"If you've been spiritually abused, you may tend to the extreme of
being under-responsible in your relationship with God and others. This
simply means that you have realized that no amount of performance
results in the promised prize of love, acceptance or rest. Therefore you
either decide to give up, or you expend the least amount of energy
possible in order to just get by. Inwardly, your attitude is, 'Let the
pastor visit the sick, let the evangelist witness to the lost--I've had it!'
On the other hand, you may have learned to be overresponsible, a
burden bearer. Everyone's issues are yours to solve. Their heavy
feelings are yours to fix. You have an impossible time saying to no to
people's needs or requests. After all, if you don't do it, who will? You
have a greater sense of God needing you than of you needing God. In
fact, not only are you responsible for how everybody else's day goes,
you are even responsible for God's day too. It's your job to live just
right, so that God can feel please at the end of the day.
The most extreme form of overresponsibility happens when you martyr
yourself. You believe that having needs or opinions is selfish. Being
affected by insults and thoughtless actions is immature, and having any
feelings is being oversensitive. Going without is a prime virtue.
Feeling numb to life is th end result.
Matthew 9:36 describes the multitudes as 'distressed' and 'downcast.'
This was a result of the performance weight placed on them by the
religious leaders who did not shepherd them, but devoured them instead.
They did this by endless spiritual rules and regulations, and by
constantly pointing out the least flaw in others. If you've been through
this, you wind up very tired, emotionally, physically and spiritually.
This may show up in the form of lack of energy or motivation, impatience
with the needs of others, depression, a sense of being trapped, or
finding ways to escape."
- David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen
from: http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power-Spiritual-Abuse-Manipulation/dp/0764201379/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Anatomy of & Definition of Spiritual Abuse
(To understand the reference to "Jeri," please read previous note, "Example of Spiritual Abuse".
We could put our finger on several troublesome factors: Jeri's pastor ignored the physical, emotional and relational dimensions of her problem and took a more narrow, 'spiritualized' approach. With little investigation, he assumed he knew Jeri's 'root problem,' that there was a root problem. But there are subtle factors at work, and the subtlety is exactly what gives them their power to wreak great damage.
First, let's examine the power dynamic at work.
Jeri had voluntarily made herself vulnerable by sharing a problem. This assumed, of course, that her pastor was healthier in this same problem area--or at least more knowledgeable--and that he could help. Because she felt weak in this area, help from someone stronger is what she was seeking. Add to that the pastor's position of spiritual authority, and it's easy to see how his words would have double weight in Jeri's thinking.
And then, sadly, help is no what Jeri was offered. This is where a second dynamic comes in: The focus of the issue was subtly changed.
Jeri went to talk about her problem of depression. The pastor addressed the problem as being Jeri herself. According to him, she was 'rebellious'--so she was the problem. He shifted the focus from an emotion to the person, from Jeri's state of feelings to her state of being. Depression was no longer the problem, to be worked through together; Jeri herself was 'the problem,' labeled a rebel who needed to live up to a standard.
Jeri never noticed that she was not receiving help, which is what she was hoping for. Instead, her spiritual position before God was being questioned and, it would appear, judged.
At the bottom of this sad, painful encounter lies perhaps the subtlest dynamic: Jeri questioned an authority who considered himself above questioning, perhaps above error.
Now in a normal dialogue, for instance, you may misunderstand or disagree with me. If you question my thinking, and in fact your question corrects an error I'm making, then your challenge was healthy for me. It corrected me. But the simple fact that you questioned me does not make you wrong. Unfortunately, a more subtle set of assumptions were at work against Jeri. They went something like this:
This pastor evidently interpreted his position of authority to mean that his thoughts and opinions were supreme. If he said it, her only right response should be to agree--definitely not to object.
More troublesome than that, frankly, was the power play that went on. In a word, Jeri was manipulated. No doubt Jeri's pastor thought he was only being honest and direct with her, trying to 'help' her see her problem. Manipulation came into the picture when Jeri asked an honest question and he 'pulled rank.' The unspoken attitude she met with might be best stated in words like this: 'I'm the authority, and because I'm the authority my words are not to be questioned. Since you did question, its proof that you're wrong.'
What does this attitude reveal? Perhaps insecurity, buried frustration and anger. It also reveals that the pastor was, as least in this encounter, not functioning in a caring position for Jeri's benefit though she needed him. On the contrary, it appears that she was supposed to affirm and bolster him by agreeing, regardless of how she felt and whether or not his assessment of her was accurate. Upholding his position of authority was what mattered most.
What Is Spiritual Abuse?
Witnessing spiritual anguish caused by dynamics like these time after time is what led us to coin the term spiritual abuse. Having illustrated it with a case study, now let's define and apply the term:
Spiritual abuse is the mistreatment of a person who is in need of help, support or
greater spiritual empowerment, with the result of weakening, undermining or
decreasing that person's spiritual empowerment.
That's a broad view. Let's refine that with some functional definitions. Spiritual abuse can occur when a leader uses his or her spiritual position to control or dominate another person. It often involves overriding the feelings and opinions of another, without regard to what will result in the other person's state of living, emotions or spiritual well-being. In this application, power is used to bolster the position or needs of a leader, over and above one who comes to them in need. This is what occurred in Jeri's case.
Spiritual abuse can also occur when spirituality is used to make others live up to a 'spiritual standard.' This promotes external 'spiritual performance,' also without regard to an individual's actual well-being, or is used as a means of 'proving' a person's spirituality. What constitutes the kind of 'spiritual performance' we are referring to? When does an authority overstep his or her bounds, leveling judgment when support is needed? Listen to the experiences of these Christians, wounded and overweighted by the demands of their leaders and their 'spirituality,' and you will perhaps get a clearer picture:
'My Bible study leader tells me that I haven't taken on the 'mantle' as spiritual head of my home. I should be praying more, taking authority in the Spirit--then spiritual forces wouldn't be able to attack my family. Then my wife wouldn't be having menstrual problems and my oldest son wouldn't be suffering from asthma. I guess their sickness is my fault.'
'Quite a number of us wanted more information about how church finances were being spent. We wanted to know if more money could go into direct ministries, benevolences, things like that. When I asked some questions at an elder's meeting--boy did the room get icy. Later I was told to stop trying to create a faction in the church.'
'We'd sold our home and moved across country so I could work for this major ministry. After a year they go on this weight thing. Because I'm overweight, I was told I had to lose weight, because being overweight is a 'poor witness.' My financial raises and even my employment were at stake.'
'The congregation let me know they were disappointed in me because I asked for a two-month sabbatical, even though I've been pastoring there for twelve years--basically on-call night and day, and I've never even taken two weeks of vacation at the same time. I feel so discouraged.'
'Our church has gotten into this heavy emphasis on home schooling and having big families. Also on women wearing head coverings to show they're in submission--an no makeup. Eventually it came out. Our best friends told us we aren't spiritual because our kid is in public schools, and I'm "of the world" because I wear eyeshadow and lipstick.'
'The controversy began--can you believe it?--when i raised a question in the adult Sunday school class. We were batting around a doctrinal issue, predestination, which I always thought of as a 'gray area.' I disagreed with the teacher, in a friendly spirit. But two days later, I was told by the church's ministry coordinator that I'd been "argumentative"with the teacher in front of everyone--that they would appreciate it if I would drop out of the class until further notice.'
'My husband is convinced I should be praying one hour a day using this "formula prayer" he's into. I told him I tried that, and it didn't seem right to me. All he said was, "That's your whole problem. You can't accept anything on faith." I feel so...substandard.'
Each of these incidents had similar dynamics at work. The person in need--whether it was the need for information, dialogue, support, acceptance or counsel--was sent the message that they were less than spiritual, or that their spirituality was defective. In several instances, shame was used in an attempt to get someone to support a belief, or it was used to fend off legitimate questions.
Hopefully you noticed, as in the case of the weary pastor, that spiritual abuse can be heaped upon leaders as well as followers. By no means are we attacking leaders or spiritual leadership. We're exposing a phenomenon that is wounding many.
Whatever the case, the results of spiritual abuse are usually the same: The individual is left bearing a weight of guilt, judgment or condemnation, and confusion about their worth and standing as a Christian.
It's at this point, we say, that spirituality has become abusive."
- David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen
from: http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power-Spiritual-Abuse-Manipulation/dp/0764201379/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376860222&sr=1-1&keywords=the+subtle+power+of+spiritual+abuse
An Example of "Spiritual Abuse"
"Jeri sat in the office of a Christian counselor, explaining that she
felt desperate, and felt like she was going crazy. 'Either that,' she
said dryly, 'or I'm on the verge of a major breakthrough in my spiritual
growth.'
'Those are two big opposites,' the counselor noted. 'How did you come to that conclusion?'
'Well,' she began, choking up, 'I went to my pastor a few months ago because I was feeling depressed a lot. He pegged the root problem right away, but I can't seem to do anything about it.'
'Root problem...' the counselor repeated. 'What was that?'
Jeri looked down at her shoe tops. 'I guess I would have to say the problem is, well, me. My pastor says I'm in rebellion against God.'
What unfolded was an unfortunate, and all too common, case history: Jeri's church teaches that Scripture is God's Word, the standard by which we must live. But they use it as a measure by which we gain acceptance with God rather than as a guide for living. Therefore, when she asked her pastor for help with her depression, she was given a 'prescription' of praise Scriptures to memorize and repeat over and over. This, she was told, would get her mind off herself and onto God. The depression would lift when she got over her sinful self-centeredness.
Jeri had tried what the pastor suggested, but her depression didn't lift, and this raised some questions. She noted that there was a history of depression among the women in her family, and she was presently experiencing some physical problems. Moreover, she confided to her pastor that she was struggling in her relationship with her husband, because he shrugged off responsibilities with their two teenagers, who were beginning to get into trouble.
'How did he respond when you said his suggestions didn't help?'
'That's when he dropped the bomb on me,' Jerri said.
The counselor did not fail to notice her choice of metaphor--the devastation Jeri was trying to portray--and asked, 'What sort of bomb?'
The pastor had told her, 'The fact that you won't accept my counsel without raising all these objections and other possibilities was the major indication to me. Jeri, that your root problem is spiritual, not physical or emotional. When you talked about arguing with your husband, rather than submitting to him and trusting God, that confirmed it.' He concluded that the other problems--emotional depression, physical illness, a troubled marriage and teenagers in turmoil--were the result of her inability to submit fully to God and His Word.
Jeri had tried to object. 'I told him I felt condemned. That I felt I needed some other kind of help.'
'What happened?' the counselor prompted.
'That made it worse. My pastor just smiled and said I wasn't willing to accept his counsel--so that proved he was right. That's when he used the 'R' word on me. He said, "Jeri, you need to repent of your rebellion against God. Then all these minor problems will be taken care of."'
'That's a strong judgment against you,' the counselor noted. 'What do you think about it?'
Tears welled up, and Jeri dabbed at them with a tissue. Then she sat wringing the tissue in knots as she replied. 'I feel like a bug pinned down to a piece of cardboard. I try to praise God--I do praise Him. But the problem with my husband and kids goes on and on. And when I'm honest with myself I get mad, because just repeating Scriptures, when our family and our health is falling apart, seems so shallow.
'But then I wake up in the middle of the night, hearing my pastor's words. And I think I must be a terrible Christian -- in rebellion, like he said--or my life wouldn't be such a mess. He's right, isn't he? Rebellions is a sin we all deal with.
'But the turmoil in me has gone on for four months, and I found myself thinking I should stick my head in our gas oven. And other times I think I must be on the verge of a breakthrough to more 'holiness' -- if only I could praise enough, or submit enough. But I don't think I can stick it out long enough. I just feel exhausted, and like I'm losing my mind.
'I can't carry all this weight anymore,' she ended, pleadingly. 'Help me...'
Jeri's dilemma is similar to countless cases we've encountered, representing a widespread and serious problem among Christians. The problem, as we have come to know it, is that of spiritual abuse.
No doubt the term itself will disturb, if not shock, many people, though that is not our intent. Nor is it our intent to be alarmist, though we are sounding a call that a problem exists. Therefore, it's important to define what we mean by spiritual abuse, and also to make clear from the start that any one of us can be a victim, and sometimes even a perpetrator without realizing what we are doing..."
- David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen
from: http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power-Spiritual-Abuse-Manipulation/dp/0764201379/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376855240&sr=1-1&keywords=the+subtle+power+of+spiritual+abuse
'Those are two big opposites,' the counselor noted. 'How did you come to that conclusion?'
'Well,' she began, choking up, 'I went to my pastor a few months ago because I was feeling depressed a lot. He pegged the root problem right away, but I can't seem to do anything about it.'
'Root problem...' the counselor repeated. 'What was that?'
Jeri looked down at her shoe tops. 'I guess I would have to say the problem is, well, me. My pastor says I'm in rebellion against God.'
What unfolded was an unfortunate, and all too common, case history: Jeri's church teaches that Scripture is God's Word, the standard by which we must live. But they use it as a measure by which we gain acceptance with God rather than as a guide for living. Therefore, when she asked her pastor for help with her depression, she was given a 'prescription' of praise Scriptures to memorize and repeat over and over. This, she was told, would get her mind off herself and onto God. The depression would lift when she got over her sinful self-centeredness.
Jeri had tried what the pastor suggested, but her depression didn't lift, and this raised some questions. She noted that there was a history of depression among the women in her family, and she was presently experiencing some physical problems. Moreover, she confided to her pastor that she was struggling in her relationship with her husband, because he shrugged off responsibilities with their two teenagers, who were beginning to get into trouble.
'How did he respond when you said his suggestions didn't help?'
'That's when he dropped the bomb on me,' Jerri said.
The counselor did not fail to notice her choice of metaphor--the devastation Jeri was trying to portray--and asked, 'What sort of bomb?'
The pastor had told her, 'The fact that you won't accept my counsel without raising all these objections and other possibilities was the major indication to me. Jeri, that your root problem is spiritual, not physical or emotional. When you talked about arguing with your husband, rather than submitting to him and trusting God, that confirmed it.' He concluded that the other problems--emotional depression, physical illness, a troubled marriage and teenagers in turmoil--were the result of her inability to submit fully to God and His Word.
Jeri had tried to object. 'I told him I felt condemned. That I felt I needed some other kind of help.'
'What happened?' the counselor prompted.
'That made it worse. My pastor just smiled and said I wasn't willing to accept his counsel--so that proved he was right. That's when he used the 'R' word on me. He said, "Jeri, you need to repent of your rebellion against God. Then all these minor problems will be taken care of."'
'That's a strong judgment against you,' the counselor noted. 'What do you think about it?'
Tears welled up, and Jeri dabbed at them with a tissue. Then she sat wringing the tissue in knots as she replied. 'I feel like a bug pinned down to a piece of cardboard. I try to praise God--I do praise Him. But the problem with my husband and kids goes on and on. And when I'm honest with myself I get mad, because just repeating Scriptures, when our family and our health is falling apart, seems so shallow.
'But then I wake up in the middle of the night, hearing my pastor's words. And I think I must be a terrible Christian -- in rebellion, like he said--or my life wouldn't be such a mess. He's right, isn't he? Rebellions is a sin we all deal with.
'But the turmoil in me has gone on for four months, and I found myself thinking I should stick my head in our gas oven. And other times I think I must be on the verge of a breakthrough to more 'holiness' -- if only I could praise enough, or submit enough. But I don't think I can stick it out long enough. I just feel exhausted, and like I'm losing my mind.
'I can't carry all this weight anymore,' she ended, pleadingly. 'Help me...'
Jeri's dilemma is similar to countless cases we've encountered, representing a widespread and serious problem among Christians. The problem, as we have come to know it, is that of spiritual abuse.
No doubt the term itself will disturb, if not shock, many people, though that is not our intent. Nor is it our intent to be alarmist, though we are sounding a call that a problem exists. Therefore, it's important to define what we mean by spiritual abuse, and also to make clear from the start that any one of us can be a victim, and sometimes even a perpetrator without realizing what we are doing..."
- David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen
from: http://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Power-Spiritual-Abuse-Manipulation/dp/0764201379/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376855240&sr=1-1&keywords=the+subtle+power+of+spiritual+abuse
Monday, August 12, 2013
"God is not a god who hides Himself..."
My Mom and I often have online and "offline" conversations that
overlap. Recently we've been talking about various ways people mishandle
Scripture and also ways they go about studying Scripture with faulty
tools. Within this topic, it seems like the Bible is either twisted into
whatever an individual or group would like to support or attack, or
it's a book used for mining secret meanings. In reality, the Bible was
written so that we can get to know our Triune Creator, to find out why
our world is the way it is, and to learn about who Jesus is and what He
has done for us, among other non-manipulative purposes. It's not
propaganda, it's not a secret code for you to ferret out and hold the
"knowledge" over people's heads, and it isn't all about you. It's very
frustrating to see the misuse and abuse of the authoritative Holy
Scripture. And it's something that will keep frustrating us because it's
not new and it'll continue until the day Jesus returns. That doesn't
mean, however, that those who revere and love God's Word shouldn't work
to teach the proper and good use of the beautiful gift that the Lord has
given us.
Having said that, this is an online piece of our current conversation that I just got today in an email. My Mom is discussing a kind of method of study that seems to be popular in Christian circles on the fringe of evangelicalism. I'm sure that there are better words to categorize "fringe of evangelicalism," but I am not familiar with them yet. Haha. So if you have a term, please let me know. Anyway, here's the email:
"Here is an example of someone applying this 'method': http://hearunderstandobey.com/a-study-in-the-hebrew-word-pictures-on-marriage.html (in case you hadn't looked at it yet)
This is clever; one could 'go to town' with the meanings one could create with this technique. You'd only be limited by your imaginative capacities. This is esotericism, and if it gets people back into their Bibles, it might be because they weren't responding to the clear meaning of the words and wanted something more exciting and interesting.
When I was going through the Hebrew course I have for the computer, one of the points they made was about the advantages of Hebrew over Egyptian hieroglyphics and languages like Chinese in that it was an alphabet and not word pictures like those languages. This allowed the Israelites to be a literate people, and people of the Word, or Book, and to have a language that could be easily learned, written down, and translated by all the people, not just an educated elite.
Esotericism is the opposite of this movement; it encourages the development of an knowledgeable 'elite', whether that elite are the ones who can interpret the signs or omens, the dreams or visions, the secret ritualistic meanings, or the word pictures. It is the 'gnostic impulse' [James Herrick's description] -- the seeking of the hidden meanings behind the apparent meaning (1'. It strokes our pride with the improper use of knowledge.
Because the Scriptures are originally written in historic languages, there is a need for some to learn meanings in order to be able to translate them into other languages. Some have this knowledge and some don't, but the meanings aren't 'hidden', they are simply in need of translation. God is not a God Who hides Himself in mysticism, though there are things about Him we will never understand simply because He is God and we are His creatures. We are dependent on Him revealing Himself. But He wants to be known, and that involves clear revelation available to everyone, not an esotericism that makes things known in some 'deeper', hidden way only to those who have learned how to do the puzzle."
- Karen Rose
1. http://www.amazon.com/Making-New-Spirituality-Religious-Tradition/dp/0830823980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376330157&sr=1-1&keywords=the+making+of+the+new+spirituality
Having said that, this is an online piece of our current conversation that I just got today in an email. My Mom is discussing a kind of method of study that seems to be popular in Christian circles on the fringe of evangelicalism. I'm sure that there are better words to categorize "fringe of evangelicalism," but I am not familiar with them yet. Haha. So if you have a term, please let me know. Anyway, here's the email:
"Here is an example of someone applying this 'method': http://hearunderstandobey.com/a-study-in-the-hebrew-word-pictures-on-marriage.html (in case you hadn't looked at it yet)
This is clever; one could 'go to town' with the meanings one could create with this technique. You'd only be limited by your imaginative capacities. This is esotericism, and if it gets people back into their Bibles, it might be because they weren't responding to the clear meaning of the words and wanted something more exciting and interesting.
When I was going through the Hebrew course I have for the computer, one of the points they made was about the advantages of Hebrew over Egyptian hieroglyphics and languages like Chinese in that it was an alphabet and not word pictures like those languages. This allowed the Israelites to be a literate people, and people of the Word, or Book, and to have a language that could be easily learned, written down, and translated by all the people, not just an educated elite.
Esotericism is the opposite of this movement; it encourages the development of an knowledgeable 'elite', whether that elite are the ones who can interpret the signs or omens, the dreams or visions, the secret ritualistic meanings, or the word pictures. It is the 'gnostic impulse' [James Herrick's description] -- the seeking of the hidden meanings behind the apparent meaning (1'. It strokes our pride with the improper use of knowledge.
Because the Scriptures are originally written in historic languages, there is a need for some to learn meanings in order to be able to translate them into other languages. Some have this knowledge and some don't, but the meanings aren't 'hidden', they are simply in need of translation. God is not a God Who hides Himself in mysticism, though there are things about Him we will never understand simply because He is God and we are His creatures. We are dependent on Him revealing Himself. But He wants to be known, and that involves clear revelation available to everyone, not an esotericism that makes things known in some 'deeper', hidden way only to those who have learned how to do the puzzle."
- Karen Rose
1. http://www.amazon.com/Making-New-Spirituality-Religious-Tradition/dp/0830823980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376330157&sr=1-1&keywords=the+making+of+the+new+spirituality
A Response to the Mishandling of Scripture -
"Sometimes the Christian
Scriptures are used for the sake of an agenda other than what God
intended them for, in quite a variety of ways. This is often
accomplished by an incomplete knowledge of the Scriptures and an
inadequate representation of what they actually teach in their
historical context. God is always revealing Himself to humankind in ways
that make sense within our particular context; this is why a more
thorough knowledge of context is so important when interpreting
Scripture. God is also revealing Himself to a humanity who, by and
large, is not interested in knowing Him or His will, and therefore
refuses to understand Him. Jesus brings this out in his discussion about
divorce in answer to some religious leaders' [loaded] questions:
" When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19: 1-12
The Pharisees were referencing Deuteronomy, but they were referencing it inaccurately because of their agenda: they wanted to test Jesus. They called it a command of Moses, while Jesus corrects them and calls it a permission of Moses. They say for any and every reason, he limits it to an issue of immorality in the spouse, who is supposed to be faithful in the marriage covenant. And the reason Moses permitted it, Jesus says, was because of their hardness of heart.
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Hardness of heart in Scripture refers mainly to a refusal and inability to understand the words and ways of God; often in men, one of the ways this hardness expresses itself is in indifference and cruelty toward women, as all of history amply shows. Instead of acknowledging her as equally made in the image of God and equally called, alongside him, to responsible rule over the earth, fallen man tends to seek to dominate her and exploit her. Here Jesus is saying that Moses gave a permission that entailed something that was not God's original design for human flourishing; God was regulating something in relation to the state of affairs as they were, because the state of affairs involved the hardness of men's hearts. So God regulates, and at the same time undermines what mankind would be if left to their own devices. There are, after all, cultures where a husband has had the right to burn his wife...
We can see this underlying hardness of heart in the disciples' response: "“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” If a man is meant to stay with his wife for life in a faithful covenant relationship, and this is supposed to be so permanent and intimate a union that it is described as "one flesh", and he can't just throw her away when she displeases him, then in their eyes, it would be better never to marry!
Jesus says that one can only accept [comprehend] this strict and ideal word from God if it has been given to them, and certainly if it doesn't please them then certainly life-long celibacy is an option they may want to choose. The point seems to be that due to humankind's hardness of heart we cannot accept the words of God as they express the ideal standards of the original creation, which was "good" and "very good". Hardness of heart [resistance and rebellion leading to inability to understand ] cuts us off from being able to hear the truth that God wants to speak to us. So in His grace and mercy, He often primarily addresses this hardness of heart.
We can see this in Paul's letter to Philemon in relation to the issue of slavery. In a time when slavery was an assumed aspect of a strictly hierarchical social and political life, Paul writes to a Christian slave owner in a way that does not bluntly challenge the institution but rather attacks the foundations underlying it. Given that the church at this time was not a political power but rather a small community meant to express prophetically to the society and culture around it what human life was meant to be under the rule of the True King, Paul addresses it this way:
" I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.
Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask." Letter of Paul to Philemon
Notice the equating of Onesimus, the slave, with Paul himself and with Onesimus' master, Philemon, all throughout this appeal. This appeal is based on identification with one another in a way that Christ restores to human beings who have believed in Him and submitted to His Lordship, which establishes God's intention for human relationships through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Philemon, saved out of a slave-holding culture, is now being challenged not only to quit holding slaves as a practice, but to have his understanding deepened and his mind transformed in such a way that eventually he embraces someone who was once seen as a slave as a beloved brother.
"I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ."
To embrace a slave as an equal, let alone a beloved brother, was unheard of in the world of that day, and still too often is. Because even though we now consider the legal institution of slavery a moral wrong [in Western societies historically influenced by Christian abolitionists working from biblical norms] some of us who name the name of Christ still too often do not embrace those in Christ who have been affected by our slave-holding past as "beloved brothers". We still need to have our understanding "of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ" deepened. But the shortcomings in us, the hardness of heart within us with which God must always deal with and challenge, are not an indication of a deficit in His ways. It is an indication that He is graciously patient with His creation and with His redeemed people, working with us according to the realities with which we live, holding out redemption and challenge and change in His Son during a time, an age, in which things are not what they are supposed to be. For only in His Son will things one Day be what they are supposed to be."
- Karen Rose
" When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19: 1-12
The Pharisees were referencing Deuteronomy, but they were referencing it inaccurately because of their agenda: they wanted to test Jesus. They called it a command of Moses, while Jesus corrects them and calls it a permission of Moses. They say for any and every reason, he limits it to an issue of immorality in the spouse, who is supposed to be faithful in the marriage covenant. And the reason Moses permitted it, Jesus says, was because of their hardness of heart.
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Hardness of heart in Scripture refers mainly to a refusal and inability to understand the words and ways of God; often in men, one of the ways this hardness expresses itself is in indifference and cruelty toward women, as all of history amply shows. Instead of acknowledging her as equally made in the image of God and equally called, alongside him, to responsible rule over the earth, fallen man tends to seek to dominate her and exploit her. Here Jesus is saying that Moses gave a permission that entailed something that was not God's original design for human flourishing; God was regulating something in relation to the state of affairs as they were, because the state of affairs involved the hardness of men's hearts. So God regulates, and at the same time undermines what mankind would be if left to their own devices. There are, after all, cultures where a husband has had the right to burn his wife...
We can see this underlying hardness of heart in the disciples' response: "“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” If a man is meant to stay with his wife for life in a faithful covenant relationship, and this is supposed to be so permanent and intimate a union that it is described as "one flesh", and he can't just throw her away when she displeases him, then in their eyes, it would be better never to marry!
Jesus says that one can only accept [comprehend] this strict and ideal word from God if it has been given to them, and certainly if it doesn't please them then certainly life-long celibacy is an option they may want to choose. The point seems to be that due to humankind's hardness of heart we cannot accept the words of God as they express the ideal standards of the original creation, which was "good" and "very good". Hardness of heart [resistance and rebellion leading to inability to understand ] cuts us off from being able to hear the truth that God wants to speak to us. So in His grace and mercy, He often primarily addresses this hardness of heart.
We can see this in Paul's letter to Philemon in relation to the issue of slavery. In a time when slavery was an assumed aspect of a strictly hierarchical social and political life, Paul writes to a Christian slave owner in a way that does not bluntly challenge the institution but rather attacks the foundations underlying it. Given that the church at this time was not a political power but rather a small community meant to express prophetically to the society and culture around it what human life was meant to be under the rule of the True King, Paul addresses it this way:
" I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers, because I hear about your love for all his holy people and your faith in the Lord Jesus. I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ. Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the Lord’s people.
Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love. It is as none other than Paul—an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus— that I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me.
I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever—no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.
So if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask." Letter of Paul to Philemon
Notice the equating of Onesimus, the slave, with Paul himself and with Onesimus' master, Philemon, all throughout this appeal. This appeal is based on identification with one another in a way that Christ restores to human beings who have believed in Him and submitted to His Lordship, which establishes God's intention for human relationships through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Philemon, saved out of a slave-holding culture, is now being challenged not only to quit holding slaves as a practice, but to have his understanding deepened and his mind transformed in such a way that eventually he embraces someone who was once seen as a slave as a beloved brother.
"I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ."
To embrace a slave as an equal, let alone a beloved brother, was unheard of in the world of that day, and still too often is. Because even though we now consider the legal institution of slavery a moral wrong [in Western societies historically influenced by Christian abolitionists working from biblical norms] some of us who name the name of Christ still too often do not embrace those in Christ who have been affected by our slave-holding past as "beloved brothers". We still need to have our understanding "of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ" deepened. But the shortcomings in us, the hardness of heart within us with which God must always deal with and challenge, are not an indication of a deficit in His ways. It is an indication that He is graciously patient with His creation and with His redeemed people, working with us according to the realities with which we live, holding out redemption and challenge and change in His Son during a time, an age, in which things are not what they are supposed to be. For only in His Son will things one Day be what they are supposed to be."
- Karen Rose
"Pre-Judging" and the Way We Read the Bible
"A few years ago, I started
getting invitations to consult with ministry leaders about the subject
of Christian women in leadership. Usually I begin my presentation by
posing a general question: Does the controversial subject of women's
identity have anything to do with spiritual formation? In other words,
Does a person's view of women somehow correlate with a person's level of
Christ-likeness and maturity? If so, then does a person's view of a
women somehow inform the way a person reads the Bible, especially the
verses about women?
So far, each group has said that spiritual formation factors into a person's interpretation of the Scriptures. The reasoning goes like this. Racists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches racism. Traditionalists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches traditionalism. Chauvinists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches chauvinism. Feminists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches feminism. In every case prejudiced people produce prejudiced interpretations of God's Word.
It's helpful to conceptualize the notion of prejudice in terms of an analogy to numbers. Insofar as 2 and 3 are primed numbers, and 4 and 6 are composite numbers, what is the best way to define prejudice? Is it a root sin or a secondary, derivative sin? In other words, is prejudice essentially a composite sin (composed of others sins more basic), or is prejudice itself a root sin?
The word prejudice literally means 'to prejudge.' I believe it's wrong to prejudge. God commands us to do 'nothing in a spirit of partiality' (1 Timothy 5:21). It is sinful to be partial either to men or women. None of us are to think 'more highly' of ourselves or of anyone else than we ought to (Romans 12:3).
Prejudice is a sin that Christians seem afraid to talk about, for at some level we realize that our prejudice is a symptomatic sin that alerts us to something underneath. Prejudice is not a primary sin; it's a secondary sin. It derives from a basic sense of pride. Prejudice arrives from the soils of fear and ignorance, though, ironically, prejudice is learned. Customarily prejudice tends to be manifest in one of two ways--either as self-superiority or self-hatred.
In a word, prejudice is narcissism. Prejudice is narcissism that discounts and discredits human beings typically in one of two ways: a self-exalting way that discounts other people because 'they are not like me' or a self-rejecting way that discredits others because 'they are like me.'
The problem with prejudice is that the person who has it typically cannot see it. It is similar to the sin of inconsideration. An inconsiderate person is blind to his or her lack of consideration. For example, an inconsiderate teenager who takes a forty-five minute hot shower isn't trying to hurt anyone else in the family by using all the hot water. When scolded with words, 'You don't even care if the rest of the family has to suffer and take cold showers!' You don't care about us at all!' the narcissistic teenager may sincerely respond, 'Hey, don't take things so personally! I wasn't even thinking about anyone else in the family!'
Prejudice is a sin of omission. It derives from the failure to love. Of course the worst kind of prejudice is religious prejudice that deems itself sanctioned by God. When someone believes God sees one category of people as superior or inferior to another, then prejudice becomes blind not only to itself but also to the sinfulness of itself. It is always sinful to show partiality, 'for there is no partiality with God' (Romans 2:11)."
- Sarah Sumner, P.H.D.
from: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Women-Church-Consensus-Leadership/dp/0830823913/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376258347&sr=1-1
So far, each group has said that spiritual formation factors into a person's interpretation of the Scriptures. The reasoning goes like this. Racists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches racism. Traditionalists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches traditionalism. Chauvinists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches chauvinism. Feminists are more likely to believe the Bible teaches feminism. In every case prejudiced people produce prejudiced interpretations of God's Word.
It's helpful to conceptualize the notion of prejudice in terms of an analogy to numbers. Insofar as 2 and 3 are primed numbers, and 4 and 6 are composite numbers, what is the best way to define prejudice? Is it a root sin or a secondary, derivative sin? In other words, is prejudice essentially a composite sin (composed of others sins more basic), or is prejudice itself a root sin?
The word prejudice literally means 'to prejudge.' I believe it's wrong to prejudge. God commands us to do 'nothing in a spirit of partiality' (1 Timothy 5:21). It is sinful to be partial either to men or women. None of us are to think 'more highly' of ourselves or of anyone else than we ought to (Romans 12:3).
Prejudice is a sin that Christians seem afraid to talk about, for at some level we realize that our prejudice is a symptomatic sin that alerts us to something underneath. Prejudice is not a primary sin; it's a secondary sin. It derives from a basic sense of pride. Prejudice arrives from the soils of fear and ignorance, though, ironically, prejudice is learned. Customarily prejudice tends to be manifest in one of two ways--either as self-superiority or self-hatred.
In a word, prejudice is narcissism. Prejudice is narcissism that discounts and discredits human beings typically in one of two ways: a self-exalting way that discounts other people because 'they are not like me' or a self-rejecting way that discredits others because 'they are like me.'
The problem with prejudice is that the person who has it typically cannot see it. It is similar to the sin of inconsideration. An inconsiderate person is blind to his or her lack of consideration. For example, an inconsiderate teenager who takes a forty-five minute hot shower isn't trying to hurt anyone else in the family by using all the hot water. When scolded with words, 'You don't even care if the rest of the family has to suffer and take cold showers!' You don't care about us at all!' the narcissistic teenager may sincerely respond, 'Hey, don't take things so personally! I wasn't even thinking about anyone else in the family!'
Prejudice is a sin of omission. It derives from the failure to love. Of course the worst kind of prejudice is religious prejudice that deems itself sanctioned by God. When someone believes God sees one category of people as superior or inferior to another, then prejudice becomes blind not only to itself but also to the sinfulness of itself. It is always sinful to show partiality, 'for there is no partiality with God' (Romans 2:11)."
- Sarah Sumner, P.H.D.
from: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Women-Church-Consensus-Leadership/dp/0830823913/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376258347&sr=1-1
Monday, August 5, 2013
The Roots of Deism Part 1
"If the scientists were making less and less place of God in their
systems, the theologians were doing exactly the same thing. The latter
half of the Age of Reason saw the rise and brief intellectual dominance
[I don't believe it was so brief. It's still pretty prevalent today.] of
a curious form of religion, a sort of halfway house between
Christianity and atheism, that sought to base its doctrines upon reason
itself. That religion was deism, and for over half a century it
coexisted in an uneasy tension with orthodox Christianity [Now it has
just infiltrated it...].
The word 'deism' means exactly the same thing as 'theism' -- belief in God. Until the seventeenth century, the two were used interchangeably. However, 'deism' then took on quite a distinct meaning, to refer to the rationalist religion which flourished in the early eighteenth century, and which first took definitive form in England.
In essence, deism was what happened when people thought of religion in terms of reason instead of revelation, as Clarke, Leibniz and the rest were doing -- and then decided that some parts of religion didn't really meet reason's strict criteria. They therefore dropped these parts, resulting in a rather stripped-down version of Christianity. In Europe, one influential theologian who was doing this as early as the sixteenth century was Faustus Socinus, the Italian founder of European unitarianism, the rationalist denial of the Trinity. It was not long before similar ideas were becoming current in England, flourishing in the hands of iconoclasts such as John Biddle. Indeed, in the late sixteenth century a number of people were burned at the stake in England for denying the Trinity or the divinity of Christ. Within a century, however, it was possible to say such things without any fear of execution.
The godfather of deism proper, though, was the swashbuckling Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, romantic adventurer, serial lover and literary dilettante. Cherbury, the elder brother of the poet George Herbert [Amazing what can happen with two people in the same family. You should check out George Herbert's poetry: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/herbert/herbbib.htm ], was born in 1583 in Shropshire. He entered an arranged marriage at the age of 16 and, as he later claimed, remained faithful to his vows for the first ten years. He later became a Knight of Bath, and spent many years wandering Europe as a soldier of fortune and duelist; he later claimed that a significant proportion of the female aristocracy of Europe kept a copy of his portrait between their breasts! All this ended in 1619 when he was made ambassador to France, and he died in 1648 as Baron Herbert of Cherbury.
Somehow, Herbert found time to write not only poetry and historical works, but also some surprisingly penetrating philosophy, in which he attacked the nascent empiricism of Thomas Hobbes and defended the early version of the doctrine of innate ideas, which influenced both Descartes and Locke. Herbert talked about 'common notions' which he thought were shared by all sane people, and highlighted the five in particular, which he thought made up religion [A lot of people still follow the false idea that Christianity is only about morality and works. "There's nothing new under the sun".]:
1. There is a God.
2. He should be worshipped.
3. Morality is central to worship.
4. Sin must be repented of.
5. There is a life after death, involving rewards and punishments.
Herbert believed that, in primitive times, every religion had consisted of these five notions alone [Clearly he didn't really know much about other religions]. Throughout history, however, each society has added its own traditions to this basis, resulting in the diverse collection of religions we see today. In his On the Gentile Religions, essentially the first work of comparative religion, Herbert examined each major religion to try to demonstrate the truth of his theory.
This notion that religions -- and specifically Christianity -- consisted of a common core of universal beliefs, together with the irrational encrustations of history, was taken up enthusiastically by a number of thinkers at the end of the seventeenth century. They combined it with the emerging idea that religion was a matter of reason rather than revelation.
We can see the transition from orthodox Christianity to deism in John Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity of 1695 [Many Christians seem to idolize Locke today...]. Locke did not share Herbert's belief in 'common notions', a concept that he attacked powerfully in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Neither did he agree with Herbert that every society believes in and worships God; on the contrary, he thought that before Christ the only people who did so were the Jews and the Greek philosophers, and everyone else was in barbarous ignorance. Christ thus plays an important role as teacher of humanity, since after him the notion of one God and our sin in the face of his goodness has spread across the globe. At the same time, Lock stresses the need for not only illumination but salvation through Christ. This, he believes, occurs when believers repent of their sins and acknowledge Christ as 'Messiah' [Not Son of God, Lord of all Creation??], and he devotes considerable space demonstrating that this was the central point of the primitive gospel message. Quite what Locke understood by 'Messiah' is not very clear; but it does seem that he was, at least, reluctant to think in terms of a Trinity. He may have been sympathetic to the unitarian tendencies of people such as Newton and Clarke -- although Locke was always quick to deny that there was any kind of anti-trinitarianism in his work. Here, then, we have a rather stripped down version of Christianity. It is one where there is still a need for revelation, although it does not seem to have told us much that was not already known, at least by the Greek philosophers; but it is also a kind of 'Christianity lite,' playing down the old-fashioned metaphysics and traditions. This approach is sometimes known as 'Latitudinarianism' -- basically the late seventeenth century's version of theological liberalism [Yup.]."
- Jonathan Hill [And my own notes/snarky comments inserted]
From: //www.amazon.com/Faith-Age-Reason-Enlightenment-Histories/dp/0830823603/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375723310&sr=1-2&keywords=faith+in+the+age+of+reason
The word 'deism' means exactly the same thing as 'theism' -- belief in God. Until the seventeenth century, the two were used interchangeably. However, 'deism' then took on quite a distinct meaning, to refer to the rationalist religion which flourished in the early eighteenth century, and which first took definitive form in England.
In essence, deism was what happened when people thought of religion in terms of reason instead of revelation, as Clarke, Leibniz and the rest were doing -- and then decided that some parts of religion didn't really meet reason's strict criteria. They therefore dropped these parts, resulting in a rather stripped-down version of Christianity. In Europe, one influential theologian who was doing this as early as the sixteenth century was Faustus Socinus, the Italian founder of European unitarianism, the rationalist denial of the Trinity. It was not long before similar ideas were becoming current in England, flourishing in the hands of iconoclasts such as John Biddle. Indeed, in the late sixteenth century a number of people were burned at the stake in England for denying the Trinity or the divinity of Christ. Within a century, however, it was possible to say such things without any fear of execution.
The godfather of deism proper, though, was the swashbuckling Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, romantic adventurer, serial lover and literary dilettante. Cherbury, the elder brother of the poet George Herbert [Amazing what can happen with two people in the same family. You should check out George Herbert's poetry: http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/herbert/herbbib.htm ], was born in 1583 in Shropshire. He entered an arranged marriage at the age of 16 and, as he later claimed, remained faithful to his vows for the first ten years. He later became a Knight of Bath, and spent many years wandering Europe as a soldier of fortune and duelist; he later claimed that a significant proportion of the female aristocracy of Europe kept a copy of his portrait between their breasts! All this ended in 1619 when he was made ambassador to France, and he died in 1648 as Baron Herbert of Cherbury.
Somehow, Herbert found time to write not only poetry and historical works, but also some surprisingly penetrating philosophy, in which he attacked the nascent empiricism of Thomas Hobbes and defended the early version of the doctrine of innate ideas, which influenced both Descartes and Locke. Herbert talked about 'common notions' which he thought were shared by all sane people, and highlighted the five in particular, which he thought made up religion [A lot of people still follow the false idea that Christianity is only about morality and works. "There's nothing new under the sun".]:
1. There is a God.
2. He should be worshipped.
3. Morality is central to worship.
4. Sin must be repented of.
5. There is a life after death, involving rewards and punishments.
Herbert believed that, in primitive times, every religion had consisted of these five notions alone [Clearly he didn't really know much about other religions]. Throughout history, however, each society has added its own traditions to this basis, resulting in the diverse collection of religions we see today. In his On the Gentile Religions, essentially the first work of comparative religion, Herbert examined each major religion to try to demonstrate the truth of his theory.
This notion that religions -- and specifically Christianity -- consisted of a common core of universal beliefs, together with the irrational encrustations of history, was taken up enthusiastically by a number of thinkers at the end of the seventeenth century. They combined it with the emerging idea that religion was a matter of reason rather than revelation.
We can see the transition from orthodox Christianity to deism in John Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity of 1695 [Many Christians seem to idolize Locke today...]. Locke did not share Herbert's belief in 'common notions', a concept that he attacked powerfully in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Neither did he agree with Herbert that every society believes in and worships God; on the contrary, he thought that before Christ the only people who did so were the Jews and the Greek philosophers, and everyone else was in barbarous ignorance. Christ thus plays an important role as teacher of humanity, since after him the notion of one God and our sin in the face of his goodness has spread across the globe. At the same time, Lock stresses the need for not only illumination but salvation through Christ. This, he believes, occurs when believers repent of their sins and acknowledge Christ as 'Messiah' [Not Son of God, Lord of all Creation??], and he devotes considerable space demonstrating that this was the central point of the primitive gospel message. Quite what Locke understood by 'Messiah' is not very clear; but it does seem that he was, at least, reluctant to think in terms of a Trinity. He may have been sympathetic to the unitarian tendencies of people such as Newton and Clarke -- although Locke was always quick to deny that there was any kind of anti-trinitarianism in his work. Here, then, we have a rather stripped down version of Christianity. It is one where there is still a need for revelation, although it does not seem to have told us much that was not already known, at least by the Greek philosophers; but it is also a kind of 'Christianity lite,' playing down the old-fashioned metaphysics and traditions. This approach is sometimes known as 'Latitudinarianism' -- basically the late seventeenth century's version of theological liberalism [Yup.]."
- Jonathan Hill [And my own notes/snarky comments inserted]
From: //www.amazon.com/Faith-Age-Reason-Enlightenment-Histories/dp/0830823603/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375723310&sr=1-2&keywords=faith+in+the+age+of+reason
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)