – needs a corrective, so if the missile is too far to the right, it compensates by moving to the left.  If the device overcompensates (too far to the left), the device moves the missile back to the right.  As Maltz said, “The torpedo accomplishes its goal by going forward, making errors, and continually correcting them.  By a series of zigzags, it literally ‘gropes’ its way to the goal.”

(Wouldn’t it be nice if a Christian felt equally free to “go forward and make errors,” on the way to his or her objective, without “feeling guilty?”)

Maltz said the more visible corrections in humans can be seen in the way a baby learns to walk or pick up toys, or (at a later stage) in a teenager learning how to drive.  And hopefully, that kind of “self correction” goes on throughout our lives

We also seem to do just that whenever we try to improve or do something we “should do.”

Take dieting, “please.” We start with good intentions but usually try to lose too much weight too soon.  Then we lose heart (feel guilty) because we couldn’t stick to our diet through “will power.” Then “we” go off on an eating binge that puts back most of the weight we lost in the first place.  Then we start feeling really guilty, and go back on the diet.  Thus we literally grope our way toward the goal (target) of losing weight.

Which is another way of saying that most people don’t diet successfully the first time.  They succeed by getting a little better each time.  In time, they eat less when they binge and get a bit more realistic when they return to the diet.  With both positive and negative feedback, the good dieter gropes his way forward.

Which raises a question.  To paraphrase Maltz, what would happen if a missile didn’t get any negative feedback?  Would the missile or arrow ever hit the target if it never knew when it “strayed?”  The answer:  Without negative feedback, it wouldn’t.

Maybe the same thing applies to “sin,” and those who think the whole idea is too troublesome to worry about.  (Maybe the same kind of people who think those who go to church every week are too negative – and hypocrites to boot – because they’ve visibly failed to get better.) And maybe there’s something positive about the negative idea of “sin.”  Maybe we – like “guided missiles” – need to know when and where we “stray off course.”

Maybe that’s what this whole business of confession and sin is all about.  When we “sin” we simply fall short of our goals.  We “miss the target.”  And when we “confess,” we simply admit to ourselves how far short of the target we were, rather than blithely ignoring the problem or acting as if we need no improvement.

But those who realize their mistakes – and make corrections – will get that much closer to the target next time.  And maybe the purpose of all this is not to make people feel guilty, as some who-call-themselves-Christians seem to imply.

Maybe the concepts of sin, repentance and confession are simply tools to help us get closer to the target next time out, even if we never become “perfect.”

Maybe the concepts of sin, repentance and confession are simply tools to help us realize the purpose Jesus had for us, to wit:  to “live life in all its abundance.” (See John 10:10)

*   *   *   *

The “arrow” image is courtesy of http://www.releasetheape.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/arrow-target1-890×556.png.

On Maltz and his book, see Psycho-Cybernetics – Wikipedia.  

On that note – and perhaps anticipating the protests of religious conservatives – Maltz hastened to add that he was not saying “’You’ are a machine,” but rather that each person possesses a machine, in the form of the subconscious mind, in much the same way a person’s physical body can be viewed as a “machine.”  In his or her subconscious mind, each person has a tool, “put there by the Creator,” to achieve success in everyday life.  

“Jacob wrestling with the Angel” – as a result of which his name got changed to Israel…

 *   *   *   *

The Daily Office Old Testament reading for Monday, May 12, 2014, is Exodus 32:1-20.

That’s where Moses went up on Mount Sinai to get the Ten Commandments.   Meanwhile – back at the base camp – the Children of Israel turned to worshiping a Golden Calf instead of the real God.  The One who delivered them out of slavery. (Which could be a metaphor or something…)

But back on the mountain-top, God – being God – knows what’s going on behind Moses’ back.

So naturally He gets very angry about it.  In the Good News Translation of 32:10, God said to Moses:  “Now, don’t try to stop me. I am angry with them, and I am going to destroy them.  Then I will make you and your descendants into a great nation.” (Emphasis added.)

So God made up His mind to destroy the Israelites.  The same ones He’d gone to all the trouble of delivering out of the aforementioned slavery, which should have been the end of it.  (To a “strict constructionist” anyway.)   God had spoken, He’d made a decision, and God – being God – was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and so was unlikely to change His mind.  But wait!!

Moses pleaded with the Lord his God and said, “Lord, why should you be so angry with your people…  Why should the Egyptians be able to say that you led your people out of Egypt, planning to kill them in the mountains and destroy them completely?  Stop being angry; change your mind…  So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Now about that word “pleaded.”  That’s from the Good News Translation.  The New Living Translation said Moses “tried to pacify God.”  The International Standard Bible said that Moses “implored the Lord.”   But most translations, including the King James Bible – the one that God uses – used the word besought: “Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people?”

Besought is a “past tense and a past participle of beseech.”  And beseech in turn means “to ask someone for something in an urgent and sincere way.”

So in plain words, Moses argued with God.  And that’s a concept that many – including most Fundamentalist or conservative Christians – would find highly incongruous.

That is, in asking God to change His mind, Moses gave “reasons or cite[d] evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one’s view.” (Which by the way is something that lawyers do.)   See for example Isaiah 50:8, in the New Jerusalem Bible, “Let us appear in court together,” and Job 23:4, in the New International Version, “I would state my case before Him [God] and fill my mouth with arguments.”

And this wasn’t the only time a father of the church argued with God.  Take Sodom and Gomorrah…  “Please!”   That is, see: Genesis 18:16-33.  That’s where Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy Sodom.  (And quite frankly, he was kind of a pain about, haggling with God not to destroy the city if there were 50 good people in it, down to as few as five good people…) 

I.e., that passage tells of Abraham “arguing” that God shouldn’t destroy Sodom if there were even 50 people in the city who weren’t total dirt-bags.  Then Abraham went down to 45, then to 40, then to 30, and so on – in a manner that was, frankly, quite annoying – until he got God to agree that if even 10 people in the city weren’t total dirt-bags, he wouldn’t destroy the city.

And finally, there’s the ultimate case of “contending with God,” the story of Jacob becoming Israel.   See the full story at Genesis 32:22-32, or you could check Wikipedia, which noted:  “The account includes the renaming of Jacob as ‘Israel,’ literally ‘He who struggles with God.'”

The point of all this is that maybe – just maybe – we today are supposed to “argue with God,” or “wrestle with God,” or even “wrestle with the idea of God.”  Maybe, just maybe, that’s how we get spiritually stronger, by “resistance training” rather than passively accepting anything and everything in the Bible, without question or questioning.

So what kind of Christian would you rather be?

Someone who wrestles with God and keeps getting stronger, spiritually.  Or rather someone whose method of Bible study is either “weak and ineffectual” or “plain and unadventurous?”

 *   *   *   *

Notes:

The upper image, courtesy of Wikipedia, is Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, by Alexander Louis Leloir (1865).  Leloir (1843-1884), was a a French painter specializing in genre and history paintings. His younger brother was painter and playwright Maurice Leloir.

See the full Daily Office readings at The Lectionary – Satucket.com.

Re: Job 23:4.  But see also Job 40:2, “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”  So there’s definitely a limit to how feisty you can get when arguing with God, but note that after his long “arm-wrestling with God,” Job ended up better off: “the Lord gave Job twice as much as he had before.” (42:10)

“Sodom and Gomorrah…  ‘Please!'”  An allusion to an old Henny Youngman joke.

As to resistance training, see the Wikipedia article on strength training:  “Progressive resistance training dates back at least to Ancient Greece, when legend has it that wrestler Milo of Croton trained by carrying a newborn calf on his back every day until it was fully grown.”

The bottom image is courtesy of Caspar Milquetoast – Wikipedia:

Caspar Milquetoast was a comic strip character created by H. T. Webster…  Because of the popularity of Webster’s character, the term milquetoast came into general usage in American English to mean “weak and ineffectual” or “plain and unadventurous.”  When the term is used to describe a person, it typically indicates someone of an unusually meek, bland, soft or submissive nature, who is easily overlooked, written off, and who may also appear overly sensitive, timid, indecisive or cowardly.

Rembrandt‘s view of Jesus, showing “Biblical events as tender instances of piety and serenity.” 

*   *   *   *

Jesus – seen above – made two main promises:  First, that He would never turn away anyone who came to Him.  Second, He came to Earth so His followers could have life “in all its abundance.” (See John6:37 and 10:10.)  Which raises a question:  Why would anyone want to interpret those promises literally or narrowly?  (See strict construction … Law.com.)

Another question:  If Jesus was a Fundamentalist, why did we need Him?  If Jesus was born both Jewish and a Fundamentalist – favoring a “strict adherence to specific theological doctrines” – why would He create a “new covenant” to replace the old one?

Consider also the apparent contradiction between Mark 9:40 and Matthew 12:30.  In Matthew 12:30 (NEB), Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me.”  But in Mark 9:40 (NEB), Jesus said, “he who is not against us is on our side.”

Under strict construction – used by Fundamentalists – “ambiguous language is given its exact and technical meaning.”   Under that rule for Matthew, if you aren’t expressly for Jesus, you are against Him.  But in Mark, being “kind of against us” doesn’t put you “outside the pale.” In Mark, if you are not expressly against Jesus, you are for Him and/or for Christianity.

Also, by strictly interpreting those quotes – giving them their exact and technical meaning – you end up with Jesus contradicting Himself.

It also raises the question: What did Jesus do when interpreting Scripture?  Was He strict or “liberal?”  One answer: Both.   See www.kencollins.com/answers/question-43.

The site’s author, Reverend Collins, said that many people try to harmonize the passages “by theorizing that when it comes to Jesus, there is no middle ground. You are either for Him or against Him.” He too was puzzled by the passages until he read an old commentary by a man named Theophylact (who died in 1108).  Theophylact says that if we observe these verses in context and compare them, we see that Jesus is talking about two entirely different situations.”

Collins said that in Mark Jesus talked of men, people, who were doing good works in Jesus’ name, “even if they don’t have the proper credentials.” So if a layman is “conducting a valid ministry where there is a need and no one else to meet it,” the Church shouldn’t stop him, but “find a way to include him. Whoever is not against Jesus is for Him.”

But in Matthew, Jesus was talking about demons. Matthew 12:30 came right after the “house divided” speech (later used by Abraham Lincoln). In 12:22, Jesus was presented with a man possessed by demons. But when Jesus cast out the demons, the Pharisees said He could only do that because He was Satan, prince of demons Himself.

After saying it didn’t make sense for Satan to cast out his own, Jesus moved to how the house of a “strong man” or Satan (translations vary) might be robbed.  He later added, “Anyone who isn’t helping me is harming me.” (Emphasis added.)

Collins said that at first he thought Jesus was talking about people in Matthew (as “plain meaning” would require).  But he changed his mind after considering “Theophylact” – shown at left – noting that he was “neither a Protestant nor a Catholic;  his native language was the same language that the apostles used to write the New Testament, and he lived in a completely different political, social, and theological context than we do.”   Thus interpreting the two passages “in context,” it seems that Jesus was indeed addressing two different cases.

With demons, Jesus used a strict construction.  If a demon wasn’t expressly for Jesus, he was against Him.  But in the case of people, Jesus used a liberal construction.  By that construction the law was “reasonably and fairly evaluated so as to implement [its] object and purpose.”

So just what is the Bible’s purpose?   The Apostle Paul said in First Timothy 2:1-4 that the Bible’s purpose has always been saving as many as possible:  “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men… This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved.”  See also Second Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish…”  (A goal that arguably can’t be met by being strict or limiting…)

In other words, it makes sense that if a person isn’t expressly against Jesus, He – Jesus – is willing to give that person (and all people), the benefit of the doubt.   But in the case of demons Jesus used a strict interpretation of Scripture.  In both cases He construed the Bible to achieve its self-stated aims.  Which means that Jesus was neither a liberal nor a conservative when it came to interpreting Scripture.  He was right there “in the middle of the road.”

That’s also called the Via media or “Middle Way,” the subject of a future post.

*   *   *   *

Richard Hooker‘s “Ecclesiastical Polity” set out a “Middle Way…” 

*   *   *   *

The upper image is Rembrandt’s “Hundred Guilder Print.”  See Hundred Guilder Print – Wikipedia.

Re:  The “two” great promises of Jesus.  This post-column was last edited on May 11, 2014.  That was before I fully appreciated the Third Great Promise, as told by Jesus in John 14:12:  “Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father.”  (Emphasis added.)

The lower image is courtesy of the Richard Hooker link in the article, Via media – Wikipedia.  The caption:  “Statue of Hooker in front of Exeter Cathedral.”  One author noted, ” Hooker’s moderation and civil style of argument were remarkable in the religious atmosphere of his time.”  Also:

Traditionally, he has been regarded as the originator of the Anglican via media between Protestantism and Catholicism.  However, a growing number of scholars have argued that he should be considered as being in the mainstream Reformed theology of his time and that he only sought to oppose the extremists (Puritans), rather than moving the Church of England away from Protestantism.

Another note:  I originally posted this article in May 2014.  I updated it on August 2, 2018.

Here’s another parable, about the 1997 move, Titanic.

To me, that movie is all about the power of suspending disbelief.

You see, there’s one thing that bothered me about the movie.  Those divers found a perfectly preserved charcoal drawing – the one that Jack did of Rose in 1912, on board the Titanic.  They found that perfectly preserved charcoal drawing after 80 years at the bottom of the ocean.

But the unlikelihood of that ever happening doesn’t mean the whole movie was “false.”

There was a factual basis for the movie.  The Titanic did sink in 1912.  But a core premise of the whole movie seemed to be that after 80 years at the bottom of the ocean, those divers found a charcoal drawing like the one shown above.  (In the ship’s safe, along with the huge necklace shown around Rose’s neck).  So even though everything else had turned to mush, that charcoal drawing was “picture perfect” as the night it was drawn.

That’s the problem.

Anyone who knows charcoal drawings knows that even with several coats of fixative – like that shown at right – it won’t last 80 years at the bottom of the Atlantic.  For one thing, even if fixative had been invented, the movie never indicated Jack had any, and certainly not in aerosol form.  And there was no indication that Jack took the time after finishing the drawing to apply fixative.

(It would no doubt have spoiled the mood.)

Thus the question: Since this core premise of the movie seemed patently false – it couldn’t have happened – did that make the whole film without value, not worthy of experiencing?

Again, the Titanic did sink in 1912, with great loss of life.  And many characters were based on real people who were on the ship when it sank.  Still others were composites of several real people.  And still others were pure figments of creative imagination.

So the viewer saw an impression of a real event.  In turn, in making the film some creative minds embellished the plot here and there.  They livened up the story and got certain major points across.  And they left out details that didn’t seem important and would “clog up the plot.”

(Maybe even like John did at the end of his Gospel.  That is, John 21:25 reads:  “There are many more things that Jesus did.  If all of them were written down, I suppose not even the world itself would have space for the books that would be written.”) 

But in the end, the film-writers came up with a story from which many lessons could be learned.

That is, someone who saw the movie with an open mind might come away with a sense of hope.  That hope might be that there is a world beyond the five senses, a world beyond time and death.  Such a viewer might come away thinking love really can transcend everything.  He might even think love can transcend time, death, and even the sordid reality of everyday life.

But there was that troublesome false premise at the core of the story.

The story wasn’t 100% accurate.

But again, consider the viewer watching with an open mind.  He’d be willing to suspend disbelief and not require the movie to be 100% accurate.  In turn that viewer would be treated to a wonderfully intense tale of love overcoming all; logic, time, common sense, even death itself.

He’d come away with a good feeling that might help him endure his mundane, boring life for a few days or weeks.  He might even be prompted to go out and do something nice for someone else, someone less fortunate.  And he might – just might – want to share the movie’s good news.

On the other hand, consider the person who viewed the movie with a closed mind.  A person unwilling – even for a moment – to suspend disbelief.  A person who simply had to believe that everything in the movie had to be 100% accurate.

Wouldn’t that viewer just be short-changing himself?

The charcoal-drawing image is courtesy of: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Kate-winslet_titanic_movie_pencil-drawing.jpg.

The “fixative” image is courtesy of www.alvinco.com/_R_/Shop/Products.aspx?IID=971.  As noted in Utrecht Art Supplies Ask the Expert: Fixative Q&A, “Canned spray fixative was introduced in 1948 by Krylon.  Before then, artists relied on the old-fashioned mouth atomizer, which is still available today.”  For more on the disagreeable elements of using such a “mouth atomizer,” see Charcoal Fixative – how to fix your drawing – Art Graphica.

The quote from John is from the Berean Study Bible.  In the King James Bible – the one God uses – the passage reads:  “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.  Amen.”

The Jack/Rose image is courtesy of breathedreamgo.com/wp-content…2012/03/titanic-movie.jpg.

The Jack-and-Rose picture also raises the question: Does your way of reading the Bible give you a spiritual “set of wings,” or is it more like a spiritual strait-jacket?

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

May 6, 2014 – The Apostle Paul said that – about the “whitewashed wall” – at the beginning of Acts 23. The problem was, he said it to a High Priest. That meant he had violated Exodus 22:28: “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.” Here’s what happened.

Paul was standing trial in Jerusalem before the Sanhedrin. (Basically the Hebrew “Supreme Court.”) He was on trial for preaching the Gospel when high priest Ananais told a guard to “strike him on the mouth.” That’s when Paul made his rash comment:

Those standing nearby said, ‘Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?’   And Paul said, ‘I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.”’

Which brings up Conservative Christians who say the Bible must be interpreted literally.

As the International Bible Commentary noted: “Paul’s stern rebuke was contrary to the letter of Exod. 22:28, and he at once admitted it.  The president [i.e., the high priest Ananias] was a criminal, but the ‘seat’ was sacred.”  (Emphasis added.)  And Exodus 22:28 says, in the New Revised Standard Bible, “You shall not revile God, or curse a leader of your people.”

That in turn brings up Biblical inerrancy, the “doctrinal position that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error.”  That is, “Conservative Christians generally believe that God inspired the authors and redactors of the Bible. Hence, they wrote material that was error-free.”

So if the Bible is “inerrant” – error-free – and must be interpreted literally, then Conservative Christians could be violating the letter of Biblical law.  (If they were – for example – to curse or otherwise criticize a sitting President of the United States…)

Of course there is a way around that.  But the only way around that dilemma is to use a liberal interpretation of the Bible.  As to the differences – between a strict construction, as opposed to a more “liberal” construction – see Strict constructionism – Wikipedia:

Strict construction occurs when ambiguous language is given its exact and technical meaning, and no other equitable considerations or reasonable implications are made…  If the language is plain and clear, a judge must apply the plain meaning of the language and cannot consider other evidence that would change the meaning. If, however, the judge finds that the words produce absurdity, ambiguity, or a literalness never intended, the plain meaning does not apply…

So the question becomes: are the “laws of the Bible” set out in clear and unambiguous language?

If the laws of the Bible are plain and clear, the “plain meaning” rule applies.  But if that language results in a “literalness never intended,” the plain-meaning rule does not apply.  (And Paul did say in 2d Corinthians 3:6, that the letter of the law kills, while its spirit “gives life…”)

Put another way, the plain meaning of Exodus 22:28 and Acts 23:5 seems pretty clear, if you interpret the Bible literally.   On the other hand, consider the potential defense offered conservative Christians through “liberalism:”

Liberal Christianity, broadly speaking, is a method of biblical hermeneutics, an undogmatic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings…  The word liberal in liberal Christianity denotes a characteristic willingness to interpret scripture without any preconceived notion of inerrancy of scripture or the correctness of Church dogma.  A liberal Christian, however, may hold certain beliefs in common with traditional, orthodox, or even conservative Christianity.

(See Liberal Christianity – Wikipedia.)   So, if the term “leader of your people” must be interpreted literally, then Conservative Christians could be in big trouble if they were – for example – to criticize a sitting President of the United States.

On the other hand, you could “liberally” say that in the United States, ultimate power doesn’t reside in one president who can serve a maximum of eight years.  In America, ultimate political power resides in the Sovereign People, as in “We the people” at the start of the Constitution.

To sum up: Conservative Christians can avoid getting into trouble for violating the letter of Exodus 22:28, but only by using a liberal interpretation.  They can criticize the President all they want, as long as they don’t criticize “the Sovereign People” who elected him.  (A subtle distinction to be sure.)   Put another way, conservative Christians only avoid the penalty for violating the strict letter of Exodus 22:28 by using a liberal interpretation.  That would be ironic…

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

This post was previously published as “On dissin’ the Prez.” The new upper image is courtesy of Ananias In The Bible High Priest – Image Results. Note that Ananias the High Priest is not to be confused with Ananias of Damascus, “a disciple of Jesus at Damascus … mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles … [on] how he was sent by Jesus to restore the sight of Saul of Tarsus (who later was called Paul the Apostle) and provide him with additional instruction in the way of the Lord.” (Wikipedia.) See also ANANIAS – Who Are The Three Ananias In The Bible?

The lower image is courtesy of Irony Images – Image Results.