The Implications of Theology
Signal said:
What exactly are you after? That Christians would provide a solution to theodicy that everyone could accept?
I do not believe at this time that there is any such solution.
Or, rather, the solutions would be unacceptable to the majority of the world's present generations of Christians. Perhaps in the future, but that's entirely up to the faithful.
That it would somehow be demonstrated that Christianity isn't as horrid as it seems to be?
I'm already aware of the outer boundary of Christianity's general horror; it is only as awful as the faithful can make it.
Do you wonder how someone who claims to believe in God can also abdicate their free will?
Okay, that probably makes sense in your context, but the connection isn't apparent in mine.
For me, this is about theology, and the implications thereof. The definition of the ultimate reality fundamentally affects the assignment of values. For instance, a "loving God" theology, wherein the Lord wants us all to find redemption, suggests vastly different priorities than a finite scheme in which God will only rescue 144,000 lost souls. In the former, it is important that people seek truth and do their best. In the latter, it is important that people fulfill God's will—which also implies that one must presume or otherwise believe they know God's will, and be correct.
In
any redemptive theistic arrangement, the
soul is the highest currency. Unlike money, or even family, the soul is eternal. Biblically speaking, this is the stake of
Luke 14.26: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."
One might suggest that the case PsychoTropicPuppy brought us is an example. Is Mrs. Mauldin's hatred toward her own daughter correct, in standing by her husband? Or should she have abandoned her husband's defense in order to stand with that perception of God's righteousness? In truth, we mere mortals simply cannot know. That's part of the ineffability of God's will.
Many of us know diverse Christians. At least, I think that's a safe, fair presumption. Among those diverse Christians we will find diverse outlooks. For instance, the idea of a
gay Christian strikes me as a bit odd, but when I stop and think about it, it's no different than a
capitalist calling himself Christian, or even a gang-banger strapped to the teeth and bearing a multitude of tattoos to commemorate his crimes.
Now, as a way of living, I'm not going to pick any bones with Christianity in general. At least, not according to Christ, who often seems absent from the discussion in American culture, but even that little barb is beside the point.
This isn't about indicting Christians, or Christianity, or theism, or even religion.
When cornered in a debate, Christians will often acknowledge the ineffability of God's will. But compared to what we see in daily practice, that acknowledgment raises a question.
To hop tracks for a moment, I would indict—theologically—the Islamic suicide bomber for his lack of faith in God's will. Slaying some civilian somewhere because the Israeli government is picking on the Palestinians only reminds that the bomber and his sponsors don't trust God; they have no faith in His will. After all, God must have His reasons for permitting the oppression of
any people without intervening. They also have no faith in His justice, as they wish to settle up perceived moral debts in this world, instead of leaving it for God to resolve in the next.
Perhaps less apparent, since it doesn't involve bombs and bullets, we might come back to Christians for a moment. Whether it is destroying a work of art (e.g., Serrano's
Piss Christ) or passing laws to exclude homosexuals, or bombing women's clinics and gunning down doctors, these Christians are claiming for themselves knowledge of, and the authority to execute, God's will.
"Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (
Matthew 22.21) In the United States, as such, what is "Caesar's" is the Constitution. It is the
supreme law of the land (
Article VI). In many aspects, from suppression of witchcraft—which saw Zsuzsanna Budapest arrested and tried for witchcraft during my lifetime—to the current debates over homosexuality, public education, and even the treatment of Muslims, Christians have encouraged a higher law than the Constitution—i.e., "God's law"—and thus defied Christ by challenging what is Caesar's on behalf of God.
Certes, there are myriad interpretations of how that all might play out, but the
prima facie assertion is that these faithful are rejecting Christ in order to exercise what they believe is God's authority on His behalf.
While we can certainly make a political issue out of this, the relevant point here is a consideration of the ineffability of God's will. Attending the Bible, one might simply accept that if Caesar deems that gays should marry—or that people are free under its laws to be witches or Muslims or whatever—it will be left to God to reckon with the sinners who defy His expressed laws and desires.
That is, certainly one can argue that the homosexual is a sinner. But it would seem, according to the Bible, that judgment of the sinner ought to be left to God. We see in
New York, as social conservatives recognized the inevitability of gay marriage, a compromise under the rubric of the Constitution: enough conservative legislators accepted the legalization of gay marriage once the right of religious institutions to enforce God's law within their own houses was assured. And this is, as we consider both the Bible and the Constitution—i.e., the competing supreme laws—the way it should be; a Christian church has no obligation to endorse a sinful union, but civil law (i.e., Caesar) is such that these unions are not only possible, but, by some interpretations, necessarily legal.
Meanwhile, Christians who oppose gay marriage, who demand homosexuals' exclusion and even punishment under the law, appear to run afoul of Christ, who said, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me" (
Matthew 25.34-46). The compassion or cruelty you show any human being, you also do unto Christ.
All of these sorts of arguments depend on people interpreting God's will, which is, ultimately, ineffable.
And that's the point:
If God's will is ineffable, then it is ineffable.
One can lecture, then, that the faithful need to actually have faith in God, but that is, itself, beyond the moment we have achieved in considering the questions that either the Hermogenes or Mauldin cases suggest.
In these cases, I would only remind that the assertions of God's will do not occur in a vacuum; they are not without implications.
As such, I would ask—invite, such as it is—people to consider the implications of what they claim on God's behalf. We need not presume them inherently sinister if their claims create some sort of doctrinal paradox; neither have their beliefs evolved in a vacuum.
But the question of whether or not one can know God's ineffable will is not resolved in any way by further assertions of what God's will actually is.
Either God's will is ineffable, or it is not. This is not the sort of condition for which there is a grey area. If, say, God's will can be known, then certainly a gray area can exist regarding what that actually means.
Certainly we know God's will in certain aspects: We should not behave in certain ways. Indeed, in rendering unto Caesar, we should not presume God's will and attempt to enforce it through civil law. Some might reasonably suggest that one cannot come to God through free will under force of law.
In the cases we have before us, we might consider our neighbor Lori, who has endured repeated harsh criticism for her stated positions, and, furthermore, has refused to offer up the other cheek (
Matthew 4.38-42;
Luke 6.27-31). As
one critic has put it:
"A girl is brutally attacked, raped and set on fire. She somehow manages to survive. And what do you come out with? How right you are that lust and porn is evil. And how righteous you are.
Not an ounce of sympathy for this girl. Just your own righteousness and lecturing us on our evil ways and your blathering about repentance and choice."
Now, perhaps Lori doesn't see it that way, but to some observers, this is an accurate summary. But let us consider Lori's own statements:
Lori 7: hearing that story makes an impression on me, about how dangerous lust is. it creates a negative association which changes my mind and changes my own behavior.
GMilam: So you believe god allowed this young lady to be raped, strangled and burned so that you could be reminded of the evils of lust?
Lori 7: better than for nothing huh?
Now, let's give Lori a break, here. We cannot presume that she is
trying to be cruel. Indeed, the
puzzlement she shows at accusations of her cruelty suggest, if we take her at face value, that she simply does not see the situation according to the same context as others.
Still, though, there is the theological implication.
What, in the end, is Lori saying about
God?
More than one critic has noted the appearance that God apparently willed a savage crime against a human being in order to
reaffirm what Lori already believed. And, yes, some might wonder if such measures are extraneous, since, as
Lori suggests, "a lot of people either don't get it, or don't care". Apparently this rape and immolation was God's version of "preaching to the choir".
At some point, people start to wonder just what they are supposed to think of this God character who warrants such cruel outcomes for some people in order to accomplish an end that is, simply, unnecessary. Or, to put it another way:
Look, if you're not getting through, try something else.
So what is Lori saying about God?
What is the character of a God that behaves like this?
Mr. Hermogenes asserts demons. Even Lori agrees that demons do not operate outside God's will. This is a longtime conundrum of Christian philosophers.
(Certainly, we can look to other theologies, but Mr. Hermogenes is not; Mrs. Mauldin did not; we might suggest that Lori 7 is not.)
What I'm getting at is that people are willing to cast God in a role they would prefer He not play. This is almost an inevitable outcome of trying to claim knowledge and expression of the ineffable.
Thus, if there is a moral and philosophical assertion I
must stand on, it has to do with the problems of claiming knowledge of God's will.
In the end, if God's will is ineffable, it is ineffable. And the mere
idea that God should will such an outcome as the rape and immolation of a human being in order to make a point will bring many to wonder just what sort of God they're dealing with.
As
I told Lori, "Don't do us any favors." That is, she is praying for the coming of a terribly cruel God; she might as well be hoping for the rise of Cthulhu.
Is this really how she, or anyone else, sees God? What are the implications of the theology we subscribe to?
____________________
Notes:
Weigle, Luther A., et al. The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version. Second edition. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. Quod.Lib.UMich.edu. June 25, 2011. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
United States Constitution. 1992. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. June 25, 2011. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution
Paybarah, Azi. "Amendments to Marriage Bill Taking Shape, Vote Uncertain". Politicker NY. June 22, 2011. PolitickerNY.com. June 25, 2011. http://www.politickerny.com/2011/06/22/amendments-to-marriage-bill-taking-shape-vote-uncertain/
