Let us reason together

In a comment to my initial church-state post, Ruggman made the point that having a "Biblical worldview" considerably influences a person's life.

To know and understand that the essence of reality is God - transcendent, personal, moral, relational - who is both separate from and fills all time and space; and who entered into time and space as a human being who ultimately dies and rises in an act of unfathomable love in order bring reconciliation and renewal should and must influence every aspect of our being.

The issue which I in part raised in the post was how would we then relate to our fellow human beings made in the image of God, whose image, like ours, is tarnished and marred and broken due to our rebellion and rejection of the one who is truth, goodness and life itself. Do we stand above simply issuing religious sounding words that our hearers do not understand, or do we say, as even God himself said to his wayward people: "'Come now, let us reason together,' says the Lord." Isaiah 1:18.

It is vitally important to note that the New Testament is clear that the endpoint, purpose, meaning and understanding of Biblical revelation is found ultimately in the momentous pronoucement of the coming of God himself onto the stage of history, in the person of his Son, to bring redemption and restoration in his death and resurrection and to call to himself all those from every "tribe and language and people and nation" to entrust themselves to him. It is good news that the rule of the righteous and true king has come. "Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other." Isaiah 45:22.

Therefore, I think the citing of Scripture's condemnations without the proclamation of their remedy in Jesus being the one who is condemned for us is a misuse of the Bible and damaging to its hearers. This is especially the case in a setting where the Bible is cited out of its context and there is no opportunity for discussion and explanation.

I want to be clear here that I am not saying it is always inappropriate to cite the Bible in public discussions. First, we should allow room for different approaches. Secondly, Scripture has much wisdom and knowledge to impart, and sometimes its jarring and pointed truth can get to the heart of the matter (I realize it may seem obscure in places and even strange to us 21st century individualists, but that is another discussion for another time). I think it is a matter of exercising sound judgment, understanding the context of the situation and those being addressed. For example, the Civil Rights movement was an overtly Christian movement that employed Scripture effectively both as the foundation and support of its just cause.

Someone might wonder whether I am taking the position in all this that the secular or relativistic person is the one who is neutral and objective, simply seeking to make reasonable judgments. Um, no. There is nothing neutral and objective about believing that either God does not exist or that God is unknowable (not only for that person but for anyone) or claiming that one believes in God or "spirituality," while only adopting those aspects of "spirituality" that are to one's taste or choosing. Each of these is a deep and personal commitment that has significant implications for how one views the world and makes decisions.

At the same time, with respect to our current situation, I think it important that we understand the perspective held by many of our friends, neighbors, co-workers and fellow citizens. To them, expressions of religious belief or appeal to writings they categorize as religious are merely private and subjective beliefs having no connection to reason or reality. When they hear an overtly religious argument to support a position on a public matter, they find it to be an imposition that has no place in a public setting, especially if it involves legislation. Now, some may have noticed that sometimes religious arguments are well-received when they support a position that is favored. Also, all laws are an "imposition" of morality. In other words, people are inconsistent and their motivations are not often clear even to themselves. My point is not to explain or justify, but to try to understand. We should be sympathetic to someone who finds it threatening to have a religion he doesn't believe have its laws imposed on him, even if he is inconsistent in his objections.

By the way, from a historic standpoint, I think the person most responsible for the above view taking hold was 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (I am really stepping out of my element here, especially in discussing Kant whose writings are considered among the most difficult, and am probably inviting a smackdown from someone who may know better. Of course, I won't be the first blogger to not be impeded by a lack of expertise). Kant took the position that while God and the soul may exist, we couldn't make any definitive statements about them because we don't detect them with our senses. They can only exist in the mind because they don't correspond to sensible objects outside the mind. Therefore, such beliefs, while acceptable, are subjective and personal. In other words, "it's okay for you to believe what you believe about God, and it's okay for me to believe what I believe about God, and no one is right and no one is wrong, because we can't know any way." I hope you can see that the claim that God can't be known in a manner that corresponds to the way he actually is is itself an all-encompassing and definitive claim about God that excludes other types of claims. Kant has been internalized to such an extent that people don't realize their adherence to an 18th century German philosopher. They just express his beliefs in a "that's just the way it is," matter of fact sort of way. The irony is while we may all believe anything we want about God, belief in Kant is not quite so malleable. FYI, I am not a Kantian.

Interestingly, to the Kantians out there, the Apostle John writes: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life." 1 John 1:1-2. In the opening to his gospel, John puts it more pointedly: "The Word became flesh." In other words, the ideal about which Kant claimed we couldn't make any definitive statements (even as he made definitive statements) became the height of empirical accessibility - a living, walking, talking, flesh and blood human being who lived in a particular time, in a particular place among a particular people.

Again, regardless of what we may think, this is where we are at. Accordingly, if we intend to engage publicly and with the people we know and care about, it is important that we express ourselves in such a way that make it clear that our positions are not grounded in some private never-never land. What we say is "come now, let us reason together." The mere fact of God making himself known to us at all and speaking to us, ultimately in Jesus, was an act of remarkable accomodation and humility on his part. In Scripture, we find the hearers being addressed in their own language in terms accessible to them. We see this in Jesus' parables, and in Paul's interaction with the Gentiles in Acts. We can stand side by side and consider the landscape together as fellow travelers, even while being transparent and honest about what we think and know. To think that we can't do so would be to deny our common humanity as those made in God's image.

It would also be a denial of the goodness of God to all humanity and creation, as evidenced by the formation of entire civilizations and the outstanding contributions made by and among those who, though they are able to discern certain truths, even with insight and brilliance, do not acknowledge and give thanks to the one who is their source and sustainer. At the same time, also undeniable is the immense good that has come into the world through those who have acted specifically on their knowledge and trust of God who, in his being is personal and relational - Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Without the advent of Jesus Christ, this world would be a much more cruel place. I am aware of the litany of misdeeds, but to make those wrongs comprise the entire 2000-year Christian narrative is, at best, highly selective and plainly wrong.

Are there tensions that exist in the views I've expressed? Sure there are. One of the most dynamic aspects of the recognition of a God-centered, God-shaped reality is the widespread existence of tensions and paradoxes, which we are called to embrace. One of the ways we all fall into error is when we seek do away with the tensions by simply ignoring or eliminating one side or the other.

Right now, we face considerable challenges on particular issues concerning which there is strident disagreement. These issues, among others, pertain to the value of human life at its beginning and end; and to the uniqueness of the male-female sexual relationship, encompassing sexuality in general. Are these matters "religious?" Yes and no. They are in the broader sense of addressing what it means to be a human being; what it means to live well; on what basis we make decisions about ourselves and our bodies; what does our body's physical design tell us? do we as a society have an obligation to include in our community and protect human beings in all stages of life, especially when they are vulnerable? Am I simply an autonomous being obligated only to myself, or is the essence of reality moral and true, so that it shapes me instead of my shaping it? These issues are not "religious" in the purely subjective, detached from reality sense commonly thought of.

Also, these are not at all simply matters of the advancement of just laws, though that is important with respect to some of the issues identified above, but broader matters concerning the governing of our lives individually and together. That is why in discussing these things I do not expect people to say: "oh John, you are so reasonable. Thanks for sharing your views. I agree with you." While we may consider the nature of reality, we have our reasons for hiding from that reality, shading the truth, justifying our conduct. Even as we may imagine ourselves to be free, we are bound. We have personal, emotional, moral, financial, professional and spiritual commitments that direct us. Much is at stake for each of us.

Yet, I think it worthwhile to do the hard work of engaging on matters that affect us so deeply. I hope and believe that as we are willing to encounter reality as it presents itself to us on these issues that are so close to the essence of who we are, we will also find ourselves facing the One who made and sustains reality, not as one who condemns us for denying what was apparently true, but as the One who came from the Father full of grace and truth to transform us into people who do not live in denial. At the same time, there is an inherent goodness to ordering our lives in accordance with what is real and true along the way.