We Can't Build a More Perfect Union... or World: Getting back to Rendering Unto Caesar

Recently I made a comment to several military officers that we should not build our doctrine around the perfect scenario- we should write our doctrine reflecting the current reality or, better yet- the worse-case scenario. Specifically we were talking about how we seem to be operating more and more in cases wherein our strategy is unclear and our objectives are ambiguous. Even more upsetting is the lack of support and/or understanding for what we are doing from our populace. Instead of assuming we will get unambiguous guidance and a strategy that is clear and supported by our people, let's figure out, I argued, how we should act when we don't have those things. If we get those positive things- then our effort should be easier. In fact, we often train that way at the tactical level- the thought being that if you train for the worse, then if things are not as bad- then we should be fine.

Why don't we do the same for religion? Many religious folk talk a lot about how we need to make the Earth better and we need to work for peace. There are even many who insert their religion into their politics- I heard one lady on the radio say that the reason a bus monitor was abused by kids was that prayer had been taken out of school. Do we really want our nation to be guided by our faith? What about "rendering to Caesar"? If power corrupts, I'd think the last thing we would want is for our religion to hold political influence. Politics is all about compromise- but religion doesn't seem to be conducive to much compromise.

I think establishing a more perfect Earth and working to get our country to support our faith is similar to the military wishing for the perfect environment with which to carry out operations. I submit that no matter how much we fight to get prayer back in schools, abortion banned, and the ten commandments in courtrooms, the U.S.- and the Earth for that matter- will still have the same issues we have today. Why? Because of human nature. Humans seeking power (all of us) will twist whatever "works" to their own ends- whether it be religion or secularism. If an interest group can take a position of advantage- through either the victim mantle, a righteous position, or simple majority rule- then they will use it to their ends and their ends will eventually become corrupted through their ways and means. Religion is no different and, as we have seen over and over again, religious leaders are just as bad as secular ones.

Instead, I would not advocate inserting religion into politics. Practically speaking, there may be a time or a place where Christians are not the majority- and then what? But, philosophically, I think Christianity is at its best when it is the minority. When it is oppressed. Laughed-at. Even persecuted. Christianity starts turning very peculiar when it is the governing authority in an area. It was a religion that started during trying times- people actually faced much more hunger than they did obesity, subsistence living was the experience of most, and most religious folk faced some kind of persecution of one kind or another- to include death. Today the worst thing that can happen to most Christians in the U.S. is not getting to the restaurant on Sunday for lunch quicker than the church down the street.

I would also encourage us to "prepare for the worst" instead of trying to make things better. Because that assumes we can make things better. And I don't really see where God gave us the mission to make the Earth a perfect place. He wanted us to treat each other better, but I don't think that included setting up a theocracy- or even a republic that was conducive to religion. Instead of assuming we can have it perfect one day- let's assume that no matter what we do, the Earth will remain a place full of faults. That way we can turn our efforts towards that reality- instead of praying for things we should know will not take place. For instance, instead of praying for a certain politician to win, maybe pray for both sides to conduct themselves respectfully. Instead of praying for a person to recover from a disease, maybe pray for everyone who loves that person to be comforted. Things in life will continue to be bad- we cannot build a Tower of Babel on this Earth. Let's accept that and move on to the real business Jesus talked about: spiritual growth and development.

What does the Bible say about the "soul"?

I had read something interesting the other day- basically saying that Jesus never did talk about the soul or something spiritual surviving after our body died. This interesting article: http://www.ucg.org/death/what-does-bible-say-about-immortal-soul/ left me thinking that even though Jesus might not have said much about an immortal individual soul, that obviously He had changed what the traditional Hebrew thoughts had been about death. What that article goes on to talk about is the influence of Greek thought- specifically an immortal soul- on early Christian thinking.

Is it possible that we Westerners are looking at the Bible- and have for centuries- from a Greek philosophical perspective? Is anything wrong with that? As one friend of mine said- "maybe that was part of God's plan..." Yes- that's true, but maybe it was part of God's plan that the early Church fathers would get it wrong and we, with the advantage of the Internet, are supposed to ignore traditions that are wrong and figure out what Jesus really meant...

As I responded to my friend, "maybe God's plan was for there not to be a plan..."

But, it is interesting, at least to me, to imagine for a second if the first books of the New Testament had been written in an Eastern language instead of in Greek (or translated first into Greek). If we would have gotten an Eastern slant to Jesus' teachings. Would our understanding of "the soul" have been different? And does it really matter?

I argue that it might matter. That our understanding of an individual soul that leaves its body and lives on as an immortal entity may be based on a pre-Christian notion of Plato's and not based on what Jesus really meant. Is it so uncomfortable to think that Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and Origen got it wrong- and that our traditions around all-important entities such as "the soul" have led us to an improper and lazy understanding of the afterlife?

What if, instead of an immortal "soul" that inhabits each one of us, there isn't anything at all? What if there is a soul- but it isn't an individual soul, belonging only to us? What does the Bible- and, more interestingly perhaps, the Gospels- Jesus himself- say about the Afterlife, the soul, and immortality? In the next few posts we'll delve into what scripture says, how Greek thought influenced our understanding of scripture, and some possible other ways- and their implications- of thinking about our spiritual existence, place in the universe, and the Afterlife.

Loving God through Dialectic Thinking (You're not supposed to love God with all your mind?)

The problems with translation:

I've often heard it that those who wrote the Bible were inspired and guided by God. And those who translated the Bible were too. And even when you read it you are inspired to get the right message.  Really? So, if I read a verse in the emptiness of my room- I am guaranteed to know exactly- or even pretty closely-what I'm supposed to from that verse? Or what God really meant or Jesus said? I'm not so sure.

For example, our study group looked at "the greatest commandment"- Matthew 22:37. I figured if we should delve into the true meaning of anything- it would be the greatest commandment. The greatest commandment usually reads something like this in English: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind." Seems pretty simple to me- although I'm a little fuzzy on what the heart and soul are. If anything, the mind is the most clear of all of those words.

But let's look at the Greek for that verse- arguably what Matthew was written in (some will hold it was written in Aramaic, but others argue Greek. Regardless, the oldest version we have is Greek and the Latin, German, and English versions came from the Greek).

o de ephē autō agapēseis kurion ton theon sou en olē tē kardia sou kai en olē tē psuchē sou kai en olē tē dianoia sou

Most of the words don't offer too much trouble as far as linking them to the English translation. But, the bold words are worthy of a closer look. First, agapeseis- familiar to most Christians as "agape love". Greek, it turns out, has four words- that I know of- for the English catch-all word: "love". Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storge. In this case, agape was what was used- love the Lord with Agape love. It is defined as a deeper love than the attraction suggested by "eros" and a more sacrificial love than that associated with Philia. Without the Greek translation, Christians would not be familiar with the term "agape"- and its special meaning.

"Kurion" means "Lord." "Kardia" is "heart"- and was meant to depict one's character. "Psuche", or psyche- "soul" was associated with the breath of life, what makes us human- as opposed to an animal. And now we come to "Dianoia".

Dianoia, it turns out, does not mean "mind." Instead, this term was associated with Plato and discursive thinking. Discursive was thinking that came from reason and not one's intuition. Further, reasoning, by the Greeks, was thought of as very difficult- if not impossible- for most humans to engage in... alone. The Greeks overcame this by engaging in dialectic thinking.

The Dialectic is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that relies on two or more open-minded individuals presenting conclusions based on logic to each other and all arriving at a different and higher level of understanding about the particular subject. Note the difference between this method and debating- wherein someone "wins." In the dialectic, everyone is assumed to be wrong, and yet through the sharing of different ways with which to think about a subject- all are changed.

If this is really what Jesus said, then the commandment- remember, the greatest one- the one that all other laws hinge upon- might read more like this:

"Have a sacrificial love for God with your character, your individuality, and through discursive and dialectic  thinking."

My conclusion to this is that there may be other areas- areas that are important to our understanding of the Bible and God- that we may benefit greatly from reading the original language it was written in.

Now, some may argue that loving God with one's "mind" may encompass both individual study and dialectic- and even other types- of thinking and that may be true. But if the real command was to engage in reason- and you buy into the Greek concept of reason- that on one's own reason is very difficult- if not impossible- then I'm not sure how one can arrive at any other conclusion but that in order to love God, one must engage others in discourse with an open mind.

Now, I'm not saying that one shouldn't read the Bible alone or think about God alone- but I am saying it is possible that that would not be following that specific part of the commandment. It might be that reading the Bible alone fulfills loving God with one's individuality. But loving God with one's dialectic thinking implies more than one person. It also implies an open mind. Even more- it implies using one's mind.

I've heard a lot of people discount using one's senses, reason, and intellect. It is- I think- true that to God we are pretty ignorant. And it should be true in my opinion that we can't possibly be comfortable with any conclusions drawn from our relatively small amount of sensory capabilities. But, I would argue that is why the dialectic is so important. Harnessing the ability of others to further one's own understanding- and contributing to others' understanding: that may be the best we humans can do to overcoming our limitations.

If this is true, then maybe God was attempting to help us by specifically steering us towards the dialectic. It's something worth thinking about...