Thursday, May 7, 2015

Who decides What Offends God?

I hear someone saying: "a trick question!  Obviously, the injured party decides what offends him or her."  But the problem is more complicated.  The Jewish/Christian God hasn't really spoken for himself (audibly) since Old Testament/New Testament times—at least certain ancient texts claim that God once spoke for himself.  In the Bible, however, others speak for God by putting words in God's mouth (so to speak). In modern times we humans are more skeptical that God speaks (or ever spoke) audibly.  People hearing voices (divine or otherwise) are thought mentally unstable, and locked away.
            The absence of God's audible voice is likely one (subconscious) reason that Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians tout the Bible as "the Word of God."  Without the words coming directly from God in some fashion, the message is suspect, and we humans would have no idea of what offends God.
            However impermeable we may think the Bible is as a stable platform for specifying God's likes and dislikes, the fact is the Bible is permeable and porous, comprised of several layers, and includes voices other than the Divine.
            The English translator of the ancient Greek or Hebrew text you read as being "from God" is another voice.  Each ancient word has a range of possible translations in each literary context, and the translator chooses what seems in the translator's mind to be the best fit for a particular context.  Hence what you read in English is the product of the translator's mind, experience, and personal theological views.
            For example, the New International Version of the Bible, a favorite of Evangelical Christians, for Matthew 19:12 reads in part: "for some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven."  The Revised Standard Version of this same verse reads: "for there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (a eunuch is a castrated male).  The translators render the text quite differently.  What do you suppose it actually says?
            Textual critics who prepare critical editions of the ancient texts you read also contribute to the permeability of the text.  To establish the critical edition they compare all copies of manuscripts; no two of which are exactly alike.  They evaluate all of the variations in the manuscripts, debate them, and then vote to decide what the text originally read.  Decisions are made on the basis of the scholars' reading of the evidence, experience, expertise, personal theological views, and debating skills.
            The composers of the ancient texts themselves contribute the greatest impermeability to the "inspired" text.  The texts of the Bible, according to Fundamentalist and Evangelical beliefs, are "inspired" by God.  The expression "inspired" is explained as meaning "God-breathed," suggesting that even though God no longer speaks audibly, the words of the Bible are imbued with the authority of God—meaning they tell us what God expects of us human beings.  Of course, "inspiration," if any, competes in the mind of the original writer along with his/her experience, background, prejudices, inherited theological beliefs, etc.  For example, the writer of Leviticus did not create that text in a moment of time, but its author composed it out of the earlier experiences of ancient Israel as a people.  The original composition has drawn on Israelite traditions that evolved out of the life of the community.
            So who decides what is offensive to God?  Likely the modern religious community decides which ancient offenses should be avoided and which can be ignored.  Here is a case, on point.  The ancient writer in Leviticus represents God as audibly saying that it is forbidden for a male "to lie with a male as with a woman," for "it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).  And God likewise finds it an abomination to eat anything that comes out of the water if it does not have fins and scales (Leviticus 11:9-12); that is to say: eating shrimp or catfish is as offensive to God as homosexuality.  Modern religious leaders have a lot to say about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but, so far as I am aware, they say nothing about the sinfulness of eating shrimp or catfish.  Is God still offended by the eating of shrimp and catfish do you suppose?
            Religious leaders are fond of reminding us that the biblical view of marriage is one man married to one woman, but God wasn't always offended by a man having multiple wives, and includes laws regulating the treatment of multiple wives in the Law Code (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). King Joash of Judah, who had two wives, was commended by the biblical writer for "doing what was right in the eyes of the Lord" (2 Chronicles 24:1-3).  And other heroes in biblical history having more than one wife (viz., Jacob, Elkanah, and David) were never condemned as sinners for that reason.
            While no reliable list of sins, stable and current, exists, someone is always willing to tell you what sin is.  It appears, therefore, that sin is whatever we allow ourselves to be convinced is sinful.
 
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

15 comments:

Unknown said...

Thank you for this. One of the most well-written articles I have seen on the topic. I only wish more people would think for themselves and examine the texts, rather than pull what they want out of the "Word of God."

Anonymous said...

Charlie,

Thanks for another thoughtful discussion on a subject only weakly explained in the Bible. Another question about the subject of sin: If there is no God, is there sin?

Jim

Anonymous said...

The 'rabies' of assuming knowledge of what offends God:

www.christianitytoday.com › ... › 1993 › Issue 39. Eric W. Gritsch, Professor of Church History at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg.

In On the Jews and Their Lies Luther urged: setting fire to their synagogues and schools, razing and destroying their homes, taking their prayer books and Talmudic writings, forbidding their rabbis to teach on pain of loss of life, eliminating their safe-conduct on the highways, confiscating all their cash and precious metals, and limiting their work to flail, hoe, ax, and spade.

”Luther was not an anti-Semite in the racist sense. His arguments against Jews were theological, not biological. Not until a French cultural anthropologist, Alfonse de Gobineau, in the nineteenth century held that humankind consisted of 'Semites' and 'Aryans,' were Semites considered inferior." Even so, "National Socialists used Luther to support their racist anti-Semitism, calling him a genuine German who had hated non-Nordic races."

"Luther...fell victim to what his friend Philipp Melanchthon called the 'rabies of theologians': drawing conclusions based on speculations about the hidden will of God. Luther erred because he presumed to know God’s will."

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.


Charles Hedrick said...

Thank you for the kind comment. Any ideas as to how we can go about spreading the heresy of critical thinking? In the community where I live more often than not faith usually trumps critical thought.
Charlie

Charles Hedrick said...

Good question, Jim. I am taking this up in the next blog entry.
Charlie

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Gene,
You always come up with something very interesting. In my view Gritsch is clearly correct that presuming to know God's will is to commit an egregious error. It is arrogant, self-serving, and harmful to others to make such a claim.
In my view, however, Gritsch is simply wrong about Luther's anti-Semitism. It seems to me that what Luther advocated doing to the Jewish people (your first full paragraph) deserves the term anti-Semitic. It is not a theological disagreement but a hatred of the Jewish people as Jews.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

I wonder if you are right to say that god's voice is no longer audible to some. I remember from my church days many references to god "speaking to us" or to
"listening to god". Or maybe we have psychologized it now? Voice of god is the voice of ourselves? Is it true that no one believes that god can really (as opposed to metaphorically) speak to people anymore?

Charles Hedrick said...

Good afternoon Anonymous,
I am likely the last person that should be addressing this question. I have identified myself as a Christian of the Baptist variety virtually all my life (since age 16). I was a "preacher boy," eventually ordained and served as pastor of Baptist churches, commissioned as a military chaplain, and eventually retired. In that time I did a lot of meditating and praying. It has been only in the last five years or so that I admitted to myself that even when in prayer only my own thoughts rattled around in my head. I have never heard the voice of God speak audibly nor was I aware of a bodiless "voice" coming from outside me putting thoughts in my head. Consequently I worry about anyone who claims that God speaks to them audibly so that sounds are heard in their ears, or who claim to have been aware of a "voice" not their own putting thoughts in their head. And if it actually does happen as some might claim I am not sure how they could distinguish God's thoughts from their own thoughts. The possibilities of self-deception are enormous.
I cannot answer about what "everyone" believes, but for my part what goes on inside our heads is all us.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

I'll share my personal story, if I may. I've found it helpful since middle childhood to distinguish between God and Jesus. Since that time I've had this notion that Christ, in some type of mystical presence, was constantly available to me, but it never involved an actual voice, or a vision, or conversational interaction. This approach to life began or was reinforced, I'm not sure which, by my response at a church camp meeting to the speaker's call for young people to commit their lives to the Christian ministry. As a young man, I also recall identifying with a contemporary book of prayers called Are You Running with me Jesus? and using them in worship and Christian education settings. And so I've lived my life thinking/believing that Jesus were present, but not with the sense that I could expect a direct answer to a question or a direct intervention to a situation. Rather that he was simply available to do as he chose. Another way I like to put it is that one's life is a prayer, without one moment free of the mystical presence. That was one way I dealt with a remote God who seems to dole out suffering, moral neutrality, and evil to all in good measure. The life of Jesus created the possibility of intimacy and hope - I think that's why he came to be viewed as Man-God.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Gene,
Thanks for sharing your own experience. Do you still have that earlier sense of "intimacy" with the "mystical presence"?

Mystical experiences have a long and distinguished history in antiquity and modernity as reported in the literature of several languages and religions. One of the problems for me is how does one know which divine figure one is sharing the mystical experience with, particularly if there is not "an actual voice, or vision, or conversational interaction"?
Perhaps if I had shared a mystical experience with a divine figure or departed soul of some dead person it would be easier for me to understand.
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie,
Thanks for inquiring further. I'm probably not using the term "mystical" in a traditional sense, but simply as something that has been experientially real, i.e., an internal awareness of Jesus, but not accessible to the senses. I suppose one could argue that I simply made a commitment, which is kept alive by awareness of the sayings and deeds of Jesus, without any ongoing presence of the man himself.

I once had some email exchanges with the late Marcus Borg, known as a Christian mystic, but when it was all over I had no idea what the content of his mystical experience was like. And for sure I am not using mysticism in the sense of the Jewish Merkabah ("throne chariot") traditions which are apparently grounded in the elaborate visions of Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, and Daniel 7.

Regarding which divine figure, I can only go by the original context which was Jesus Christ, a combination of church//Sunday school experiences and hearing that speaker at camp.

Regarding whether the early sense of "intimacy" with Jesus has been maintained over the years, that is not easy to answer. The original experiences were all before rational critical inquiry. Distractions have been thrown in due to the schools of biblical criticism that doubt even the existence of a human Jesus, or if he did exist his resurrection can be accounted for by human phenomena such as cognitive dissonance. My experience depends on the existence of a human Jesus, and not only that it depends on some dimension of reality, such as Jung's notion of the "collective unconscious," which could be a vehicle for a mystical experiential relationship.

In some sense the simple assurance of Jesus' presence and availability has always been with me. It would seem that the experience, however, is not meant to rest on its laurels; I would say that it was strengthened by the Jesus Seminar's identification of a unique voice print in the gospels.

At the same time I have to maintain that "rational inquiry" is not life's ultimate epistemology. I majored in philosophy in college and that was my first experience of discouragement over the limitations of reason. As much as we need "rationality," life is probably even more about "relationality."

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Good Morning Gene,
Here are a few random comments in response from my perspective:
1. Rudolf Bultmann was accustomed to preaching on Sundays and his view was that Jesus was resurrected in the Christian kerygma (the preaching of the church).
2. The presence of Jesus can only be experienced in his words. The "author" of the Gospel of Thomas had the view that the only thing significant about Jesus is what he said.
3. From your description of the presence of Jesus I would suggest (if I were a bold fellow) that your sense of the presence of Jesus was due to you in your youth believing the preaching of the church and you (as did I) evoked the presence of Jesus in your mind , since as you say it was not accessible to the senses.
4. At bottom rational inquiry is about the only thing that can be completely trusted in life, limited though it may be in certain ways.
Or so I think today.
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie, it's so good to get feedback on this most personal matter, and I deeply appreciate your observations. I have to admit that I don't have your confidence in rational inquiry, as important as it might be for connecting our minds with the world in constructive ways. As a practicing clinical psychologist for twenty five years I concluded that it was a rare occasion for someone to seek therapy who had at least one healthy relationship. My perspective would be that relationality connects our hearts to the world in constructive ways, and the life of Jesus provides the foundational relationship, so to speak.

It's interesting that, referring to Bultmann, you have connected knowledge of Jesus solely to his words and the preachings (words) of the church. And there is certainly much truth in that approach, but is it enough? Even the Jesus Seminar followed up The Five Gospels with The Acts of Jesus.

Thanks again for being willing to discuss matters that others shy from!

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Thanks Gene for your willingness to address such a sensitive issue, without being defensive.
I was surprised at your comment that persons who seek therapy generally have no healthy relationships. How did you bring someone back from such a self-destructive place?
I would have written the last sentence of your first paragraph as "relationality connects our minds to the world" ("heart" is clearly not what you mean--the heart is simply an organ that pumps blood). With respect to the "life of Jesus": we know little information that is completely reliable other than that he actually lived (see my Wisdom of Jesus the last chapter and the epilogue).
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Charlie,

I guess what I meant was that a healthy marital or peer relationship can often offer the support and insight that one might find in therapy. For decades, research constantly has shown that the most important factor in therapy is the patient/ therapist relationship.

My use of "heart" was a popularist reference to the emotional and volitional aspects of of experience. As far as we know, of course, all experience is processed through the mind.

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa..