I knew a couple of brothers who grew up as missionary kids in the mission field, getting “American school” in the morning while in the afternoons doing what the local/native kids did, from running naked across the veldt or savanna to stalking wildlife to things only tribe members did (that they wouldn’t talk about). Back in the U.S. for college, they had the most culturally open outlook of anyone I’ve ever met.
3 Likes
i wonder if anyone here has read or come across Rebekah Drumsta?
I am not one who normally directs people to a specific source but I found this view on Christian Perfection rather refreshing
Does God expect us to be perfect?
Without giving too much away, she clearly does not think He does and argues it well.
Richard
I’ve come across some of her stuff before but never deliberately read anything of substance.
She was doing well until she got to this:
In fact, many scholars believe that perfect should have been translated as love or complete. If this is the case, look at the verse again replacing the word perfect with the word love, “Be ye love even as your Father in Heaven is love.” This radically changes things!
The term τέλειος (TEH-lei-ohs) does not in any way mean “love” – you have to do some nifty dog-tricks to get to that!
“Complete” is more to the point, and is far better than “perfect”: the concept is of having reached a mature stage, not of being finished. The word is used in mystery religions of those who have passed their initial instruction and been inducted into full membership. It can be illustrated with the example of a fruit tree, which an orchardman would consider τέλειος, complete or mature, when it begins producing fruit; it is then fulfilling its purpose or goal – and “goal” is critical to understanding τέλειος, which comes from a root meaning “end, goal, (final) destiny”, and thus τέλειος indicates a condition of being aimed towards a goal.
So her conclusion is right, just some of her path getting there is bad. The term does not (except in rare cases) indicate a status of having 100% match-up to some static model, which is how “perfect” comes across in modern English. And she missed a big point: we are to be τέλειοι (plural) as our Father in heaven is τέλειός (singular), but no guidance on what τέλειός is directly given – and in such cases we must look to the context. And that context is one not of checklist moral status but of relational status, with illustrations of moving from one level (“You have heard it was said”) to a higher one (“But I say to you”). The implication from the context, then, is that τέλειός, as the root of the word indicates, is a matter of moving toward a goal – a goal that could be summed up using Paul’s phrase about undergoing the process of being transformed into the image of Christ.
Just BTW, if you trace the English “perfect” backwards the root has overtones of “exquisite” or “excellent” (shades of Bill & Ted!).
1 Like
None of the above, i.e. in the OP.
If an intentional ground of being of infinite, eternal nature is posited, it obviously isn’t affected by nature’s suffering in any detectable way.
Of course, at least until a divinometer is invented.
It doesn’t show its affect in any way whatsoever. No matter how affected it is. Of course classical theology says it isn’t.
I have been approaching this topic from a bit different viewpoint during the last days, inspired by the theology studies I continued.
The starting point is how the long evolutionary history of humans, as shown by the studies of the ‘second book of God’ [creation], should affect our theological understanding about the nature of humans, our relationship with God, and what is good or evil.
I have just started the thinking so I am currently just trying to form a coherent picture of the pieces. I decided to share some of my preliminary thoughts with you to get advice, tips and criticism that would help in the development of these ideas. i would also like tips about suitable books that deal with this issue.
Anyhow, some preliminary pieces below. These may provoke thinking or perhaps fierce disagreements, as I list the chips like statements. The first ones are just forming the basic starting point, so are not the focus of my thinking - topics that should and have been discussed in other threads.
Starting point:
- the story about Adam & Eve seems to be either mythologized teaching or mythologized history, depending on whether A&E were historical persons or just symbolic representatives of humanity in the narrative.
- genetic research has concluded that the number of humans have not dropped below 10’000 individuals during the last 100’000 years, which suggests that we are not all descendants of a single original pair, at least if the pair lived within the last 100’000 years.
- if we are not all descendants of historical persons called A&E, then it is not credible to think that we would have somehow inherited or have part in the guilt of A&E - sorry, supporters of the original sin or the sudden emergence of corruption and death after the original sin of A&E.
- the evolutionary process or the research on evolution do not reveal what is good or bad in an ethical sense.
Replacement of the theological interpretations depending on the original sin of persons called A&E:
-
what we are physically (‘according to flesh’) is what the long evolutionary process has formed about humanity: selfish creatures that have features and behaviours promoting fitness (in the evolutionary sense).
-
assuming that God created this world and the laws of nature, is the natural selfish state of humans somehow bad or evil?
My answer is basically ‘no’, not anymore than the behaviours of the other animals are evil. -
the critical point of sin is where the selfish nature of humans conflicts with what God informs. When God informs that the person should live according to the guidelines set by the Creator and King of this universe, the natural reaction of a selfish human is to act according to his own benefit and will. That leads to decisions and behaviours that are de facto rebellion against the King of the universe. That rebellion and acting against what God has informed to be good are sin. If we label what God informs as ‘good’, then the sin is ‘evil’.
-
thinking can continue from this point but I guess these initial steps show how these issues might be approached.
This thinking may become relevant to our understanding about the nature of God when we start to think what the creation and evolution reveal about the way how God has acted.
I understand that this approach is a no-no for those supporting YEC but it might be relevant for the others.
Having started that train of thought.
Why then should God expect us to be perfect and “sinless”?
All of Christianity is based on this one precept. That we must be sinless to have a relationship with God. But, is that precept from God or humanity?
If God does not expect us to be perfect then that is a major game (Theological) changer.
RIchard
Thanks for the comment.
Does God expect us to be perfect? Depends on what you mean by being perfect.
Sins separate us from God but God prepared for that problem a solution that makes it possible for imperfect people to be in relationship with God.
When the question is about being ‘sinless’, I tend to go back to what Luther wrote: we Christians are simultaneously righteous and sinners.
The claim that our thinking and acts need to be perfect before we can have a relationship with God is not what I would call the Good news (gospel) of Christianity. The gospel is about the victory of the King that covered our sins and opened to us a possibility to become part of the great plan and family of God.
If that is the case, then why does what Luther claim make any difference?
If we are not perfect then we are sinners.
Now reword that and you get what I said.
What are the benefits of being in the Family of God? Are they in this life or the next?
Richard
Much of the gospel is targeted to this life, instead of speaking just of the life after death. Life with God, already now and continuing towards eternity.
We are physically animals but God can connect us to His eternal life already now through His Holy Spirit.
Jesus told before his departure that it is good that he will go away because he will send the Holy Spirit when he has gone. Receiving and living with the Holy Spirit changed the life of the first disciples and it can change the lives of believers even today. Unfortunately, many Christians seem have a weak(distant) relationship with the Holy Spirit and that may be one reason why they do not experience fully the life with Him.
The challenge in proving this is like watching the wind. You cannot see the wind but you can see the consequences. With humans, you should basically know what the life was before and is after the person starts to live with the Holy Spirit to see how the life starts to change when the ‘wind’ (Hebrew ruah = wind, spirit) of God starts to blow in the life of the person.
I think there is a distinction between the sort of benefits you (and I) of the Holy Spirit and what someone outside the faith or even new to it might see.
Perhaps the thrust or intent of my posts is not as clear as it might be.
I think what i am angling for ior against is the ercieved necessity as being intrinsic to life rather than being a Christian. And the subsequent necessity of being a Christian just to satisfy God.
(I am not certain even that made it crystal clear)
Richard
I believe that God loves all. Simultaneously, I believe what Jesus was teaching - he was surprisingly ‘narrowminded’ when he declared who he is and what is the road to salvation. This leads to the interpretation that God calls everyone but there is just one way to the eternal life with God. Like it or not, the teaching of Jesus is what it is.
This does not mean that I would judge all non-Christians. God is the judge and I believe He will make righteous decisions about the eternal fate of all humans. I just cannot promise that there is salvation outside of the Jesus road. Personal opinions may differ but what matters is what God has informed.
Anyhow, this is an interesting question that is connected to the nature of God. The evil that happens to humans indicates that God may not think about these matters in the way we could expect and hope.
1 Like
Except He refused some? And He deliberately put off some? And He even claimed to be only for the Jews!
Perhaps it is what isn’t emphasised that matters as much as what is?
just a thought
Richard
I would add that we are in essence born in enemy-occupied territory, given that the Adversary is called the Prince of this world. That has its own impact, since it means that things in this world are deliberately steered to be contrary to God.
Thanks for the viewpoint.
I would not put very much weight on that aspect because of two reasons.
The first point is that humans are fully capable to mess everything without any aid from the Adversary. Human behaviour may slide to quite cruel actions, even without personality disorders.
The second point is that God is above anything else. The Devil is God’s devil, as someone said (Luther?). For some reason, God has given both humans and apparently also spiritual entities some level of freedom to act against His guidelines but I believe that the freedom has a limit.
A logical conclusion of the second point is that God seems to be to some extent (indirectly) responsible for the bad that His creatures do - He gave the free will that is misused. As He seems to utilize the mechanisms of the evolutionary process in the ongoing creation, God has also some indirect responsibility of the unwanted details of the process. There are more losers than winners in the process and it may not be nice to be one of the losers.
Maybe He made some kind of a cost-benefit analysis and the current reality is the best possible one. The indirect responsibility of God is perhaps not greater than the responsibility of a parent that gives a knife or gun to an adult child - we assume that an adult is responsible for his/her actions. Whatever, that may not comfort those that suffer from the cruelties of this world.
Not enough choices.
My choice is God is the Creator of our Bodies and the Spirit whitin that is possible to be transferred when the Body expires by Gods’ judgement to where I belong.
The main work of the Adversary falls into providing justifications for all the bad things we want to do, I would say. I very much think that Lewis was spot on with The Screwtape Letters, which indirectly assert that the Adversary himself is only an individual who can only act in one place at a time and thus needs minions – and that his minions aren’t exactly obedient, either – so his direct interference is rare and limited. His overall influence would be in orchestrating a campaign of convincing humans that being their own gods is a wonderful thing (without necessarily using those terms)(I always think of the song I Did It My Way in this connection; the Adversary doesn’t need us to be loyal to him, he just needs us to not be loyal to God – his kingdom is a kingdom of rebels, and definitely not united).
Attributed to Luther, though not found in his writings; also not original to him though this statement boils things down to the simplest.
Ah – a question from one night over beer and tenderloin: can God run simulations? with the secondary question “Does He need to?”
2 Likes
I liked the Screwtape Letters. How close to truth it came is another matter.
I believe there are spiritual entities that we usually cannot see. Some of them are acting against God and His own, especially against the spreading of the good news about the Kingdom of God among people.
That does not mean that they are behind all bad. Many humans like to push the responsibility of their errors and sins to someone else. If there are no other humans that could be accused, invisible spiritual entities can always be blamed.
1 Like
If not blame Adam & Eve
Richard
1 Like