Moral Reasoning and Parental Notification Laws

Each side in the parental notification issue has their "poster children" for why parental notification laws should, or should not, be passed. On the "should" side are the instances where boyfriends and statutory rapists talk and/or coerce their pregnant underage girlfriends into abortions without their parent's knowledge - in one prominantly quoted case leading to the death of the girl from complications of the abortion because the parents did not know that a surgery had been performed.

On the "should not" side you are advised to go read "Abortion and parental notification laws" and the two posts (here and here) the author links written by someone who works within the justice system processing judicial exception requests to parental notification laws.

However, I really am not interested - at least in this post - about the "poster children" . . .

Read more!

Romans 7:7-25 -- "The Real Problem With Me"

[The index for the series is here.]

I am using the Pastor's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

Read more!

"The Trilemma":An Invitation to a Shredding

The headline quote on my blog is called "The Trilemma": fool, demon, or God. Now, personally, I think most folks fall into one of those or the fourth which Lewis says is not open: great moral teacher. I was over participating in a thread at Common Sense Atheism and someone said

“By and large, [C.S. Lewis's] theology, like his apologetics, is embarrassingly incoherent, unsound, incomplete, and generally bad” I agree. I created a thread on freeratio about and it generated some good discussion. It can be found here:

and pointed to this other thread and his opening quote there:

Theres the trilemma, which has been shredded to pieces, even though it was self evidently stupid to being with, . . .

Now, I have heard Christians say the same about the Trilemma, but since it is still my banner quote - obviously no one has convinced me yet it is "shredded" or "self-evidently stupid" (I think more of myself than that). So, I invited folks over to shred it for me and perhaps make me change my banner quote

Read more!

Romans 3:21-25a "Good News for the Whole World (Part 1)"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text:

(NET) Romans 3:21 But now²⁶ apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets)²⁷ has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ²⁸ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 24 But they are justified²⁹ freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25 God publicly displayed³⁰ him³¹ at his death³² as the mercy seat³³ accessible through faith.³⁴ . . .

Notes:

²⁶ tn Νυνὶ δέ (Nuni de, “But now”) could be understood as either (1) logical or (2) temporal in force, but most recent interpreters take it as temporal, referring to a new phase in salvation history.

²⁷ tn Grk “being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” a remark which is virtually parenthetical to Paul’s argument.

²⁸ tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730–44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view.

sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable and worthy of such faith.

²⁹ tn Or “declared righteous.” Grk “being justified,” as a continuation of the preceding clause. Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³⁰ tn Or “purposed, intended.”

³¹ tn Grk “whom God publicly displayed.” Because of the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.

³² tn Grk “in his blood.” The prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι (ejn tō aujtou haimati) is difficult to interpret. It is traditionally understood to refer to the atoning sacrifice Jesus made when he shed his blood on the cross, and as a modifier of ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). This interpretation fits if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to a sacrifice. But if ἱλαστήριον is taken to refer to the place where atonement is made as this translation has done (see note on the phrase “mercy seat”), this interpretation of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι creates a violent mixed metaphor. Within a few words Paul would switch from referring to Jesus as the place where atonement was made to referring to Jesus as the atoning sacrifice itself. A viable option which resolves this problem is to see ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι as modifying the verb προέθετο (proetheto). If it modifies the verb, it would explain the time or place in which God publicly displayed Jesus as the mercy seat; the reference to blood would be a metaphorical way of speaking of Jesus’ death. This is supported by the placement of ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι in the Greek text (it follows the noun, separated from it by another prepositional phrase) and by stylistic parallels with Rom 1:4. This is the interpretation the translation has followed, although it is recognized that many interpreters favor different options and translations. The prepositional phrase has been moved forward in the sentence to emphasize its connection with the verb, and the referent of the metaphorical language has been specified in the translation. For a detailed discussion of this interpretation, see D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999).

³³ tn The word ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25, ” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.

³⁴ tn The prepositional phrase διὰ πίστεως (dia pisteōs) here modifies the noun ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

My Comments: A quick review of the book up to now might be helpful:

• 1:1-15 -- Introduction
• 1:16-17 -- the theme of the entire book.

  16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

• 1:18 - 3:20 -- The first sharp turn in Romans. Paul goes in to a long explanation of why everyone, Jews and Gentiles, are "under sin" and subject to God's wrath. Indeed, Paul goes to great lengths to prove that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." One of the folks commenting on this section has gone as far as to suggest that Paul did not write a great deal of this section because it is such a sharp departure from the previous verses - and the ones we will now move into.

As Chris Thatcher (this weeks speaker) points out this passage, starting with "But now . . .", marks a another sharp turn, or hinge, in the book of Romans. Indeed, he states (and I agree) that if Romans had ended with 3;19 that this would be a supremely depressing letter that would not be in the Christian canon, and if it was would mark Christianity as one of the most negative, depressing religions on the planet.

Indeed, one of those commenting on the last section of Romans pointed out:

Other people like me let our conscience eat us alive from the inside out because when we read scripture like this that remind us how flawed we are already convinced. So to hear it from a source of authority simply consumes us.

And we don't get back up.

Some people will thrive on this and use the other chapters in the Bible to build themselves back up and make better people of themselves but with a newly polished mirror.

Other people, like me, like my father, listen to the reminders of how flawed we are, stare into that mirror long enough - and then out of guilt, frustration and desperation we smash our face right into the glass and the shards do the rest.

This is true of both followers of Christ and non-followers of Christ - and it comes partially, IMO, because we do not do a good enough job showing how God loves us despite our flaws. I will offer my bedrock set of verses from later in Romans that I use for this purpose

Romans 7:15-25 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

We all, Christian or not, have a body of "laws" - a morality - that we desire to follow. And, I am convinced, we are convicted by that body of laws - none of us live up to our own expectations. Paul sees this dichotomy in himself: as much as he loves God and wants to do right he still does wrong. Paul attributes this to our sin nature (the law of sin in our members) that actually wars with our own conscience and morality. It is not Paul who does wrong, but that law of sin residing with him in his body.

This is what Paul meant by us living "under sin" in the last section of Romans 3. Now the good news: just as, right after the Romans 7 passage quoted above, Romans 8 began

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.

now Romans 3:21 continues

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.

Jesus is the rope thrown by God to drowning humans (or, to keep myself PC at Street Prophets - one of those ropes :-)). As Chris Thatcher said it, at the train wreck Paul outlines in the previous section - where every car and every passenger is involved - God shows up in the person of Jesus. Moreover, God shows up apart from any law or set of rules humans can follow - Jews and gentiles are equal.

Paul begins his primary view that the Mosaic law (or, IMO, any set of ethics and morality) does not make us righteous or even give us something to base moral superiority on; but actually should engender humility and make us realize that we are incapable of righteousness - these rules should teach us that we are incapable of following our own moral codes.

Not that Paul is talking about political entities here, but I think there is some application to political life as well. Folks, and countries, have underlying political ideologies along with moral ideas and rules in which they believe. These ideologies should also not engender pride or self-righteousness - but humiility - because people and countries do not follow their political ideals any better than folks follow their morals codes and laws.

From the notesheet: Question for individuals or groups --

1. Describe your heart’s response to God’s revelation, rescue, and provision in Jesus Christ.
2. Looking ahead in Romans, what are the implications for you if you now have God’s righteousness by faith in Christ and your sin is atoned for?
3. If someone asked, how would you explain the gospel based on what we have covered in Romans so far?

Next: 3:25-26 -- "Good News for the Whole World (Part 2)"

Read more!

Romans 2:6-16:"God's Impartial Judgment"

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

Read more!

Original Sin?

[Crossposted to Street Prophets]

This is another of those long comments I made on another blog. The conversation started this way:

Seriously, taking the Bible literally can lead to people tying themselves into knots. Take original sin. God said what He said in Genesis, but by the time of the 10 commandments in Exodus, His wrath was limited unto the 3rd or 4th generation. By Ezekial 18, every man's sin is his own and the sins of the fathers are not visited on the sons. So which version is right?

I gave an answer that included discussion of progressive revelation - and that I did not think these areas were that contradictory. The chat continued with this comment:

Then Augustine's ideas on original sin are no longer in play? And there's no longer the original need for salvation?

Last I looked all Christianity was based on the idea of salvation starting with the original sin; I'm totally confused at this point.

Frankly, I really haven't read what Augustine said about original sin - but folks who talk about it act like it is some kind of infection passed on by our genes at birth - Augustine apparently thought by the lust associated with sex. However, Augustine's views on original gave over, within the Catholic Church and within a century, to Aquinas' view:

He distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the Fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions.

This makes sense to me - our legacy from the garden is not some positive infection - it is a lack of something we should have. (This falls in with my view that evil is also a lack of good rather than a force in and of itself.) This, in my view, is why God gave Israel Mosaic Law - to serve as a substitute for those lost supernatural gifts/priviledges.

That the views of the Catholic Church are far closer to Aquinas than Augustine can be seen in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. From Wikipedia:

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state … original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"—a state and not an act" (404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice … transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin.

For me, the definition of sin is anything that turns us away from God - anything. We are supposed to love God with ALL of ourselves - anything that gets in the way of that is sin. The original sin was Adam and Eve disobeying God's command not to eat some fruit from a tree - a fruit that gave them the knowledge of good and evil.

One pastor I heard said this about the two trees in Eden:

• the tree of life (חיּים); and
• the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (רע- ra): the root of ra is רעע- raa - which can mean to spoil (literally, by breaking to pieces)

He pointed out that the first thing Adam and Eve did once they ate from the tree (after feeling shame because they were naked) was to make a covering for themselves - not for the other person: they became self-focused. He presented this as the first religious act - realizing our shame before God and others and seeking to cover and hide ourselves. For me (he didn't say this explicitly), I can see that most of the evil in the world comes from humanity breaking itself into smaller pieces - separating themselves from each other and God.

So, our sin is that we choose our own desires over God's will for us - who we are to give ALL to; and over the needs of other humans - who we are to love as we love ourselves. We know this as well - universally. Our consciences convict us; and, in our shame, we seek to hide our true selves behind masks and fig leaves - we break ourselves off from the community with God and each other we were created for. When our consciences convict us, we should:

• feel remorse and flee from wrong;
• confess what one has done;
• atone - pay the debt;
• reconcile - restore the bonds that have been broken; and
• become justified - get back in the right.

However, as Paul said in Romans, because we suppress the truth apparent within ourselves and in nature and choose other than God - we actually, as J. Budziszewski said:

• do not flee from wrong, but just from thinking about it;
• compulsively confess every detail of the story but the moral;
• punish ourselves again and again offering every sacrifice but the one demanded;
• simulate the broken bonds of intimacy by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves; and
• seek not to become just but to justify ourselves.

This is the train wreck that is our universal relationship with God and each other. This is the ongoing sin that has arisen from Adam actually, or metaphorically, choosing to go his own way in the Garden - and we all share in this sin. We do all carry the stain of Adam's sin.

Not because Adam did it; but because we - by our nature that we share with Adam - choose universally to do the same; and God "gives us over to our nature" and lets us choose it. We choose it because, as Satan tempted in the Garden, we want "to be as Gods".

This is the reason Christ came. By being the "second Adam" and living through life without sin - without choosing poorly, we have recieved through the Holy Spirit, those supernatural gifts from God that enables us, as Aquinas said:

to keep our inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to our supernatural end

With this supernatural gift/priviledge as a guide, we are no longer bound to Mosaic Law. That is if we listen and then choose to follow.

Read more!

Romans 1:18-23:The Righteous Wrath of God

[Crossposted to Street Prophets. The index for the series is here.]

I am using Carl Palmer's titles for these posts. The appropriate links are:

• Audio file
• Note sheet

The text is:

(NET) Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people³⁹ who suppress the truth by their⁴⁰ unrighteousness,⁴¹ 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,⁴² because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people⁴³ are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts⁴⁴ were darkened. 22 Although they claimed⁴⁵ to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings⁴⁶ or birds or four-footed animals⁴⁷ or reptiles.

Notes:

³⁹ tn The genitive ἀνθρώπων could be taken as an attributed genitive, in which case the phase should be translated “against all ungodly and unrighteous people” (cf. “the truth of God” in v. 25 which is also probably an attributed genitive). C. E. B. Cranfield takes the section 1:18–32 to refer to all people (not just Gentiles), while 2:1–3:20 points out that the Jew is no exception (Romans [ICC], 1:104–6; 1:137–38).

⁴⁰ tn “Their” is implied in the Greek, but is supplied because of English style.
⁴¹ tn Or “by means of unrighteousness.” Grk “in (by) unrighteousness.”
⁴² tn Grk “is manifest to/in them.”
⁴³ tn Grk “they”; the referent (people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.
⁴⁴ tn Grk “heart.”
⁴⁵ tn The participle φάσκοντες (phaskontes) is used concessively here.

⁴⁶ tn Grk “exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God in likeness of an image of corruptible man.” Here there is a wordplay on the Greek terms ἄφθαρτος (aphthartos, “immortal, imperishable, incorruptible”) and φθαρτός (phthartos, “mortal, corruptible, subject to decay”).

⁴⁷ sn Possibly an allusion to Ps 106:19–20.

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

From the Note Sheet:

• No amount of knowledge, education, technology, cultural advance, sophistication, etc. – has overcome the problem of sin in the human heart.
• God is unalterably opposed to everything that mars His creation and good purpose.
• The problem of sin is not just wrong behavior, but wrong thought patterns that lead to wrong behavior.
• The great sin is suppressing the truth of God – and replacing Him with some part of His creation.
• There are great benefits of knowing “the wrath of God”:

1. Why does Paul begin with “the wrath of God”?
2. How is “the wrath of God” related to “the righteousness of God”?
3. How is God’s “wrath” our only hope for a sinless eternity?
4. What can be known about God from creation? What does creation not reveal about Him?
5. Do we “suppress the truth”?
6. In what ways do people today “exchange the glory of God” for something else?

Carl Palmer: The wrath of God is not to be confused with human anger - that sudden outburst that flies off the handle.

The wrath of God is the settled, consistant, pure, deeply felt, eternal rejection of evil

One of the clearest analogies I have heard is in the audio when Carl talks about a mother and her hatred of the cancer she is battling in her son.

Walter Taylor:

Thus the whole section from verse 18 on is couched in what Hays calls mythico-historical language, in which the whole pagan world is implicated. Paul's "exchange of truth for a lie," verse 25, is his way of expressing the primordial sin that continues as the fundamental stance of humanity. The charge is a corporate indictment of pagan society, not a narrative about any one individual.

My comments: I have quoted this passage a fair number of times. First, because it is one of those "natural law" kind of passages; and second because it is a run-up to the laundry list of "sins" at the end of Romans 1 including the section on homosexuality.

The natural law element is important. One of those questions presented to followers of Christ is "how can God send someone to hell if they just didn't know?" Paul presents here that they do know - that "they are without excuse". Not only are God's attributes visible in His creation, but one of the translations of verse 19 is that "what can be known about God is manifest in them". Paul then is saying that not believing in God is not a matter of insufficient information, but a matter of will - we decide not to believe what is manifest both in the world and within ourselves. When the truth of God begins to rise up around us or within us we "push it down" - we suppress it. See also:

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the sky displays his handiwork.
2 Day after day it speaks out;
night after night it reveals his greatness.
3 There is no actual speech or word,
nor is its voice literally heard.

Appendix: This section is included in a textual issue one reader brought up

Next: Romans 1:24-32 -- "God Gave Them Over"

Read more!

Sidetrack: Evil and Natural Moral Law

In the series The Problem (?) with Evil I have focused on God's disconnect from the cause of evil - us actually. It really isn't part of the question of whether the existence of evil proves the non-existence of an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God - but the question of what God does to promote good and discourage evil amongst the creatures that were "made in his image" is an important one.

Obviously, as Santiago put it in the Street Prophet's comment threads, it would be "less than satisfying" if God just sat back and watched while we used our freedom to do evil to each other. Not only that, there has to be mechanisms by which God uses us to accomplish his aims even in, and using, people who do not believe in him. So the question here is:

Does God Actively Encourage Good and Constrain Evil?

I believe God does. Two of the four witnesses God uses are forms of conscience:

According to theologians of the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century), the conscience is divided into two parts. Synderesis (probably a misreading of suneidesis) is the faculty in human beings that knows God's moral law; this faculty remained unaffected by the Fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Conscientia is the faculty by which human beings apply the moral to concrete cases; it dictates what should or should not be done under particular circumstances. Whereas synderesis cannot err, conscientia is fallible - Encarta

So:

• Synderesis, or deep conscience: Cannot be erased, cannot be mistaken, and is the same in every single human being. The only way to tamper with it is by self-deception - to tell yourself you really do not know what you know. It includes the knowledge of inviolable goods like friendship; of formal norms like fairness; and everyday moral rules like "Do not murder".
  
  Deep conscience is the reason a person who says they do not believe in right and wrong may shrink from murder; why even a man who murders may have pangs of remorse; and why even if the man has deadened himself to remorse shows other symptoms of deep-buried guilty knowledge.


• Conscientia, or surface conscience: J Bud gives "at least" nine ways surface conscience can be blurred or err (and asks you to compare Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis, Question 94, Articles 4 and 6):
  

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

However, even if we twist our deep conscience at the surface conscience level in the above ways it still is there to point us the right direction and convict us of wrong actions.

Conscience has a number of faces:

• In cautionary mode, it alerts us to the peril of moral wrong and generates an inhibition against committing it
• In accusatory mode, it indicts us for the wrong we have already done.

The most common way this happens is through the first fury: remorse . . .this is the least of the furies: we do not always feel remorse when we do wrong, and some people never feel it. Even if we do not feel remorse, guilty knowledge generates objective needs for confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. These other furies are the greater sisters of remorse: inflexible, inexorable, and relentless, demanding satisfaction even when mere feelings are suppressed, fade away, or never come. This leads to the most harrowing mode:

• In avenger mode, it punishes the soul that does wrong but refuses to read the indictment. How this works is easy to grasp. The normal outlet:
  1. of remorse is to flee from wrong;
  2. of confession is to admit what one has done;
  3. of atonement is to pay the debt;
  4. of reconciliation is to restore the bonds that have been broken; and
  5. of justification is to get back in the right
  
  If we do not do "feed" the furies the right way; then they will be fed in some other way - driving our lives further out of kilter. For example:
  1. we do not flee from wrong, but just from thinking about it;
  2. we compulsively confess every detail of the story but the moral;
  3. we punish ourselves again and again offering every sacrifice but the one demanded;
  4. we simulate the broken bonds of intimacy by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves; and
  5. we seek not to become just but to justify ourselves.

Our conscience therefore acts as teacher, judge, or executioner depending on the mode it operates in. It is also one witness to the character and plan of God - as said above our deep conscience is

the faculty in human beings that knows God's moral law; this faculty remained unaffected by the Fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

However, whatever one thinks the source of deep conscience is - the actions of deep conscience are clear:

"pursued by the five furies, a man becomes both wickeder and stupider in a progressively downward spiral: more wicked because his behavior becomes worse, more stupid because he tells himself more lies. Of course, he intended to become wicker and stupider - that is what obstinacy and denial are all about." -- J. Budziszewski.

J. Bud points out (as anyone who has experienced redemption by "bottoming out" will know) the persons only hope is to become even wickeder and stupider than planned - to become so wretched that they come to themselves.

Read more!

"Divine Will" or "Will of the People"? - Part II

One needn't be a theophobe to believe that government ought to be conformed to
the will of the people, not of the divine.

I examined one side of this idea in Part I - I am going to examine the other (maybe "next") part here:

What does control of the US government by the "will of the people" look like?

I am going to have to go to the idealized concept of control by the "will of the people" because certainly few in this country believe that their will controls the government; nor am I sure very many folks believe some will of "the people" in general controls government.

Indeed, the modern nation state resembles these remarks to me:

. . . important decisions in society were being made in remote, or at least highly inaccessible places like Washington and London. The growth of bureaucracies in capital cities and the remoteness of the centers of power increased the feeling of alienation from those who make truly adult decisions in society . . .

. . . once the institutions of government have outgrown the individual and the neighborhood, so that the very scale of governance no longer permits effective action for most people, then those people are more likely to take to the streets and address their grievances in destructive ways . . .

. . . [government] power is a prophylactic against violence

Assuming that in an ideal world, the modern western nation-state still has the ability to be directed by some general "will of the people" - how does that occur? The United States is not a true democracy - it is a representative republic. Also, most folks who have really thought it out really do not believe in "majority rule". The bottom line is that we expect our elected and appointed leaders - who are closer to being the actual people the government bows to the will of than us - to be ethical, moral and "do the right thing"; and that has nothing to do with the "will of the people" because we really do not care what the majority thinks if that majority opposes what we believe to be ethical, moral, and right. C.S. Lewis:

I now go back to what I said at the end of the first chapter, that there were two odd things about the human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behavior they ought to practice, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not in fact do so.

This oddity is both the basis of natural moral law, and one of the important theistic arguments.

So, I believe there is a universal moral code, and that this is a general universal revelation from God to all of humanity. Lewis again:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining 'It's not fair' . . .

I have mentioned a number of times this list of reasons why - even if our conscience tells us to "do the right thing" - our faulty moral reasoning may corrupt our moral agency:

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

This is why believers in natural moral law hold that, even though it flows from God to everyone, it must be strengthened, supported, and trained. That strength, support, and training comes from whatever ethical and moral system the person subscribes to - typically religion for 85% of the world - and it really must be pursued proactively. This includes our elected representatives.

Since I believe most ethical and moral systems on the planet are rooted in the divine nature, I do not expect those people elected to be Christians - that is a specific (not general) revelation. I do expect them to believe in Right and Wrong - and I expect them to be held to that. I also expect them to place their duty as an elected official, and as a representative of the people, higher than themselves: I expect it to be a vocation:

1. The idea of a call implies an agent outside of the one who is subject to the call.
2. The summons is often against the will of the one who is called into service.
3. the calling involves in almost every case hardships that must be overcome in order to answer the summons.
4. from the point of view of answering to the summons, the greatest danger appears not in this kind of resistance, but in the possibility of being diverted or distracted from the goal.

That vocation should have them work to analyze and improve their moral reasoning for the sake of strengthening their moral agency; and serving their constituents better by being more moral, more ethical, and doing the right thing more often.

And, in my opinion, their actions - by doing so - will be rooted in the "will of God" and not the "will of the people"; and it is exactly in the will of God (as reflected in doing Right and avoiding Wrong), and not the majority (the only logical definition of the "will of the people"), that their actions - and the actions of government - should be rooted. If - because they "do the right thing" against the will of the majority - they are removed from office by "the will of the people" then so be it.

Read more!

Conscience, the Furies and Proverbs 29:1

Sweet Georgia Peach looked at

Proverbs 29:1 A man who hardens {his} neck after much reproof Will suddenly be broken beyond remedy. (NASB)

in her diary "Broken Beyond Healing"; and asked

What is this verse telling us? What is beyond God? Also tied up in this is a concept of Christian brokenness. Do we want to be healed? Do we want to be permanently broken?

For those that do not remember, I believe in natural moral law, a subset of natural law.

I did a series of posts here and at Street Prophets on natural law. Two of those posts (at least) - "The Four Witnesses" and "The Five Furies of Conscience" - speak to the issues (and the mechanism) raised by Proverbs 29:1; XT's excellent post on Judas; and actually ties into many of the Blogathon on Forgiveness posts.

After all, if I am going to be convicted of my sin, and then repent (or not) after I realize I have done wrong, it will be my conscience that drives that repentance: people can point out my errors to me all day long but in order for me to act on that I first have to agree its wrong.

Most folks believe in conscience, I just think there are two levels

According to theologians of the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century), the conscience is divided into two parts. Synderesis (probably a misreading of suneidesis) is the faculty in human beings that knows God's moral law; this faculty remained unaffected by the Fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Conscientia is the faculty by which human beings apply the moral to concrete cases; it dictates what should or should not be done under particular circumstances. Whereas synderesis cannot err, conscientia is fallible (Encarta)

and

Deep conscience is the reason a person who says they do not believe in right and wrong may shrink from murder; why even a man who murders may have pangs of remorse; and why even if the man has deadened himself to remorse shows other symptoms of deep-buried guilty knowledge.

The ways our surface conscience can err are numerous (compare Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis, Question 94, Articles 4 and 6):

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

. . . underneath the results of this bad reasoning is still the witness of deep conscience, no matter how "twisted and falsified on its path into current awareness".

Now we get to Proverbs 29. What happens when we violate our deep conscience?

Conscience has a number of faces [teacher, judge, and executioner]:

• In cautionary [teacher] mode, it alerts us to the peril of moral wrong and generates an inhibition against committing it


• In accusatory [judge] mode, it indicts us for the wrong we have already done. The most common way this happens is through the first fury: remorse . . . this is the least of the furies: we do not always feel remorse when we do wrong, and some people never feel it. Even if we do not feel remorse, guilty knowledge

  generates objective needs for confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. These other furies are the greater sisters of remorse: inflexible, inexorable, and relentless, demanding satisfaction even when mere feelings are suppressed, fade away, or never come

This leads to the most harrowing mode:
• In avenger [executioner] mode, it punishes the soul that does wrong but refuses to read the indictment. How this works is easy to grasp. The normal outlet:
  1. of remorse is to flee from wrong;
  2. of confession is to admit what one has done;
  3. of atonement is to pay the debt;
  4. of reconciliation is to restore the bonds that have been broken; and
  5. of justification is to get back in the right
  If we do not do "feed" the furies the right way; then they will be fed in some other way - driving our lives further out of kilter. For example:
  1. we do not flee from wrong, but just from thinking about it;
  2. we compulsively confess every detail of the story but the moral;
  3. we punish ourselves again and again offering every sacrifice but the one demanded;
  4. we simulate the broken bonds of intimacy by seeking companions as guilty as ourselves; and
  5. we seek not to become just but to justify ourselves.

What happens if we continue to ignore that indictment - if we "harden our necks against the reproof" of the furies?

. . . the greater purpose of conscience as not to inform us of moral truth, but to motivate us to live by it - driving our lives out of kilter is the exhortation of last resort. Therefore, "pursued by the five furies, a man becomes both wickeder and stupider in a progressively downward spiral: more wicked because his behavior becomes worse, more stupid because he tells himself more lies."

Of course, he intended to become wicker and stupider - that is what obstinacy and denial are all about . . . the persons only hope is to become even wickeder and stupider than planned - to become so wretched that they come to themselves - or God.

In other words, they become broken and, either they then feed the furies correctly, or . . .

Read more!

γνῶσις or not γνῶσις

That is gnosis (knowledge) for you non-Greek writers (which, BTW, includes myself). I have had a few discussions with modern Gnostics - almost always not a productive affair. This post may continue that string.

There are things we cannot discuss well: Sacred texts and canonization are the main one. First, all ancient gnostic texts related to Christianity were pseudoepigraphic (signed in a name, Apostolic usually, not that of the writer) in order to give the work weight. Those I have talked to, as in this post, seem to believe that this was accepted practice in the canonical Biblical texts:

The small texts that mention the "antichrist" were written to attack the Gnostic understanding of who Christ was. A Gnostic relies on intuition and not on dogma and doctrine. Gnostic's were most certainly free spirits and most all of the writings we have about Gnostics, have been the attacks upon them. That all changed when the Nag Hamadi Library was translated and published, for what had been deemed heretical by those in power in the fourth century can now be read in most every language.

Biblical scholars today agree that many books of the Bible were written by others in the name of an apostle, for the quickest way to gain credibility is to trade on another's reputation. [my emphasis]

No, "liberal" (or "some" will work) Biblical scholars agree with this. Let me just say: a very specific test from the 1st century to the 4th century for canonization was actual apostolic authorship - known pseudoepigraphic works were rejected for that reason alone and should have been. As should, for that matter, the Gnostic works as well. Pseudoepigraphy was not an accepted practice in the early church - especially when it came to accepting scripture as inspired.

The second part of that statement I have problems with is the implication that the Gnostics were not declared heretical until the 4th century: one only has to read the second century Patristic fathers right after the appearance of the Gnostic works to know that is not true. There is no evidence that any large part of the Christian community ever accepted Gnostic writings as inspired or their philosophy as mainstream. You can find a few people, like Origen in Alexandria, where it was tolerated - and only when it was at distance from the center of the Church and those who had direct relationships with first Christ, and then the Apostles.

We will never agree on this because it is a critical part of the current Gnostics argument that Gnostic Christianity was an accepted view of Christianity crushed by the hierarchy two centuries later.

* * * * *

However, all that really isn't important. What is important is whether the theology of gnostic Christians has become more acceptable now than it was then. So we need to talk about what gnostics believe, and whether it does - or doesn't - conform to the Christian religion as practiced for the last 2000 years. Now, of course, the part of the quote above about "dogma and doctrine" comes into play: dogma and doctrine are only important if they conform to the reality of God and Christ - at least if you are going to be a Christian. Gnostics can believe what they will about Jesus Christ, as can Islam; but their attempts to co-opt Christ for their personal religious/philosophical structures are only Christian if they conform to what Christ taught and did. Do they?

The author of the above linked piece had one a couple of days earlier titled "Fundamentalism Is Holding Up Evolution" which presents a pretty good look at the Sermon on the Mount; and uses it to support the Gnostic notion of us being spiritual (good) beings wrapped in a material (bad) shell. It also presented two statements that I commented on:

Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved! This evolution has led them to the realization of what Christ was really talking about in the Sermon of the Mount AKA:The Beatitudes which sound like crazy promises, but is the litmus test of how we will be judged, if we claim to be a Christian.

and

Being true to one's self in more important than being loyal to one's family...those who think they know the most are the most ignorant...

Also, I take exception to the use of this part of Psalm 82 in the way it was used:

1 God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. 2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. 3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4 Rescue weak and needy; Deliver {them} out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 "Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like {any} one of the princes." 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations. [she quoted the bold text]

My disagreements were (first expressed in a comment there):

I think Jesus presented the "litmus test" a little simpler (and harder):

1. Love God with your all. That is nearly an impossible task for human beings.
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. That is only a little less hard than the first

Also, I do not know where in all of Jesus's teaching you find the foundation for:

#9: "Being true to one's self in more important than being loyal to one's family...those who think they know the most are the most ignorant..."

Jesus placed God at the core of your loyalities, and folks around you - your neighbors, which includes your family - as equally important to your self (if not more important). Isn't that the implication of "poor in spirit"?

For an answer, she went to the story in Matthew 12:31-32 (also Mark 3:28-29 and Luke 12:10)

24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." 25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 "If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 "But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 "Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. 33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 "The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." [she quoted the bold text]

Her explanation of "be true to yourself" was

so what I am-and JC [big yuk! from me] is saying is necessary, is NOT what you think of God the Father or the Son-but that you WAKE UP and know God is already within everyone! . . . Now, being 'true to yourself' is simply meant to become who you were created to be, to serve Gods pupose in this world, . . . To wrestle, struggle with God to discern what you were created to do in this world-and that is being true to yourself and true to God.

So, if I have her view right:

we all - every human being - were created for God's purpose and has God within themselves in the form of the Holy Spirit - Wisdom in the Gnostic view. They should be true to that god that they are (at least in potential), and evolve to higher spiritual levels, based on listening to that voice within them (properly discerned) - and be true to themselves to the extent that their self aligns to who God made them to be:

Discernment leads one to discover if one's desires are to help another or just to serve oneself. The Spirit speaks for others; the ego for itself.

That voice, that spirit, is the one called Wisdom in much of Solomon's writing - and talked about by the Gnostics by the name Sophia: Wisdom/Sophia or Christ to some resides in all of us as the Divine Spark.

She and I are actually pretty close together - and, I think, oh so far apart as well. I agree:

• that every human being is created by God imago dei (in the image of God);
• that we are all eternal spiritual beings in a temporary physical body destined to live on for eternity (we will worry about eventual bodily resurrection later on);
• that we all were created for a purpose by God, and for God's purposes;
• that we all have a core of morality that overflows from God's character. I would call that our deep conscience (synderesis) :

  According to theologians of the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century), the conscience is divided into two parts. Synderesis (probably a misreading of suneidesis) is the faculty in human beings that knows God's moral law; this faculty remained unaffected by the Fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

  I think this is a direct connection to God's character and not routed through a secondary created spiritual source - like Sophia.

That is a pretty serious set of agreements. Why do I think we are "so far apart"? I do not think that our deep conscience is the Spirit of God; or at least not in the sense mentioned by Christ above in the Matthew passage; Jesus elsewhere in scripture [see "How to be Filled with the Holy Spirit" for source of this quote]

Jesus told His disciples they would receive the Holy Spirit:

John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

John 16:7 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit’s power in their lives was essential for them to be able to live the life He intends for them

Luke 24:49 "And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."

Acts 1:8 "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

or the one that descended on believers at the Pentacost. It is obvious to me that while our deep conscience forms a general revelation to the whole human race from its Creator in Whose image it was made; the Holy Spirit on the New Testament is a higher level of indwelling, and revelation, promised - as far as scripture says - only to believers in Christ so that His presence can remain with us forever. There is no way that any of the scripture in this post up to now can be made to support the indwelling of all people by that higher source of revelation - the Holy Spirit.

Even if I was going to grant that every human being has that higher revelation within them, the author's explanation - while satisfying many of my objections - still doesn't get me to "being true to one self". My objection stands: the core test of Christianity is not the Kingdom character outlined by Christ in the beatitudes; but the Great Commandment:

Mark 12:30 “ ‘and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ “ [Deuteronomy 6:5] 31 The second is this, `You shall love your neighbor as yourself ' [Leviticus 19:18]. There is no other commandment greater than these."

All really means all, and while the author's sketch of spiritual development may be correct - it comes from focusing on God and bringing His power to transform us into our lives. We will never become so transformed that we can place our selfs, and being true to ourselves, at the center of our focus. It must be 100% God 100% of the time (an impossible feat. by the way, in my opinion); and, as a Trinitarian Christian, on the Person of Christ, in order to be filled with the Holy Spirit:

“There is no such thing as a once-for-all fullness [we leak]. It is a continuous appropriation of a continuous supply from the Lord Christ Himself. It is a moment-by-moment faith in a moment-by-moment Savior, for a moment-by-moment cleansing and a moment-by-moment filling. As I trust Him, He fills me; the moment I begin to believe, that moment I begin to receive; and as long as I keep believing, praise the Lord, so long I keep receiving.” Charles Inwood

Read more!

Another Long Answer

[Crossposted from Street Prophets]

In this thread within this diary I had these questions asked:

A friend of mine is a geophyisist...she was called a stupid heathen by a Christian, in that same arrogant, pinched mouth way. Why? Because she is not Christian. So many times Christians really think they are loving and fair...when they are judgmental and exclusive. Why?

to which I could only answer

Because they are human

to which a certain prophetic werewolf said:

Nonsense. It's because many of them DO feel superior, as opposed to humble, grateful, non-judgemental and LOVING - yah know, like Jesus tells us to be!

My comment which has become my post is:

Again, that is because they are human and what Jesus "told us to be" is contrary to our basic human nature - you know, those things Paul mentioned that we all do:

God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful

He wasnt talking about "some" people here: the language was socio-historical. He was talking about all people here: he was talking about our sin nature - our "human" nature as opposed to what we actually know is right: our deep conscience which I think is God's voice inside us to counter this crap.

So, we end up with a serious internal tension, as Paul did:

For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?

The Four Witnesses looked at the ways we know the "law of God in the inner man" or our Synderesis, or deep conscience. Also, it talked about the ways our Conscientia, or surface conscience, can be corrupted to ignore, or miss, what our deep conscience (God) is telling us:

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

We all do this stuff when it suits us on issues it suits us to do this on: you included brother. Which is why Paul said

Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

and Jesus said this:

You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

This really leaves us no room for hatred, or a "root of bitterness" against our enemy and those who hate.

This also brings us back in a loop to C.S. Lewis's discussion in "Forgiveness" on what it means to "love our neighbor (or enemy) as ourselves": specificially looking at how we love ourselves - and our willingness to love ourselves while hating our own sin.

I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues . . . I believe there is one even more unpopular . . . 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.' Because in Christian morals 'thy neighbour' includes 'thy enemy,' and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies . . . And there, right in the middle of it, I find 'Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us' . . . What are we to do? . . . I think there are two things we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin with the calculus; you begin with simple addition . . . One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest N.C.O., for something they have done or said in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment. And secondly, we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?

Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbour' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my, enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.

For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life - namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.

Ultimately, who really cares why people hate: we are to be "salt and light" in a flavorless decaying and dark world.

[Note: someone called me on 'flavorless' - correctly. I think "salt" is used as a preservative in the Bible and not a spice]

Read more!

Natural Law: The Four Witnesses

[Number five in a series]

This continues to look at the concept of natural law - primarily tied to ideas presented in What We Can't Not Know, by J. Budziszewski (J Bud from here out).

J Bud lists four "witnesses" (he says "at least" so there may be more) that tell us of the content of natural law, or as C.S. Lewis called it in Mere Christianity: the law of human nature or decent behavior. Very little of what follows, quoted or not, isn't a direct quote or paraphrase from J. Bud's book. I will try to make it clear when I depart from that - so that I do not put my words (or someone else's) in J. Bud's mouth.

----------

"Classical education taught its pupils that there was some real moral knowledge in the universal common sense of plain people; the task was not to get free of it but to refine it. By contrast, modern education teaches its pupils to distance themselves from this common moral sense, to call it not knowledge, but "belief". A person of modern education wants to know how we know before deciding what we know; he demands a critique of the faculty of knowing before conceding he knows anything at all.

This suspicion is partly reasonable and partly unreasonable. The reasonable part is that, up to a point, we can certainly investigate how we know things. The unreasonable part is that in order to do so, we have to know something already - otherwise we have no equipment for the investigation. There must be some first principles that are not derived from other principles, some first knowledge that comes to us without prior investigation. It isn't because we are taught ethics that we know we have duties to other people; and if we didn't already know it, we couldn't be taught ethics."

He goes on to point out that this "underived" knowledge is not all of natural law; and it is the most fundamental part - and the most disturbing. It is disturbing because, since it is underived, "the investigation of how we know is mostly descriptive". We just know, and the mechanism for that cannot be defined.

What are the four witnesses?

The Witness of Deep Conscience

According to theologians of the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century), the conscience is divided into two parts. Synderesis (probably a misreading of suneidesis) is the faculty in human beings that knows God's moral law; this faculty remained unaffected by the Fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Conscientia is the faculty by which human beings apply the moral to concrete cases; it dictates what should or should not be done under particular circumstances. Whereas synderesis cannot err, conscientia is fallible (Encarta)

Synderesis, or deep conscience: Cannot be erased, cannot be mistaken, and is the same in every single human being. The only way to tamper with it is by self-deception - to tell yourself you really do not know what you know. It includes the knowledge of inviolable goods like friendship; of formal norms like fairness; and everyday moral rules like "Do not murder".

Deep conscience is the reason a person who says they do not believe in right and wrong may shrink from murder; why even a man who murders may have pangs of remorse; and why even if the man has deadened himself to remorse shows other symptoms of deep-buried guilty knowledge.

Conscientia, or surface conscience: J Bud gives "at least" nine ways surface conscience can be blurred or err (and asks you to compare Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis, Question 94, Articles 4 and 6):

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

J Bud points that underneath the results of this bad reasoning is still the witness of deep conscience, no matter how "twisted and falsified on its path into current awareness". In a later part of this series, I will look at deep and surface conscience, and the implications of violating them.

The Witness of Design as Such

If, as Richard Dawkins wrote:

"We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Preface to "The Selfish Gene")

then why should we listen to the "witness" of our conscience at all? If our genes are blindly programmed, then our conscience may be part of the program - a means for our genes to direct us by remote control. In that case, a wise man may try to find a way to turn off the remote. Dawkins thinks so:

"Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something no other species has ever aspired to do" ("The Selfish Gene")

J. Bud:

"Unless deep conscience is designed to tell us the truth, there is no particular reason why it should. And so a pre-supposition of regarding deep conscience as a witness - as we all, deep down, know it is - is that it has been designed to tell us the truth by someone wise enough to do so"

As J Bud points out "He has set eternity in the hearts of men" - He has designed us to long for Him, reverence Him, and adore Him. The best evidence for the sensus divinitatus is that we were designed to have it. J Bud states that this recognition of design does three things for our moral knowledge:

1. It vindicates deep conscience: if Synderesis has been designed by God as a witness to moral truth; then we can trust it to be reliable;
2. It confirms we have duties not only to neighbor but to God Himself, to whom we owe the possibility of the experience of anything good;
3. It informs us that just as our deep conscience is designed, so are we.

The Witness of Our Own Design

J Bud points out four ways that our moral design shows itself not individually, but at the level of the species.

First, interdependence. We are not hive creatures, but we are not self-sufficient either. It shows in a number of ways. We depend on each other:

1. Physically
2. Intellectually
3. Developmentally
4. Procreatively
5. For identity
6. Morally
7. Politically including public justice

Second, complementarity. Not only do we depend on each other, we depend on each other in a particular way. One illustration is in the natural diversity of our bents and abilities, which is the basis of our division of labor. J Bud posits this not like two fingers working together, but like the fingers opposing the thumb in order to grasp. Our differences are precisely what allows us to work together. J. Bud of course mentions men and women in this area.

Third, spontaneous order. Humans, if left to themselves, quickly form a rich array of associations such as family (this is the central and foundational structure), neighborhoods, villages, businesses, vocational groups, religious societies, and schools. Edmund Burke wrote:

"to be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind. The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own advantage" ( Reflections on the French Revolution )

Fourth, subsidiarity. Since Aristotle two principles have been seen:

1. connaturality: culture should develop in partnership with our design filling the outline our first nature provides; and
2. diminishing spontaneity: as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.

These two features imply the risk that though the higher rungs ought to protect and co-operate with the more spontaneous lower rungs - the higher rung's lesser spontaneity means they may not.

This implies a rule, subsidiarity, which was a natural assumption but not put into words until 1931 by Pope Pius XI:

"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." ( "On Reconstruction of the Social Order" )

As Pius said, what brought this to the forefront was the industrial revolution, and the danger that between the collectivists on one side, and the individualists on the other, all the "little platoons" between the state and the individual would be destroyed and/or absorbed.

The Witness of Natural Consequences

One penalty of breaking natural moral law is guilty knowledge. There are other consequences:

• those that give offense to others are hated;
• those that live by the knife die by them;
• those that betray all of their friends have none left;
• those that abandon their children have none to stroke their brows when they are old;
• those that travel from bed to bed lose the capacity for trust;
• those that torture their consciences are tortured by them in return;
• those that suppress moral knowledge become stupider than they intended

J. Bud notes some curious things (which apply to civil law as well as natural law):

• The consequence is not the reason the act is wrong; it only declares its wrong and disciplines us for committing it. In the United States, there is a penalty for driving on the left because it is a hazard to the public good.
• The declaration of what is wrong not only announces what is needed for the common good; but partly "determines" it. Driving on the left didn't have to be wrong - we could be in England.
• The system of penalties is not perfectly efficient; up to a certain degree of corruption in the will of the person subject to the law the penalty discourages violation, but beyond that point it actually provides a motive to go further. The person driving on the left may exceed the speed limit and careen around corners - a greater offense - to avoid capture for the lesser offense.

Next: "Natural Law: The Five Furies of Conscience"

Read more!