*   *   *   *

Try this. Type “holier” in your search engine. “Holier than thou” will automatically pop up, and there’s probably some kind of object lesson there.  (“An example from real life that teaches a lesson or explains something.”)

Then too, an Internet “holier than thou” search will lead to the self-righteousness article in Wikipedia. It defines self-righteousness and/or a holier than thou attitude as a “feeling or display” – usually smug – “of moral superiority derived from a sense that one’s beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person. Self-righteous individuals are often intolerant of the opinions and behaviors of others.”

Wikipedia also noted that the term is often considered derogatory:

…particularly because self-righteous individuals are often thought to exhibit hypocrisy due to the belief that humans are imperfect and can therefore never be infallible, an idea similar to that of the Freudian defense mechanism of reaction formation. The connection between self-righteousness and hypocrisy predates Freud‘s views, however, as evidenced by the 1899 book Good Mrs. Hypocrite: A Study in Self-Righteousness, by the pseudonymous author “Rita.”

In other words, the attitude has been around for a lot longer than 1899.   In fact it was around when Jesus walked the shores of Lake Galilee, which leads to another interesting note. The Wikipedia article on self-righteousness includes a link to The Mote and the Beam, the parable of Jesus illustrated in the painting above.  (There’s probably some kind of object lesson there too.) If you missed it, here’s Wikipedia on the story:

The Mote and the Beam (also called discourse on judgmentalism) is a proverbial saying of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount, in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 1 to 5. The discourse is fairly brief, and begins by telling his disciples not to judge others, arguing that they too would be judged by the same standard.

Specifically, Jesus said, “Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye?   ⁴ How dare you say to your brother, ‘Please, let me take that speck out of your eye,’ when you have a log in your own eye?  ⁵ You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”  (This was right before Jesus told about “casting pearls before swine.”)

So how do you know if you’re self-righteous???  That’s the problem, you don’t.  If you’re self-righteous or have a “holier than thou” attitude, you won’t realize it.  That’s because – being self-righteous – you simply can’t admit the possibility that you are wrong.  You simply can’t be wrong on your take on the Bible, and more to the point, you simply can’t be wrong in telling people that you’re going to heaven and they aren’t.  (“Bleah!”)

(That’s where the “prevailing quacks” come in. See the Mencken note below.)

Or maybe it’s like what a former mentor, Father Watson, said about the Unforgiveable Sin.  He said if you’re worried that you may have committed the Unforgiveable Sin (or the Eternal Sin), you probably haven’t.  In other words, just by being aware you may have committed the Unforgiveable Sin can assure you that you haven’t.

In the same way, just being aware that you may be self-righteous – or may have a “holier than thou” attitude – is a strong indication that you probably don’t have either problem.

Of course I could be wrong!

The upper image is courtesy of the “Mote and beam” Wikipedia article.   The full caption: “A [circa] 1619 painting by Domenico Fetti entitled The Parable of the Mote and the Beam.”

“Object lesson.”  See Object lesson – Merriam-Webster Online, and also object lesson – Wiktionary.

As to Father Watson’s take, see also What is the “unforgivable sin … Power to Change: “Thus, if you are worried that you have committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, you could not possibly have done it.”  (Emphasis in the original.)

As to what God really wants – rather than being self-righteous or “holier than thou” – see the end of On the June 22 readings – Part II: from Micah 6:8 (in the Living Bible); God “has told you what he wants, and this is all it is: to be fair, just, merciful, and to walk humbly with your God.”

The lower image is courtesy of “http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZJhPXe2I7M/TLqFa9FQUfI/AAAAAAAAABk/brh__nKDJik/s1600/ducksign.jpg.”   The image refers H. L. Mencken’s quote indicating the job of both journalists and Christians is to “challenge the prevailing quacks,” as noted in his Minority Report:

The only way that democracy can be made bearable is by developing and cherishing a class of men sufficiently honest and disinterested to challenge the prevailing quacks.   No such class has ever appeared in strength in the United States.  Thus, the business of harassing the quacks devolves upon the newspapers.  When they fail in their duty, which is usually, we are at the quacks’ mercy.

Did the Scribe mention that he has a Master’s Degree in journalism??

Roman Catholics like to claim theirs is the one-and-only true church, based on Matthew 16:13-19, where Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

The guesses included John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the other prophets of old.  Then Jesus said, “But who do you say that I am?”

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”  Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. . .   I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (E.A.)

So far so good.  Jesus gave Peter the “keys to the kingdom,” as shown in the painting-detail above.  (Actually a fresco in the Sistine Chapel.)  And so – Jesus told Peter – “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (See Power of the Keys – Wikipedia, and CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Power of the Keys – New Advent.)

But note what happened a couple chapters later, in Matthew 18.  That chapter began with the  disciples – all 12 of them – coming to Jesus and asking, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”  That’s when Jesus called a child and “put him in the midst of them” – all 12 of them – and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”  Jesus spoke on sin and “woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!”  He added the metaphor – not to be taken literally – about plucking your eye out if it caused you to sin, because “it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.”  Later He added this, speaking to all 12 disciples:

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Wait.  What?  Weren’t those the same words that Jesus spoke to only Peter, a chapter or two before?  And wasn’t that the same power that Jesus had given only to Peter?

What happened?

One thing that happened came just a few verses later in Matthew 16, beginning at verse 21.  That’s where Jesus started to tell His disciples He had to go to Jerusalem, suffer at the hands of “the elders and chief priests and scribes,” and be killed, and on the third day be raised:

And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But [Jesus] turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!  You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.” (E.A.)

(In the words of the King James Bible – the one God uses – the phrase was “Get thee behind me, Satan.”)  As to why Jesus said that, consider Why did Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me Satan”?   But the fact remains that Jesus did say that, and so – not long after saying that – He took the exclusive power He’d given to Peter and made it the power of all 12 disciples.

As to the effect of that change, see for example A Natural Law Manifesto – Right Reason, which indicated in pertinent part that “the statute passed later is presumed to have superseded the law enacted earlier.”  See also 7 Modification of Contracts – Shefsky & Froelich, which indicated that an “agreement that is complete on its face supersedes all prior agreements on the same
subject matter.”  (Did the Scribe mention that he was a lawyer in his prior life?)

So, in Matthew 16:16 Jesus gave Peter the exclusive power of the “keys to the kingdom.”  Then a few verses later Jesus sternly rebuked Peter for becoming “an unwitting spokesperson for Satan.” (See the “Why did” site above.)  Later still Jesus either effectively modified His “statute” or His “contract” and – using the same language – changed the power of “binding and loosing” by giving it to all 12 disciples instead of just Peter alone.

The effect of all this is to nullify the strong implication – promoted by the whole “St. Peter and the Keys” thing – that only Roman Catholics will get into heaven.  Of course Southern Baptists say pretty much the same thing, on the theory that infant baptism has no practical effect and that in order to get into heaven you have to be baptized as an adult. (See Baptists – Wikipedia.)

But what does the Bible say?  For one thing the Apostle Paul said, in Philippians 2:12, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”  Which is of course perfectly consistent with what he said much earlier, in Romans 10:9, “If you declare that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God brought him back to life, you will be saved.”  (Emphases added.)

Maybe that’s why they call it “Good News. . .”

*   *   *   *

*   *   *   *

As to the keys to the kingdom, see also Delivery of the Keys (Perugino) – Wikipedia, the …, describing a fresco in the Sistine Chapel, in Rome.  The image at the top of this post is a detail of that fresco.

As to “Roman Catholics.”  Here’s the distinction.  “Small-c” catholic means universal or comprehensive; “especially :  broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests <a catholic taste in music>”.  See Catholic – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster.  A more earthy example might be:  “That guy certainly has catholic tastes in women.  He’ll do anybody.”

But see also Cafeteria Catholicism – Wikipedia, which noted in part:

The term cafeteria Catholicism is applied to those who assert their Catholic identity yet dissent from Catholic doctrinal or moral teaching or who are viewed as dissenting by those using the term.  Examples include Catholics who are accused of dissenting from Church teachings on human sexuality (the so-called “pelvic issues”). . .

The site also noted that the term “is most often used by conservative Catholics critical of progressive Catholics.”  On that note see About this Blog, which said “those who read the Bible strictly, narrowly and/or ‘fundamentally'” – or you could read in conservatively – “are not only cheating themselves, they’re also driving other people away from the Faith of the Bible in droves.”

As to good news and gospel:  “The word gospel derives from the Old English gōd-spell ^[5] (rarely godspel), meaning ‘good news’ or ‘glad tidings.’   The word comes from the Greek euangelion, or ‘good news.’   The gospel was considered the ‘good news’ of the coming Kingdom of Messiah, and of redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the central Christian message.” Gospel – Wikipedia.  The lower image is courtesy of that article, which featured the caption, “The first page of the Gospel of Mark in Armenian, by Sargis Pitsak, 14th century.”

“The Dalai Lama with US President Barack Obama at the White House. . .”

According to Wikipedia, “Buddhism is one of the largest religions in the United States behind Christianity, Judaism and nonreligious.”    (A BTW:  The latter category raises a whole ‘nother set of issues and possibly a future blog-post or two.)

In 2012, the U-T San Diego  – a daily paper published in San Diego, California with a circulation of some 250,000 on weekdays and over 400,000 on Sundays – estimated the  number of Buddhists in America at some “1.2 million people, of whom 40% are living in Southern California.”

(Which explains a lot.  See for example Urban Dictionary: Land of Fruits and Nuts.)

Anyway, Buddhism is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama – “commonly known as the Buddha” – who lived and taught in the “eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE” [using the pointy-headed liberal alternative to “BC,” so as not to offend].   Here’s one thing the Buddha once said that may be of interest here:

Do not believe on the strength of traditions even if they have been held in honor for many generations. . .     Believe nothing which depends only on the authority of your masters or of priests.  After investigation, believe that which you yourself have tested and found reasonable, and which is good for your good and that of others.

But the Apostle Paul said pretty much the same thing in First Thessalonians 5:21: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”   See also First John 4:1, “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God.”  And see also Philippians 2:12, where Paul added, “Work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling.”

That part about “fear and trembling” might strike some nonreligious as the kind of “negative vibe” that is such a turn off about religion in general, and especially Christianity.  But if you think about it, such “fear and trembling” makes sense.  Consider the stakes; after you die, will you be eternally happy or eternal maggot food?   Accordingly, what rational person wouldn’t work toward a possible afterlife with a certain amount of due diligence?

Getting back to the Christian repertoire, consider what Chief Crowfoot once said, “What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is as the little shadow that runs across the prairie and loses itself in the sunset.”  But again, in the Bible, “James the Just” said pretty much the same thing: “For what is your life?  It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little while, and then vanisheth away.”  James 4:14, in the King James Version (the one God uses.)

The point of all this is pretty simple: there’s nothing in the vast panoply of religious and/or spiritual choices in America and beyond that isn’t already in the the Christian repertoire.

And speaking of Baby-boomers – those of us who came of age in the 1970s when we first started hearing about a host of exotic Eastern alternatives – consider one of the best-selling “me” books in the “me generation,” How to be Your Own Best Friend.

Considered groundbreaking at the time, there’s also nothing in it that isn’t in the “Christian repertoire.”   For example, page 22 of The Scribe’s copy said that in trying to find happiness, most people look in the wrong place; “The source is not outside us; it is within.”  And later, “We must realize that the kingdom is in us; we already have the key.”  But that too was already in the Bible, when Jesus said, “The kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)

Moving right along, one of the primary objectives of yoga, Zen, and those other Eastern disciplines seems first to “kill the ego.”   See for example the book How to Meditate, noted previously in Spiritual boot camp.   See too How to Meditate at page 55:  “I will teach you the best way to say Torah.  You must be nothing but an ear which hears what the universe of the word is saying in you.  The moment you hear what you yourself are saying, you must stop.”

So maybe reading and studying the Bible “in the proper manner” means pretty much the same thing; losing of your “self” in study.  In turn, the goal there is to become “one” with the Original Source, the Universal Mind, or what we Westerners call “God.”   That seems to be what Jesus was referring to as He prayed in John 17:20-23, in the Upper Room on the evening before He was crucified, asking God’s help for those who would believe in Him:

“I ask . . . on behalf of those who will believe in me . . . that they may all be one.  As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.  The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one. . .”

And finally, that also seems to be just what one “Common Prayer” meant when it said that Christians – through the sacrament of sharing Holy Communion – are in the process of becoming “very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son.”

So who says Christianity can’t be “mystical?”

“The Appearance of the Holy Spirit before Saint Teresa. . .”

Sources:

Buddhism in the United States – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Buddhism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Epistle of James – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Due diligence – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The full cite for How to be Your Own Best Friend, by Mildred Newman and Bernard Berkowitz, “with Jean Owen,” Ballantine Books (1971).

Me generation – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

As to the “kill the ego” and “becoming ‘one’” quotes, see Richard Hittleman’s Guide to Yoga Meditation, Bantam Books (1969), at pages 38 et seq.

Re: “becoming one.”  See especially John 17:21, John 17:22, John 17:23, and John 17:26.

As to “members incorporate in the mystical body…”  See the Book of Common Prayer, at page 339.

The St. Teresa image is courtesy of the article, Mysticism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  The full caption reads:  “The Appearance of the Holy Spirit before Saint Teresa of Ávila, Peter Paul Rubens.”  As noted in some previous posts, the terms “mystic” or “mysticism” seem to throw Southern Baptists and other conservative Christians into apoplexy.  (“Try it sometime!!!”)  But seriously, the term mysticism originally “referred to the biblical, the liturgical and the spiritual or contemplative dimensions in early and medieval Christianity.”  (Talk about “original intent. . .”)   Further, an internet search will lead to the definition of “mystic” as “a person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute. . .”

See also Teresa of Ávila – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which noted in pertinent part, “Teresa’s writings, produced for didactic purposes, stand among the most remarkable in the mystical literature of the Catholic Church.”  And that’s not to mention Thomas Merton – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the “American Catholic writer and mystic” who “authored books on Zen Buddhism and Taoism” such as Zen and the Birds of Appetite.

Should our freedoms be limited those available to the Founding Fathers?

Here’s a proposition:  The people who would interpret the United States Constitution strictly, narrowly or “fundamentally” are generally the same type who would do the same thing with the  Bible.   On that note see Originalism – Wikipedia, and how “originalism” might turn out to be a good way to read and explore the Bible.

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to discover the original meaning or intent of the Constitution…  The term originated in the 1980s….

Wikipedia also noted that originalism is popular among political conservatives, and is “prominently associated with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork.”  (The guy at right, who looks like the guy in high school voted “most likely to throw the book at you.”)  Then there is the “original meaning theory,” closely related to “textualism.”

Textualism in turn is a theory of statutory interpretation, “holding that a statute‘s ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as …   the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law.”  See Textualism – Wikipedia.

Getting back to the idea of originalism, it is the view “the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be.  It is with this view that most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.”

So what would “reasonable persons” at the time the Bible was written have thought about – say – writers like Moses, or Jeremiah?  Might not a reasonable Egyptian at the time of Moses think he was merely a felon – and a murderous one at that – who had fled the justice due from the land of his birth?  And might not a reasonable king at the time of Jeremiah think he was merely some upstart trouble-maker – if not a traitor to his country – who deserved to be cast into that well?

Then too, if the Bible can be seen as a “constitution,” could one of the best ways to read and interpret it be to examine the background and motives of the people who wrote it?    Hmmmm…

Then there’s the theory that the “primary alternative to originalism is most commonly described as the Living Constitution;  a view that the Constitution is ‘evolving, changing over time, and adapts to new circumstances.'”

Which raises another question?  Is the Bible – to you – an evolving source of empowerment, capable of “adapting to new circumstances?”   Or is the Bible – to you – dead, “frozen in time,” the source only of a cubbyhole into which you must try to shape and fit yourself?

Put another way:  Is the Bible to you a set of spiritual wings, or is it more like a spiritual straitjacket?  And if to you the Bible is frozen in time, a spiritual straitjacket, how on earth are you supposed to “sing to the Lord a new song?”  (Like it says in Psalm 96:1, Psalm 98:1, Psalm 144:9, not to mention Isaiah 42:10 and Revelations 5:9.)

For some answers to these questions see THE BASICS, above.

Or check the blurb at the bottom of the main, featured, and/or lead post, about the Three Great Promises of Jesus:  The first is that God will accept anyone.  (John 6:37.)  The second is that God wants us to live abundantly.  (John 10:10.)   And the third is that God wants us to do even greater miracles than Jesus did.  (John 14:12).   Which brings up this “musical question:”

How can we do greater works than Jesus if we interpret the Bible in a cramped, narrow, or limiting manner?   For that matter, why does the Bible so often tell us to “sing to the Lord a new song?”   (For example, Isaiah 42:10 and Psalms 96:1, 98:1, and 144:9.)

The short answer is:  You can’t.  And another short answer could be that – sometimes – it might be a good idea to just go ahead and “argue with God.”  Like it says in More on “arguing with God” – and St. Mark as Cinderella, from last April 22.  And which included the image below:

 *   *   *   *

 “Jacob wrestling with the Angel…”

 *   *   *   *

 The upper image, “Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States,” is courtesy of Wikipedia.  The 1940 painting was by Howard Chandler Christy (1873–1952).

The lower 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.

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.