Posted by Helen on: 02.16.2007 /
SezMe recently posted the following comment (on A New Progressive Alliance)
I’m a bit surprised that no Christian has objected to this sentence:
“We maintain that the character of a human being can only be defined and evaluated on the basis of one’s actions.”
This is not consistent with the Bible.
What do you think?
Comment by: Rachel
1SezMe, in my understanding, that IS what the Bible teaches.
“A tree is identified by the kind of fruit it produces. Figs never grow on thornbushes or grapes on bramble bushes. A good person produces good deeds from a good heart, and an evil person produces evil deeds from an evil heart.” Luke 6:44-45
“If I could speak in any language in heaven or on earth but did not love others, I would only be making meaningless noise like a loud gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I knew all the mysteries of the future and knew everything about everything, but didn’t love others, what good would I be?” I Corinthians 13:1-2
“But when the Holy Spirit controls our lives, he will produce this kind of fruit in us: love, joy, peace , patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control.” Galatian 5:22
“If you claim to be religious and don’t control your tongue, you are just fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and lasting religion in the sight of God our Father means that we must care for orphans and widows in their troubles, and refuse to let the world corrupt us.” James 1:26-27
“Faith that doesn’t show itself by good deeds is no faith at all — it is dead and useless.” James 2:17
“But if anyone has enough money to live well and sees a brother or sister in need and refuses to help — how can God’s love be in that person?” 1 John 3:17
Comment by: Helen
2Rachel, I was thinking along the same lines as you. But then I thought, maybe SezMe is referring to something like the doctrine of original sin, which says we’re all born into sin and are inherently sinful no matter how well we behave?
SezMe can you elaborate on your original comment for us, giving us examples of where the Bible evaluates character not according to what we do?
Comment by: Paul
3I’d be interested to hear more too - i guess i’m thinking of grace, in terms of it is a response that is not in accordance with our actions i.e. the opposite of karma which is we get what we deserve…
Comment by: Eliza
4Sounds like alot might depend on how one defines “character”…
Comment by: benjamin ady
5I totally think I see what sezme is saying. The bible is full of a certain wierdness when it comes to who’s righteous and who’s wicked.
For instance, the bible talks about … Abraham, David, Lot, Jephthah, Gideon, and I guess others in glowing terms with regards to their character–being god’s friend, having a heart like god’s, being righteous, being full of faith …
And yet many if not all these guys by a lot of … more current standards were fairly bad dudes. the glowing descriptions of them in scripture don’t seem to mesh super well with their actions.
But I think this is half of one of the many antinomies in the Bible. Over against this are, for instance, many of the passages Rachel listed above. It seems to say *both* are true: A.Righteousness/good character is totally *non* inherent in humans, and is thus totall a gift from god, and possible also even the inverse–god imputes or chooses who will be wicked or hated or hard hearted AND! B.We reap what we sow, rigtheousness *is* about what we *do* etc.
Too weird.
Comment by: Helen
6Benjamin, good points about times when the Bible praises someone whose behavior wasn’t exemplary.
What you said goes along with this theory of mine: the reason people often argue with each other over whether the Bible says such-and-such, or the opposite of such-and-such, is that it says both in different places and so both people can cite verses to ‘prove their point’.
In other words, in my opinion the error isn’t that one person or the other is wrong about what the Bible says; the error is one they are both making, which is to believe the Bible teaches one consistent message from beginning to end and never contradicts itself.
BICBW ;-) (=”But I could be wrong”)
Comment by: Eliza
7Helen wrote:
Well, there is the message of “Love God! Believe in God! Obey God!” That’s quite consistent through the Bible (isn’t it?). It’s only other details that vary a bit from book to book…
BICBW!
Comment by: Helen
8Wow, Eliza, you really did pay attention in that class, didn’t you?
;-)
Comment by: Marty SB
9I quite like this statement. I believe that it is the manifestations of ones beliefs that determines ones character - rather than the beliefs themselves.
I don’t need to read the Bible and pick and choose my versus to come to this place.
This has been really key to my overcoming my previous prejudices relative to Atheists - and I am grateful to the Atheists on this board - and later those I have gotten to know in person to help me learn this lesson.
Comment by: Rachel
10Good point, Marty! We can all point to both very good and very awful examples of Christians, atheists or any other group.
Comment by: Ari
11I think perhaps I would have to separate “character” from “identity”. My character as a complete human is manifested by my behaviors but defined by God. My identity is that of a righteous person and my behaviors will emerge from the knowledge of my identity. We cannot have one without the other but I would not be able to agree with a statement that pulls out behavior as the only definer of character.
Comment by: Marty SB
12Ari - is it correct to interpret what you wrote to say that those who are Atheist can not be or are not of good character?
Comment by: SezMe
13My original comment was rather narrow in scope. I’ll defend that limited assertion here then respond to up-thread comments in a different post.
I made the basic assumption that those of good character are candidates for salvation. (If that is not the case, then we have a lot more to talk about than just my post.)
So how does one qualify for salvation? That is the crux of my post because the bible has much to say about this matter - unfortunately, what it does say is all over the map (sorry, I couldn’t resist saying that on a site entitled “Off the Map”)
BTW, before I begin, all of my cites below are from The Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright 1984 by the International Bible Society.
First, we find that salvation is by faith alone: Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
But then we discover that salvation by faith must be motivated by love: Galatians 5:6 For in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
But that’s not the end of the controversy! Now we learn that salvation comes by works and faith: James 2:24
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
So, going back to the OP, where did the NPA get their idea that Helen posted in the OP? From the notion that salvation is by works alone: Matthew 25:46 Then they [who only had faith] will go away to eternal
punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (You may have to read from 31 onward to get the context).
Finally, there is the ultimate Christian hubris that only Christians are worthy as expressed in Rev 20:15
If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
In closing, I stand by my original assertion that, “the character of a human being can only be defined and evaluated on the basis of one’s actions” is “inconsistent with the bible” because the bible, itself, provides inconsistent guidance on the matter.
QED
Comment by: SezMe
14Rachel (in post #1) and I (in my above post) seem to be in a “quotes war” (that is the first time in my life when I have been able to put “quotes” in “quotes”).
Rachel, I’ve read your citations and stand by my post above. It is your turn to comment.
Comment by: SezMe
15Eliza wrote:
Now that I have defined it, what is your reaction?
Comment by: SezMe
16As I stated in Post #13, I had a quite narrow definition of charactier in mind. But “benjamin ady” adds a whole new dimension to the issue. That is, we can look at what the bible says (which is what I did above) or we can look at what the bible exemplifies (which is what Ben is asking us to do.)
Good point, Ben. I suggest that Ben’s observation strengthens my basic thesis.
Comment by: benjamin ady
17Sezme,
I love the QED. Is that used in … logic circles as well? I have gotten far enough in maths to begin to get a tiny glimmer of an idea how much I don’t know, but I haven’t done *any* logic (apart from maths) at all.
I love the way you bring out the antinomy in the Bible. what you are saying makes a lot of sense to me. I think perhaps CatE has created a lovely environment where it would be too absurd for a Christian to dogmatically claim that the bible makes a consistent case about this, and thus to overwhelmingly or strongly disagree with the statement.
However, I also think there are a large number of christians (especially those of the pomo emergent stream) who would claim that the bible *cannot* be reduced to propostions, that it thus *does* not seem to be consistent in a lot of areas of one tries to look at it from a logician’s point of view, and that in spite of or indeed perhaps *because* of these facts they are christians and they try to follow and understand the bible, and they wouldn’t see any inconsistency or problem with that. And indeed, although I wouldn’t … necessarily or even a majority of the time call myself a christian, I don’t see any problem with that either
Comment by: SezMe
18Eliza wrote:
Eliza, that reminds me of the joke that goes, “Other than that, Mary, how was the play?”
To paraphrase, “other than the cruelity, barbarity, violence and inconsistentcy of the bible, who sweats the details?”
Comment by: SezMe
19Ben (is that OK?) I used QED in this sense.
I, too, have gotten far enough in math to know how much I don’t know. While I have a PhD in math from Caltech, I know how little I know.
A sports analogy is appropriate. The difference between a minor and major league baseball player is miniscule yet the difference is huge. A pitcher with a 2 mph edge on someone else’s fastball will make it to the majors. A shortstop with a range 2 feet greater than his competitor will get the job.
To completely derail the thread, that is what evolution is all about.
Regards the rest of your post, what does “pomo emergent stream” refer to?
Comment by: JG
20Using the maths analogy, it appears to me that despite saying:
when SezMe finds two equations which appear to contradict each other, rather than being open to the idea that there is a solution that does satisfy both equations, the conclusion is drawn that one or both of the equations must be wrong.
This suggests we must limit knowledge to that which we can understand and reconcile. That sort of limited truth does not satisfy me.
Comment by: Helen
21JG wrote:
JG,
a) saying people have to be open to the idea that two apparently contradictory statements (or equations) somehow do reconcile places limits on them too
b) (imo) that is simply not a practical or wise or safe way to live our lives. If two things don’t reconcile we need to take note of that because that’s the constraining reality of our lives. Like if my desire to get a new car doesn’t reconcile with the amount of money in my bank account. Like if my child’s assurances that he/she is doing really well in school don’t reconcile with his report card. Like if someone’s desire to drink excessive alcohol doesn’t reconcile with his family’s desire to have a responsible husband and father.
Imo the reason logical analysis doesn’t always seem to explain things is not so much that in some realm we have no (current) access to, 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, as it is that human beings are sometimes irrational and act as if 2+2=5 even though it doesn’t.
Comment by: NCxian
22I read the sentence that SezMe asked about in the context of the preceding sentence. Together they say:
I understand this to mean that one’s faith position alone is not the determinant of one’s character. Whatever we think about how God evaluates us (or not), the way we relate to each other has to rest in large part on the what other people see in us. What other people can see is our behavior.
And then, of course, the whole point of the new progressive alliance was to take the “rational” folks from all faith (and no-faith) camps and distinguish them from “fanatics”, which also would have to be about behaviors, I would think. I think that’s why nobody raised an outcry about the one sentence. It seems to me it was further elaborated by other language in the statement that gave it a more nuanced, perhaps “generous” feel. It doesn’t appear that they meant to start a debate; they meant to start a dialogue.
BICBW
Comment by: Rachel
23SezMe, I really don’t see it as a quotes war. But then I am one of those postmodern emergent types that Benjamin mentioned, so I see the Bible as being full of mystery and paradox and I read much of the text as descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That means I wouldn’t evaluate the Scripture texts in the same way I would evaluate a science or even a history textbook, for example. I’m also in process in my own understanding of the Way of Jesus. I don’t think I am prepared to engage in a point/counterpoint style debate. All I can do is share my own understanding of Scripture.
I see character and salvation as two very different concepts. I completely agree with the idea that one’s character is defined by one’s actions, and in my reading, that is what the Bible teaches. The book of Proverbs, for example, is full of advice on how to be a person of good character and on the perils of getting involved with a person of bad character, usually referred to as a “fool.” One of my favorite proverbs says that you can judge a man’s character by how he treats his animals. To me, that is a pretty straightforward concept - judge the tree by the fruit it bears.
Salvation - I see that as a much more complex concept and more difficult to define. This would get us into the whole area of atonement theories, which are different theological understandings of the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection. Some Christians would argue in favor of one theory over the others; postmodern emergent types would tend to embrace a variety of understandings of the atonement, seeing them all as providing insight into the meaning of Christ’s death. But to me, a basic understanding of salvation would be that something wonderful was accomplished by Christ for the benefit of humanity that we could not do for ourselves.
SezMe, you pointed out that some passages say that salvation comes through faith alone, some say by faith and good works. I don’t see these verses as contradictory but rather as a paradox or as what one could call “balancing truths.” The picture in my mind is of a balance beam scale with faith on one side and good deeds on the other. I believe that we access the salvation offered to us by Christ both through believing in him and by obeying his teachings.
Comment by: JG
24Helen,
I agree with what you are saying but feel you are referring to different scenarios to those I had in mind.
Those you mention are ones where we can verify what is true. Whereas I was talking about the search for truth where it is not known and according to some, can’t be known.
If in science or Maths, you observe two things which appear to contradict each other then that highlights that there must be more to it than you are aware of. It may be that you are misinterpreting one or other or both things. Or that you are correctly interpreting what you see but there are other things you are unaware of and when those are taken into account, you can see the apparent contradiction actually disappears.
On a very simple level, in mapping, you need two bearings. The point you are mapping lies at the intersection. If we have two apparently contradictory statements such as Galatians 5:6 and James 2:24, it strikes me that “truth” is actually found by regarding both statements as pointing to truth and actual truth lies at the intersection. That is why we are given both and why IMO it is dangerous to take verses or passages in isolation.
Comment by: Helen
25NCxian, thanks for your comments and for putting the statement with the one immediately preceding it.
I agree with you that they were trying to start a dialogue, not a debate. My sense from the two statements together is that they were implying “Let’s not go there” regarding “My beliefs/nonbeliefs make me a better person than you”.
Comment by: Helen
26JG I can’t comment any further on what you said because your view of the Bible is so different from mine.
Comment by: benjamin ady
27Sezme,
thankyou for the fascinating conversation.
I love all the other meanings, some quite funny, which the wiki article lists for QED.
I actually prefer Benjamin.
“pomo emergent stream” means postmodern emergent stream.
Now that prolly doesn’t help much.
so I was going to link to wikipedia’s articles on postmodernism and emergent church. but wiki seems to be down (is that possible? I’ve never seen it before. wierd.) I am totally at a loss without wikipedia. Isn’t that sad?
So I am sort of using the terms postmodern and emergent to refer to pretty much the same group of people within the larger chrisitan church. They are people like Rachel and Jim and my lovely wife Megan (and to the extent that she is a Christain, Helen). (defining by example here). They are people who have at some level rejected the thoroughly modern (that is, post renaissance, post enlightenment) idea that things must be required to make sense propositionally, and value story, with all it’s twists, turns, and paradox, over proposition. Thus they reject the way the Christian church has become so propositional and the they reject the way the church has forced the bible to become a modern book, when it was actually written pre enlightenment and pre renaissance. I greatly fear I’m doing a hopeless job explaining here. Hope that helps a little
Comment by: benjamin ady
28Rachel,
I think you are right that at one level the bible defines character as being rooted in the actions. I mean it describes people that way in proverbs very clearly–”Wise people do this, foolish people do this.”
But one thing that has increasingly wierded me out is the way the bible seems to again and again draw the really clear simple distinction between the righteous and the wicked, or the wise and the foolish.
like the New Testament saying that Lot had a righteous soul. what does that mean? The guy seems wicked in every sense of the word.
Jesus does this. He always seems to be making these relatively simple references to the good and the evil. I have found this increasingly strange as I have increasingly come to believe that people can’t be thus easily separated into these two camps–that people are enormously complex, and they are are evil and all good at various levels and in various ways. Does that make sense? I mean everyone is wise, and everyone is foolish. It’s hard to even sum it up simply for just one person. This dichotimization is certainly something I *have* done and *still* do this sometimes, but it doesn’t seem to be one of my more helpful or useful paradigms.
Comment by: SezMe
29JG wrote:
Maybe you can help me out, then, JG, to understand this perspective. How can two contradictory statements have an intersection? If they do, how do we find such an intersection? How do we know it is the “right” intersection? Why didn’t god or Jesus or the bible or the disciples give us the “intersection” rather than the
contradictory statements that we have to figure out a meaning for?
That said (questioned?), I agree with the sentiments expressed in your closing thought, namely, that one takes quotes out of context at one’s peril.
Comment by: JG
30SezMe,
Thanks for your comments. In my experience there are many things that cannot be adquately stated or summarised in a short statement.
Take human character. Can a few statements adequately described what someone is like? Are we not complex characters that to some extent defy comprehension?
Please note that I said “apparently” contradictory. Most apparent contradictions arise simply because we do not fully understand the two things which appear to contradict.
NB I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned about contradictions. There are also of course many contradictions which arise because one or both things we are looking at are wrong and need to be rejected. What I am saying is that we shouldn’t automatically reject things because of apparent contradiction.
Comment by: Rachel
31Yes, the Christian church in the West has been looking at an ancient Eastern text through a modern Western lens. We in the emergent conversation seek to recover a respect for context and narrative.
Comment by: Eliza
32SezMe said:
SezMe, sorry but I don’t see anything that I recognize as a definition in your posts above (the original one, or #13, or #15, etc).
At freedictionary.com, there are 13 definitions, including “Moral or ethical strength” and “A description of a person’s attributes, traits, or abilities” and “Public estimation of someone; reputation.” As an example of how perspective matters, consider Moses - considered to be a man of fine character, I believe? God treated him as such. Yet in Numbers 31:14-18 we see a man who is a leader, who talks to God, a man of character - yet one who commands the killing of boys and women, and who seems to command (or at least allow) the sexual slavery of virgins. (Or, at least, those who are virgins at the time he is speaking. They probably won’t be for long.) Does make for some head-scratching, in modern times, imo.
Comment by: Karen
33JG:
I attended a lecture today by Randel Helms, a bible scholar and English professor out of Arizona State U. He talked about his new book, “The Bible Against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself.”
Someone asked how biblical apologists and theologians reconcile all the obvious contraditions in the scriptures. Helms said humans have an infinite capacity for rationalization and compartmentalization.
Then he added, “And I’m certainly not innocent of that myself! For instance, I believe I have free will. I also believe I’m made up of molecules, and we all know that molecules don’t have free will. There’s a fundamental contradiction in my thinking: And I don’t care!”
:-)
Comment by: JG
34Karen,
It may help if I give an example of what I mean.
Two principles, justice and mercy. Are these principles in conflict with each other or can you satisfy both?
For me, it is not a question of choosing one or the other. Rather it is a matter of seeking to understand how and when both principles should be applied and holding them in the right balance.
Comment by: joe
35I propose the following motion:
I submit that actually most of our reading of the bible is erroneous - to the extent that we read it as if it is just a bunch of true/false statements that we either accept or reject.
It goes without saying that Noah and Jacob (to take two examples of many) are godly examples of men who followed God. Yet the bible itself writes clearly about the negative aspects of these men’s character. Jacob was a lying scheming womanising bastard. Noah was an alcoholic who embarrassed his family.
I futher submit that whilst the bible has fairly consistent teaching about the kind of behaviour one should expect from the godly, is very honest about the crappy behaviour of even those who claim to be godly.
At the heart of Christianity is an oxymoron. Or many oxymorons (or whatever the collective term is).
Comment by: Helen
36Joe, what I’ve noticed is that the stories of people such as Noah and Jacob include very little commentary on what behavior was laudable and what was shameful.
That leaves me being uncertain what the author’s opinion of that behavior was. However, I agree that most likely some of it was considered shameful. And so it’s reasonable (imo) to think - as you said - that the author’s intent was not to exclude all shameful behavior.
Comment by: Doreen
37SezMe wrote
Actually, Paul and James were not in disagreement. They were writing to such completely different audiences, James later than Paul, which causes their definition of “works” to differ greatly.
Works to Paul meant keeping the Mosaic Law; works for James meant fruits of faith, acts of justice, works of love, obedience, kindness.
If you read Gal. 5:16-26 and Romans 12, you see that Paul agreed that Christian faith results in ethical behavior.
Here’s Romans 12:6-8 (NIV):
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his[b]faith. If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
James was actually correcting an improper interpretation of Paul whereby people did not see the need for consistency between their faith and their deeds.
My two cents. (I recently preached on using our gifts, using Romans 12.)
poetcomic.blogspot.com
Comment by: Karen
38Interesting. That’s actually the whole point of Helms’ book, which I mentioned I’m reading.
He points out spots where various authors of biblical books wrote specifically to contradict, correct or reverse other “sacred” writings, some of which are included in the biblical canon now, and some of which are not. I never thought of the bible that way before.
Comment by: Rachel
39Of course there are some of us who are Christian and do not feel the need to try to reconcile all the contradictions in the Bible. After all, those who originally compiled the various works of Scripture did not feel compelled to do so.
For example, looking at the development of the New Testament canon…There was a period of about 300 years in which the various works were being written and circulated and a consensus was emerging among early church leaders about which books should be considered Scripture. They weren’t stupid people - they could see the same contradictions that we see. But they did not feel the need to either make corrections or exclude certain sections.
For example, they could see quite clearly that Matthew and Luke give us very different accounts of how Judas died. Matthew says Judas hanged himself; Luke says he died as a result of a fall. And the four gospels differ on a number of other points as well. But the early church leaders still considered all four gospels to be Scripture. And they did not try to correct or reconcile them.
The inconsistencies that so disturb the modern Western reader apparently did not concern the ancient Eastern readers and compilers of the texts. It seems they must have had a much different understanding of what Scripture is than the prevailing understanding today.
Comment by: Rachel
40That’s an interesting point, Doreen. Context is SO important. And of course the context would have been much more clear to the original readers and hearers of the text.
Peter actually refers in his second epistle to those who twist the writings of Paul from their original meaning.