ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/05/90)
Being an admirer of Kierkegaard, I ought to be on the look-out for
true paradoxes and to appreciate and learn from them. But there's
one I've run into that bothers me.
My own belief is that the most important thing is salvation,
and salvation is manifested in loving God (which is to say, in
obeying Him; loving and obeying God are not two things but two
names for one thing), and that _understanding_ is important
chiefly as a means to these ends. For me personally it is of
the utmost importance that I should seek to understand the Bible
correctly, and I feel compelled to put my intelligence whole-
heartedly to this task. I run the risk of taking this as an
end; but it's really a _means_ to the end of learning what God
is like and knowing what He wants me to do.
I was literally horrified early this year when a minister I had
thought well of said to me "Oh Richard, we don't go by the _Bible_!"
When I say "horrified", I mean it literally. This was in connection
with a moral question, where this minister said "I am more liberal
than X", but X had acted out a moral belief radically incompatible
with the New Testament, and one which moreover the majority of
Americans and Australians regard as wrong. I had asked this minister
for help from the Bible, and on getting that kind of reply I felt as
if I was suspended 70,000 fathoms over an abyss. And the minister I
went to for counsel here to help with my pain about X gave me no
spiritual counsel, never opening or quoting or alluding to the Bible,
but giving me only half-baked psychology. But my pain was precisely
that I couldn't see how to reconcile my love for X with my love for
God, how was it possible to approve of X as X demanded without
betraying the light I thought I had?
Here's the beginning of the paradox: I want to be among people who
have a warm love for God, who rejoice that they are sinners saved by
grace not merit (not people who the world would condemn who none the
less face the strictures of the NT and say smugly "I have done none
of these things, there is no sin in me"), but I also want these same
people to be interested in the intellectual side.
Here's the occasion of the paradox:
The night before last I went to the midweek meeting of the
church I'm now attending. There was a visiting speaker from
America. He was born in my own country and trained for the
ministry in this, but was now ministering in California. He
had a really thick American accent, and ended his clauses
with a loud "-uh", and from time to time shouted like Stentor
with a microphone. He seemed a lot like a TV evangelist.
(We're spared them here.) I was _ashamed_ that people in the
congregation knew that someone like this had come from Aotearoa.
He spoke on many Bible passages, but the one that stuck in my
mind was Romans 12:3. In the AV, "For I say, through the
grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to
think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to
think soberly according as God hath dealt to every man the
measure of faith."
This man said "We have THE measure of faith-uh! Nobody has more
or less than anyone else-uh, we all have THE measure of faith-uh."
and went on about that for some time, pointing out that "_if_
you have faith as a grain of mustard seed-uh" doesn't mean that
that's _all_ you have (which is true enough). But then he went on
to say "I went into the library of an Ivy League college on the
East Coast-uh, and I looked up this word-uh, and 'measure' means
TWELVE BARRELFULS-uh!" (Yes, I know it's barrelsful, not barrelfuls.
I'm quoting.) So he said "turn to the person at your side-uh and
say 'I have twelve barrelfuls of faith-uh'." Now I just *hate*
that sort of thing, and there wasn't anyone near by, so I kept quiet.
We weren't loud enough, so he had them say it again louder. And 5
minutes later he had everyone turn to the other side and go through
this rigmarole yet again.
Now, this man was holding the largest thickest Bible I have ever
seen, and pointing to it, and saying "it's all in here" and so on.
Here's someone who takes the Bible very seriously.
BUT if you look at the Greek:
"alla phronein eis to sophronein hekasto hos ho theos
emerisen metrov pisteos" (but be minded so as to be sober-minded
according as God has distributed a measure of faith to each)
(1) he made a great fuss about "THE measure of faith".
There is no definite article in the Greek.
If his approach were otherwise correct, it would mean
that God had twelve barrelsful of faith which he had
divided out amongst everyone; my share thus being about
one billionth of a barrelful.
(2) he made a great fuss about "twelve barrelfuls".
The only way I can make sense of this is to suppose that
he had mistaken the word "metron" for the word "metretes",
which takes a bit of doing. (Where the AV says "firkin",
that's "metretes".)
Is it fair to refer to the Greek? Well, _he_ said he had! Getting
two major themes of a talk from half a verse, and getting them both
wrong, quite _obviously_ wrong, I think that matters.
Here's the bite of the paradox:
Here's a man who by his ignorance has falsified the Word of God.
Yet he has pioneered a church that has grown from nothing to
a thousand people in six months, where Anglos, Blacks, and Hispanics
worship together in large numbers (they even have simultaneous
translation for the people who don't speak English), they have
healings, they have reconciliations in families, they are bringing
scores into the Kingdom weekly.
I despised his "-uh"s, loathed his wanting people to shout Amen and
Hallelujah every time he made a point, and was scandalised at his
mishandling of the Word. But the earnestness of his desire to be
faithful to God shines out of him; _God_ isn't ashamed of him, and
given some of the other things he was saying, I don't for an
instant suppose that any harm will come from his misunderstanding.
The only one harmed was me, puffed up in my own self-esteem because
_I'm_ too smart to make mistakes like that!
Given the choice between a cool preacher who _can_ read the Word but
prefers the wisdom of the passing age and a zealous preacher who isn't
very intellectual but is honestly submitted to his God, I don't have a
choice. I'll take intellectual _honesty_ over intellectual _ability_
any day. I'll more happily subject myself to the counsel of someone
who will _try_ to explain matters of faith and morals from the Bible
than to the counsel of someone who wants me to accept what the world
doesn't without any explanation at all. (Is this not a paradox? In
the matter of X, not one of the liberals who I first consulted would
condescend to explain to me!)
But oh, do I _have_ to make such a choice? Couldn't this man of God
and those like him learn enough Greek to find the right word in a dictionary?
Has careful exegesis the power to blunt the two-edged sword? Surely not!
As a reward for your patience in reading this, here's a joke.
DON'T misread it as criticism, it's just an accidental verbal collision.
From "Venereology and Genito-Urinary Medicine", 2nd ed, Catterall,
The Unitarian theory
holds that syphilis, yaws, and the other treponemal diseases
are a single disease.
(Looks more like a trinitarian theory to me!)
--
The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3
may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (11/06/90)
Re: Richard A. O'Keefe
Dear Richard,
(*whew!*) What a story!
I was practically cringing through your entire narrative of the
minister-with-the-'uh-s'... :) ... quite seriously, I'm entering the
seminary next year (Catholic), and I was quite appalled.
I should specify; I wasn't disturbed so much at the "uh-s" at the
end of every word, though the fellow seems to be one to benefit from
speech therapy... but it was the minister's abysmal ignorance of the
SPIRIT of the Bible that "blew me away" with the story.
Even if one were genuinely to goof up the Greek translation, and
get "bucketfuls" (or whatever) instead of the metaphoric "measure",
sheer common sense would usually pull a Bible reader back on track,
so to speak. But the minister in question seemed so carried away with
his enthusiasm that he neglected his congregation... and THAT, I think,
is a true source of concern.
I believe that a minister has a solemn duty to explain Scripture,
and the subtle messages therein, in as faithful a way as possible. This,
I believe, should certainly include an awareness of the needs/feelings
of the congregation. A minister who isn't empathic with the people of
his "family" isn't a minister at all, IMHO. And my imagination fails me
in trying to think of a way that a "flambuoyant", "Bible-swinging but
not Bible-reading" preacher could possibly be very sensitive to the
needs of those who listen to him/her; a prime requisite for sensitivity
is the ability to listen... and a prime requisite for listening is the
ability to shut your OWN mouth up, once in a while. :)
Just a few thoughts....
----
Take care!
Sincerely, Brian Coughlin
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.eduroot@mamia.UCAR.EDU (Sys Admin) (11/10/90)
"Universal Unitarianism - a church where you don't check your mind at the door" - but maybe you should, just to see if it's functioning!
John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) (11/21/90)
In article <Nov.10.08.35.58.1990.25414@athos.rutgers.edu> root@mamia.UCAR.EDU (Sys Admin) writes: > "Universal Unitarianism - a church where you don't check your mind > at the door" - but maybe you should, just to see if it's functioning! One of the great appeals of Unitarian Universalism is that science is compatible with our religion. We do not hold to that which flies in the face of empirical evidence, nor do we hold that all or any scientific theory is complete and total. A requirement to believe by faith is by its very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To choose to believe without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane of situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for themselves. Unitarians Universalists choose to have faith in reason, in humanity's ability to make a better world paradigm than the self-defeating one based on a concept of original sin. We believe that education and reason and nonrational (not irrational) activities such as love and prayer can work together to create a better world on this earth, not in some postdeath realm, but for the living. We may be wrong, but we continue research and development for a better way. Instead of just taking a cheap shot, defend it. John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism Duke University An inclusive religion! and all its components () including the Divinity School, \__/ disavow anything I say. II [Of course those who believe in "creation science" also think that science is compatible with their religion, and that empirical evidence does not conflict with their religion either. It seems clear that there is a difference betweeen you and our more conservative contributors in their assessment of evidence. I'm not interested in discussing that, as I believe it belongs in talk.origins. What I would be interested in whether folks from the more conservative side think they have a different relationship between faith and reason then you do, or whether they think the only difference between you and them is that they believe the empirical evidence points in a different direction than you do. --clh]
sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) (11/26/90)
> >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 21-Nov-90 Re: Did Erasmus > live in vain? John Graves@cellbio.duke (2396) > > >A requirement to believe by faith is by its > >very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To choose to > believe > >without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane > of > >situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly > >denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for > >themselves. John, Any rational system must accept some things as a priori truths. These are then the fundamental axioms of the system, and by using reason, further statements are derived from this set of fundamental assumptions. Reason & observation have ample room to maneuver. Many of us in more traditional faiths take the existence of God as an a priori truth ( it is a matter of faith). I have no doubt that within Unitarian Universalism, certain things are taken as a priori truths (and thus, on *faith*). My impression is that U.U. folks believe that reason and empiricism will guide us to a better world. While I believe that fundamentally, God defines what is good, you may believe that reason and observation define what is good. > >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 21-Nov-90 Re: Did Erasmus > live in vain? John Graves@cellbio.duke (2396) > > >We believe that education and > >reason and nonrational (not irrational) activities such as love and > prayer > >can work together to create a better world on this earth, not in some > >postdeath realm, but for the living. The last time I checked, most of the more traditional Churches were also interested in making the world a better place for the living. To the best of my knowledge, Christianity is about how to live, not how to die. U.U. seems to be the fusion of empiricist philosophy and mainstream Christianity. But it seems to me that by adopting empiricism and taking God out of the picture, you end up pulling out the very foundations for morality (in a sense, U.U. seems to be a nihilist form of Christianity). How does a U.U. decide a moral issue when the material evidence does not provide a decisive material advantage to either side of the argument? Unitarian Universalism, to be consistent with it's own tenets, must decide good/bad by materialistic arguments. Therefore, to remain consistent, U.U. would inevitably have to support relativism - thus eliminating the concepts of Good and Evil. Do U.U. have a concrete idea of Good and Evil which exists apart from God, and is not subject to relativism? Do I misunderstand Unitarian Universalism? Stephen Chan
tja@mungunni.cs.mu.oz.au (Tim ARNOLD) (11/26/90)
John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu (John Graves) writes: >In article <Nov.10.08.35.58.1990.25414@athos.rutgers.edu> >root@mamia.UCAR.EDU (Sys Admin) writes: >> "Universal Unitarianism - a church where you don't check your mind >> at the door" - but maybe you should, just to see if it's functioning! >One of the great appeals of Unitarian Universalism is that science is >compatible with our religion. We do not hold to that which flies in the >face of empirical evidence, nor do we hold that all or any scientific >theory is complete and total. Here, here! >A requirement to believe by faith is by its >very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To quote Hebrews (I forget where) "Faith is the assurance of things unseen, the certainty of things to come." How can this means you don't use your mind? I rely largely on the evidence in the Bible and other sources which convince me of its validity together with my own intellectual assessment of what it contains for my faith (admittedly that is not the sum total of faith but the Bible says it should be a part eg Romans 5 "Be transformed by the renewing of your MIND"). The Holy Spirit works to improve your mind not destroy it! >To choose to believe >without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane of >situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly >denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for >themselves. Unitarians Universalists choose to have faith in reason, in >humanity's ability to make a better world paradigm than the self-defeating >one based on a concept of original sin. Humans need to be sanctified (made whole) by God. Christianity gets its strength and uniqueness by recognizing man's failure to make a better world. That is not self-defeating because we recognize that God can make a difference where we cannot. It is precisely by rejecting God's guidance as to what is best for the world that we have managed so successfully to stuff it up. I have faith in reason but my reason tells me man (and particularly me) has failed and if anything is going to improve it has to be done God's way. After all who can get the world running the way it should other than its creator (Whether you take a litteral interpretation of Genesis or not, the message of the OT and Genesis in particular is that God is in control way beyond the powers of man)? Me? Me working with other like minded people? I'm not that arrogant (close though). I prefer and work hard to change the world the way God suggests and commands. >We believe that education and >reason and nonrational (not irrational) activities such as love and prayer Since when has love been irrational? Love is not an emotion it is an action. The two great commandments are (COMMANDMENT => action) love God and love your neighbour. Jesus then illustrated what loving your neighbour meant with the parable of the Good Samaritan ie helping him or her when they need help. Likewise for prayer. Prayer is all about communication and relationship building with God. That may not be a purely rational process but I defy you to communicate with somebody in more than a superficial way without engaging your MIND. These are the ways God suggests we change the world. Do you claim higher authority? >can work together to create a better world on this earth, not in some >postdeath realm, but for the living. We may be wrong, but we continue >research and development for a better way. Christianity is all about God's kingdom, not man's. That kingdom is here now. It started when Christ's death and resurrection announced victory over evil and death (if you think that is irrational then read "Who rolled the stone away?" can't remember the author off hand but most good Christian book stores will have it or should be able to order it or suggest a more recent book covering similar material). Being a Christian is about being part of that kingdom now in its struggle between the new life in Christ and the bondage of our sinful bodies (see Paul's experience in Romans 7), and in a "postdeath realm" when we are finally released from that bondage and God's kingdom is consumated here on earth. Join God's kingdom to share that. Create man's kingdom and the warnings are clear (Mark is a good place to start reading about God's kingdom and Jesus' place in it). >John Allan Graves Unitarian Universalism >Duke University An inclusive religion! >and all its components () >including the Divinity School, \__/ > disavow anything I say. II flame deleted ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Arnold Law/Science (Computer Science Hons) Undergrad tja@munnari.cs.mu.oz.AU The University of Melbourne
ldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) (11/27/90)
In article <Nov.25.20.20.55.1990.25134@athos.rutgers.edu>, sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: |>> >Excerpts from netnews.soc.religion.christian: 21-Nov-90 Re: Did Erasmus |>> live in vain? John Graves@cellbio.duke (2396) |>> |>> >A requirement to believe by faith is by its |>> >very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To choose to |>> believe |>> >without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane |>> of |>> >situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly |>> >denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for |>> >themselves. |> |>John, |> Any rational system must accept some things as a priori truths. These |>are then the fundamental axioms of the system, and by using reason, |>further statements are derived from this set of fundamental assumptions. |>Reason & observation have ample room to maneuver. |> Goedel again! As a Christian, and as a researcher, I believe it is necessary to seek the source of a fact. It is imperative to understand the foundation of reasoning underlying any claim. As you work your way back, you will eventually encounter something which is accepted, but not proven. Lonnie ---------------------------------------------------------------- The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody else lays claim to them. ================================================================ Lonnie D. Harvel | ldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu School of Electrical Engineering | Georgia Institue of Technology | "quisque suis patimur manis" Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 | Virgil
lieuwen@mycella.cs.wisc.edu (Dan Lieuwen) (11/27/90)
>> >>One of the great appeals of Unitarian Universalism is that science is >>compatible with our religion. We do not hold to that which flies in the >>face of empirical evidence, nor do we hold that all or any scientific >>theory is complete and total. A requirement to believe by faith is by its >>very statement opposed to the free use of the mind. To choose to believe >>without sufficient evidence is often necessary even in the most mundane of >>situtations, but a requirement to believe in unproven data explicitly >>denies the ability of a person to make choices based on reason for >>themselves. Unitarians Universalists choose to have faith in reason, in >>humanity's ability to make a better world paradigm than the self-defeating >>one based on a concept of original sin. We believe that education and >>reason and nonrational (not irrational) activities such as love and prayer >>can work together to create a better world on this earth, not in some >>postdeath realm, but for the living. We may be wrong, but we continue >>research and development for a better way. >> Faith in reason is vastly overrated. To choose to have faith in reason is neither more nor less rational than to choose to have faith in anything else in the absence of any evidence. The track record of reason is spotty at best--particularly in regards to "love". The Germans of Hitlers era were a well educated, technocratically rationalist society... I don't believe you will build a better world on earth with illusions about man's goodness. History is aptly described as "a litany of man's inhumanity to man"--the only odes to man's goodness come from dreamers. Thus belief in original sin is not "a self-defeating concept" but a necessary antidote to man's pride--and pride is what leads to inhumanity. Dan -- --Dan
jhpb@granjon.garage.att.com (11/29/90)
A comment for the Unitarian who posted the original article in this thread. Faith is not the mere fact of belief in the absence of compelling evidence, as (it seems to me) you assume. It is true, that is an important part of Faith. But it does not exclusively pin down what Faith is. Suppose I believe that the Giants are going to win the Super Bowl this year. Is that a matter of Faith? No. So what is it that is additionally necessary to make a belief a matter of Faith? It is simply this, the grace of God. Beliefs due to reason proceed from our own selves. Beliefs due to Faith proceed from the grace of God. Joe Buehler