The paradoxical thing about Jesus’s teaching here is that neither he, nor his disciples, were under any illusions that God prevents all harm coming to sparrows: in the Matt 10.29 parallel, God’s concern for his children is compared to not one of [the sparrows] falling to the ground apart from God’s will.
This is not a contradiction - rather it is a statement (like yours!) of faith that God knows what he’s doing, and that love and concern obtain not only in the positive experiences of our lives (or sparrows’!) but even in our sufferings or death.
The teaching, then, is not “God is protecting even the birds from any harm - just don’t believe your lying eyes when you see bad things happen to them”, but rather “God is wisely and lovingly governing all things, even birds, by his providence - and not either Satan or mere chance.”
I don’t think attributing concern, love, or compassion to animals, within limits, is anthropomorphic; just because a lioness doesn’t suicidally challenge a lion, doesn’t mean she doesn’t care about the cubs. I mostly meant that she would have continued to be preoccupied with her existing cubs rather than become receptive (go into heat) anyway. A biological response, yes, but the lion isn’t thinking in terms of hormonal triggers, I don’t think.
I’m reminded of seeing video of a lioness who adopted a baby wildebeest, along with lots of other examples of cross-species adoptions and friendships among the animal kingdom. Do hormones play a role? Sure, as they do in any emotion. But that doesn’t invalidate the emotion. There’s a lot of variety and room for expression.
I thought the first time I read it that it would be very difficult for a human to interpret the emotions of a bird, because birds don’t use facial expressions like we do, so all we can really say about the bird’s response is that it didn’t act, and there could be a number of reasons for that. But possibly the bird is just accustomed to this being the way things work, sure.
Going back to your original point: of course the creation of the universe is an ongoing process. Stars are still being born, species are still evolving; humanity is still coming up with new memes, if you will, now at an accelerated rate!
I think your question goes somewhat towards free will and what we should and should not be trying to accomplish by exercising it: note that I said we needed to exercise not just will, but also wisdom. Sure, there is the potential for doing things we should not with gene technology, as with any technology; I think we will find out it’s not as easy as we might think to improve upon the fine-tuning evolution has done.
But is my primary response fear? Does it have to be? Fear of overambitious or incautious attempts at improvement of humans, the world, etc is reasonable; but that doesn’t mean we should abandon all efforts.
This is really observant, and thought-provoking. Thanks, Jon.
As I went and reflected on the passage, I did notice (just to play the devil’s advocate, if I may) that Matt 10:29 doesn’t mention God’s “will” per se, but at the very least speaks to His loving care and presence in the midst of suffering. (Personally, I’m somewhere in-between “Reformed” and “Open Theist” on the providence spectrum; still sorting through the details, but generally leaning away from the more dogmatically Reformed side of things.) Perhaps someday I’ll dig a little deeper to see how ανευ “without” is used in the extrabiblical literature, to see if the concept of “will” is implied elsewhere. It doesn’t seem to be in the other two Biblical texts (1 Pet 3:1; 1 Pet 4:9), but in those cases the object of “without” is not a person or deity. Or (being lazy): If you’ve already done some homework on this that you are already familiar with and would like to share, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
First of all, Lynn, I am continuing our repartee, not to convince you of my way of thinking (or visa versa) but because you probably are going to show me some different ways of looking at the world. In the matter of the mother lioness exhibiting the human attributes of care, compassion, & love when her cubs are threatened, she will take suicidal efforts if the threat is from a pack of hyenas but accept ‘fate’ if the threat is from a take-over male. So, rather than credit her (anthropomorphically) with thought, I would rather believe she behaves according to her gene-driven hormones.
I was a 19 yr. old soon-to-be-discharged soldier when i met this 15 yr. old girl. The attraction I immediately felt for her was undoubtedly driven by sex hormones. Probably her concern for me was equally hormone-driven at first. But after a few dates I could see that her concern and compassion was not directed solely at me–it ran deep–it was innate–she was a keeper. Some atheistic biologists seem to think that all these 'finer human behaviors will eventually be traced back to hormonal action–we’re nothing but a bag of coordinated chemicals. But I doubt it. There is something quite special about the human soul. A few animals display hints of it. Cross-species motherly love is one. But I can believe Scripture which says we humans are the only ones that God wants to covenant with.
This is the exciting thought that de Chardin ignited for me. God set a spark of Life here on this planet some 4 billion years ago that he destined to return eventually back to him–Alpha to Omega. Humankind is the first of that Life that burst forth into the Noosphere. We have gotten off to a shaky start, and he had to come into our lives to show us the way. And it is a LONG way. And the rather slow ‘chancy’ process of Darwinian evolution is now being augmented (almost replaced) by a more Lamarkian Noospheric evolution.
So the tasks of BioLogos and the moral ethicists who guide biological research are more needed than ever. Sam Harris bemoaned the fact that Francis Collins, an avowed Born Again Christian, was chosen to head our NIH. In contrast, I wish he could be cloned to serve in multiple positions to guide further research using spiritual as well material principles.
Al Leo
Matt 10:29 - A too brief reply as this is a side-track from the thread - except, of course, that one could claim Jesus (and hence the Bible) is in error to say God protects sparrows when in fact they die, or when we can find “random” causes for their demise, etc.
In Greek as in English, I think, a phrase like “This can’t happen without me” implies some active agency of commission or assistance or permission. You’d need some additional context to infer something more restricted like “without me finding out.” It’s pointed out in the commentaries that the use of “Father” in itself implies protection.
The context here is reassurance over fear in the face of being put to death for the cause of Christ - mere divine knowledge is no help, any more than millions casually watching 24 hour live coverage of some massacre on TV does the victims any good whatsoever in itself. Superintendence is the issue, though that of course includes knowing that God cares about our suffering.
I stress “commission, assistance or permission” because the issue of the existence of secondary causes is irrelevant here: God is sovereign over the persecution of his saints, gives them words to say, etc, but with no implication that the persecutors are merely puppets. A nasty man knocks a sparrow to the ground with a stick - but God’s overseeing providence is not thereby in abeyance (cf Ps 104.29).
Craig Keener points out 3 specific rabbinic references teaching that God is sovereign over each bird’s fate: if that was common teaching, then Jesus’s argument is “How much more…” rather than arguing for providence over sparrows. Certainly that kind of view of providence was shared by the Church Fathers like Justin, Irenaeus and Lactantius (who also quotes Chrysippus to the same effect), and probably others I’ve not researched.
Several commentators, dealing with the “hairs on your head all numbered” phrase, point out that to restrict that to passive interest and knowledge ignores several biblical parallel sources (like 1 Sam 14.45 etc - “not a hair of his head will fall to the ground”) which would have come to Jewish minds immediately.
Luke’s parallel does indeed rephrase it “without your Father’s knowledge”, but John Nolland’s critical commentary views this as strengthening Matthew’s emphasis from “the time of one’s martyrdom is in the hands of God” (though Matthew broadens the point in vv.30-31) to “assurance of the pervasive care of God.”
Returning, finally, to the “errancy” issue, it’s worth pointing out that a doctrine like providence is based entirely on authority: we can’t know by reason or investigation that God is governing any part of the world. If our experience or misinterpretation of the nature of reality lead us to put the “sparrow” example into the bucket marked “error”, whether on Jesus’s part or the Evangelists, then we simply lose the benefit of Jesus’s divinely ordered teaching, and lose assurance should we come to the time of trial.
I disagree. You seem to think you’re on the inerrancy thread, but this is in fact the discussion about the relationship of violence to God’s creative activities. This side-discussion is quite germane.
Is this based on some years of study of Koine and Attic Greek texts in which you’ve done careful word study on the word ἄνευ, or on your armchair supposition based on English? I generally respect your perspectives quite a bit, but what I was looking for was,
which was the context for
If you feel it contributes to the discussion, and you have further thoughts, I’d love to hear them. Not trying to force your hand or play gotcha games, though. If you don’t have time for further reply here, I’ll put it on my overflowing shelf of “things to research in the primary literature when I have more time.” Thanks at any rate for the response.
I disagree, and you’re responding to a misunderstanding of what I said. I mentioned “loving care and presence,” not mere knowledge. If, one day, I am martyred, it matters immensely to me to know that my heavenly Father will be saturating the experience, cradling me as I die, present by the power of His Spirit, giving me the strength to submit to the process, helping me to forgive my murderers, reassuring me of the certainty of my resurrection to glory with Him, helping me to trust Him to take care of my wife and children, drawing onlookers to observe His power at work in the midst of my suffering as a testimony to Him, etc., etc. Your “casual bystander” view is (frankly) a grotesque misrepresentation of the opposing view. If we wanted to traffic in grotesque misrepresentations, I’d start talking about a Calvinist God who finds utter delight in the suffering of His children, knowing that it is somehow bringing Him glory by purifying His people. But I really don’t think that would move the conversation forward.
Again. How about “active care”? I nowhere used or implied mere passivity or mere knowledge.
Thanks; this is worth considering. I’m not yet convinced of the connection without digging further, but it’s a helpful line of inquiry at any rate.
This is golden. Thank you. Would you mind giving me the Keener reference if you have it? That would be very helpful. Knowing about the cognitive environment of the gospel’s first audience (e.g., roughly concomitant rabbinical teaching) is immensely useful to knowing what the intended meaning was.
Exactly my point. We agree here. This does not require a particular view of sovereignty, as I see it. I am willing to be corrected.
Thanks for the helpful exchange and for your time spent, even if we disagreed on a few points. Have a blessed Sunday.
Back from church where, of all things, the Luke passage was mentioned, as was the goddess Nut in connection with the Exodus - my BioLogos debates echoed in village Baptist church! You’re quite right - I literally lost the thread I was on (or you’d probably have been subjected to stuff on evolution being driven by cooperation). My bad.
No in-depth study of attic texts, I’m afraid - just the logic of the construction. On the other hand, I wasn’t really misunderstanding your position so much as starting from scratch about what the text means - sorry if that didn’t come across. I’ve certainly come across the “bare knowledge” (essentially Deist) position pastorally - all you say about strengthening, building your trust in his ability to protect family etc holds (but doesn’t that presuppose his power to protect you too, and therefore his sovereignty even when that protection appears absent?) is valid, and is part of active providence, for which I was trying to build the case.
Yet all those internal “psychological” aspects would not apply to our specimen bird, surely? We are supposed to take heart from God’s providential care of birds (which have a dubious capacity to take heart themselves.)
Keener, Luke, in IVP NT commentary series, p.209. If you can’t get it, but can get to rabbinic texts, they are: Pes. Rab Kah. 11:16; Gen. Rab. 79:6; Eccl. Rab. 10:8, S1.
Repartee is fun! Haha, fair warning, my views on the difference between animals and humans aren’t exactly mainstream even outside of Christianity, though!
Wait, are you trying to claim animals don’t think? They have brains, don’t they? They can remember past events, solve puzzles, and have individual preferences and tastes.
We all are tempted to believe we’re special. I have seen a lot of thinkers, both religious and not, try to identify what defines us as human apart from the animals. Many different characteristics have been proposed, such as tool-using, language-using, self-recognition (as in a mirror), planning for the future, etc.
To the extent that these can be observed objectively, they have all been documented in other animals. My opinion is that it is a mistake to look for a single defining characteristic such as these. Our differences from the rest of the animal kingdom are a matter of degree alone: compared to our chimp cousins, we are less hairy, more upright, more monogamous, and have much more capable minds.
(I also suspect that if orcas had opposable thumbs, our notions of being the ultimate intelligence on Earth might be sadly impacted!)
But other than our unique ability to run a marathon in Death Valley, or perhaps our ability to define a systematic (Tree-like?) understanding of good and evil — my dog understands when she’s been good or bad, but that’s hardly comprehensive morality — I don’t think we’re differently put together than the animals around us.
Emotions are based on chemical alterations in the brain. This doesn’t mean they’re not real, or that all the stuff we’ve previously understood about emotions and how they work should get tossed out the window! Hardly. It’s just an additional layer of understanding, and a marvelously complex one. Would we think any differently, if the inner workings of the brain couldn’t be tracked and identified and puzzled out into pieces that we could fit back together to make sense of things?
I haven’t read de Chardin, but based on what you say of his ideas, they sound very interesting!
I don’t think “genetic success” cares whether politics, economics or biology is involved when an individual’s behavior - - triggered by whatever reason - - leads to fewer genetic copies of a rival and more genetic copies of the individual.
Social commentators don’t shrink from criticizing the human tendency for mob action. But try to imagine the ancient world where the savannah is littered with human tribes (or ‘troops’) of all kinds. Then imagine that some tribes are known for their rather philosophical tendencies, not getting too excited about much of anything … while on the other side of the mountain there are tribes well known for their proclivity or irrational and emotional excitement.
In competition for the best watering holes and the best hunting areas, it is easy to see how the more excitable and passionate human groupings would inevitably come to dominate those other tribes that are the same in every way - - Except on the issue of emotionality and passion.
The leaders of the “calm tribe” do their very best to motivate their warriors to go out and destroy the aggressive “evil” tribe that has entered their valley. And, to some extent, the warriors work themselves up into a dutiful level of indignation. But it is not enough to match the frenzy that the leaders of the excitable tribe have been able to induce in their own people … against an innocent human group who has done them no wrong.
Politics, shmall-itics … the genetic outcome is still the bottom line.
Humans tend towards mob action for the simple reason that eons ago, mobs were essential to survival . . . but to a limit. The tribes that were always causing trouble with mob action were probably destroyed by other tribes that were sick of the trouble they caused.
In competition for the best watering holes and the best hunting areas, it is easy to see how the more excitable and passionate human groupings would inevitably come to dominate those other tribes that are the same in every way - - Except on the issue of emotionality and passion.
Genetics is the work-bench of all behaviors. Of course upbringing and the environment is relevant. But without genetics, you aren’t able to ascertain the average tendency, and the inclination to travel up or down a sliding scale.
Is the difference between an Orang’s disposition and Chimpanzee disposition purely environmental? Hardly. Chimpanzee brains are different.
The difference between sociable lions and reclusive cheetah’s is not just due to upbringing. Lions have evolved to want to be social … to aggregate into groups. Whereas Cheetah’s have evolved to become increasingly aggravated with the nearby presence of another adult cheetah (except when mating hormones take control). Follow what I mean here?
The speculation I offered above is a mind experiment to help us see that some “political” behaviors have genetic consquences, which create a feedback loop for why some kinds of “political” behaviors become more strongly reinforced (essentially, because they promote the genetic predisposition to repeat those political behaviors).
@beaglelady, you say it’s very wrong, but you don’t offer a counter argument. You might have cited Jane Goodall’s observations of the Gombe chimps, Flo and Flint. Their behavior was strong evidence that they were capable of mourning their dead and at least were on their way to possessing true compassion and love. So does some elephant behavior. But in the E. O. Wilson school, this is just kin selection. Jesus asks us to love even those who have harmed us, who have no perceptible relation to us. That goes against the grain of instinct.
Al Leo
I think you are comparing apples and oranges in your discussion with @beaglelady .
A) Describing altruistic behaviors in non-humans might qualify as part of genetic kin preference. But that wasn’t Beagle-Gal’s point; her point was that some animal behaviors are indistinguishable from human ones.
B) Your point about Jesus asking humans to rise above their genetics, and love their enemy … I don’t think Beaglelady is bothered by that. Most of us here accept that God is asking us to rise above our flawed biological backgrounds, right?
2015 video of dog risking its life pulling another dog off of a highway in Turkey
(different clip than the more well known one from NYC).
Thanks for passing along the Dog Video. It shows a display of empathy worthy of a Saint Francis, let alone a St. Bernard. My take on this is that God saw ‘glimpses’ of empathy and compassion displayed in his pre-human animals–characteristics he wanted widespread in his Creation, and he saw the potential in the ‘over-designed’, exapted Homo sapiens brain–IF it circuits were properly programmed. Of course the capabilities that this ‘programming’ enabled were “double-edged”–they could be applied both to evil or to good. So, in granting freedom to the newly programmed Homo sapiens, in effect God created angels and devils at the same time.
Al Leo
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:93, topic:346”] Genetics does not determine attitudes. Attitudes are created by upbringing. [/quote]
The old Nature vs Nurture conundrum: Obviously it’s both.
Al Leo
I didn’t have time for examples. Why do you ask for examples if you already know some? Anyway, here is a video showing that a bonobo will voluntarily share his food with a stranger. Bonobos like to share.
You are putting the cart before the horse. The difference betwee4n the brains of the orang and chimp is because they live in different environments. The way their brains are configured is an adaption to the environmental niche in which they exist, just as ours is.
The lion’s way of life has evolved to be a social way of hunting in existence. The cheetah has evolved in a different way in that they hunt alone and their prey is much more specialized than that of the lion, because of its adaption to its environment. The tiger is a third case in that tigers hunt in pairs, and of course they live in a different environment.
I didn’t move the goalposts. Jesus did. We are on a different field of play that the rest of Creation. That came about when he decided to covenant with us.
Al Leo