RLS 126/0001--The Development of Christian Thought--Textbook Draft (Spring 2012)

Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page

This page contains the material that was covered up to the date of the most recent posting (see RLS 126/0001 Main Page for that date). The "Next Quiz" link brings you to the beginning of the material for which you will be responsible at the next quiz; the "Most Recent Posting" link brings you to the beginning of the material posted with the most recent update. The "Final Exam Material" link, to be activated after the midterm exam, brings you to the beginning of the material for which you will be responsible at the final exam. The dates on the right indicate when the material following them was covered.

[Footnote text is inserted immediately after the paragraph containing the footnote reference.]

Beginning of midterm exam material:

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 1/23/12 (Class # 1)

PART ONE: A shake-up, how and why RLS 126 differs from Sunday School, and the Fox Principle

The Shake-up Attempt, Two Types of Faith, and the Extravagant Claim of Christianity

I.    A power ball ticket and news from your physician

"If only such-and-such would happen, I'd have made it." You may have heard people say this; you may even have said or thought it yourself.

What is "such-and-such"? And what does it mean to "have made it"?

Some time ago, PowerBall fever was sweeping the nation again. The grand price was a little over $260,000,000. People liked to speculate how their lives would change if they'd beat the odds (then, they were 1 in 121,000,000, I'm told) and win: Surely, by the standards prevalent in our society, walking away with that loot is "making it," if anything is.

What would you do with that kind of money? Wouldn't all your worries be over?

Well, think about it: You're watching the big drawing on TV, and your number comes up. A short while later, it is reported that only one winning ticket had been sold; so you won't even have to split the jackpot with anyone else. It's all yours! All kinds of plans race to your head.

The next morning, you decide to claim your new wealth right away. Of course you skip classes; you also call your cantankerous boss and tell him "good bye" for good. You remember an appointment with your physician—she wanted to go over some test results from your last routine physical. You call her office to reschedule the appointment, adding snippily, "And I don’t care if you make me pay for not giving you twenty-four hours’ notice." Very much to your surprise, though, the receptionist puts the physician herself on the line, who says, in a concerned tone of voice, "If you can come in at all today, please do. It's important." You decide to go. And you find out that you are suffering from a rare, untreatable form of cancer, that it is terminal, unusually aggressive, and that at the most, you will still live for half a year. You also find out that she wanted you to see her today because if you want at lest to reduce the physical suffering during the final two to three weeks of your life, you need to begin immediately a regimen of medications.

What will the relative importance of, "I won the $260,000,000 jackpot," be now in the sum-total of your life?

II.    Reorienting priorities and remarks on the first of the only two things reputed to be certain in life

Most people do not have the winning power ball ticket in their pocket when they hear devastating news like you did in my story; but it shows especially dramatically that such information tends to reorient our priorities, causing many of the goals we considered as the most important ones to appear as entirely insignificant. In your life, are there any goals you're aiming at right now that would "survive" such news? Are there any goals that "deserve" surviving such news?

What are they?               

And besides, what is the difference between you in my story, and all of us in this room? Remember the cliché according to which only two things are certain. I am speaking about the one that's usually mentioned first. Aren't we all under a death sentence? Apart from most of us not having the "winning ticket" in our pockets, isn't the chief difference between "you" as the character in my story and most people that in all likeliness, most of us do have significantly more time at our disposal than only about half a year, and that most of us do not know yet the condition that will be responsible for our demise?

III.    "Stop being morbid"--Is it, "Eat, drink, and be merry (for tomorrow, you may be gone)"?

Maybe you say, "Stop being morbid. It's not cool. Especially we young people do have the fortunate ability of blocking the thought of our mortality out of our minds (this may, of course, be one of the capacities deteriorating when one becomes an old fogey), and enjoying ourselves tremendously in spite of the lack of permanence of human existence."

Well, are you telling me that the point of life is, "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, you may be gone?" Maybe I should not even dwell too much on the "tomorrow" part of that saying, since it might interfere with your merriment?

1.    Being merry--pleasure and happiness?

"Eat, drink and be merry—enjoy yourself"? Is that it?

What does it mean to be merry? Are you speaking about pleasure? Happiness? Both? If both, what's the right combination? Are pleasure and happiness possibly the same anyway? But aren't there people experiencing intensive pleasure while simultaneously being terribly unhappy? Aren't we often using pleasure, possibly even of the very harmful sort, to escape from the emptiness of our lives?

2.    Happiness in the face of mortality-awareness

What, then, IS happiness? What are the things that can make us truly happy? Is it possible for someone to be truly happy while being conscious with total clarity that he or she is doomed to die, and that every one of the persons he or she loves is under the same death sentence? In order to be happy, don't we have to use our "fortunate" (as it was called before) ability to "shove" the thought of our mortality into the background of our consciousness (even though we cannot completely forget that we will have to die)?

3.    "Being gone"—what does that mean?

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may be gone." Forgive me for mentioning "you may be gone" once more. What does it mean "to be gone"? What is the transition from the "here" to the "being gone"? In simple terms, what does it mean to die? Does it mean that one's personality is being extinguished like the candles on one's birthday cake? Or will my personality continue to exist after what we call death? If yes, where? How? Is there, in addition to the earthly existence which we know all-too-well, a future state which we do not know from experience—at least not yet?

4.    If there is a future state, how—if at all—is it related to the "here and now"?

And what if there is a connection between our earthly life and that possible future state? What if the way I live my earthly life determines how my future state will be? Would that not have tremendous impact on what the point of human existence is? What if pursuing many of the goals which count for much among humans (such as becoming famous and being able to enjoy one's wealth to the fullest) have not only no positive impact on my future state, but cause me to be miserable there? How am I to lead my life such as to be happy in my future state—if there is such a state at all, and if its nature does have any connection at all with how I live in the here-and-now?

5.    What—if anything—is the point of human existence? Might I be "blowing it" (my life, that is) right now?

The previous question is related to the following: "What--if anything--is the purpose of human existence?"

Do you know?

Maybe human existence is without a purpose anyway. If so, there would be no point in pondering the question.

Suppose, tough, human existence does have a purpose, and you do not know what it is. How likely is that that you will fulfill that purpose by chance? Maybe more than unlikely.

Perhaps you've wasted a lot of money at one time. Your situation may only be the proverbial "peanuts" compared to that of the person who has to say at the end of his or her life, "I really have blown it. I have wasted my life."

But if human existence does have a purpose, and you do not even know what it is, aren't you in danger of becoming that person?

6.    Who has answers to these questions? Philosophy? Religion?

Who has the answers to these questions?

Well, if you're a philosophy major, you probably know that some philosophers claim to have them.

The trouble is, though, that for the common man or woman, answers belonging to the field of philosophy are kind of hard to understand ("common man or woman" is meant to include me, by the way—I'd appreciate it if you'd not tell my dean that I do have a hard time understanding philosophers; teaching philosophy is my "day job," after all).

Who else does claim to have answers? Why, the various religions, of course. And compared to philosophers, the answers falling into the field of religion are, for the most part at least, easier to understand. What could possibly give us any assurance, though, that they are true? They may set one's mind at ease; but what if they are nothing but wishful thinking?

7.    An unsettling experience for some people with a religious upbringing

If you grew up in a religious household, you may remember the following unsettling experience: One of your friends may have belonged to a religious denomination different from yours, and this may have made you unsure about your own. And even more extreme, another friend may have told you, "My dad says that there is no God, and that folks who keep on believing in a higher being are like people who keep on believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny."

This forced you to ask yourself, "How do I know that what my parents say I should believe is right?" Take the answer a particular religion gives to the question, "What is the point of human existence?" How do you know that the answer is true?

8.    A difference between philosophy and religion: support by reason (= one's own thinking) vs. appealing to faith

If you ask a philosopher the question just formulated, he or she will at least present reasons supporting his/her answers (even if in all likeliness, you'll get lost trying to follow them); in contrast, while the answers of religion might seem to be easier to understand, is there any support offered for them? Isn't the bottom line, "You must believe—you must have faith"?

A person supporting a view by reason (your mathematics teacher is an example) attempts to help you understand through your own observation or insight that the view is true; in the final analysis, there is no need to trust someone else's word. Someone appealing to faith wants you to accept a view on the basis of the word of other persons.

IV.   Trusting other persons' word (= faith) as indispensable--two types of faith

Should not everything be accepted on the basis of reason? Why on earth should anyone go along with a view just because of someone else's say-so?

Prior to simply dismissing faith--that is, accepting something on the basis of another's say-so--consider the following examples:

1.    Trusting other persons' word (= faith) is necessary and not always uncritical

All of you have at times taken medication. What was your conviction based on that the pills in the container actually were what the physician prescribed? Was it not the word of the pharmacist? I doubt that you took the pills to a laboratory to test their chemical composition.

Moreover, what was your conviction based on that the pills actually would help your condition? Was it not the word of the physician, and nothing else? Even if you got a second opinion, you would have continued relying on someone else's word; the only difference would have been that now, it would have been the word of two persons rather than only one.

What is your conviction based on that my office is in Chafee 179? If you have never visited me there, is it not my word? Maybe your friend saw me in my office and confirmed what I told you; but that would then be like the "second opinion" in the previous example.

These examples should serve to illustrate just how indispensable faith--that is, accepting a view such that one trusts someone else's word--is in our day-to-day life.

Faith also comprises a significant part of our convictions: Most of what the average student (and professor) claims to know in physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geography is based on confidently accepting as true other peoples' words (in textbooks, papers in professional journals, and the words teachers utter during their classes).

The examples should also help you understand that accepting something on faith (that is, to repeat again, accepting something on the basis of one's confidence that one is told the truth) is not always uncritical. It may, of course be uncritical, which brings us to two different types of faith, each on of them to be illustrated by an example:

2.    Two different types of faith

a.    Mr. Prendergast: Faith based on credibility considerations

On my daily walk around the block, I am approaching the house of Mr. Prendergast, a widower. His only son is missing in action in Iraq; he has not been heard from in almost a year. As I am walking towards Mr. Prendergast's house, I see him—an elderly gentleman—jumping around in his front yard!! "What's wrong with him?" I ask myself—but in a moment, I find out that nothing is wrong with him. As soon as he sees me, he runs up to me, hugs me, and says, "About an hour ago, I got a call from a good friend who works at the Pentagon. He said, 'I am not supposed to tell you this—but they found your son! He is alive and well, and even as we speak, he is on a truck transporting him out of the neighborhood in Baghdad in which they found him. Actually, come to think of it, at this time, he might already be on a plane that will bring him back to the United States.' Five minutes after I had hung up the phone, it rang again, and the person on the line identified himself as a Pentagon official. He repeated what I had just heard, and told me that my son would call me after having arrived in the United States and having been debriefed in Washington."

What was the basis of Mr. Prendergast's conviction that he would soon see his son? He had not spoken to his son; he had not seen him yet; is his conviction not based on the word of other persons? Does he not believe others that he will see his son soon? Does he not accept it on the basis of faith that what he has been told is actually the case?

True, but surely, we can say, "Even though his conviction is based on faith rather than on his own examination or observation, he has good grounds for accepting it: First, two people gave him the same bit of information, apparently independently of one another; second, one of them is a trusted friend who has told him the truth often in the past and who has never lied to him."

The Mr. Prendergast example illustrates a first type of faith: Faith based on considerations supporting the credibility of the person or persons whose word one accepts. Obviously, this kind of faith is not uncritical.

b.    Mr. Smith: Blind faith

As a contrast, here is a second example: After having spoken to Mr. Prendergast, I continue my walk, and I come by Mr. Smith's house, who runs up to me, also jumping for joy, and screaming at the top of his lungs, "I am going to be so rich—I am going to be so rich! You will not even believe how rich I am going to be!!" He looks at his watch, and continues, "Actually, for all I might know, I may be rich already—the funds may have been transferred by now." "What happened?" I ask. He tells me that earlier that day, he had gotten a telephone call from "that polite and friendly" man who had told him that he had won the big, huge jackpot in a number's game he had not even remembered having entered, and that 500 million dollars—the after-tax winnings—were supposed to be deposited into his account. He continued, "The man who told me was so nice." "What did you tell him?" I asked, a bit concerned. "Oh, he needed all kinds of information—my social security number, the numbers on all my credit and debit cards, and, of course, the name of the bank at which I do have my checking account, and the account number—especially that latter makes sense, does it not, for how is he to know where to deposit the funds?" And he exclaimed, "I am so happy—I am so happy! I am going to be rich!"

Well, what is his conviction that he is going to be rich based on? He had not seen the money yet—there was only the telephone call. Like in the case of Mr. Prendergast, his conviction is based on someone else's word. But the difference between his and Mr. Prendergast's case is obvious; in Mr. Smith's case, there are no considerations in support of the credibility of the person who called him.

The Mr. Smith example illustrates the second type of faith: blind faith. Calling it uncritical is an understatement.

3.    Summary--the "big question"

Thus, we must distinguish blind faith from faith based on credibility considerations. Both have in common that a view is accepted on the basis of confidence that one is being told the truth; the first is uncritical and to be avoided; the second is not uncritical.

The "big question" is, of course, "How is it with faith in Christianity? Is it blind faith, or is it the type of faith based on considerations making someone else's word (chiefly the word of the authors of the Bible) credible?"

Prior to returning to that question (and giving what some of you might consider a non-answer), let me turn to what one might call the "extravagant claim" of Christianity.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 1/25/12 (Class # 2)

V.    The "extravagant" claim of Christianity

1.    A piece of land (embellishing an old story)

After your graduation, you get a fairly good job. You're not "swimming in money," but you're what is called "well-off." So you're thinking of building something as close to your dream house as you'll will be able to afford. You start with looking at some lots for sale. One—four acres—you like in particular, for the view from it is nothing short of spectacular. Naturally, the price is on the steep side; even not taking into consideration the expense for the structure to be built on it, it would get you "into the hole" more than you think you can afford. You almost have made up your mind against buying it; but you decide to inspect it one last time, and ask the owner whether he has any objection. "Of course not," he replies. As you are walking across it--by yourself, you're once again taken in by the breathtaking beauty of the splendid view and your resolve against buying it weakens. But then you think, "I might be in debt for the rest of my life, and I do not want that." Now, you notice, behind a grove of trees and almost totally hidden by shrubbery, an entrance to what seems to be a cave. Spelunking had been one of your passions in college; consequently, imagining to own a piece of property with your very own cave on it is an additional strong temptation to buy the lot. You fetch a flashlight from your car and investigate. Initially, your foray underground disappoints you, for the entrance does not lead to a cave, but only to a cellar-like room. There are strange containers, though, and as you examine what's in them, you see ancient manuscripts—lots of them! You know enough archaeology to recognize immediately that each and every single one of these bundles of parchment is absolutely priceless; but there are hundreds, if not thousands, lying around, most of them in excellent condition. It's like another collection of "Dead Sea scrolls." Winning the PowerBall jackpot from my earlier story is like nothing compared to owning the content of the underground room right in the middle of the piece of property you're thinking about buying.

Well, finding that ancient library has decided the matter for you. In fact, on your way to the owner's house, you begin to be afraid that somehow, he might find a legal way to claim ownership of the precious manuscripts if later, it becomes known that they are stored on the land without him having know about it. Thus, after you told him that you're planning to purchase the lot for the price he's asking, you say, "But let's clear up one more thing. Are you sure that everything that's currently on the land will be mine if I buy it?" "Of course," he replies. "But what," you continue, "what if I find something on the property that's of particularly high value? Will it also belong to me?" He asks with a laugh, "Such as a stash of gold coins?" You insist, "What if there is such a stash?" "Don't get your hopes up," he says. "But of course, if there's one on the land, it will be yours." Suddenly, his face assumed a particularly shrewd expression—you're already afraid that he's catching on and regret having possibly said too much—and continues, "But if it calms you down, for an extra five grand, I'd be willing to write the following provision into our sales agreement: 'The seller agrees explicitly that all items of unusual value that may be found on the property, such as stashes of gold or silver coins, heaps of diamonds, or any other collection of treasures, shall belong to the buyer upon payment of the agreed-upon sales price.' How about it?" Very much to the seller's surprise and amusement, you agree, and the sale is finalized.

2.    "The best that could possibly happen to you"?

What I've told you is, of course, nothing but an embellishment of a parable used by the carpenter of Nazareth, the purported founder of the religion the development of which we are to examine in this course: "The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field, which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field" (Mt 13.44). The story can be used to illustrate the following claim he makes about acceptance of his teachings:

Just as buying the land with the priceless manuscripts on it is the best that can happen to you from the perspective of personal wealth and financial well-being, so is wholeheartedly buying into Christianity the best that can happen to you. The best, period; without qualifications. The good—great as it may be—that is to be derived from buying that land must be qualified, and the question remains open whether in the final analysis, it is truly in your best interest. The good achieved from an acceptance of Christianity does not have to be qualified, and there is no question that even in the final analysis, it will be in your best interest—the very best for you; or so the story goes.

3.    Is the "point" of the embellished story true?

The question is, of course, whether the point of that story is true. Is accepting and living by the teachings of Christianity really the very best that can happen in your life? Yes or no?

Well, this question is off-limit in this course.

Why?

In part because of restrictions the United States government imposes on religion courses taught at secular schools in this country, like URI; in part for other reasons to be taken up after the government restrictions will have been explained.

This brings us to the question, "How and why is RLS 126 different from Sunday School?"

RLS 126 and Sunday School

I.    A favorite method your Sunday school teacher used to support views is out of bounds in RLS 126

When you questioned what your Sunday School teacher told you, he or she might have said, "Well, let's look it up in the Bible." Then, he or she might have read a part of the Good Book, and if it agreed with what he had said, that settled the matter.

This method of support presumes that the Bible is truthful and can, therefore, be used to support views: "Such-and-such is true because it corresponds to what the Bible teaches." Some Christians, such as Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, add, " . . . and because it corresponds to the traditional teaching of our Church."

This favorite Sunday School method of arguing in support of a view is out of bounds in all courses taught at secular United States universities, including URI. Thus, the use of this method is not permitted in RLS 126.

Why not?

The prohibition is based on the peculiar relationship between religion and government as it currently exists in the United States: In this country, it is against the law for me as part of teaching this class to defend a view through arguments assuming the truthfulness of the Bible or of the teachings of a Christian denomination. I will call this method of defense of a view "using purely religious arguments." Using purely religious arguments is out of bounds in this course.

What is this prohibition based on? The short answer is, "On the U. S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Religion Clauses of the Bill of Rights."

II.    What is the source of the prohibition against using purely religious arguments in this course?

1.    Background

In the United States, the fundamental law of the land is the United States Constitution, drawn up in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention. The Constitution was ratified and became effective in 1788. In 1791, the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, became effective. ("Amendment" means here "change, addition, and/or deletion." By now, there are 27 amendments to the US Constitution. The most recent one became effective in 1992.¹)

2.    The "politically correct" but factually incorrect answer

Back to the question, "Where does the prohibition against defending religion at places like URI come from?"

The answer you can hear in the media, from many college teachers, and from other sources is, "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates a separation between church and state. The University of Rhode Island is a state school; consequently, it is not allowed to defend religion."

Although this answer is "politically correct" and widely accepted, it is nevertheless contrary to fact. This is to be shown next.

3.    A "politically incorrect" but factually correct reply: An Austrian's "take" on the logic of the U.S. Constitution

a.    The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states about religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [Important: The word "respecting" as used in this Amendment means "concerning," "regarding," or "having to do with"; by "establishment of religion," the Amendment does not refer to what we call "religious establishment" today (like a church building); rather, the phrase means "giving legal preference to religion." Reworded in more contemporary English, the Amendment states about religion, "Congress (= the federal legislature) shall make no law having to do with giving legal preference to a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."] These clauses (= provision) are called the "Establishment Clause" and the "Free Exercise Clause"; jointly, they are known as the "Religion Clauses."

b.    Three often-neglected important points about the First Amendment's Religion Clauses

The "politically correct" answer summarized earlier (the one using the "separation between church and state" language) neglects three important points concerning the First Amendment's Religion Clauses:

First, these clauses address only the legislative branch of the federal government. They intend to keep Congress from enacting laws giving preference to one religion over others, as well as laws preventing people from practicing their religion freely. In other words, laws enacted by the U.S. Congress must be neutral with regard to religion.

Second, only the law-making function of Congress is under the constraint of religious neutrality. The Amendment does not address congressional actions carried out under the constitutional provision that "each house [of Congress] may determine the rules of its own procedures." (Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.) In keeping with this, the very same Congress that proposed the Religion Clauses of the Bill of Rights also instituted house and senate chaplains. Up to this day, each session of Congress begins with a chaplain-led prayer, a practice which is entirely constitutional.

Third, the Religion Clauses do not apply to the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. These government branches also must make their own rules for carrying out their constitutional duties. The Constitution does not require religious neutrality in this regard. Public prayers during a President's inauguration are entirely constitutional. Outlawing them would run contrary to the Free Exercise Clause; laws mandating them would violate the Establishment Clause. Another example of a religious activity Congress can do nothing about is the invocation of God at the beginning of each U.S. Supreme Court session: The Court Crier calls out, "God save the United States and this honorable Court." Thus, the Constitution leaves it up to the executive and judicial branches of government whether or not displays of religiosity are to be woven into the activities through which these branches carry out their constitutional functions. The legislature has no say in this matter.

c.    Application of the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) to the state (and local) level

When the Bill of Rights was enacted, it was intended for the federal level only, and until 1868, that is, for more than 75 years, it applied only to acts of the federal government. The Religion Clauses were meant to keep the federal legislature from enacting religious preference laws applicable to the entire United States. The Amendment did not keep the various states from having religions preferred by law. In Massachusetts, for example, the Protestant denomination of Congregationalism was established (= given legal preference) until 1833, 42 years after the First Amendment had been ratified.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution became effective. It says, among other things, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The first provision is called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause"; the second is called the "Due Process Clause."

One outcome of that amendment was that the Bill of Rights came to be applied to the state (and local) level, thus imposing on state governments the same restrictions the Bill of Rights imposed on the federal government.¹

d.    A logic teacher's dream about an accurate interpretation of the U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) as modified by the Fourteenth Amendment

By the logic of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the situation at the state (and local) level would have to be an exact mirror image of the federal level, though. This holds true also of the Religion Clauses. State legislatures must observe the same religious neutrality which the Bill of Rights imposes on Congress; the non-legislative parts of state government (= the executive and the judicial branch) ought to have the same discretion with regard to religion as their counterparts on the federal level.

How would this affect religious exercises and religious instruction in public schools?

Even if public schools are established by an act of a state legislature, they themselves are not a part of the legislative branch of government. Remember that state legislatures are to keep their laws religiously neutral. This neutrality would be violated through laws mandating religious activities in public schools. But it would equally be violated through laws prohibiting such activities. Neither type of law would be religiously neutral. The first would violate the Establishment Clause, the second the Free Exercise Clause.

Thus, there is no way around the logic of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: The actual wording of this country's fundamental law leaves it up to local school officials whether or not there are to be religious exercises and/or religious instruction in public schools.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 1/30/12 (Class # 3)

[Note: The next two paragraphs modify/expand most of what has been posted as final paragraph last time.]

One would hope, of course, that the local school officials would have the good sense to allow parents who do not wish their children to participate in religious exercises to exempt these children, and to allow older students to exempt themselves. A state law to that effect would be desirable. Such a law would be in conformity with the Bill of Rights' Religion Clauses, for it would neither go into the direction of giving legal preference to a religion, nor would it prohibit the free exercise of religion; rather, it would protect students from being forced to participate in religious exercises against their will (or, in the case of minors, against the will of their parents).

The part of the "logic teacher's dream" that the presence or absence of religious exercises in public schools depended on the decision of local school officials actually was the case in the United States for religion classes until 1948, that is, until more than 155 years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights; for prayer, it applied even until 1963, more than 170 years after the Religion Clauses were made part of the U.S. Constitution. It would have remained so up until today, had the U.S. Supreme Court confined itself to interpreting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights rather than taking it upon itself to change it.

[Aside: Maybe you say, "What makes you--an Austrian--say that the United States Supreme Court went into the business of changing the fundamental law of the land?" Well, I do have Chief Justice Earl Warren on my side, who in 1955 said candidly, "When the generation of the 1980s receives from us the Bill of Rights, the document will not have exactly the same meaning it had when we received it from our forefathers." (Earl Warren was U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1953 to 1969.)]

4.    A "shattered dream": The First Amendment and a creative (= euphemism for "going beyond one's authority") United States Supreme Court

Precisely how did it happen that the First Amendment's Religion Clauses came to be understood as making it unconstitutional for a teacher in a public school to use purely religious arguments in his or her teaching?

In the United States, the Constitution is not the law of the land necessarily as written, but as read by the body which became early on in U.S. constitutional history the chief interpreter of the meaning of that document: The United States Supreme Court.

There are two United States Supreme Court decisions which are particularly significant for religion in public schools.

The first of these cases is McCollum v. Board of Education, handed down in 1948. It declared sectarian religious teaching in public schools during regular school hours to be a violation of the First and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution even if participation is voluntary. Sectarian religious teaching is teaching which involves the promotion of the point of view of a particular religion. Thus, since 1948, it is deemed unconstitutional to teach religion at public schools such that the point of view of a particular religion is promoted, or such that religion in general is promoted over no religion at all.

The second of these cases is School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) The decision declared the Lord's Prayer and devotional Bible reading to be unconstitutional in public schools, but also stated, "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment." Thus, the decision allows what the Court calls an "objective" teaching of religion.

As a teacher of philosophy, I would, of course, have to say quite a bit about the word "objective"; it is, however, clear that the "objective" teaching the Court allows is a teaching in the spirit of neutrality, a teaching in which purely religious views are presented without a claim being made that they are "the truth."

Thus, religion may be taught at public schools, but not in a manner the court calls "sectarian"; it can be taught only by way of neutral presentation: "Here is what they teach; whether or not it is true is not for me to say; I am not permitted to defend these teachings."

5.    Summary

How is RLS 126 different from Sunday School? Your Sunday School teacher routinely used purely religious arguments; your humble RLS 126 instructor is not permitted to use purely religious arguments when teaching this course. He must, of course, report what these arguments consist in, may, however, not take a position in support of them.

Why is there this difference between RLS 126 and Sunday School? Based on the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation (your humble instructor considers it as a misinterpretation) of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses, it is against the law to use, as part of the curriculum in public U.S. schools, purely religious arguments as supporting evidence.

The Fox Principle

I.    What is the fox principle? Why is it used?

As explained, it is against the law to use, as part of instruction in this course, arguments presuming that the authors of the Bible and/or the teachings of individual Christian denominations are credible. If a Christopher Hitchens¹ type were teaching this or a similar course, it would be taught with the opposite presumption: That the authors of the Bible and the teachings of individual Christian denominations lack credibility. As the U.S. Constitution is currently is interpreted, there is no legal obstacle against a teaching style based on this "opposite presumption."

In simple terms, it is considered unconstitutional to defend religion in the classroom at secular U.S. universities as part of the curriculum; attacking religion is, however, permitted.

Is it fair, however, to attack religion in a forum in which it cannot defend itself?

To me, the answer to this question is, "No." This leads me to the following limitation, the second half of which is self-imposed: Not only will I refrain from defending Christianity (imposed on me by the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses), but I will also refrain from attacking it (self-imposed).

In other words, this course will be taught according to the Fox Principle: "I REPORT, YOU DECIDE."¹

II.    What the fox principle is limited to

"But Fritz, if I understood you correctly, you did defend views, including controversial ones, such as that the United States Supreme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Where does that leave the Fox Principle? Or does it become effective only from this point forward?"

Well, the Fox Principle is limited to views that can be supported only through purely religious arguments, that is, through arguments presuming that the authors of the Bible or the teachings of a particular Christian denomination are credible.

With regard to non-religious arguments, I do enjoy the same liberty as your math or science teacher or your philosophy instructor. I am allowed to use non-religious arguments and profess (my title is "professor," after all) that I stand behind them. This holds true also of views with which Christianity (or a non-Christian religion) agrees, such as that murder is wrong. In support of this view, I may call attention to the dignity of the human person and argue that this makes obvious that killing others, except in some cases of self-defense or similar situations, is wrong; I may make clear that I consider the argument as sound and that I agree with the view it supports. I may, however, not use the following additional argument in support of that view, "And besides, the Bible says that murder is wrong--this adds to the evidence"; for this additional argument would presume the credibility of the Bible as Sacred Scripture.

Thus, as far as arguments are concerned, the Fox Principle applies only to purely religious ones. I may argue in support of views with which Christianity agrees, but that can be supported through non-religious arguments, provided that I limit myself to non-religious arguments. Examples of such views are that murder it wrong, that it is wrong to steal, to lie, to rape, and many other views.

As far as views are concerned, I must totally refrain from arguing in support of those that can be supported only through purely religious arguments, such as that there are angels, that Jesus is God, or that there is a Trinity of persons in God.

Thus, as far as arguments are concerned, the Fox Principle applies only to "purely religious ones," and it does not apply to non-religious arguments; as far as views are concerned, the Fox Principle applies only to those that can exckusively be supported through purely religious arguments.

III.    A non-answer to an important question

Remember the question your humble instructor asked after having told you about Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Smith? "Is believing in Christianity an instance of blind faith, or of faith based on credibility considerations?"

Most Christians say, "It's the second, of course."

Is it? Because of the Fox Principle, I am not allowed to tell you.

PART TWO: A PREVIEW

The remainder of this course contains two segments, identified in the next title:

I.    The "agreement segment" and the "splits segment" of this course

For a little more than half of what is "still to come" in this course, common beliefs of Christianity will be explained; during the second half of the rest of the course, we will speak about disagreements within Christianity.

The first half will be called the "agreement segment"; the second will be called the "splits segment."

II.    The talk about agreements must be toned down a bit . . .

It is important, however, not to exaggerate the extent of agreement. Even in the agreement segment, I can hardly ever say, "All Christians believe such-and-such"; were I to say it, the one or the other person in this room might object, "I am a Christian, and I do not agree with what you just said,"

Thus, the agreement segment content cannot be said to deal with what all Christian communities agree with; rather, the content must be "toned down" to what most groups belonging to traditional Christianity accept.

The word "traditional" is to set the common beliefs to be discussed apart from religious liberalism which has influenced many Christian denominations over the past 150-200 years, as well as from some Christian denominations which have developed in the 1800s.

The word "most" in my toned down statement is to account for the fact that even within traditional Christianity, one can find the one or the other group taking exception to the one or the other belief otherwise almost universally accepted by traditional Christians.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/1/12 (Class # 4)

III.    What falls outside of traditional Christianity: A movement and several denominations

Concerning the "borders" of traditional Christianity, here is what does not belong to it:

First, there is religious liberalism. It not a denomination but a movement because it has split many denominations into a liberal and a traditional wing (although there are denominations which have gone entirely liberal, denominations which do not have a traditional wing at all). Examples of denominations with a liberal and a traditional wing are the Episcopalians, the Methodists, and the Catholics. A liberal Methodist or Catholic might take exception to the one or the other belief I will explain in the agreement segment of this course, while traditional Methodists and traditional Catholics likely will go along with everything that will be explained in the agreement segment.

Second, there are denominations which fall outside of traditional Christianity because they do not agree with core beliefs traditional Christians hold. Some of these denominations are (in alphabetical order, not in an order of importance): The Church of Christ, Scientists, a.k.a. "Christian Scientists," the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a.k.a. "Mormons", the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Unitarian Universalists.

One denomination, that of the Seventh-day Adventists, constitutes a special case: In most of their beliefs and practices, Seventh-day Adventists conform to traditional Christianity, which makes me reluctant to exclude them from traditional Christianity. In contrast to traditional Christianity, though, they celebrate the Lord's Day on the seventh day of the week rather than on the first, that is, on Saturday rather than on Sunday. Also, contrary to traditional Christianity, they do not believe in an eternal hell; rather, they hold that unrepentant sinners are annihilated (= reduced to nothingness).

PART THREE: A "MESSED-UP" HUMANITY? A "NOT PURELY RELIGIOUS" CONSIDERATION OF THE HUMAN CONDITION

"What?" an acquaintance exclaimed when he saw the title to Part Three, "'A messed-up humanity'? Speak for yourself and leave the rest of us humans alone." He continued, "Humanity has made enormous progress over the previous century. There have been significant discoveries in the sciences, in medicine, and in astronomy; we have visited the moon and sent a space craft to Mars; and all these wonders are continuing during this century. Any talk of  a messed-up humanity is an insult."

The manner in which he said all this made clear to me that there was no use arguing with him; so I did not reply. I could not help, though, but think of factors marring the previous century: The Armenian genocide; hundreds of wars, among them World War I, the "war to end all wars," World War II with more than 50,000,000 people killed during it, and with the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at its end, the Nazi holocaust, including an extermination of 6,000,000 Jews, the organized murders of millions in the Soviet Union and in Mao's China, the Rwandan genocide, the religious persecutions and wars going on even as I am speaking . . . and humanity is not supposed to be messed up?

But let's consider things on a smaller scale, from the perspective of the life experience of individual humans, rather than from that of humanity in general.

I.    A feature of human nature badly in need of an explanation

1.    The car with the malfunctioning manual transmission . . .

Suppose you are in the process of buying a used car.

After the dealer has shown you around the lot, you settle on a vehicle that looks good, has low mileage, and seems priced reasonably. You ask whether you can take it for a test drive. To your surprise, the dealer suggests that you go on the road by yourself. "A trusting man," you think. Contrary to all of the cars you've driven over the past couple of years, this one has a manual transmission. You hope that you still remember how to control it; actually you consider it just as well that the dealer will not be with you as you will be attempting to remember the right moves.

You make your way out of the lot--so far so good--take a left up a hill, and stop at a red light. Even though the incline is rather steep, the emergency brake holds. The light turns green. You place the transmission into first gear (you're surprised how quickly your ability to drive a manual car seems to come back), step on the gas while releasing the brake and the clutch, and--the vehicle lurches backward!! You slam on the brake and stop the car, counting your blessings that there was no one in back of you. "Well, I am no longer quite that up with handling manual transmissions," you think as you carefully, step-by-step, get the car going. It moves forward, and you are at a loss to explain what you've done differently this time. "I must have failed to pay attention," you think as you are taking a right turn.

You had turned too soon, though: You wind up on a dead-end lane. It is narrow; you need to back out. You put the gear shift into reverse--this time, there is no incline--and release the clutch while stepping on the gas. The car lurches forward, and you almost slam into a wall. Fortunately, your reflexes are quite good; so you manage to stop, exclaiming, "What the . . ." You decide to creep back to the dealership, intent on asking the dealer to give you instructions with manual transmissions. After two more transmission mishaps similar to the earlier ones, you arrive at the used car lot.

You stop the car, look for the dealer, and say, "It seems that I forgot how to drive a non-automatic car." He replies, "Oh, I failed to mention one minor problem the car has. About 50% of the time, when one puts it into first gear, it drives backward; and when one puts it into reverse, it drives forward There is no way to predict when this will happen--but I'm willing to knock another $500.00 off the price we agreed on before."

Would you buy the car? What would you do with your own car if it developed such a problem, and if it would be unfixable?

Rhetorical questions if there ever were any!

2.    We humans are just like the car in my story

Maybe you ask, "What is the point of that transmission story?"

Well, the car in it is an analogy for an important feature of the human condition.

As humans, we have a reason, a will, and a "heart." Our reason is to make us understand things, our will is the "decision-making" power in us, and our heart is the center in us from which our emotional responses flow. For the time being, I even avoid speaking about the human heart--let's speak only about human reason and the human will.

One of the many things we are to understand through our reason is what is right and what is in our best interest.

How does your will react, though, when your reason tells you that such-and-such is the right thing to do? Does your will decide that you should do it? Well, maybe, but then, maybe not.

Your reason telling you that "such-and-such is the right thing to do" is like putting the car into first gear; but if you're honest, your reaction often is not "driving towards it," but "backing away" from it.

Suppose that your reason tells you, "such and such is the wrong thing to do." This is like putting the car into reverse to back away from that wrong thing. But even so, whatever your reason might tell you, often, your will "moves towards" what you have recognized as wrong.

Forget right and wrong. Let's speak about our own true interest.

Surely, whenever your reason tells you that such-and-such is in your own best interest, you do it. Guess again. Do you remember the last time you backed off from something of which your reason clearly told you that it was in your own best interest? It probably happened earlier today. Maybe it was something like finally making an appointment with your dentist.

And how often did you do something that you clearly understood to be opposed to your true interest? How often did you move towards something you knew to be harmful to yourself, although your reason "put the transmission into reverse"? At times, it happened in little things such as . . . What was the first act you performed today? Ws it not perhaps hitting the "snooze button" on your alarm clock, knowing clearly that this would make you slightly late for everything during the rest of the day, and that you would be displeased with yourself all day long?

In more serious matters? Did you not have that additional drink (maybe even two or three) on New Year's Eve, although you knew that a police officer might stop you on the way home, and you might find yourself in deep trouble?

Maybe in even more serious matters? Probably most--if not all--of those present in this room remember the one or the other plan they carried out, knowing full well that in doing so, they might harm themselves gravely.

Do you see how similar we are to the used car in my example?

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/6/12 (Class # 5)

3.    An antidote to our having become immune to the outlandishness of the human condition

We are, however, so used to this feature of the human condition that we have become immune to its outlandishness.

Imagine, therefore, intelligent beings on another galaxy whose reason and will are properly coordinated. They become involved in space travel, and at one point, a spacecraft of theirs returns home after having investigated the conditions on Planet Earth.

The crew's written report contains the following segment: "On that planet, one can find creatures similar to us--they do have a reason and a will. But even though one of their philosophers has had the audacity to define them as 'rational animals,' often, their will does not carry out what their reason clearly tells them to be right--they actually do the opposite. Moreover . . . would you believe it? . . . At times, they do not even carry out certain actions although their reason tells them that doing so is in their own best interest: They are so foolish as to do things they know to be harmful to themselves! We would not believe this to be possible, had we not seen with our own eyes that it is so."

I assume the rest of the intelligent beings in that far-away galaxy would have a hard time accepting the truthfulness of that part of the account, for to them, a being with a will which does not follow its reason is so unheard of as to appear impossible . . .

. . . Impossible? Everyone in this room knows from personal experience that not only is such a being not impossible, but dreadfully real. Everyone in this room is such a being.

4.    One does not need to be religious to recognize a serious flaw in human nature

You do not need to be religious--Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, or an adherent of any of the other faiths existing within the human family--to see that there is a serious flaw in human nature as it exists in us.

(Since this flaw can be understood independently of any religious considerations, the statement that that flaw exists is not covered by the Fox principle; consequently, I am allowed to defend this statement [you do, of course, have a right to disagree with the statement I am defending].)

If you're a secularist, chances are that you will try to "paper over" that flaw; you might try to argue that it is harmless; that it is just the way humans are; that it is due to imperfect evolution; that humans are well on their way to evolve into beings not longer beset by that flaw . . . but all of these attempts, as well as the frame of mind of not speaking about it at all, are nothing but instances of ignoring the proverbial "huge elephant" almost crowding you out of your living room.

5.    Inclusion of the human heart

The "disconnect" between our will and our reason is a serious flaw in human nature (at least according to how matters appear to your humble instructor); things get even worse, though, if one takes the human heart into consideration. (Remember that in the human person, reason, will, and heart are to cooperate.)

Consider the following example:

Irving is looking forward to a baseball game on TV. There are some holdups at work, though, and he leaves later than usual. Looking at his watch, he tells himself, "If I hurry, I will be home when the game starts." So he steps on the gas, hoping that no cops will be waiting by the side of the road.

On the Interstate, there is a traffic tie-up. He gets very, very angry as it becomes clear that he will miss the beginning of the game. Now, several emergency vehicles, including three ambulances, make their way past the traffic on the shoulder of the road, and Irving must squeeze to the left.

"All of this will take forever," he curses.

Three ambulances--does that not tell Irving that something terrible must have happened a couple of hundred yards ahead of where he is? Several people must have been injured; maybe there was even loss of life!

Compare missing part of a ballgame--or even all of it--with several people being involved in a serious accident. What is worse? Isn't it clear that the first one does not even deserve to be mentioned in comparison to the second?

If Irving's heart would be "in the right place," would he not be full of compassion for the people who must be suffering very much through what seems to be a serious accident? Instead, all his heart manages is anger about being made late for a ballgame.

Isn't this how the human heart typically reacts in many, many situations?

To personalize matters, think of one of your skills you are especially proud of. Now, you meet someone who is much better than you with respect to that same skill. How will your heart react? The way it seems appropriate--with appreciation of the other, with admiration for his even greater skills, and with gratitude that you were allowed to meet him and to witness his performance? Or will it not rather be envy and jealousy, dislike of the other--maybe even hatred?

Are these two examples not typical? Do they not show that the connection between our heart and what reason presents to us is "out of whack"? Is not the reaction of our heart often like a "slap in the face of reality"?

6.    Even human reason considered by itself is not as it is supposed to be--Summary

In passing, we might want to observe that human reason itself is not the way it ought to be--human reason, the instrument which is to inform us about what is right and wrong, what is in our true interest and what is opposed to it, and what does and does not deserve the attachment of our hearts.

At this point, I am not referring to the mere limitation of our reason--that we must acknowledge how little we know, how much is concealed from us. I am rather referring to the frequency with which we "allow" our reason to mislead us: Rather than the evidence, it often is our wishes that make us adopt certain views; rather than good support, it is often our desires that determine our convictions. Instead of investigating how things really are, we are driven by our prejudices into adopting certain views; instead of allowing reality to speak for itself, we hide it behind the fog of our preconceived notions.

To summarize, there is more than enough evidence showing that we humans are very much like cars with rather poorly functioning transmissions.

7.    Counterpoint: How a properly functioning human would have to be—the bottom line with regard to human nature as it actually is

What we have gone over, though, seems also to make it possible to understand how a properly functioning human would be.

First, such a human being would have a reason not as weak as ours; it would have a reason that would generally provide correct information on how things are. This does not mean that the information provided would be complete; but a properly functioning human being would say, in such instances, "I do not know," rather than making him- or herself believe that he or she does know.

Second, in a properly functioning human, the will would always quite naturally follow his or her reason; that is, a properly functioning human always would get him- or herself quite easily to do what he or she recognizes as right, as well as what he or she recognizes to be in his or her best interest.

Third, in the case of a properly functioning human, the person's heart also would follow his or her reason.

The bottom line is, however, that we humans simply do not function all-too-well. First, our reason is prone to error; second, our will as well as our heart, which are to follow our reason, often do not.

As indicated, we also have come far-too-used to this feature of human nature to be appalled by it. At best, we become appalled by what we take to be unusually extreme deviations from the properly functioning human--such as if a person is a murderer, a pedophile, or a rapist--but the person who loses his temper, who gets drunk once in a while, who is dishonest now and then, or who manifests the one or the other "minor" disconnect between his reason and his will/heart, we put within what is perfectly normal.

What, however, gives us the right to call these and other disconnects "minor" although admittedly, they are less serious than those in the case of a rapist, a pedophile, or a serial killer? What is less serious than another thing may still be rather serious, after all.

II.    Can human reason uncover the cause of the defects within human nature?

However this may be, it does not seem to be difficult to diagnose a rather serious flaw in human nature--as stated, one does not need to be religious to diagnose it; all one needs to do is take a serious look at human nature as it actually is.

Human reason does, however, seem to be at a loss concerning a closely related question: "Why is human nature the way it is? What--if anything--is responsible for the defect in human nature? What has caused that defect?"

Maybe there is some kind of cause; maybe there is none to be sought because that's just the way it is: humans are defective. How is one to find the answer not only to, "What is the cause," but even to the more basic question, "Is there a cause?" Whatever secular wisdom seems to be able to come up with seems to bear the marks of uncertain speculation.

PART FOUR: ORIGINAL SIN--A PURELY RELIGIOUS EXPLANATION OF A NOT PURELY RELIGIOUS FINDING

We turn now to a purely religious explanation of a not purely religious finding. The finding is that human nature is seriously messed up. This is called "not purely religious" because the human mind can recognize on its own, without having to turn to religion, that there is something wrong with human nature. Christianity's explanation of what accounts for the mess-up of human nature is original sin. This explanation is called purely religious because the human mind left to itself cannot recognize whether or not there is something like original sin and whether or not it is the correct explanation to the mess-up of human nature.

[Remember: My statement that there is a mess-up of human reason is not covered by the Fox Principle; I am at liberty to argue in support of that statement (and I did try my best to do so). The statement that original sin is the cause of the mess-up of human nature is covered by the Fox Principle; I am not at liberty to argue in support of that second statement.]

I.    How humans are, and how they were meant to be according to Christianity

As was explained, humans as they actually are do have a defective nature; they are similar to the car with the malfunctioning transmission used as an example earlier. This means that for us, it is often dreadfully difficult (if we are in a pessimistic mood, we might even say, "next to impossible") to make our will follow our reason; our heart (= our emotional life) is even further divorced from our reason than is our will.

Christianity claims, though, that this is neither how humans were meant to be nor how they were created: The first humans supposedly had a properly functioning nature. Unfortunately, though, they messed things up for themselves and for their descendants.

When they had been created, it was supposedly easy for them to do what is right; moreover, unlike you or I, they did not have to force themselves to do what they knew to be in their best interest (incidentally, instead of keeping on talking about the "first humans," I might as well call them by their biblical names; Adam and Eve); rather, pursuing their best interest was the most natural thing for them to do. Their hearts also supposedly followed their reason; that is, their emotional attachment to things corresponded to the degree of attachment these things actually deserved.

Think of a man and a woman happy with their surroundings, with each other, with God; never cross with one another, content, eager to discover new things, full of gratitude for what they had been given . . . in short, think of a man and a woman compared to whom even the typical contemporary couple on their honeymoon is in a sorry state . . . and you might get an inkling of Adam and Eve's state in the place the Bible calls the "Garden in Eden" (Gn 2.8).

II.    The first humans and wrongdoing

1.    Freedom of the will makes wrongdoing possible

Although it was easy for Adam and Eve to do what is right, doing wrong was not impossible for them. This is a consequence of them having been created as personal beings, that is, as beings with free will, as beings with the ability to make free choices. And according to Genesis, Adam and Eve did wrong.

Since it was easy for them to avoid wrongdoing, they were appropriately judged much more harshly for wrongs they did than any of us are for our wrongdoings. The appropriateness of this greater harshness becomes clear form the story about Mr. Tryhard, Mr. Weakly, and Mr. Fit. Here it is:

2.    Mr. Tryhard, Mr. Weakly, and Mr. Fit

Mr. Trav Tryhard's oldest daughter does have Down's Syndrome. Moreover, he and his wife must take care of Mr. Tryhard's elderly parents. His wife has come down with a protracted illness; so over the past several months, there were many emergencies at home requiring his immediate attention and making it necessary for him to leave work early on several occasions. His supervisor, Mr. Steve Stern, is not very understanding of the gravity of the situation. Mr. Stern calls Mr. Tryhard into his office and says, "One more screw-up, like leaving early, and you are history. To make up for past screw-ups, here is a packet to be transported to the main building. You need to hand deliver it there after work. There will be a meeting of the Board of Supervisors starting at 4:00 in Room 507. If the company president does not have the item by 4:30, you will be fired."

Five minutes before Mr. Tryhard is to leave with the packet, the phone rings, and he is told about another emergency at home requiring his presence. What is he to do?

From this point on, the story has two different continuations:

Continuation 1: Mr. Tryhard's colleague Wes Weakly offers to help: "Mr. Stern is very unreasonable. But why don't you give the packet to me? The main building is on my way home. I can easily deliver it for you. It would be a shame if you would be fired because your family needs you." Mr. Tryhard drives home, relieved. When Mr. Weakly arrives at the main building, the elevator is out of order, and all the people working on the first floor have left already. Mr. Weakly has arthritis, which makes it difficult and painful for him to climb stairs. He tries anyway. After half a flight, he gives up although he could have managed with great effort: "I will give the package to the receptionist tomorrow on my way to work." He knows that as a consequence, Mr. Tryhard will be dismissed.

Continuation 2: Mr. Tryhard's colleague Fitz Fit offers to deliver the packet. When he arrives at the main building, he notices that the elevator is out of order, and that none of the people working on the first floor of the building are still around. "What?" he exclaims, "They expect me to climb the stairs up to the fifth floor? Are they crazy?" Although he is physically in excellent shape and although it would be easy for him to climb up the stairs, he decides to drive home and to deliver the package to the main building's receptionist tomorrow. He knows that Mr. Tryhard will be fired as a consequence.

3.    Lesson the Mr. Tryhard, Mr. Weakly, and Mr. Fit story teaches

Both Mr. Weakly and Mr. Fit did wrong. Each of them broke an important promise in the absence of a condition releasing them from the promise (such as if there would have been a terrorist attack on the building to which the packet was to be delivered).

Mr. Weakly can claim, though, that in his case, there was a mitigating circumstance while Mr. Fit cannot make such a claim.

Which one is, therefore, to be judged more harshly? All other things being equal, it is Mr. Fit. In the case of Mr. Weakly, one can say, "You did wrong, although in your defense, one may say that keeping your promise would have been very hard on you." In the case of Mr. Fit, one would have to say, "You did wrong, and that the elevator did not work is absolutely no excuse for a man in your physical condition."

Thus, doing wrong in a situation in which it would be easy to do what is right is worse than doing wrong in a situation in which doing what is right is difficult.

Mr. Fit corresponds to Adam and Eve as originally created (except that for them, doing what is right was even much, much easier than it was for Mr. Fit); Mr. Weakly corresponds to us (and to Adam and Eve after they had damaged their nature--how this occurred will be taken up shortly). Adam and Eve's first wrongdoing is rightly to be judged much more harshly than any wrongdoing you or I could ever commit, dreadful as it may be.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/8/12 (Class # 6)

4.    False Pride

To understand the likely motive which lead to Adam and Eve's wrongdoing, we do well to remember that humans owing a lot to someone else like to pretend that it comes from themselves: We do not like to acknowledge being dependent on others. We want to claim that what we actually have received from someone else is brought about by our own effort. "False pride" is a name for this.

Here is an example: Suppose that you are traveling with a group of tourists, and on the next day, there is to be a guided tour through the center of the town where the group just arrived. At bedtime, the tour leader feels ill and asks you to take over for him in the morning, telling you details about the history of the town and about the sights to be visited. The next day, you lead the group around. One of your fellow travelers flatters your ego by exclaiming, "Unbelievable how much you know. The travel agency should hire you." Another says, "He would have known just as little as you and I, had the tour leader not talked to him at length last night." Although this is perfectly true, your pride still might be hurt--false pride interferes with our willingness to recognize our dependence on others.

False pride—wanting to be more than they actually were, wanting to be equal to the one from whom they had received everything, including even their being, as a gift, rather than recognizing in humility and gratitude their total dependence on God—false pride was a motivating force also for the first humans.

For you and me, it is often excruciatingly difficult to resist being motivated by false pride; for Adam and Eve, it would have been easy to resist the allure of this motive; . . . but they did not: They wanted to be "like gods who know what is good and want is bad," (Gn 3.5) which can be taken to mean that they wanted to set their own standards and rules rather than living by someone else's: "We know ourselves what is good and what is bad for us; we do not have to go by God's rules."

[At this point, you are to read Genesis 2.4-3.24. Here is a link: "Genesis 2.4-3.24."]

5.    Two chief consequences of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing

Adam and Eve's flouting of God's rules because they foolishly wanted to be like gods although there was no getting around their total dependence had two distinct devastating consequences, a strictly personal one (= a consequence only for themselves) as well as a consequence involving their descendants.

The personal consequence was a state of guilt (see segment a., below); the consequence affecting also their descendants was a corruption (= a damaging) of human nature (see segment b., below).

a.    The first consequence of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing: A state of guilt

(1)    The "basics"

As indicated, the first consequence of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing was a state of guilt. Whenever someone engages in conduct that he or she knows do be wrong, such as murder, lying, or stealing, he or she becomes guilty. This applies also to Adam and Eve: Through their conduct, they brought guilt upon themselves.

(2)    Important side point: Do not confuse the state of guilt with "feeling guilty"

What has just been said is not sufficient as an explanation because unfortunately, the word "guilt" is, in contemporary language, often used inaccurately. Frequently it is used instead of the expression, "feeling of guilt."

Guilt is, however, a state in which wrongdoers are regardless of how they may feel about themselves.

The difference between a state of guilt and feelings of guilt can be made especially obvious if one notices that guilt may exist even though the person who is guilty does not feel guilty, and conversely, that a person may feel guilty without the presence of actual guilt.

Think of a man who kills for hire. He may not be bothered at all by what he is doing, but his action makes him nevertheless guilty. In this case, there is a state of guilt in the absence of guilt feelings.

For an example of guilt feelings without actual guilt, think of a young man who up to now had known only that his mother had died while he was still a baby; now, though, he is told that she died while giving birth to him. It is psychologically understandable that this information might make him feel guilty; but since his mother's death was completely beyond his control, he is not actually guilty of anything with respect to her death. This shows that feelings of guilt can exist without the presence of guilt.

Since a state of guilt can exist without feelings of guilt (as shown by the hired killer example) and guilt feelings can exist without actual guilt (as shown by the example of the young man whose mother died while giving birth to him), the state of guilt and feelings of guilt must be different from each other.

While being guilty is different from feeling guilty, there is the following relation between the two: Feeling guilty is an appropriate (though not an automatic) "reaction" to actually being guilty.

(3)    Guilt as strictly personal

Returning to the first consequence of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing: It caused them to be guilty. The account in Genesis (see Gn 3.8-10) also indicates that they felt guilty; but for our context, what is important is the state of guilt which was a consequence of their disobedience.

This first consequence of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing is strictly personal because the state of guilt attaches only to the person actually doing a wrong. It cannot "migrate" to someone else who was not involved in the wrongdoing. In line with this, it is misguided to consider contemporary Germans guilty for the evils done in Nazi Germany; it is equally misguided to consider contemporary Americans guilty because of the evils of slavery.

My and your guilt does not come from Adam and Eve's wrongdoing, but from my and your wrongdoing.

b.    The second consequence of Adam and Eve's wrongdoing: Corruption of their nature—this consequence was passed on to future generations

Christianity holds that Adam and Eve's wrongdoing had a second consequence that was not limited to them.

To understand what this might be, think of misusing a mechanism for a purpose for which it is not intended. To give another car transmission example, suppose that I am driving at an appreciable speed, and that I try to stop the car by putting the gear shift in reverse. That would be pretty devastating to the transmission and to the engine—not even to mention my wallet. [Important: Do not confuse the car transmission example just used with the earlier one--the one that was used to illustrate the lack of coordination between human reason and the human will/heart.]

Similarly, the human will was meant to move humans to follow the path reason pointed out. The human will's moving elsewhere implies its being misused contrary to what it is intended for. As stopping the car by putting the gearshift in reverse causes the transmission and the engine to break, so did the misuse of human freedom inflict permanent damage on the nature of the first humans. Something "broke": Adam and Eve caused serious damage to their nature.

c.    My nature is co-determined by that of my parents, my grandparents . . . and ultimately, by that of the first human parents, and unfortunately, also by what the first humans have done to their nature

To understand how this affected us—the descendants of the first humans—we must remind ourselves of a feature of human nature we are so familiar with that often, we do not even think about it. Whom did I inherit my nature from? Why, my parents, of course. No doubt there are features unique to my nature; but how I am is co-determined by how my parents have been. How about my parents? Well, they inherited their nature from their parents—my grandparents; and so on, back to the very first human parents.

How I am is co-determined by how the first human parents were; my nature is influenced by the facets of the nature of the first human parents, and—here comes he tragedy for me, according to Christianity at least—my nature is also influenced by the damage the first human parents have done to their nature: The damage they did to themselves included parts of their nature they were meant to hand on to future generations. Consequently, from the very start, a damaged nature was handed on from generation to generation, manifesting itself in how dreadfully difficult it has become for us to do what we know to be right, and—stupidity of stupidities—what we know to be in our own best interest.

Each and every human being often does what he or she knows to be wrong; each and every human being does so, not necessarily always (there are times at which our will actually does follow our reason), but countless times. Also, each and every human being often does what he or she clearly sees to be contrary to his or her best interest. The damage to human nature makes both all-but-inevitable.

d.    Definition of "original sin"--the analogical and the literal use of the word "sin"

When affirming that all humans are in the state of original sin, Christianity intends to say that all humans inherited a damaged nature from Adam and Eve. Original sin is, therefore, the damage to human nature that the first humans caused to themselves through their wrongdoing and that they passed on to their descendants.

Calling that damage to human nature "sin" when designating it as "original sin" can easily give rise to a misunderstanding--to the mistaken assumption that original sin is a wrong I have done. Contrary to that, originals sin is a state in which we are said to have been born, not a wrong we have committed.

This has recently been emphasized by the largest Christian denomination, the Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "Original sin is called 'sin' only in an analogical sense . . . it is a state, not an act." [An act is something a human being does--that's what original sin is not.]

To explain "analogical" as the Catechism uses it: Another example for an analogical use of a term is "healthy" when applied to food. Strictly speaking, only bodies can be healthy. Calling food "healthy" does not mean that things like the flu, serious heart failure, a brain tumor, or a runny nose are absent from the food; rather, it is supposed to indicate that the food is conducive to bodily health, the only type of literal health.

Similarly, to apply the word "sin" to the damage we are said to have inherited from Adam and Eve is not to consider it as literally sinful like lying, stealing, or cheating; rather, it is to indicate that the damage to human nature (original "sin") provides the ground out of which literally sinful acts, individual wrongdoings, grow.

e.    Someone doing wrong virtually inevitably might have to be judged less harshly than a wrongdoer who would have had an easy time to do what is right; this does not make the former "benign," though—an example demonstrating this point

Is not someone who does wrong virtually inevitably because of a damaged nature to be judged less severely than someone who does wrong even though it would be easy for that person's will to follow his or her reason?

Christianity would say, "Yes" (remember Mr. Weakly and Mr. Fit), and point out that for this reason, Adam and Eve's wrongdoing was held against them much more severely than any wrong you or I could ever do is held against us. According to Christianity, that does not mean, though, that our condition before God is benign (or harmless).

Think of a person who is born with an almost irresistible tendency to molest children; and, to add insult to injury, this tendency is combined with an equally strong urge to sadism. Thus, if given the opportunity, that man cannot resist the temptation to grab little boys, abuse them sexually, inflict horrible physical torture on them in the process of abusing them, and finally kill them.

If his condition is diagnosed correctly, justice demands that the almost irresistible nature of his vile conduct be taken into consideration (difficult to do, by the way--for me, at any rate); but would you not continue to consider him as a rather loathsome creature? Maybe he should not be jailed; but certainly, an institution for the criminally insane is where he belongs. The irresistible nature of his tendencies, which might "excuse" his conduct in a manner of speaking, certainly cannot be used as a justification for letting him roam freely near playgrounds, nursery schools, and kindergartens, or to invite him to be the clown at little kids' birthday parties, although he would gladly offer his services at no charge.

Similarly, although human wrongdoing grows out of a damaged nature and is, therefore, (almost) unavoidable, we could not blame God if he would regard us as loathsome (I say "could" and "would" to indicate at this point already that Christianity believes in "salvation"; according to this view, we have "already been saved"). Just as the pedophile in the example cannot hope that we consider his condition as harmless just because what drives him is virtually beyond his control, so can we not hope that God considers our condition as benign. It involves, after all, an indifference towards God, maybe even an aversion, nay, a hatred of him.

Well, if God does not consider our condition as benign, how does he regard us?

That leads to the next part . . .

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/13/12 (Class # 7)

PART FIVE: HOW DOES GOD RELATE TO HUMANS? HOW DO HUMANS RELATE TO GOD? OUR CHIEF TASK

Although according to Christianity, human nature is "damaged" to the point of being "unsightly" (understatement!) in the sight of God, Christianity does not hold that there is a whole-sale rejection of humanity on the part of God.¹ This part (Part Five) of the text intends to explain how God relates to humans according to traditional Christianity, how the human response falls woefully short of what it should be, and what follows from these observations for the task which humans have during this life.

First, however, the question must briefly be taken up as to hw humans can arrive at an understanding of God, including of the manner in which he supposedly relates to us.

I.    Arriving at An idea about God: "analogical knowledge of God"

Christianity holds that God is totally different from us, a person without a physical body, outside of space, even outside of time, not part of anything in the universe astronomers examine; rather, whatever astronomy investigates--from black holes over quasars over galaxies down to the little planet we call our home--everything of that sort is kept in existence by him. How is one to arrive at an idea of a being as different from humans as God supposedly is?

In reply, Christians point to a passage from Genesis which represents God as saying, "Let us make man in our image and likeness. . . . God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." (Gn 1.26-27)

Accordingly, although the difference between God and humans is unimaginably vast, we are nevertheless in his image. For an image to be truly an image, there must be at least some similarities between the image and what it depicts. It must be possible to learn some things about the original from the depiction. Thus, Christianity holds that we can recognize at least some things that hold true of God through considering his image, human nature: "We look at human nature and say, 'God is somehow like that--although each similarity is accompanied by a difference significantly larger than the similarity.'"

Christian theologians have coined a high-brow expression for this way of knowing God: "Knowledge by analogy" or "analogical knowledge of God."

II.    How God regards humans

Christianity uses the procedure of analogical knowledge of God in an attempt to understand how God relates to humans, saying, as it were, "If you want to understand how God relates to you, consider two different relationships among humans and 'combine them into one'; you can say about the result, 'This is similar to the way God relates to me.'"

1.    An analogy for a first element included in God's relationship to humans: Discovering a surprising fact about someone whom you admire . . .

a.    . . . You think that he does not even know you, but you find out that he cares for you deeply, that he loves you

To understand the first of these relationships, begin with imagining a famous and influential person whom you admire deeply. You even pattern your life after his. You go so far as to unconsciously imitate him, his mannerisms, his way of speaking, his way of doing things, the way teenagers imitate their idols--movie stars, rock musicians, or sports idols.

[I am hesitant to use the teenager example, because unfortunately, today's stars capturing the accolades of teenagers often should not be imitated.¹ I have someone in mind who actually deserves to be emulated.]

Part of your thinking about that person is, reflecting the reality of the situation as you perceive it, "He does not know anything about me--he does not know me from Adam. I am only one of thousands of admirers. But that still does not keep me from trying to live in a way that would make him proud of me, would he know me."

At one point, your university invites him to give a lecture. Of course you attend. The auditorium is packed--and as all of his presentations, this one is superb. It impresses you, excites you; parts of it move you to tears.

After the event, you leave the auditorium and the building. You round the corner and walk to the parking lot--and there, you see him, accompanied by all the high-ranking university officials. As you think, "Maybe I will get at least a chance to say 'hello' to him," you notice that he is walking up to you with great determination. He smiles at you; now he greets you. He knows your name! He has been looking for you, and during the ensuing conversation--at one point, he invites you to join the dinner the university has organized for him--you realize that he deeply cares for you; that he cares for you more than anyone else whom you know; more than your parents, more than even your best friend.

I can guarantee that this will be an overwhelming experience for you.

b.    Throwing light on a first feature of how God relates to humans: The admired person who loves you

Think of that person whom you admire more than anyone else. Up to now, you thought that he does not even know you; but you discover to your surprise that he loves you deeply.

Imagine the experience of that discovery. According to Christianity, it throws light on a first element included in the manner in which God relates to humans. You are to picture God as similar to the admired person from the moment on from which you realize that he loves you more than anyone else in your life.

2.    A second even more surprising element included in how God relates to humans: Akin to "being in love"

Before pointing at a second human response supposedly similar to the way in which God regards humans, a general comment about love must be made:

a.    A general word about love

Love always involves caring for another because of the preciousness of the other's personality rather than considering him or her as a means for furthering one's own ends. One takes the other seriously because of what he or she is in him- or herself. (This makes "true love" different from any Hollywood-type "fake love.")

There are various forms of love--that from parents to children, from children to parents, comradeship, friendship, and others. They differ from one another in various respects. One respect is the degree of closeness, of intimacy that is involved. Friendship is more intimate than comradeship; it is also more intimate than the relationship between parents and children (friendship can, or course, but does not necessarily always, join the love between parents and children, especially in the case of grown children).

b.    A remark about the most intimate type of all merely human loves--application to the manner in which God supposedly relates to humans

Which one is now the most intimate, the closest merely human love? If you say that it is the love between a man and a woman who are in love with one another, "go to the head of the class" (= me imitating the columnist Walter Williams).

Using the phrase "being in love" is, of course, a way of expressing oneself which is very much in danger of being misunderstood. Often, it is misused for rather superficial involvements--the "summer romance" or the boss' brief fling with his secretary.

Here, I am referring to a relationship which, as soon as it becomes a reality, will become the dominant force in a person's life--such as it is for the man who gladly gives up everything to win the love of the woman he cares for deeply, or the woman who thinks that her entire life would be emptiness and suffering if she cannot be with the man whom she loves.

This love is characterized by a desire for intimacy permeating every fiber of human existence. Persons who are lovers in this sense want to share everything; they want to know each other fully; each of them longs for being known by the other; they want to have no secrets from each other.

Why did I even bother to mention this type of love which according to the view of some only detracts from what religion supposedly concerns itself with?

Well, Christianity would say, "Contrary to being a distraction, the love between a man and a woman in love with each other throws light on the second main element included in how God relates to humans."

Do Christians want to say that God relates to individual humans with an intensity of love similar to the intensity with which a lover relates to the beloved? Christianity's answer is, "If you say 'Yes,' 'go to the head of the class' once again." (I hope Walter Williams forgives me for imitating him a second time.)

3.    "Rolling two things into one": Combining the two responses explained throws light on how God regards humans

Christianity suggests now: "Take the experience of being loved by the admired person and combine it with the experience of realizing that someone is truly in love with you. 'Rolling these two experiences into one' might give you some understanding of how God relates to you. Although he is all-powerful and deserves more admiration than anyone else you could even begin to think of, he still regards you with a love which is, in comparison to various types of love between humans, most similar to the love between a man and a woman "in love."

According to Christianity, God loves humans. While this is often said--you can hear Christians say it time and again--its full impact is rarely comprehended.

To repeat: comprehending it requires that one combine in one's mind the relationship the admired man in the first example has to you with the relationship of the lover to the beloved--then, one begins to have an inkling of the way in which God loves humans according to Christianity.

If this is really true, as Christianity teaches, what else could one say except for "Wow!!!!!"?

4.    A matter of faith? The actual experience . . .

According to Christians, it is, during this life at least, largely a matter of faith that God loves us in the way explained--one must trust, believe that it is so. I say "largely"; for Christianity also teaches that even during this life, it is possible here or there actually to "experience" God's love; there are Christian mystics who claim to have had such an experience.

The full experience must wait, though, for the life to come. Christians hold that, when a person dies, he or she will be received with a love best expressed through the following words: "Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one, and come! For you, the winter is past, the rains are over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth, and the song of the dove is heard in our land. . . Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one, and come! O my dove in the clefts of the rock, in the secret recesses of the cliff, let me see your face, let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet, and you are lovely." (Song of Songs 2.10-14)

One will then experience God's love in all its grandeur, in all its strength, in all it intensity.

The passage quoted is from the Old Testament book know as the Song of Songs, a love poem about a love between a man and a woman "madly" in love with one another.

Christians consider the love this poem describes as an image of God's love for each individual human being. They hold that the Song of Songs--dealing with seemingly totally worldly matters--is included in the Bible to convey an idea of the manner in which God loves individual humans. The precise nature of God's love for humans is said to be beyond our comprehension; but a love between a man and a woman madly in love with one another does, of all human experiences, come closest to the love with which God is said to regard individual humans. (There is, of course, also that other element characterizing God's love--that similar to the love of the admired person who cares for you deeply.)

III.    How humans relate to God

How does it look from the side of humans? How do they relate to God?

1.    The atheist, the agnostic, and the Christian

Well, many do not even believe in God's existence; and how can one relate positively to someone one does not even believe in? For the atheist (= the one who holds that God does not exist) and the agnostic (= the one who does not know whether or not God exists), that is the end of the matter, except that some of them (not all, though) might add, "It would be nice if there'd be a God who loves us the way Christians believe."

Given what Christians believe--or are supposed to believe--about the way God relates to humans, they hold that their love for God is to contain the following two elements:

First, it is to be similar to the love one has for a deeply admired person after one has realized that one is loved by him.

Second, it is to be similar to the love one has for a person one is in love with. Following Sheldon Vanauken, I am using the word "inloveness" to designate this second element.

2.    An average Christian's relationship to God falls far short of the "ideal"

If average Christians are honest, though, they will have to admit that their relationship to God falls far short of what has just been described--especially with regard to the second element making up that love, to the "inloveness" element.

But for many, even the first element leaves a lot to be desired. Rather than being regarded similar to a beloved friend deserving to be admired because of his immense superiority to me in each and every respect, God is often seen more like a demanding boss, a strict task master, that guy up there with all his rules and regulations, looking down on me waiting until I break one of them so that he can throw a bolt of lightning at me--God is seen as someone to be feared like one fears a strong-willed boss impossible to satisfy and given to outbursts of temper.

Moreover, the awareness many Christians have of God does not even seem to be that different from atheists or agnostics: Their consciousness of God seems to have little practical influence on their lives.

IV.    Christianity on the purpose of our existence, and on our task during this life

The observation about the manner in which God is said to relate to humans leads Christians to an answer to the question, "What is the purpose of human existence?"

The way in which most people actually relate to God leads Christians to an answer to the question, "What is the task we are to accomplish during our earthly lives?"

1.    What is the purpose of human existence?

Concerning the purpose of human existence, Christians urge you: "Think of a man who loves a woman deeply. What will he wish for most? If you say, 'For her to love him back,' 'go to the head of the class' a third time. Now if God loves you with a love for which 'inloveness' is the best human comparison, what does he want most of you? For you to love him back."

Thus, Christianity holds that we have been created for nothing but an intimate love relationship with God, for a relationship that, if we actually were to enter it, would cause us to be indescribably happy. There is no other purpose of our existence except for that love relationship and the happiness flowing from it."

2.    Christianity on our task during this life

According to Christianity, God loves us already now. Love is a two-way street, though, and as pointed out, most (if not all) Christians must admit, though, that "being someone who loves God intensely" does not reflect the reality of their lives. If God does play a role at all in their lives, it is rather different from the role played by the person they are in love with--if there is such a person for them.

Well, this circumscribes the task a person has during his or her life: Since the life of a typical human falls short of how it is supposed to be, it is his or her task to change so that he or she corresponds more closely to the purpose for which one has been created. I am to transform myself into a person loving God with a love in which the two elements identified before are combined: The first element is the one resembling the love to the admired person; the second element is the one resembling the love of the lover to the beloved.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/15/12 (Class # 8)

V.    Two practical hints Christianity considers helpful for accomplishing one's task during this life

How is one to change oneself into a person loving God? Christianity gives two practical "hints": The first is "cultivating a relationship with God"; the second is "doing God's will."

1.    Cultivating a relationship with God, involving two steps: Awakening gratitude (= step one); conditioning oneself such that God is never far from one's mind (= step two)

First, one must actually cultivate (= something like "cause to grow") a relationship with God: One must work on oneself so that such a relationship will develop. One must try to change one's attitude into the opposite of ignoring him for all practical intents and purposes.

Christianity considers the following two steps helpful in this endeavor: The first consists in awakening gratitude; the second consists in trying to condition oneself such that God is never far from one's mind.

a.    First step of cultivating a relationship with God: Trying to awaken gratitude

Prior to considering the first step, another look at the "actual situation" for most humans may be useful:

(1)    A bunch of ingrates?

Even if you are a Christian, most of your prayers probably are the "request-kind"; prayers of petition, as they are officially called. How often, however, do you thank God when such a petition seems fulfilled?

Suppose someone close to you is gravely ill. If you are a Christian, you will storm heaven with your prayers and ask that that person might survive and become well again. And suppose that that person actually becomes better. Even if you are a Christian, often, that is the end of the matter as far as you and God are concerned; frequently, there is not even only a small trace of a "thank you"--you might even think, "He might have become well again anyway, even had I not prayed for him--his becoming well again had nothing to do with my prayer."

This lack of gratitude is brought out in an episode in the Gospel according to Luke. Ten lepers asked Jesus to have pity on them; he told them to present themselves to the priests to show that they were no longer ill, and on the way there, they actually were healed. Only one of them--a Samaritan--came back to thank Jesus. Jesus said. "Ten were cleansed, were they not? Where are the other nine? Has none but this foreigner returned to give thanks to God?" (Lk 17.17-18)

Are not many Christians just like the nine lepers who did not bother to return for a "thank you"?

Is it not true that often, Christians do not even thank God for what they received after they had asked in prayer that it might be given to them?

All of us enjoy, however, many also benefits we did not even ask for: Our health, our talents, our economic situation, having enough to eat and a place to live, having people in one's life whom one loves--maybe a caring parent, a good friend, the person whom one intends to marry--the Christian views all of these things as gifts from God. How often do Christians thank God for them? Are they not simply taken for granted? If you are a Christian, when was the last time that you thanked God for the great gift of health? Never? For other gifts? Never?

Christianity would ask, "Aren't you one of the people belonging to a 'bunch' of ingrates?"

(2)    Awakening gratitude as a possible beginning for loving God

Committed Christians would continue, however: "Remember that right now, we are trying to explain a first step leading into the direction of making a truly personal relationship with God grow in your heart. Awakening gratitude is a powerful help in this regard. Gratitude is an element of love; if gratitude is present, it might blossom into love."

Both gratitude and love are of course emotions, and as such, they are beyond what we can directly command with our will; but surely, we can indirectly contribute to their being awakened in us.

If I as a Christian look at myself as not loving God, not being deeply grateful to him, should I not at least manage to acknowledge that something is missing? Maybe I can at least regret that lack; maybe I can even feel sorrow because of it.

How often am I to thank God for the great gifts I receive from him? How often am I to try to evoke love for God? Isn't the answer, "All the time"?

Thus, a first step helping a person to move in the direction of loving God consists in awakening in one's heart gratitude for God by at least acknowledging the many things one ought to be grateful for. This harks back to the beginning of the love small children have for their parents: In the case of small children, experiencing their parents first as "the ones who provide benefits" leads to love of their parents; similarly, picturing God as "the one from whom all benefits come" will hopefully lead to loving him--or so Christianity maintains (the final four words are another acknowledgement of the Fox Principle).

b.    Second step of cultivating a relationship with God: Conditioning oneself such that God is never far from one's mind

Further, Christianity holds that at every moment of my life, God is lovingly concerned with me with an intensity of love going beyond my wildest imagination. (He must even keep me in existence, or I would disintegrate into nothingness.)

How often do I return the favor?

Once a week on Sundays? (And am I not rather bored even there?) Less frequently if I skip church?

If that is the story, is not the proper reaction, "How sad"? Is not some conditioning called for?

Think of the person in love. The thought of the beloved will often be the focus of his attention; and even if he must concentrate on other things--such as balancing the checkbook, writing a physics exam, or trying to talk himself out of a speeding ticket--the beloved will not be far from his mind.

Or think of a beautiful piece of music you hear. After having listened to it repeatedly, a time will come when it always will be in the background of your consciousness, playing in the back of your mind. If it is a beautiful piece, that can be a wonderful experience.

Our consciousness of God must become like our awareness of the beloved or like the beautiful piece of music we have listened to repeatedly--or so Christianity tells us.

2.    Doing God's will

The second "practical hint" Christianity recommends for learning to love God is trying to "do God's will."

a.    Two sides of "doing God's will"

Actually, according to Christianity, doing God's will has two different sides: First, it is an indication that one loves God--I will call it the "indicator side"; second, it is a motivator of love of God--I will call it the "motivator side."

(1)    The "indicator side" of doing God's will

I begin with a remark on what I have called the "indicator side." The Gospel of John states, "Whoever loves me will keep my word."¹ (Jn 14.23)

Think of a man who repeatedly has to carry out a task bothersome to him. Whenever he does it, he grumbles, and whenever he can get away with not doing it, he skips it entirely. Now, however, he notices that his doing that disagreeable task is important to the woman whom he truly loves. Likely, he will never skip it again, and instead of doing it reluctantly, he will do it joyfully. Similarly, according to Christianity, the person who truly loves God will joyfully do his will: A person desiring a truthful answer to the question, "Do I love God?" might ask, "Do I take joy in doing God's will?" An affirmative answer to this question might indicate that the first question also may be answered with, "Yes."

(2)    The "motivator side" of doing God's will

For our context--how to learn loving God--the "motivator side" of doing God's will is even more important. Christianity holds that doing God's will is one of the most effective means for growing in one's love of God--in accordance with another statement in the Gospel according to John: "Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me." (Jn 14.21) An especially effective means for growing in one's love for God is doing his will when one must overcome internal obstacles against doing it.

b.    Christianity on the "content" of God's will

What is God's will, though?

"Should I major in philosophy or in mathematics? What is God's will?" "I received two job offers, computer sales representative and manager of a local computer store. Which job should I accept? What does God want me to do?" "Should I ask Brenda to marry me--yes or no? What is the will of God?"

Christianity might say, "It does not hurt to pray for clarity in these matters; but in the end, you must make a choice--it is 'up to you' what you decide. You are a free personal being, after all."

Christianity would add, however, "There are also clear guidelines telling you which choices to avoid under all circumstances and which ones you must make in certain situations. Even though there are many choices which are up to you, in unimportant and also important matters, all of these choices must, in order to conform to 'the will of God,' fall into the 'don't--do framework' Jesus' teaching established."

How is this framework to be determined?

(1)    A word of Jesus on what we must do

The following passage contains the fundamentals of the answer to that question:

"Now someone approached him [Jesus] and said, 'Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?' He answered him, '. . . If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.' He asked him, 'Which ones?' And Jesus replied, 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Mt 19.16-19) Here, Jesus gives, by way of examples, an indication of the framework within which all our decisions must occur. What does and what does not belong into this framework?

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/22/12 (Class # 9)

(2)    Two types of laws in the Torah: Non-moral laws and moral laws

[Note: The title of (2) and the first two paragraphs under it have been changed from how they were posted last time.]

The Torah (first five books of the Jewish Bible and of the Christian Old Testament) contains all the prescription that Jews at the time of Jesus had to live by.¹ There are 613 such prescriptions (the so-called "Ten Commandments" are only the proverbial "tip of the iceberg").

Similar as do Reform Jews, Christians break these prescriptions down into two groups. One comprises the non-moral laws, the other comprises the moral laws, the latter aka "commandments."

The non-moral laws concern matters such as what to eat and what not to eat (kosher and non-kosher foods), how to observe holydays, how to dress, and similar things. Many of them appear arbitrary to outsiders--why is eating shrimp forbidden, while eating beef is allowed?¹ Moreover, even Jews can know that these laws are obligatory only from reading the Torah.

Moral laws involve chiefly our duties towards God and towards other humans. A key Torah passage formulating many of them is the statement of the Ten Commandments. There are, however, also moral laws outside of the Ten Commandments, such as, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Even to non-Jews, including many atheists, many of these laws do not appear arbitrary, and can be recognized as binding independently of accepting the Torah. That it is wrong to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery can be recognized by human reason apart from any revelation.¹

(3)    Christianity's stand on the non-moral law

To the non-moral law, Christians apply the following word of Jesus: "Do not think that I have come to abolish (= do away with) the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill." (Mt 5.17)

On first glance, this might sound like an order for everyone to observe the entire law in all its details. Christians give, however, a three-pronged reply to this suggestion:

First, Jesus is speaking about himself and no one else. He is stating what he is not going to do and what he is going to do. In the "fulfill" part of his statement about the law, he is speaking about something only he can do

Second, what it is that only he can do requires is to pay attention to the precise meaning of the word commonly translated as "fulfill." It means, "make full," "make complete," "finish," or "end." Thus, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish (= do away with) the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to complete (= bring to an end)."

Third and perhaps most importantly, even if one goes with the customary translation, one can see that, without the (non-moral) law being "abolished" or simply being "done away with," it is no longer binding: Suppose you promise to your friend to take him out to a fancy restaurant for his birthday. When the day arrives, you say, "Forget about my promise." In this case, you would have done away with (abolished) the promise (which is, of course, unjustified). Suppose, however, you take him to the restaurant, and on the next day, he asks, "When will you take me to the restaurant?" You reply, "What do you mean?" "You promised to take me," he gives back. You would shake your head and ask, "But don't you remember that I took you yesterday? I have fulfilled my promise." So a promise fulfilled is no longer binding; it has, however, not been "done away with" or "abolished" as in the previous example: Fulfilling a promise is different from abolishing it.

Christians apply this to Jesus' word about the (non-moral)  law, arguing that a similar distinction must be made: Since Jesus has fulfilled the (non-moral) law, it is no loner binding--but it has not simply been done away with (or abolished).

The non-moral law kept, however, to be binding during Jesus' earthly live: He kept on living up to it, as did his followers. This gives rise to the question, "When did it come to be fulfilled?" Christians would answer, "It came to be fulfilled through Jesus' dying on the cross. In fact, according to John's Gospel, the last word of Jesus immediately prior to dying was. 'It is finished (fulfilled)' (Jn 19.30)."

(4)    Christianity's stand on the moral law

Concerning the moral law (aka "commandments"), Christians remind us of Jesus' reply to the man who asked him what needed to be done to gain eternal life. "Keep the commandments," was Jesus' answer. When asked, "Which ones," Jesus did not mention any of the non-moral laws; rather, by way of examples, he mentioned six moral laws, five taken from the Ten Commandments, and one ("Love your neighbor or as yourself") from the group of moral laws stated outside of the Ten Commandments. In consequence, Christians say, "For us, God's will is chiefly expressed in the Torah's moral law."

(5)    The (moral) law is written in peoples' hearts

About this moral law, Paul says in his Letter to the Romans that it is "written in" our "hearts" (Rom 2.15): As stated before, most of the moral laws, people can recognize as binding apart from their being stated in the Torah--in contrast to the non-moral law. Christianity states, "That Jewish people are not supposed to eat pork--an example of a non-moral law, no one can know apart from the Torah. In contrast, that one is not to steal, to commit murder, and to lie, one can know apart from the Torah--one can recognize it through one's own reasoning power. That's the type of laws Paul has in mind when saying that they are written into peoples' hearts."

(6)    Summary

Thus, for a Christian, doing God's will means living up to the moral law as stated in the Torah, and as explained and amplified by Jesus.

"Should I become an engineer, a physician, a biologist, or a teacher? Should I get married? What is the will of God?" Many Christians would say that you might not get a firm answer as to what corresponds to the will of God with regard to these questions; what you do in this respect may be "your choice" (although they say that it does not hurt to pray for clarity in these matters). Christianity would add, however, "Whatever you do with regard to the things that are 'your choice,' be sure that you do not act contrary to the moral law as stated in the Torah and as interpreted and amplified by Jesus."

Later, more detailed remarks on all of this will be made.

PART SIX: "GOD IN THE DOCK"

As you know, there are many objections to Christianity. Some have to do with the problem of evil: How can there be a God who supposedly is perfectly good and almighty when the world is full of evil? Would not a world coming from a perfectly good and almighty God be different from the one we live in?

These questions put God into the dock, as it were. "To be in the dock" means "to be a defendant in court." The word "dock" refers, in one of its meanings, to the enclosed place where a defendant stands or sits during a criminal trial. Thus, the title of Part Six, borrowed from one of C. S. Lewis' essays, pictures God as having to defend himself against various accusations, specifically against the one contained in the question (= chief question), "If you are almighty, why is there so much evil?"

I.    THE PROSECUTION'S CASE: GOD MADE AT LEAST TWO GRIEVOUS MISTAKES WHEN CREATING THE UNIVERSE

1.    THE PROSECUTOR'S Case

Here is the prosecution's case:

"Remember, Your Honor, what Christians believe about the human condition: For humans as we know them, it is dreadfully difficult to make their will and their emotions follow their reason, and reason itself also is negatively affected, so that we are prone to error. Supposedly, it was not so in the beginning--the first humans had an easy time making their will and their emotions follow their reason. Unlike we, they had no difficulty to avoid wrongdoing. But by doing wrong anyway, they messed it all up. It was not enough that they messed it up for themselves. No, the damage to their nature went from them to their descendants, so that from the beginning of humanity, a damaged nature was handed on from generation to generation.

"Thus, the defendant made at least two grievous mistakes when creating the universe. First, he made the first humans such that it was possible for them to do wrong. Had he seen to it that that possibility would be excluded, had he created the first humans such that wrongdoing would not have been an option for them, it would not have been possible for them to mess their nature up, and things would have been fine for everyone; there would then be no defective human nature.

"Suppose, however, we let that first mistake go by. Then, a second mistake becomes obvious. After Adam and Eve had damaged their nature, why did the defendant not see to it that no one else would be negatively affected by the damage they had caused to themselves? Why did he not protect others from the malfunction that Adam and Eve had inflicted on their nature? Two obvious possibilities come to mind how this could have been accomplished. First, the defendant could have kept Adam and Eve from having offspring, made a totally fresh start, and given us a different set of first parents who would not damage their nature by wrongdoing. Second, if he insisted on keeping Adam and Eve our first parents, he could and should have placed something like a filter, a barrier, between the first parents and their descendants so that the damage to their nature would be limited to them rather than being handed on to future generations.

"Thus, there are simple measures that could have been taken to ensure that currently existing humans would be kept free from the calamity of a damaged nature. By not availing himself of any of them, the defendant demonstrated as a minimum serious negligence, and ought to be found guilty."

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/27/12 (Class # 10)

2.    SUMMARY of the prosecution's case

Prior to turning to Christianity's response to the prosecution's case, here is a summary of the charges against the defendant:

The prosecution accuses the defendant of two mistakes:

First, it was a mistake that Adam and Eve were created such that it was possible for them to do wrong (= "first mistake charge").

Second, it was a mistake that the defendant failed to protect other humans from being negatively affected by Adam and Eve's damaged nature (= "second mistake charge").

Concerning this second mistake, the prosecution presented two proposals as to how it could have been avoided. One is preventing Adam and Eve from having offspring, making a fresh start, and giving us different first parents (= "different first parents proposal"). The other is allowing Adam and Eve to reproduce, but placing something like a filter or a barrier between them and succeeding generations so that their descendants would not be negatively affected by the damage the first humans inflicted on their nature (= "filter between the first human parents and their descendants proposal").

II.    THE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE

We turn now to the response Christianity gives to the prosecutor's accusations. Is it a good response? Does it carry the day? Since purely religious teachings are involved, I must invoke the Fox Principle.

1.    response to the first "mistake charge" ("God failed to exclude the possibility of wrongdoing from the design of the first humans")

Recall that the first mistake charge faults the defendant for having made the first humans such that it was possible for them to do wrong. In other words, the defendant is faulted for not excluding the possibility of wrongdoing from the design of the first humans.

The defendant's response includes:

Remember that humans have been created for the purpose of loving God. For love to have any worth at all, it must be given because that's what the person responding with love wants. "Forced love" is not only not worth anything; rather, the expression, "forced love" is an oxymoron--that is, a concept joining contradictory elements, such as "merciful Nazi concentration camp guard," "silent noise," or "sophisticated simpleton"--it cannot be.

If something must be given "of the giver's own accord" in order to be genuine, this involves necessarily the possibility of withholding it. That applies also to love: It cannot be genuine unless it is given "of the loving person's own accord"; in consequence, there cannot be any love if the possibility of its being withheld was always totally lacking.

The disobedience on the part of the first humans included that they withheld their love from God; instead of gratefully and lovingly acknowledging that all they were and had came from him as a precious gift, they wanted to be like him, they wanted to be their own bosses.

The expression, "Being destined to love God and being made such that one is never capable to withhold one's love" designates something that is impossible—like square circles or female uncles.

Christianity interprets the account of the fall of humans recorded in Gn 3.1-6 ["Link"] as an event providing an opportunity for growth to their love; an event necessary for that love to mature into what it was meant to become. Rather than growing as it was meant to, however, it was withheld.

There was, of course, nothing that forced God to create Adam and Eve--personal beings capable of true love--in the first place; he could have stopped at the monkeys or the dolphins. Creating personal beings, though, inevitably meant opening up the possibility of love withheld.

Thus, in response to the first "mistake charge," the defendant states, "Asking me to make the first humans--persons with the dignity of freedom--such that wrongdoing (= withholding love) would be impossible for them is similar to asking me to make a square circle or a female uncle. I could, of course, have made sure that there would be no possibility of love withheld by refraining from creating Adam and Eve; but guess who else would then not be in the picture either?"  (While saying the "guess who" part, the defendant is probably looking straight at the prosecutor.)

[Aside (in earlier semesters, this used to be a lengthy section): Some argue that God's "being almighty" includes that he can bring about "love which cannot possibly be withheld." This involves a misunderstanding: "Being almighty" does not involve being able to cause illogical things, such as square circles, female uncles, or married bachelors. "A being destined to love, but never able to withhold love" is similarly illogical, although its illogical nature is not as immediately obvious as that of the other examples.]

2.    response to the second "mistake charge" ("god failed to protect others from being affected by the damage the first humans caused to their nature")

a.    Restating the second "mistake charge" and of the two proposals going with it

Remember the second mistake charge. Turning to it, the prosecutor might say, "Well, maybe the voluntary element in love made it impossible even for an almighty God to exclude the possibility of wrongdoing on the part of the first human parents and the consequent damage to their nature; but the defendant ought to have kept that mess-up from affecting other people."

Remember also that the prosecution suggested two proposals aimed at preventing the second mistake:

Either God should have prevented Adam and Eve from reproducing after they had messed up and given us different first parents--parents of whom, in his omniscience, he would have foreseen that they would not mess up (= proposal # 1); or he should have placed a filter or barrier between Adam and Eve on the one hand and their descendants on the other, a filter or barrier that would prevent the corrupted nature from passing from the first human parents to their descendants (= proposal # 2). The first is the "different first parents" proposal; the second is the "filter between the first parents and their descendants" proposal.

b.    Christianity's response to the "different first parents" proposal

We turn first to the "different first parents" proposal. Here is how Christianity might respond:

(1)    A thought experiment

You are a son or daughter of your mom and dad. Maybe you have "experimented" in your mind: "How would it feel to be a child of different parents—maybe wealthier ones, Austrian ones, Chinese ones, Sudanese ones, Indian ones?" Maybe you did carry the mental experiment even further than that: "There might be intelligent beings in some other solar system or galaxy in the universe—how would it feel to be one of them?" (Actually, of course, given our lack of information about such beings, you needed to confine yourself to fiction in this regard: "How would it feel to be a Klingon or a Vulcan?")

Moreover, Christians believe in created personal beings outside of the physical universe, called angels. How would it feel to be one of them?

(2)    What if it belongs to my nature to be a son/daughter of Adam? If so, Adam's existence is a necessary precondition for me to come about

Christianity might tell you, "That's fine for thought experiments--but you are imagining something that is impossible. You are essentially a son or a daughter of Adam. Being a son or a daughter of Adam necessarily belongs to your nature. Just as a square can exist only with equal diagonals or not at all, so can you exist only as a son or daughter of Adam, or not at all." (In the case of a square, it is, of course, totally obvious that it cannot exist without equal diagonals; in your case, it is not as plainly obvious that you cannot exist without being Adam's descendant, but equally true, even if more hidden.)

If this is so, God would have to say, "My having created Adam was an absolutely necessary precondition for your coming about. Sure, had I not created Adam, I might still have created someone just 'like' you--your clone, for example, the son or daughter of Adam's clone; but that still would not have been you. Your irreplaceable personality, this 'you' who right now experiences him/herself as existing, would then be absent."

In short, Christianity states that there are only two options for everyone in this room (and all other currently existing humans): Either to exist as sons and daughters of Adam, or not at all.

God could have started something like a human race with different first parents, first parents of whom he would have foreseen that they would not withhold their love; but they would have had descendants other than any of the ones Adam and Eve had. What would exist under that assumption would be a different humanity, and you and I would not be in the picture.

In other words, the "different first parents" proposal means your non-existence; you would not be around under that proposal.

c.    Response to the "filter between the first human parents and their descendants" proposal

The prosecution might state at this point, moving to the "filter between the first human parents and their descendants" proposal, "Well, maybe I really can exist only as a descendant of Adam and Eve although God foresaw that they would corrupt their nature; but why did God not install something like a barrier, a 'filter,' a safeguard between the first human parents and their descendants to make sure that the latter would not be saddled with the corruption Adam and Eve inflicted on their nature?"

Christianity replies,

If we humans existing today examine our nature, we will see that the corruption of our nature is not limited to a little corner of who we are, but is all-pervasive. Virtually everything pertaining to us as personal beings is affected.

The disconnect between will and reason is only a particularly glaring example of the destructive force that has done damage to our nature. Our emotional live is even more messed up, though, and our reason also is negatively affected.

Christianity holds that the damage Adam and Eve caused to their nature affected every facet of their being, including features of their nature that necessarily were to be handed on to future generations. Whoever is a true descendant of Adam and Eve shares their nature, which includes the damage they have done to it. It is not possible to participate in something that is damaged without being affected by the damage.

The only way to prevent the damage to human nature from being handed on to future generations would have been by means of having prevented them from having offspring, which God could, of course, have done--but again, you and I would not be in the picture under that assumption.

3.    The result

a.    Two and only two logical possibilities--Adam's having sinned, but having descendants with an intact nature might be a "square circle"

Whether or not you accept the considerations we went over (remember that I am applying the Fox Principle), Christianity would argue that they lead to the following result:

According to your inner nature (= roughly, according to what you really and truly are), you are a son or a daughter of Adam and Eve; their existence is a precondition for your coming to be. They were, however, as was know to God in advance, the kinds of beings who would do damage to their nature; if allowed to have offspring, they would necessarily hand on a damaged nature to future generations, including to you. Given all these contingencies, there are, for you, only two possibilities: Either to exist as a son or daughter of Adam and be afflicted with a damaged nature, or not to exist at all.

Existing as a descendant of an Adam (your only mode of existence) who sinned, but enjoying an intact nature may be what you might prefer; but it might be an impossibility; a "square circle."

b.    "Why me?" Transition to the Christian idea of salvation

Thus, it appears that, given who Adam and Eve were and given that you can exist only as a descendant of Adam and Eve, there was only one possibility for God to "get to you": Bring you into being although this meant calling someone into existence who had a damaged nature.

Maybe you ask now, "Why me? Why was I wanted even though I would have a damaged nature?"

Well, according to Christianity, we can hear the defendant say now,

"Because since eternity, I have loved you with a passionate love going in intensity beyond anything you can imagine. I loved YOU, not the likes of you (your clone, for example), YOU PERSONALLY, this one irreplaceable individual who cannot be repeated, for whom there is no substitute."

But how loving is it to bring someone into existence under circumstances in which he or she necessarily will have a damaged nature?

The defendant replies,

"That might be a just question, had I intended to leave you in your misery; but I called you into being intending since eternity to do something about your predicament, because . . .

". . . Because I love you so much that it hurts."

What is that supposed to mean?

The defendant might say, "Stand in front of a crucifix and look at it . . . Maybe then, you will understand."

This leads us to the Christian concept of salvation.

PART SEVEN: "SEE HOW THE CROSS OF THE LORD STANDS REVEALED AS THE TREE OF LIFE"

Remember the following thoughts of the defendant when responding to the prosecution:

"Given that you can exist only as a son of Adam, that is, with Adam's nature, and given that Adam was the kind of person who would do wrong, thereby damaging the nature you were to inherit, I had only two choices: Your non-existence or your existence with a damaged nature. I chose the second because I loved you; and out of love, I intended to act such as to make it possible for you in the end to leave your predicament behind."

What was it according to Christianity that God did to help us out of the predicament in which we find ourselves? Christians hold that in this respect, God acted in and through the person of Jesus, which brings us to the question, "Who was Jesus according to Christianity?"

1.    Who do Christians say that Jesus is?

The Jewish Holy Scriptures predict the coming of a person as important as Moses. (Dt 18.15) That person will come from the Jews, but not only for the Jews. His title is Messiah (= Christ).

Christians consider Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament.

Further, as many of you know, the Christian monotheism (= belief in one God) is unique in that it includes the idea of the Trinity: The one God Christians believe in exists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians hold that according to his person, Jesus is identical with the Second Person of the Trinity, called "the Son."

Thus, Christians consider him as God, as the one through whom the universe was created, who exists (outside of time) independently of and prior to his conception as a human. He has equal power and majesty with his Father.

It is important to note: Even if no universe had been created, the person whom Christians call Jesus would exist as one of the three persons of the Trinity. He would exist only in his divine nature, though, not in his human nature. Had God decided not to create a universe, all that would exist is the community--or mystery--of love which Christians call the Trinity: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 2/29/12 (Class # 11)

2.    The human predicament and a perfectly just solution which God did not choose

As indicated, according to Christianity, human nature is broken by original sin. This means that left to themselves, humans would inevitably grow up to be little monsters, at best indifferent to God from whom they received all they are and all they have; more likely, though, filled with contempt and hatred for God from whom they received their entire being. Thus, left to themselves (= left to ourselves), they (= we) could not possibly be pleasing to God. We would continue to do things that are wrong, keeping on misusing our freedom for a purpose for which it was not made: Each one of us furthering his or her own agenda at the expense of everyone else, seriously harming others and ourselves in the process of doing so.

Adam and Eve's wrongdoing had the inevitable consequence that their descendants would be as I just described them. The only way to prevent these "little varmint" from coming about would have been preventing Adam and Eve from having offspring or not to make Adam and Eve in the first place.

Since no one--neither Adam, nor Eve, nor one of their descendants--does have a claim to existence, not creating any of them would have been a perfectly just solution. It would have meant, of course, a continuous night of non-existence for all of us, including you and me.

3.    How God actually responded to the human predicament according to Christianity, and why

But while that solution would have been fair and just, it was not good enough for God. For an inscrutable reason known only to him, he tells me, "I love you, Fritz (you must, of course, fill in your own name). I have loved you since eternity with an infinite love. Someone similar to you, someone almost like you, your clone--a 'Fritz' as a descendant of someone other than Adam--cannot take your place. I love you, this unique, irreplaceable individual. This is the reason why I did not prevent Adam from reproducing: So that YOU would come to exist. Left to your own devices, you would, of course, be on the path to certain misery; but I do love you. So in Jesus who is the Christ, the Second Person of what you call the Trinity, I declared my full solidarity with you by entering the human race, becoming literally one of you humans, assuming a true human nature, including a physical body which genetically came from Adam (over Abraham and David)."

In Jesus, God really and truly became one of us: Jesus' divine person, existing prior to and independently of the creation of the universe, joined itself to a human nature, including a human, physical body.

4.    Two beneficial results of God's becoming a member of the human community

God's entering the human race had two beneficial results according to Christianity. One of them consists in countering the damage done to human nature; the second consists in making, on behalf of the rest of humanity, restitution for the debt humans incurred.

a.    Counteracting the damage to human nature (= poison-antidote)

First, it counteracted the damage Adam and Eve's wrongdoing had inflicted on human nature. (Since God is outside of time, this beneficial effect on human nature worked not only forward, but also backward in human history--not only for humans born after Jesus' incarnation [= "Jesus' becoming human"], but also for those existing before.) Think of humanity as if it were a big organism, with each individual human person as one of its cells. The organism has a serious disease which affects each and every of the cells. It is as if each one of these cells were infected with a deadly poison. Jesus' joining that organism as one of its cells is like a powerful antidote being "injected" into the organism, counteracting the disease caused by the poison.

b.    Making restitution for the debt human wrongdoing incurred, but going beyond what any finite human would be able to pay

Second, having become literally and truly one of us, Jesus (who is God) could act as our true representative and, standing in for us, make restitution for any wrongdoing that has ever been committed by anyone. The debt incurred by those wrongdoings has been paid--Jesus the Christ who is God has paid it on the cross. All one needs to do is acknowledging that one's debt has been wiped out (and lead a life consistent with this acknowledgement), and it will be wiped out.

Here is some additional commentary on this point:

Every one of us has done wrong, is in need of forgiveness, and must make restitution for the wrongs done, “repay” the debt incurred by the wrongs done. Because of the magnitude of the wrongdoing, no one of us is capable to pay back what is owed.

Maybe you object, “But Fritz, true, I did do many wrongs, even some serious ones; but don’t exaggerate: I do not think that the debt I incurred is so astronomical as to be beyond my means of paying it back.”

In reply, I must first remind you that I am only reporting what Christianity says about these matters: Remember the Fox Principle.

Christianity would respond to your objection:

“First—easy to understand, the seriousness of wrongdoing is co-determined by the rank that the target of the wrongdoing (= the being against which the wrongdoing is directed) assumes in the ‘hierarchy (scale) of beings,’ from lowest to highest. That hierarchy is roughly: Inanimate objects—plants—animals—humans—God. The higher the target of wrongdoing ranks, the more serious is the wrongdoing. It is wrong to inflict needless suffering on an animal; but inflicting needless suffering on a baby is much worse because a baby ranks higher in the scale of beings than an animal.

“Further, imagine committing a cruel act against a child. The primary target of this offense is, of course, the child, but there are secondary targets: The child’s parents—and everyone loving that child—also will consider your action as an affront against them.

“Remember now that according to our belief, there is one person loving every human being more than you can imagine. That person is God (actually, quite accurately, that’s three persons loving everyone more than you can imagine, those persons being the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Thus, each and every action you ever performed against another human being was also an affront against God.

“How does God rank now in a scale of beings? If you say, ‘Infinitely high,’ go to the head of the class.

“Thus, each and every wrongdoing through which we hurt other humans also is an affront against the infinite being. Remember now that the degree of seriousness attaching to wrongdoing is co-determined by the level the target of the wrongdoing assumes in a scale of being. Do you see now that, since each wrongdoing also is directed against the infinite being, an infinite component ‘creeps into’ the degree of seriousness of wrongdoing we humans commit? This also makes an infinite component ‘creep into’ the debt we owe to make up for our wrongdoings. Such a debt is entirely, completely, totally beyond what you or I can pay back.

“This is where we must rely on Jesus: As a genuine, true, actual member of the human community, he is one of us; he can truly ‘stand in’ for us and pay the debt humanity has incurred and keeps on incurring. As a divine, infinite person, he can pay even a debt with an infinite component of magnitude.

Paying this debt was, besides him acting as an antidote against the poison sickening each and every cell of the organism that is humanity, the second beneficial result that Jesus’ becoming one of us had for humanity.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 3/5/12 (Class # 12)

5.    Old Testament passages concerning the Messiah's suffering

Even paying a little debt involves suffering. Paying an enormous debt involves enormous suffering. Christians believe that Jesus paid the debt we owe when he suffered and died on the cross for us.

They see Jesus' suffering predicted in several passages of the Old Testament (= Jewish Holy Scriptures). Two such passages are Ps 22 (= Psalm Twenty-two) [link; also handed out in class] and Is 52.13-53 (= the end of Chapter 52 and the entire Chapter 53 of Isaiah) [link; likewise handed out in class].

a.    Psalm 22 on Jesus' suffering

The first two-thirds of Ps 22 (Ps 22.1-21) describe a person's agonizing psychological and physical suffering, inflicted on him by cruel people, called "bulls," "lions," "dogs," and "a band of evil men." There are even segments reminiscent of crucifixion, the method of execution to which Jesus was sentenced by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate: "They have pierced my hands and my feet, I can count all my bones . . ." (Ps 22.16-17). Moreover, several passages in the Psalm can be coordinated with segments of the Gospel accounts about the suffering of Jesus (see the course packet for a table placing Gospel and Psalm passages side by side).

The last third of Psalm 22 turns positive: God did not despise or distain the suffering the earlier parts of the Psalm describe; it appears to have been for the benefit of the poor, the ones who seek the Lord, all the ends of the earth, all the families of the nations.

b.    Isaiah on the reason for Jesus' suffering

Isaiah 52.13-53.12 gives, according to Christianity's interpretation of that segment, the reason for the suffering of Jesus, the one who "grew up before him [God] like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground." The "tender shoot" and the "root" is Jesus as a human prior to the start of his public ministry; the "dry ground" is humanity with a nature damaged by original sin. What is the reason for Jesus' suffering? What was it for?

According to Isaiah, "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed" (53.5); "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (53.6); "For the transgression of my people he was stricken" (53.8); "The Lord makes his life a guilt offering" (53.10); "By his suffering my servant will justify many, and their guilt he shall bear" (53.11); "He shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses" (53.12).

He suffered for me and you, Christianity tells us; if we accept that undeserved gift and live the way we are supposed to, we can be set right with God although we came into this world with a severely damaged nature.

6.    hints at disagreements among traditional Christians

Up to now, I have avoided addressing disagreements among traditional Christians. I have made an effort to formulate matters such that most representatives of traditional Christianity would agree with what I said, although occasionally, that meant "walking a tightrope." Now, however, taking into consideration disagreements becomes unavoidable; so let me briefly hint at three of them.

a.    "Genuine healing" vs. "covering up" of the damage to human nature

The first disagreement refers to one of the two beneficial effects God's joining the human race in Jesus has on us. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and representatives of the Oriental churches consider as possible an actual, genuine healing of the damage Adam and Eve's sin has inflicted on human nature, although that healing will fully be realized only in the world to come. In contrast, many Protestants contend that the damage is only covered up, but keeps on persisting under the surface, as it were.

Compare the damage to human nature to fire damage done to a living room. Further, imagine repairs being made by replacing all the partially-burned beams and other damaged parts by new ones. This corresponds to the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental understanding of what is done to the damage to human nature through God's joining the human community in Jesus. On the other hand, imagine that all the damaged parts are left in the living room, and that they are covered by new wallpaper. This corresponds to the traditional Protestant understanding, including that of Martin Luther.

b.    Not seeing "eye to eye" with regard to the significance of the Christian way of life

The second disagreement refers to the fact that Christians are to lead a life different from non-Christians. It has to do with the significance of leading such a life.

Some Christians--traditional Catholics, for example--say, "If you want to be saved--that is, if you want to have the Messiah's saving deed applied to you, then you must lead a life conforming to the lifestyle demanded by Christ to be described in Part Eight": Leading the life demanded of a Christian is a condition for being saved.

Others, such as many traditional Protestants, including Martin Luther, say, "You have been saved; consequently, you will naturally want to lead the lifestyle Jesus expects of his followers": Leading the life demanded of a Christian is a consequence of being saved.

Maybe you do not consider the difference between these two ways of stating things as important; actually, though, they represent the two sides of the most fundamental disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism. We will return to these points when speaking about the "faith--works" controversy.

c.    Not seeing "eye to eye" on who is included in God's love and in Jesus' saving deed

A third disagreement concerns the question of who is included in God's love and in Jesus' saving deed. According to traditional Catholicism, God's love and Jesus' saving deed extends to each and every human; Christ has died for each and every human, has enabled each and every human to overcome the devastating consequences of the damage to human nature, although not every human actually is going to avail him- or herself of the benefits made available to all.

According to some forms of Protestantism (especially those of a strongly Calvinist bent), God's love is selective, as is the saving deed of Jesus: It was not for all, but only for some; the rest are as doomed as all humans would have been in the absence of Christ's saving deed. We will come back to this later when the Catholic, the Calvinist, and the Lutheran understandings of predestination will be taken up.

End of midterm exam material.

Midterm exam: March 7, 2012

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 3/7/12 (Class # 13)

Midterm Exam

Beginning of final exam material:

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 3/19/12 (Class # 14)

PART EIGHT: THE CHRISTIAN WAY OF LIFE

How is a Christian to live?

For starters, a Christian is to turn his or her entire life into prayer. So let me speak about . . .

I.    Prayer

1.    What prayer is not to be

Remember the last time you spoke to someone whom you really and truly love. I am sure you did not walk up to him or her and mindlessly rattled off a bunch of words you had memorized--mumbled them without paying attention to what you were saying.

But isn't that how Christians typically pray?

2.    What prayer is to be

a.    "Definition"

Christianity defines praying as speaking to God--as speaking to the person who truly understands me and who loves me more than a "best friend," a parent, a spouse, a boyfriend or a girlfriend ever could possibly love me.

b.    Nothing wrong with pre-fabricated prayers; but one must "turn the autopilot off"

Christianity does not see anything wrong with using prefabricated formulae for praying--many beautiful prayers have been made up by people over the history of humanity. There is the best-known, the most widely used prayer book--the Book of Psalms, used by Jews and Christians alike. It contains 150 prayers for all kinds of different occasions.

For Christians, there is also the Lord's Prayer--made up by Jesus himself, and many other prayers.

When using such prayers, one needs to make sure, however, to "turn the autopilot off" and quit mindlessly parroting these prayers while thinking of things other than those the words one uses signify. One needs to get away from making one's mouth say, "Our Father in Heaven," while one's mind is thinking, "When will we be finally out of here? That was a very long sermon today"; or making one's mouth say, "Your will be done," while one's mind is thinking, "Why did that stupid guy have to park closer to the parking lot exit than I"; or making one's mouth say, "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who have sinned against us," while one's mind is thinking, "I really socked it good to that fellow who tried to give me a hard time yesterday."

One needs to make a conscious and continuous effort to concentrate on what one is saying.

Christianity is, of course, aware of the weakness of human nature and acknowledges that falling into the autopilot mode will, at times, be unavoidable--but there needs to be a conscious effort to overcome this tendency.

c.    One should not limit oneself to pre-fabricated prayers

Also, a Christian is to speak to God not only by way of pre-fabricated formulae, but in his or her own words--the way one would speak to an admired person who loves one deeply with a love most similar to the "inloveness" of someone in love with you. Christianity advises: Tell him what bothers you; ask him for help; thank him for everything he has done for you, and most of all, express your admiration you do have--or are supposed to have--for him.

This brings us to the . . .

3.    Division of prayers into four chief kinds

Traditionally four chief kinds of prayer are distinguished from each other: Prayers of petition, prayers of thanksgiving, penitential prayers (= admitting/confessing one's sinfulness to God), and prayers of praise and adoration. This is the order of significance they assume in the minds of most Christians (in the case of many, prayers of petition seem to be the only type of prayer they get themselves to say); Christianity teaches, however, that in reality, the order is to be reversed, with prayers of praise and adoration assuming the first place.

a.    Prayers of petition

I begin with prayers of petition.

(1)    An objection: Prayers of petition are unnecessary

As indicated, in the lives of many, prayers of petition play the greatest role of all types of prayer; for some, they are even the only type of prayer they ever formulate. Interestingly, though, one often can hear the following objection to this type of prayer:

"God knows anyway what I need and what my friends need; it is, therefore, superfluous to ask him for anything. This shows that prayers of petition are unnecessary."

(2)    Two responses to this objection

Christianity has two responses to this objection (as always, I must limit myself to present the response; it is not my place to comment on its quality):

(a)    First response: Prayers of petition foster the appropriate attitude towards undeserved gifts

The first response is: God wants us to ask him for what we need (or think we need) because there is no better method for learning to adopt an attitude on which our entire life is to be built: An awareness that every benefit I enjoy is a gift from God; not something I do have a claim on or that is "coming to me"; but something that God allows me to enjoy because of his generosity. In this sense, prayers of petition serve as a "reality check."

(b)    Second response: Jesus urges his followers to use prayers of petition

Second, Christians argue that Jesus endorses prayers of petition and urges his followers to use them.

The Lord's prayer--formulated by Jesus (see Mt 6.9-13)--contains several petitions: For the coming of God's kingdom, the being done of his will, for our daily bread, for forgiveness (connected, by the way, with a promise that we also would forgive), for not being led into temptation, and for being preserved from evil.

Jesus also says, "Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive." (Mt 21.22)

(3)    Why are there are so many unfulfilled prayers of petition although Jesus says that one will receive whatever one asks for with faith?

The average Christian, upon hearing the words from Matthew's Gospel just quoted, might well laugh out loud and give us a long, long list of items he or she asked for in prayers of petition but did not get.

Why does this occur so frequently in spite of what Jesus says about the power of prayers of petition? Does it not prove Jesus wrong?

Christianity would respond (remember: it cannot be my intention to defend Christianity; all I can do is inform you what Christianity would reply to this question): There may be three reasons for this non-fulfillment:

First, Jesus says that one will receive whatever one "ask[s] for in prayer with faith." Maybe instead of praying with faith that God would hear you, your attitude was more like that of the person who buys a lottery ticket: "Just as the odds of winning are rather small, so is it with the odds that God will listen." This is not prayer with faith; it is not the kind of prayer of which Jesus promised that it would be fulfilled.

Second, maybe you were confident, but you still did not ask in the right spirit. Asking in the right spirit means asking such that gratitude for God will flow from one's heart as soon as one receives what one asked for. How do people ask, though? Is it the spirit of, "I do not deserve this--but I am appealing to your generosity and mercy: Please grant it"? Or was it in the spirit, "What I am asking for is due to me; you owe it to me; therefore, you must give it to me"? Also, think back at instances where you actually received what you asked for. Maybe instead of thanking for it, you thought, "It may have been only coincidence that I received what I asked for; my prayer may have had nothing to do with this thing having happened." The Christian tells you, though, "There are no coincidences of this nature; moreover, think how you would react to a human person whom you ask for a favor, and he tells you that he was about to do anyway for you what you asked. Should this not increase your gratitude rather than diminish it? If you do not receive what you asked for in prayer, maybe the spirit in which you prayed made clear that there would not be even only a shred of gratitude if your prayer would be responded to. This is not truly asking in faith."

Third--and this may be the most important reason: I often do not know what is in my true interest; I might be asking for something that is harmful to me in the long run, appealing and beneficial as it might appear at the moment.

Think of the following illustration: A father takes his child to the fair. The child has an allergy to chocolate--eating it causes serious health problems. Now, she sees tasty-looking chocolate offered in a booth and asks her dad to buy her some. Would he be a good father if he would fulfill her wish? Of course not. Rather, he will gently remind her of her condition and offer to buy something else she will enjoy, such as cotton candy or ice cream. The kid might, of course, go ballistic anyway and accuse the father of not being as nice as her friend's dad who bought chocolates for his child.

Similarly, if God would give me what I ask for if my request is for something that is not in my best interest, he would not truly be good; since he is good, as Christianity assumes, he will not give me what is not in my best interest, no matter how fervently I ask.

Christianity also teaches, however, that, whenever I sincerely ask God for something I honestly but mistakenly believe to be in my best interest when actually, it is not, I will receive something else instead; and if I'd be quiet and listen rather than imitating the girl who went ballistic, I might even be able to notice what it is.

Thus, "asking in faith" includes the conviction that God always knows what is good for me, while I rarely know it. My prayer of petition must be spoken with the sentiment, "But grant the petition only if what I am asking for is good for me."

[Just as an aside, asking for something in prayer although I sincerely believe it to be opposed to my best interest is blasphemy (an offense against God) according to Christianity.]

(4)    Do not many prayer requests remain unfulfilled although what is asked for is obviously in the person's best interest?

Many non-Christians or ex-Christians would object (and perhaps rightly so; not for me to say) that there are instances in which people ask for things that are so obviously in their best interest that there should not even be a debate about it; but they still do not receive it. A case in point is a person about to undergo a serious operation. The evening before the operation, his entire congregation gets together and prays fervently that all might go well; but nevertheless, he dies on the operating table.

Assuming that the prayer was spoken in faith and with an attitude that would lead to gratitude if there is fulfillment of the prayer, the Christian would respond: "Well, I have news for you: If and when the time has come for you to be called home to God, it is no longer in your best interest to continue living here." Christians have called this life an "exile," a "valley of tears," and similar things; and no earthly joy can compare with the happiness of the life to come. Considering death as one of the greatest evils means that one has incorrectly ordered priorities--or so Christianity at least claims.

(5)    Petitions in support of others

One more word on prayers of petition--implied by the previous point: Christianity tells you that petitions for others should be as important in your prayer life as petitions for yourself.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 3/21/12 (Class # 15)

b.    Prayers of thanksgiving

(1)    Another illustration of ingratitude

You meet an acquaintance who screwed up at work. He is afraid that at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors to be held next week, a decision will be made that he be fired. This would have devastating consequences for him and for his family. He knows that you are a member of the board. He begs you to do everything in your power to help him. You respond, "Well, actually, I informed the board already that I will not be at the meeting because I will be on vacation--I have planned a trip to Arizona, including visiting the Grand Canyon. Given my workload, it is the only chance I do have for a vacation for the next three years at least." You see how dejected he becomes right away--he knows that, given the board's make-up, there will be no one else to speak in his behalf. You, on the other hand, know that he has tried hard to improve his performance; but since he had been on probation for earlier screw-ups which actually were his fault, that latest mishap will do him in although it was not his fault. So you say, "OK, I will cancel my vacation. I cannot promise anything; but I will do my best." The other leaves, happy.

At the meeting, you speak in his behalf, and the vote turns out to be unanimous--in his favor. The Chairman of the Board takes his cell phone out of his pocket and calls your acquaintance right away. He informs him of the action just taken, and adds, "If it would not have been for the strong support you received from so-and-so [that's you, in case you did not guess], you would not be working for us anymore."

Then, the board takes other agenda items up.

Two days later, as you leave the company's lunch room, your acquaintance walks in. "Oh, hi," is all he says as he rushes by you. There is not even the tiniest, "Thank you; I appreciate what you have done for me."

What an affront!

But isn't that how we treat God all the time--or so Christianity claims, at least?

(2)    One more illustration: The lady emerging from the crippled JetBlue plane that had landed safely--the typical Christian

Some time ago, a crippled airplane from the JetBlue Airways (Flight 292) made an emergency landing at the Los Angeles International Airport--the jet's front wheels were stuck at a ninety-degree angle to how they were supposed to be. Before landing, the plane circled the airport for several hours to burn off most of the fuel. The cable news channels kept on showing life pictures of the crippled plane, and the passengers watched these shows on the television sets on the plane. We can only try to imagine how afraid they were. The plane landed remarkably safely, though--the front wheels did, of course, get totally destroyed, and there was a hail of sparks coming from them. The plane did not even slide on its belly. All passengers--about 140--emerged safely from the aircraft.

The next day, a female passenger was interviewed on TV--on the O'Reilly Factor. She recounted how scared she had been as the plane was burning off fuel, how she had prayed, how she had made all kinds of bargains with God about changing her life if she'd be safe --"And mind you, I am not very religious," she added.

I do not want to denigrate her--but if she is the typical person, the intensity of the thanks she offered to God for her safety paled into insignificance compared to the intensity of her petitions; and maybe there was no "thank you" at all.

The typical human's mode of conduct includes fervent prayers of petition when there are tough times; when the tough times are over, so is prayer; often, there is not even a syllable of "thank you."

Earlier, I have referred to the passage about the ten lepers whom Jesus had cured but only one of them returned to give thanks.

(3)    The appropriateness and the benefits of prayer of thanksgiving

Christianity comments on all these considerations: Make prayers of thanksgiving at least as prominent as prayers of petition, for two reasons:

First, giving thanks simply is appropriate for benefits received.

Second, maybe God is more willing to grant your next request if dealing with a grateful person instead of dealing with an ingrate. Granting an ingrate's petition may not be in his or her best interest.

c.    Penitential prayers

Penitential prayers consist in admitting one's sinfulness to God, and expressing sorrow for having committed them. They are, of course, closely connected with asking for forgiveness, which is a prayer of petition. Psalm 51 is one of the most well-known penitential prayers. It shows the close connection between penitential prayers and prayers of petition: It even begins with a petition: "Have mercy on me, o God." An example of a verse admitting sinfulness is, "I know my offense; my sin is always before me. Against you alone I have sinned." (Ps 51.5-6)

d.    Prayers of praise and adoration

The fourth type of prayer--prayer of praise and adoration--seems to be most foreign to the typical Christian although Christianity considers it the most important one. It is simply an expression of one's admiration for God's greatness and goodness.

Think of the humans whom you admire most. You would want to tell them about your admiration when you meet them. Similarly, we should want to express our admiration to God, as is done in many of the psalms, Psalm 150, for example:

"Praise the LORD

"Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.

"Praise him for his acts of power; praise him for his surpassing greatness.

"Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre,

"Praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute,

"Praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals.

"Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.

"Praise the LORD."

It is important to understand that according to Christianity, we cannot make God greater by praising Him. Picture yourself at the Grand Canyon. Your admiration of its awesome beauty does not add to its beauty; but your heart changes through your admiration. Similarly, the person benefiting from praising God is the Christian who does the praising.

Suppose the air passages into your lungs are constricted, and you do have a hard time breathing. The passages need to be opened so that enough oxygen can flow in.

Prayers of praise are, according to Christianity, the most effective means of opening the passageways into a person's soul so that the "oxygen" needed can enter and revive the person.

4.    Private PRAYER, COMMUNITY PRAYER, AND THE OFFICIAL PRAYER OF THE Christian COMMUNITY

Christianity distinguishes between community prayer and private prayer. Both shall be taken up below. Also, a word shall be said about the "official" and most important Christian community prayer.

a.    A note on community prayer in the face of an objection

Some people use the following word of Jesus to object to community prayer: "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your father in secret. And your father who sees in secret will repay you." (Mt 6.5-6) Does this not mean that community prayer is out, and that one should only pray by oneself in one's "inner room" behind closed doors?

Christianity has three responses to this objection.

First, what Jesus objects to is not public prayer as such, but prayer for show. Sincere prayer in the privacy of one's home is always better than prayer spoken by a hypocrite who prays only to be admired by others.

Second, Christianity would maintain that the expression, "inner room," used by Jesus does not only have a literal meaning, but also a figurative one--the interiority of one's soul or personality; and whenever one prays, whether in a community or privately, one needs to "withdraw" into this "inner room."

Third, Christianity maintains that Jesus was critical of those faults that were particularly in vogue at his time; had other faults been popular, he would have criticized them. At the time of Jesus, it was a popular vanity to be seen in prayer. While there are circles in the Western world even today in which this fault may be in vogue, in many circles, the opposite may be the case--people are ashamed of being seen praying. For those people, Jesus probably would say things such as, "If you are ashamed of being seen praying in public, rest assured that I will be ashamed of you before my heavenly father."

The public prayer (or maybe "set of public prayers") most important for Christians, we will speak about in a little while.

b.    Private prayer--turning one's entire life into a prayer

Christianity, however, also encourages private prayer

(1)    An illustration highlighting the importance of private prayer

Picture taking a day-long hike with a friend. There may be a need for you to inform him explicitly of some things, such as to be careful not to step into the seemingly harmless puddles on a particular stretch of road because they are deeper than they seem, or how to conduct himself at the house of the acquaintance at which you intend to spend the night so that he does not upset the people there (imagine them as rather picky with regard to what they consider as appropriate conduct). But even if there is no need to inform him of such things, you will likely talk to him--you will point out nice things you see along the road, you will express worries and joys, make jokes, engage in small talk. He probably would not consider you a good walking companion if all you'd do is inform him of things he absolutely needs to know, but other than that, you were to keep silent.

(2)    The illustration applied

If you are a Christian, you believe that your entire life is like a walk with someone much closer to you that your best friend. Are you a good walking companion? Or is it not rather the case that at times (maybe even very frequently), you do not even remember that he is walking with you?

Christianity advises you to make it a habit of talking to him not only during specific prayer times, (you should have, of course, them, too, like morning prayer, evening prayer, grace before meals), but all day long. It is in this sense that your entire day is to become a prayer.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 3/26/12 (Class # 16)

c.    Why does God not talk back?

If prayer is speaking to God and if it is so important that we condition ourselves to speak to him "all day long," why does he never speak back? Is not he the non-communicative travel companion rather than we?

Good point; remember, I am not here to defend Christianity; but Christians would claim that they can respond to the objection that question contains:

True, God ordinarily does not talk back such that you can hear him like the student on the quadrangle whom you just asked for directions to your classroom building; but in a manner of speaking, he does talk back (or so Christianity maintains). Only, the way in which we lead our lives often is so "noisy" that we do have a hard time hearing him. If we would be more in a habit of entering into the most private recesses of our personality (what Jesus calls our "inner room"), we might receive messages that might come from him. If you pray in that way, a thought might come to your mind. Did it come only from yourself? Did you make it up? Maybe--but then, maybe it is a response to the words you formulated in prayer.

The "quietness" with which God supposedly is "speaking" to us according to Christianity is highlighted in the following experience Elijah is reported to have had (1 Kg [= First Book of Kings] 19.11-13):

"Then the LORD said, 'Go outside and stand on the mountain before the LORD; the LORD will be passing by.' A strong and heavy wind was rending the mountains and crushing rocks before the LORD--but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake--but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was fire--but the LORD was not in the fire. After the fire there was a tiny whispering sound. When he heard this, Elijah hid his face in his cloak and went and stood at the entrance of the cave. "

The Lord was in the tiny whispering sound. Christianity would say that, if we lead our lives in a manner that is too noisy, we will not hear God speaking back because our frantic activities will drown the tiny whispering sound out.

d.    Contemplative prayer: A brief “aside”

(1)    The "chief aside": Contemplative prayer as "wordless prayer"

The previous segments on prayer concern prayers involving words—the only kind of prayer most people are familiar with. The words are either spoken aloud, most of the time together with other people, or spoken “mentally” within oneself, as usually is the case with most private prayer.

Different from these "word prayers" are "wordless prayers," called contemplative prayers. "Contemplative" is derived from the Latin "contemplari," meaning "to gaze upon," "to pay attention to." Thus, contemplative prayer can be explained as prayer in which one "lovingly focuses one's attention at God rather than speaking to him."

To illustrate this through an example derived from ordinary human life, imagine being with someone whom you love, not saying anything to him or her, just being happy because the two of you are together. Contemplative prayer involves remembering that one is in God’s presence and making oneself aware that one ought to be deeply happy about being with someone who loves one in an unimaginably tender and intense way. One cannot “control” one’s happiness, of course; making oneself happy goes beyond what humans can do; all they are able to do is “prepare the way.” Many people who try contemplative prayer claim, though, that occasionally, wordlessly directing one's attention at God gives rise to intense happiness. Some even claim actually to have “felt” the presence and enormous magnitude of God’s love. Such sensations are called “mystical experiences.”

(2)    An “aside to the aside”: “The spiritual brain”

Mario Beauregard is a neuroscientist associated with the University of Montreal. He had the idea of investigating the brain activities connected with mystical experiences.

After somewhat complicated negotiations, a group of Carmelite nuns--the Carmelites are a contemplative order--agreed to cooperate. There was, of course, the difficulty that no one can “conjure up” a mystical experience in him- or herself. One can “prepare the ground” by withdrawing to a quiet place, removing distractions, becoming recollected, trying mentally to enter one’s “inner room”--the secret recess of one’s personality--, and focus one's attention at God; but when a mystical experience comes, it always is like a “gift,” like something one did not bring about oneself. The plan was to place the nuns participating in the experiments in a dark room by themselves; but being “hooked up” to equipment mapping the activities of one’s brain surely does not seem conducive to the coming about of a mystical experience.

There was an “in-between” possibility, though. It had been documented that recollecting or remembering a past experience is associated with brain activities similar to actually having the experience, although the brain activities are weaker compared to how they were during the experience one remembers. Recalling a hallucination involves brain activities similar to that of an actual hallucination; recalling a dream involves dream-like brain activities; recalling a real event, such as your recalling the first class meeting of RLS 126, involves brain activities similar to those that were involved in experiencing the real event. It seemed likely that something similar applied to recalling a mystical experience. The nuns were, therefore, instructed to remember a mystical experience they had had and to dwell on it with their memory; doing so is, of course, easily possible while hooked up to the measuring machinery.

The result was more than Beauregard had bargained for: While focusing their memory on a mystical experience they had previously had, several of the nuns actually passed into the state of new mystical experiences while their brain activities were measured.

The results were amazing: During such experiences, the brain does not “act” like dreaming; it does not act like hallucinating; it does not act like someone’s brain does if he or she is “faking” an experience. While there are unique features to the brain activities of someone having a mystical experience, what occurs basically involves the same brain reactions as when the brain's “owner” contacts something objectively real, something outside of him- or herself. Beauregard is, of course, quick to add that this “one-sided observation” is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of the object of the experience; he considers it, however, eminently significant that the mystic’s brain behaves as it does when a mind-independent reality is encountered.¹

e.    The official prayer of the Christian community

For most Christians, the most important prayer is connected with participating in a celebration Christ himself instituted, of which he commanded that it be done in his memory.

Christian groups do have different names for it, such as "Divine Liturgy" (Eastern Orthodoxy), "Lord's Supper" (various forms of Protestantism), "Mass" or "Eucharist" (Roman Catholicism), etc.

In the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 20.7), this celebration is called the "breaking of the bread," a name derived from a central part of the celebration, accompanied by a paraphrase of the following words, known as the "words of institution" (i.e. the words with which Jesus instituted [= established] that celebration):

"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.'" (Mt [= Gospel according to Matthew] 26.26-29) In Lk [Gospel according to Luke] 22.19, Jesus adds, "Do this in memory of me."

This central part is surrounded by other public prayers and other religious activities.

Concerning the central part, Christian denominations comprising about 70%-75% of all Christians (Oriental Christians, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholics, traditional Lutherans, many members of the Anglican Communion) hold that either after the words of institution are spoken (these words are a paraphrase of the Matthew passage printed above) or after the Holy Spirit has been called down (known as the epiclesis), what is present under the forms of bread and wine truly is the body and blood of Christ; that Christ has come to be present from that moment on as true God and true man. Prior to the Reformation, this belief was shared by all Christians. Many Protestants consider it as misguided and do not believe in the real presence as just defined (although some of them use the expression "real presence," but redefine its meaning).

Protestants disagreeing with the view about Christ's real, substantial presence in the Eucharist must acknowledge, though, that for most of the history of Christianity prior to the Reformation, there was not even a trace of their view to be found among Christians--all communities within Christianity believed in the substantial and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Protestants denying the real, substantial presence of Jesus in the Eucharist would argue, though, that in the very early Church, their view prevailed, and that it is the biblical view

Concerning the very early church, Catholics and those agreeing with them would ask for evidence and claim that all the evidence, to the extent to which it exists, including in the Bible, seems to go into the direction to support the substantial, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Jesus said, after all, "This is my body," not, "This signifies (symbolizes) my body," or, "this is a sign of my body." Many Protestants hold that Jesus' words are not to be taken literally.

Your humble instructor must "hide" behind the Fox Principle. We will, however, come back to this disagreement at the proper time.

Many Protestants are strongly urged to come to church once a week for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Other Protestant denominations conduct that celebration less frequently; if so, they have regular Sunday services without this celebration, with the pastor's sermon occupying a central place.

Roman Catholics are told that they are obligated to participate in mass on Sundays (since the reforms of the liturgy following the Second Vatican Council, the weekend mass obligation can also be fulfilled on Saturday evening). The Catholic Church celebrates mass on a daily basis, though, and many Catholics are "daily communicants" (= people receiving communion on a daily basis).

II.    Some moral (= ethical) teachings of Jesus

1.    Recalling the non-moral--moral distinction within the law--the moral law is not to be observed in a purely "legalistic" manner

As has been stated earlier, Christians distinguish two different types of laws in the Torah (= how Jews call the first five books of their Holy Scriptures or the Old Testament). First, there are non-moral laws; second, there are moral laws.

The non-moral laws includes the Jewish dietary rules, regulations concerning animal and other sacrifices, and prescriptions concerning holy days to observe and how to observe them. As was pointed out, Christianity does no longer consider these laws as binding; they are considered to fall under the words of Jesus, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law . . . I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." (Mt 5.17; the word usually translated as "fulfill" also does have the mining of "complete" or "finish") As was explained earlier, Christians say that, just as a fulfilled promise is no longer binding, so is it with the non-moral part of the law: Jesus has fulfilled it; it is no longer binding.

Moral laws (aka "commandments"), such as the Ten Commandments (including the prohibition of murder and lying) or the commandment to love one's neighbor, are considered as binding by Christians. The reason is that Jesus identifies them as what one must comply with to have eternal life (see Mt 19.16-19) and that he emphasizes them also in other ways--in the Sermon on the Mount, for example.

In line with this, a Christian holds that doing the will of God includes adhering to the moral law as interpreted and amplified by Jesus.

Even though much of the content of the moral law that Christians consider as binding coincides with the moral law of the Torah (the so-called Ten Commandments are such an area of overlap, for example), Christianity teaches that one must have the right motivation for keeping the moral law. It must be kept not by way of legalistic observance as the Pharisees of Jesus' time were keeping it; rather, keeping it must flow from what Jesus identifies as the foundation of the law. This foundation shall be addressed next.

2.    The foundation of the law

a.    Jesus is asked a question

". . . A scholar of the law tested him [Jesus] by asking, 'Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?' He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments." (Mt 22.35-40)

Thus, Jesus identifies two commandments--to love God and to love one's neighbor as oneself--as the foundation of the (moral) law. In the Torah, the commandment to love God can be found in Dt 6.5, the commandment concerning love of neighbor can be found in Lv 19.18.

b.    "Love God with all your heart . . ."

As just stated, "Love God with all your heart . . ." is the first of two commandments which Jesus identifies as the foundation of the moral law. Reflecting on this commandment, you might begin by asking yourself, "What is my heart attached to most?"

One of your friends? A close relative? Your sweetheart--the person you want to marry and spend the rest of your life with?

Well, if your greatest attachment is to another human person, more power to you--but maybe you know someone to whom his or her pet is more important than anything else in the world.

Others are attached most to their possessions, their bank accounts, their mansions, their cars, their stamp collections, their jobs, or their fame.

If I were to ask you to which of these groups you belong, maybe you would say, "I belong to those whose greatest attachment is to another human person." Perhaps you would say at least, "I sincerely wish to belong to that group."

Christianity would say, "Not good enough--as long as the person you are attached to most is merely human. If you want to comply with God's will, the person you are most attached to must be God (actually, that's three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). He must have first place in your life; if this is not so, a serious reorientation of priorities is in order for you. There is to be no one and no thing in your life that is more important to you than God."

I am only a secular teacher talking to secular students at a secular place.

If I were to talk to Christians at a Christian place, though, I could imagine the reaction in the audience: "If what he just said is true, then my priorities are pretty screwed up."

Christianity would say, "Well, then rearrange your priorities."

How is this to be done? Can it be done?

Christianity would advise (remember that it is not for me to say whether the advice is any good):

"Unless something quite unusual (something like a miracle) happens, this rearrangement cannot occur in an instant." Christians do, of course, believe in miracles; and they would tell you a number of incidences of someone's priorities changing in an instant through something like a miracle. Their accounts might begin with Saul/Paul who turned in an instant from a fierce persecutor of Christianity into someone accepting Christ when he supposedly was thrown from his horse and heard Christ's voice coming from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" (Acts 9.4)

Christians would add, though, that for most people, a rearrangement of their priorities is a slow process. The advice would be, "Make a sincere attempt to live as if the strongest attachment of your heart would be to God." But is it not hypocritical to live "as if"? Not if one is honest about one's shortcomings--honest to oneself and to others, Christianity would observe: "One must have the attitude, 'I know that my heart is still far from where it ought to be; but I resolve do God's will, hoping that the attachment of my heart will slowly catch up with the decisions of my will, and that I might grow to love God more than anything else.'"

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 3/28/12 (Class # 17)

c.    "Love your neighbor as yourself"--the Golden Rule

We turn now to the second of the two commandments Jesus identifies as the foundation of the moral law, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

A first way to get at the meaning of these words is: Just as it is important to me that my needs be taken care of, so must it be important to me that my neighbor's needs be taken care of.

A second way to understand the meaning of "Love your neighbor as yourself" takes reference to another saying of Jesus, a saying that has come to be known as the Golden Rule: "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you." (Mt 7.12)

Who is the one I am to love as myself--who is my neighbor?

Here are two clues: The first comes from the literal translation of the commandment that one must love one's neighbor. It is, "Love the one near you as yourself."

Second, when Jesus asked, "And who is my neighbor [= the one near me]" (Lk 10.29), he tells a story about a man who was robbed, beaten up, and left half-dead by the side of the road. A priest and a Levite came by, but they did nothing to help the man. Then, a Samaritan came, picked him up, gave him what we would call today "first aid," put him on his animal (perhaps a donkey), and brought him to an inn where he cared for him; then, he gave the innkeeper money so that the latter would be able to continue caring for the man. Jesus ends his story with the question, "Which of these three, in your view, was neighbor to the robber's victim?" (See Lk 10.30-37.)

Who is my neighbor--the one I must love as myself? Everyone I meet, in particular those in need. That need may be physical (poverty, disease, etc.) or psychological (loneliness, depression, sadness, fear, etc).

3.    An especially difficult application of the "Love your neighbor as yourself" command

To become aware of an especially difficult application of the "love your neighbor as yourself" commandment, think of that one special person in your life whom you really and truly . . .

. . . HATE!!!

Does someone come to mind?

Probably. (Maybe even more than one person.) Possibly, your attitude is, "I wish that he'd flunk out of school, that his car might get stolen, that he might lose all his money, that he'd break a leg--or even better: his neck."

Well, here is what Jesus says about that person--yes, the very same one you just thought of:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'" (Mt 5.43) "But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you." (Lk 6.27-28)

Do I hear you say, "Ridiculous. Never ever will I bless him/her or love him/her." (Him/her refers to the individual I invited you to think about as that special person whom you really and truly hate.)

Well, as always, I am not defending Christianity--I am "only telling you" what Christians teach concerning our attitude towards those at enmity with us. To be a Christian means engaging in continuous efforts to leave all hostility towards others behind.

4.    What our lives will be judged by at the end

At times, one can hear people say, "I want to leave a legacy behind--something people will remember me by, something that will continue after I have left this earth, something that will cause people to have a positive estimation of me."

Christianity has a different measure to determine whether or not our lives were worthwhile. What the most important measuring rod is according to Christianity becomes clear from Jesus' account of the Last Judgment. (See Mt 25.31-46 [clicking this "Link" and reading the account is a course requirement].)

According to Christianity, the chief consideration by which our life will be judged at the end is, "Did you take care of your brothers and sisters in their need? Yes or no?"

5.    the story about the man "hustling" for money . . .

Something like the following has probably happened to you in the recent past--maybe not exactly in the same way, but similarly:

You need to go to a government office in Providence to straighten a matter out--maybe you had gotten a letter telling you that you owe taxes of which you are sure that you do not owe them. Parking in Providence is notoriously difficult; but you find a parking spot not too far away from the building you must visit. You feed the parking meter; then, you turn around to walk into the direction of the place you want to reach--and now, you see him: An unkempt man with a paper cup hustling for money, about 25 yards ahead. You want to avoid a confrontation and cross the street. You even walk into a side street and take a longer route to your destination; but in spite of that little detour, you arrive on time for your appointment. Things go very well for you, and as you leave the building, you are the proverbial "happy camper." You walk back to your car, and as you are about eight yards away from it, you see him again--that hustler! You had totally forgotten about him, so you had not taken any precautions; and now, he is walking determinedly up to you; this time, there is no way to avoid a confrontation. He shakes his cup and holds it out. He says in a pleading tone of voice, "I am starving. Please--could you spare some change? Please!" You yell, "Get lost!" "Excuse, me, mister," he says as he backs away from you.

Does this sound familiar?

A Christian might ask you, "Do you know who that was?"

You might say, "A lazy bum who thinks that he can live at other peoples' expense."

The Christian might reply, "No, you are mistaken. That was Jesus asking you for help, and you told him to go to hell."

It was, of course, not Jesus in the literal sense; but it was Jesus in the sense of declaring his full solidarity with people in need, to the extent that he said, "Whenever you fail to do any of these things to one of the least of my brothers and sisters, you failed to do it to me."

6.    It is "never too late," and there is always an "additional chance" . . .

More could be said about the Christian lifestyle; but even limiting oneself to the Christian teaching about one's obligations towards one's fellow humans might cause a person to say, "There is a huge discrepancy between my past life and what Christianity demands. For me, it does not do any good anymore to learn about these things, for I have blown it already; it's too late. I might as well enjoy myself as long as there is still time"

a.    Christianity teaches that it is "never too late" as long as a person is still breathing

In response, Christians would call our attention to Mt 20.1-15 [Link; reading that passage is a course requirement], where Jesus tells the parable (= "teaching story") about the workers in the vineyard. Christians understand it as saying that God will always accept a sincere commitment to Christianity, no matter when it occurs in a person's life. As long as a person is still breathing, there is time. Even a deathbed conversion suffices if it is sincere.

b.    The "religion of the second chance"

In line with what has just been said, Christianity takes repentance, change, reform, seriously. No matter how badly a person may have messed up, there is always a second, third, fourth, fifth, etc., chance. Christianity holds that no wrong is too serious for God's willingness to forgive it.

Christianity holds, however, that there are three requirements which must be met to be forgiven by God:

(1) Being truly sorry for what one has done wrong (which requires, of course, owning up to the wrong committed, admitting it, but being sorry is more than just admission); (2) intending to avoid the wrong one has done; (3) forgiving those who have committed a wrong against oneself.

For many, the third requirement seems the hardest of the three. But it is indispensable: "If you forgive the faults of others, your heavenly Father will forgive you yours. If you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive you." (Mt 6.14-15) The importance of forgiveness as a prerequisite for being forgiven is also emphasized in Jesus' parable about the unforgiving servant in Mt 18.21-35 [Link; reading that passage is a course requirement].

c.    Christianity on postponing a decision to change for the better

Someone may be convinced that a total turnaround of his or her life is needed, a repentance of past acts, a commitment to a totally different way of life, and a decision to forgive others; but he or she might think, "Well, I will get around to it at some time in the future--I will write it on my 'To-do List' (but at the very end, in small letters). Right now, I am still too attached to my 'lifestyle'; it would be too hard for me to repent, to change, let alone to forgive others. Maybe it will be easier when I'll be older. Isn't God always ready to forgive?"

Christianity would respond, "Yes, God will forgive you tomorrow if you repent, decide to change, and get yourself to forgive others . . . he will do so next year, next decade, even in fifty years. He will forgive whenever it will be that you 'get around' to sincere repentance. Can you be sure, though, that you will get around to it? Is not now the time? If it is difficult for you to repent and change at this moment, might it not be even more difficult next year? Might it not become the more difficult the longer you persist in your present way of life? Aren't many of the wrongs you do habits already now? Might they not come to be even more deeply ingrained habits? Might they not even become more difficult to break in a decade than they are now?

"Most of all, however, how do you know that you will be around next year, in ten years, or in fifty years? You do not even know whether you will be around to see tomorrow. So yes, God forgives whenever you get around to sincere repentance; but avoiding repentance now and counting on it in the future is known as 'presumption' (= impertinent boldness), itself a wrong to be repented of if and when you get around to it. But will you get around to it? There is assurance only in changing now; any delay means risking your eternal salvation."

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/2/12 (Class # 18)

PART NINE: DIVISIONS EXISTING AMONG CHRISTIANS AND A DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST THREE SPLITS

I.    Background--Synopsis

1.    The existence of splits within Christianity is contrary to the will of Jesus

As Jn 17.20-25 [Link; reading that passage is a course requirement] demonstrates, the fact that Christianity is split into denominations and churches is contrary to the will of Jesus. The prayer he formulates in the passage referred to has unity among Christians (called by Jesus, "those who will believe in me through their [the disciples'] word") as its main theme: "That they may be one."

Jesus' prayer also allows one to "guess" what he would say if asked, "How come Christianity is viewed today as lacking credibility in so many quarters?" In all likeliness, he would point at the disunity among Christians as the cause for this state of affairs; for he states as the reason why he prays for  unity, "That the world may believe that you sent me." (The "you" addressed is God the Father.)

2.    Originally, there was unity among Christians . . .

If one wishes to find a time at which there was unity among the followers of Jesus, one must go back almost to the very beginning of the Christian community as it is described in Acts 4.32-37 [Link; reading that passage is a course requirement], where the followers of the Carpenter of Nazareth are designated as "being of one heart and mind."

3.    . . . but that unity was short-lived

Before the last word of the New Testament was written, though, splits had been introduced into the Christian community already.

None of these early splits will be taken up here; also, with regard to later splits, the discussion will be limited to groups which have had a continuous existence from their inception to the present.

4.    A BIRD'S EYE VIEW--DETAILS TO REMEMBER

a.     Splits that are relevant for this course

Given the limitation of the discussion to Christian groups which continue to exist at the present time, five splits are to be distinguished:

(1)    A fifth-century split following the Council of Ephesus

Following the A.D. 431 Council of Ephesus (Third Ecumenical Council--an explanation of the nature of ecumenical councils will be given shortly), the Assyrian Christians split from mainstream Christianity.

(2)    A fifth- and sixth-century split following the Council of Chalcedon

Following the A.D. 451 Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council) four groups, known as the Oriental Orthodox churches, split from mainstream Christianity: The Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church (not to be confused withy the group of Assyrian Christians), and the Armenian Apostolic Church.

(3)    The 11th-century split of mainstream Christianity into Eastern and Western Christianity

In the 11th century, mainstream Christianity split into Eastern and Western Christianity. This split survives today in the form of the Eastern Orthodox Churches on the one hand, and Roman Catholicism on the other.

(4)    The aftermath of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation

Following the Protestant Reformation (16th century), Western Christianity split into Roman Catholicism and various forms of Protestantism. Some of the largest among the hundreds of groups into which Protestantism is divided are: Various Lutheran groups, the Anglican Communion (the Episcopal Church in this country belongs to the Anglican Communion), the Reformed Churches (Calvinism), various Baptist groups, various Presbyterian groups, various groups of Methodists, and the Pentecostal churches.

(5)    Religious liberalism (19th and 20th century)

In the 19th and the early 20th centuries, a movement known as religious liberalism developed within Protestantism. Some Protestant denominations, such as the Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ, became liberal in their entirety; others, such as the United Methodist Church and the Episcopal Church, are divided into a liberal and in a traditional Christianity wing. In the second half of the 20th century, religious liberalism made inroads into the Catholic Church. Catholicism is, therefore, also divided into a liberal and a traditional wing. The official teaching of the Catholic Church, though, is firmly grounded in traditional Christianity.

b.    A word on the seriousness of the splits summarized

Although many would disagree with my assessment, it seems to me that the first three splits, serious as they may be considered in themselves, are less serious than the fourth and the fifth: To me, it appears that the Protestant Reformation introduced disagreements into Christianity much more significant than earlier disagreements (this does not necessarily apply to disagreements which generated groups no longer in existence). Further, in my assessment, even the seriousness of this fourth split is dwarfed by the significance of the disagreements which religious liberalism has introduced into Christianity. All the splits associated with the Reformation stand, after all, still squarely on the platform of the Nicene Creed. In contrast, with liberalism, Christianity moved away even from the articles of that creedal statement. (Some liberal Christians even abandoned the standpoint of traditional theism so that a Christian agreeing with the Nicene Creed has less in common with them than with Jews or even Moslems.)

c.    A dispute concerning my seriousness assessment

Not all agree with my assessment that the three splits prior to the Protestant Reformation are less serious than those resulting from the Protestant Reformation. For an example of a contrasting view, I refer to a letter which Father James Deschene, the Abbot (= superior) of an Eastern Orthodox monastery, sent me in reply to a newspaper column I had written on the disagreements between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. He took very strong albeit polite exception to what appeared to him as my downplaying and soft-pedaling of the doctrinal differences between the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church. The Abbot has posted his letter on a web page; click "Fr. James' Reply to Fritz Wenisch" to get to it. (Note: To get back from the letter to this page, use your web browser's back button.)

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/4/12 (Class # 19)

II.    The first two splits

1.    Nestorianism, the Council of Ephesus, and the group of the Assyrian Christians

a.    The problem giving rise to the first split

The first split falls into the fifth century.

Nestorius, a 5th-century Patriarch of Constantinople, a town called Istanbul today (the bishop of Constantinople had the title "patriarch," a word meaning "father-ruler"), held that Mary could not be called the "Mother of God" because she was only the mother of Jesus as a human. He did not object, though, to calling her the Mother of Christ or the Mother of Jesus. Some of his followers seemed to draw the conclusion that there were two persons in Jesus, a human and a divine one.

b.    The Council of Ephesus

In response, the bishops from the entire Christian world assembled in the town of Ephesus (A.D. 431) in a meeting called an ecumenical council. What is an ecumenical council? This question leads to an important "in-between" point . . .

c.    Important "in-between" point: Remarks on ecumenical councils

In the expression, “ecumenical council,” the word “ecumenical” means “universal”; a council is a gathering or assembly of officials. “Ecumenical council” is defined as an assembly of bishops from all over the world, meeting in one place for the purpose of discussing Christian teaching and discipline and settling disputes about these matters that may have arisen.

The individual designations of ecumenical councils are derived from the names of the locations at which the meetings took place.

The first ecumenical council is the First Council of Nicaea (called “first” to distinguish it from another such council that took place in the same town a little more than 460 years later), which met in 325 in a town called Nicaea. At that council, most of what is known today as the Nicene Creed was formulated.

The second ecumenical council is the First Council of Constantinople (called “first” to distinguish it from several other councils that met at the same location), which met in 381 in Constantinople, today known as Istanbul. At that council, several important passages were added to the Nicene Creed.

The third ecumenical council is the Council of Ephesus. It met in 431 in the town of Ephesus. It is important for the split within Christianity under discussion at present.

The fourth ecumenical council is the Council of Chalcedon. It met in 451 in the town of Chalcedon. It is important for the second split we are going to discuss.

Roman Catholic Christians acknowledge 21 ecumenical councils, with the last one (to date) being the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Easter Orthodox Christians acknowledge only the first seven of these 21 councils. Protestants, basing their faith on nothing but the Bible (“sola scriptura”—“Scripture only”), do not recognize any of the ecumenical councils as authoritative.

d.    Continuation of the remarks on the Council of Ephesus

The Council of Ephesus taught that there is only one person in Jesus, a divine person. This person was present in Mary's womb from the moment of Jesus' conception on; consequently, Mary is appropriately called "Mother of God" (in Greek, "theotokos").

e.    The Assyrian Christians

Some of the followers of Nestorius did not accept the decision of the Council of Ephesus and broke away from mainstream Christianity. Today, they are known as Assyrian Christians.

There are about 3,500,000 of them, chiefly in Iran and Iraq.

f.    Background for the first and the second split: The person--nature distinction

In past semesters, students had difficulties with the person--nature distinction. The split just discussed requires an understanding of what "person" means; the subsequent split requires an understanding of the difference between "person" and "nature." So allow me to "insert" the following remarks at this point:

Calling oneself a person means saying of oneself that one is a being conscious of oneself and of others, capable of making free decisions, of having convictions, and of having other conscious experiences. The person is that within myself which is aware of myself and of things different from myself, which makes free decisions, has convictions, and other conscious experiences.

When one asks oneself, "What kind or type of personal being am I," one inquires about one's nature. Naturally, you and I will answer that question with, "I am a personal being who is human." We are persons with a human nature. Persons with human natures are the only ones known to us from experience. In "Star Trek The Next Generation," we encounter personal beings who do not have a human nature, but a Klingon nature or a Vulcan nature. Christians believe in personal beings with angelic natures, called angels. They also believe in God who is three persons sharing the same divine nature. With regard to the Second Person of the Trinity, the question, "What kind of personal being is he," is (primarily) properly to be answered with, "A personal being who is divine."

2.    Monophysitism, the Council of Chalcedon, and four Christian communities rejecting that council

Back to a discussion of splits within Christianity. The second split relevant for this course occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Here is how it started: Eutyches, a fifth-century monk of Constantinople, taught that Christ had only one nature. This view is called "monophysitism" (from two Greek words "monos" meaning "only," "alone," and "physis," meaning "nature"). The view caused the following problem: Since Christ is God, there must be a divine nature in him; if there is only one nature, it becomes difficult to see how he can be truly human.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/9/12 (Class # 20)

In response, the fourth ecumenical council, known as the Council of Chalcedon, was called in 451. It declared that there is only one person in Christ (as had been taught by the earlier Council of Ephesus), but that this person has two distinct natures, a divine nature which he has of himself, and a human nature which he has freely adopted. This makes Jesus truly human and truly divine.

There are four Christian denominations, jointly referred to as the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which broke away from mainstream Christianity because they rejected the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon. They are:

First, the Coptic Church--chiefly in Egypt, between 10 and 15 million members;

Second, the Ethiopian Church, chiefly in Ethiopia, around 25,000,000 members;

Third, the Syrian Orthodox Church, with its headquarters in Damascus, the capital of Syria, but its largest contingent of members in Iraq, and with about 4,000,000 members;

Fourth, the Armenian Apostolic Church, with its headquarters in Etchmiadzin/Armenia, and with about 4,000,000 members.

III.    THE THIRD SPLIT: SEPARATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN CHRISTIANITY

1.    Immediate cause of the split

The separation of Eastern and Western Christianity has a long "preparatory history." The immediate cause of the split's becoming final was the July 16, 1054 excommunication of Michael Caerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by the legates (= delegates, emissaries) of Pope Leo IX. This action was the "final straw" separating the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Western Christianity.

2.    Western Christianity and Roman Catholicism

The Roman Catholic Church is the "successor church" of Western Christianity as it existed between 1045 and 1517 (start of the Protestant Reformation); the present-day Eastern Orthodox churches are the successor churches of Eastern Christianity as it existed after 1054. Therefore, an explanation of the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity is at the same time an explanation of the differences between contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy and contemporary Roman Catholicism.

3.    Doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism

The doctrinal differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism concern three items. The first concerns the extent of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, the second concerns the procession of the Holy Spirit, and the third concerns the question of divorce and remarriage.

a.    Extent of the authority of the Bishop of Rome

One of the Pope's titles is Bishop of Rome.

The following New Testament passages are considered by Catholics to be the most important ones for determining the authority of the Pope:

(1) The Apostle Peter originally was named "Simon." "Peter" ("Petros" in Greek, "Kepha" in Aramaic--given as "Cephas" in English) is the nickname which Jesus gave him when they met for the first time: "Then he [Andrew, Simon's brother] brought him [Simon] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas,' which is translated Peter." (Jn [= Gospel according to John] 1.42) The writer of the Gospel translates the nickname from Aramaic into Greek; translated into English, it is "rock."

(2) According to Mt (= Gospel according to Matthew) 16.18-19, Jesus says to Peter: "You are Peter (= rock), and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Thus, Peter is the rock upon which the church is built; he receives the keys (= symbol of authority) to the kingdom of heaven, and he receives the power to bind and to loose.

(3) According to Lk (= Gospel according to Luke) 22.31-32, Jesus says to Peter (a.k.a. "Simon"), "Behold, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." Thus, Peter is responsible in a special way to strengthen his fellow-Christians.

(4) Jn 21.15-17 contains the following exchange between Jesus and Peter: "Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him a third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" The lambs/sheep are Jesus' followers; Catholics hold that Peter received a special commission to lead Jesus' followers, to be the chief pastor of Christians.

On the basis of these passages, Catholics hold that Peter received a position of leadership over the church Jesus founded: By the will of Christ, who is, of course, the "chief head" of the Church, one and only one human representing him is to have authority over the entire Church.

It stands to reason that the church after Peter's death should be structured the way it was meant to be structured by Jesus in the beginning; for that reason, Catholics hold that Peter's authority was transmitted to the successors of Peter, the Bishops of Rome (tradition has it that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome as the first bishop of that town).

The Eastern Orthodox response includes the following considerations:

(1) Catholics consider the Scripture passage concerning Peter, the rock upon which the Church is built, as furnishing their chief argument in support of the view that Peter was given a position of preeminence. Eastern Orthodox Christians insist that one must understand Jesus' words to Peter as a response to Peter's calling him the Messiah, the Son of the living God: "When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples: 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock . . ." (Mt 16.13-18--see the earlier quotation for what comes after "rock"). It is only after Peter's profession of faith that Jesus speaks about the rock upon which his church is built, about the keys, and about the power to bind and loose. Thus, Eastern Orthodox Christians conclude, the church is not built upon Peter the man, but upon his faith; in a manner of speaking, everyone sharing Peter's faith does have the same authority.

(2) Eastern Orthodox Christians assert that the historic record as to an exercise of authority of the early Bishops of Rome over all of Christianity is at best ambiguous.

In consequence, Eastern Orthodoxy Christians hold that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is limited to Western Christianity.

[For a succinct statement of some of the arguments the Eastern Orthodox side uses, see the Eastern Orthodox Abbot's letter referred to earlier. Click "Fr. James' Reply to Fritz Wenisch" to get to it.]

Roman Catholics respond: True, Jesus said, "You are Peter [= rock], and upon this rock I will build my church . . ." at the occasion of Peter's profession of faith; but still, he says that the church is to be built upon Peter the person; he does not say that he will build the church upon Peter's faith.

Who is right? Fox principle . . .

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/11/12 (Class # 21)

b.    Procession of the Holy Spirit

As was pointed out in an earlier "in-between" segment on ecumenical councils, the A.D. 325 ecumenical council known as the First Council of Nicaea adopted a creed (= concise and official statement of the main points of a faith). That creed, beginning with the words, "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty. . . ." was amplified at the 381 ecumenical council known as the First Council of Constantinople and, as mentioned earlier, is known as the Nicene Creed.

It contains the words, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from [= comes forth from; comes out of] the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified."

Later, the words, ". . . and the Son .. ." were added, so that the creed came to read, " . . . who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

This addition is accepted by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.

Eastern Orthodox Christians, however, consider it as an unjustified addition, for the following reason:

The Gospel according to John says about the Holy Spirit--calling him the Advocate and the Spirit of Truth, "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify in my behalf." (Jn 15.26) This passage says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; it does not say that he also proceeds from the Son.

Roman Catholics respond that the passage does not say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son goes beyond the content of the passage, does, however, not contradict it. Moreover, according to a widely-accepted attempt to make sense of the teaching on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is the love between Father and Son. Father and Son love one another with a love of such intensity and power that the mutual self-donation involved in that love is a person distinct from the Father and the Son, but in each and every respect like Father and Son. Since this love is mutual--from the Father to the Son and from the Son to the Father--it requires that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Fox Principle does not allow me to take sides on this issue; so let my say by way of summary: Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; Western Christians--both Catholics and Protestants--hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

c.    Divorce

(1)    Roman Catholicism adopts what can be called the "strict interpretation" of what Jesus says about remarriage following a divorce (= at most, there may be a temporary or permanent separation, but no remarriage)

Roman Catholics adopt what can be called the strict interpretation of what Jesus says about divorce and remarriage. According to it, at the most, partners to a valid and sacramental marriage may separate temporarily or permanently, but this does not give one of them the right to remarry as long as the other is still alive.

This position is based on a passage in the Gospel according to Mark: "Then some Pharisees came up and as a test began to ask him [Jesus] whether it was permissible for a husband to dismiss his wife. In reply, he said, 'What command did Moses give you?' They answered, 'Moses permitted divorce and the writing of a decree of divorce.' Jesus told them, 'He wrote that commandment for you because of the hardness of your hearts. At the beginning of creation God made them male and female; for this reason, a man shall leave his Father and mother and the two shall become as one. They are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore let no man separate what God has joined.'" (Mk 10.2-9.)

Some people, knowing from experience the difficulties which some married couples face, might ask, "Isn't this unrealistic?" If you are tempted to ask this question yourself, you are in pretty company—if you consider Jesus' disciples "good company," that is. For it appears that they had exactly the same question.

Jesus and the Pharisees had their exchange on marriage out in the open, "in the district of Judaea, across the Jordan." His disciples were standing around, listening to the exchange. Apparently, following its conclusion, Jesus and the disciples made their way back to the house in which they happened to be staying. Reading between the lines, one can almost see the disciples walking behind him, debating in low voices what they had just heard, looking incredulously, and agreeing that they needed to ask Jesus about it. So they did:

"Back in the house again, the disciples began to question him about this. He told them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and the woman who divorces her husband and marries another commits adultery.'" (Mk 10.10-12.)

Roman Catholic officials would now ask, "Clear enough?" They would add, "It is important to see that according to Jesus' words, two things are required for adultery to occur: Divorce (= separation) and remarriage. Separation by itself is not adultery yet. This is the reason why Roman Catholicism allows temporary or, if living together has become impossible, even permanent separation of the spouses; but remarriage is prohibited as long as both parties to a valid and sacramental marriage are still alive. Such a remarriage is tantamount to adultery."

[Primarily, of course, adultery consists in a married person's having sexual relations with someone he or she is not married to.]

(2)    Eastern Orthodox Christians adopt what can be called the "less strict interpretation" of what Jesus says about remarriage following a divorce

In contrast, Eastern Orthodox Christians (in agreement, by the way, with most non-Catholic groups within Christianity) adopt what can be called the less strict interpretation of what Jesus says about divorce and marriage. They start their argument with how Matthew reports the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus (above, Mark's version is given). Mathew says (in a frequently used translation of a passage ambiguous in the Greek original): "I now say to you, whoever dismisses his wife except for adultery [the highlighted words are in Greek, ". . . me epi porneia . . ."] and marries another commits adultery, and the man who marries a dismissed woman commits adultery." (Mt 19.9.)

Eastern Orthodox Christians observe that this passage (in the translation used above at least) allows one exception to the prohibition of remarriage following a divorce: when one spouse has wronged the other by committing adultery against him or her, remarriage following a divorce is allowed. The argument continues that, while adultery is a very serious wrong committed against a spouse, there are wrongs one can do against him or her that are even worse, such as inflicting serious bodily harm, or even attempting to kill one's spouse. It is further argued that, although Jesus does not specifically mention these other cases as grounds under which remarriage following a divorce is allowed, it stands to reason that they also qualify as such grounds because of their greater seriousness in comparison to adultery.

The less strict interpretation is, therefore: While Jesus is strongly opposed to remarriage following a divorce, he allows it if the breakup of the marriage is due to adultery, or to another cause of equal or greater seriousness.

Protestantism also accepts the less strict interpretation of what Jesus says about remarriage following a divorce. Some Protestant denominations are quite lenient with regard to the conditions under which remarriage following a divorce is allowed.

(3)    Who is right? Oops, we cannot ask this question--Succumbing to a temptation

This leads, of course, to the question as to which one of the two interpretations is correct.

Oops, that's a question I cannot ask, or John Roberts might pull me out of the classroom on my ear. In class, I was, however, unable to resist the temptation of reading a passage from Paul: "To those now married, . . . I give this command (though it is not mine, it is the Lord's): a wife must not separate from her husband. If she does separate, she must either remain single or become reconciled to him again. Similarly, a husband must not divorce his wife." (1 Cor 7.10-11.) I invited you to ask yourself, "Does Paul seem to go along with what I have called the strict interpretation, or the less strict interpretation?" I must, given the limitations I am teaching under, say, of course, "Mum's the word." My lips are sealed.

(4)    How annulments differ from divorces

How are annulments different from divorce?

In general, for a valid promise to come about, several conditions must be met, such as that the person who appears to make a promise must be of sound mind, must understand what he or she is doing, and must act in the absence of a serious threat or of coercion. Suppose someone causes me to become drunk by secretly pouring vodka into my beer, and then getting me to say (taping me while I'm doing so) that I would give him $5,000.00 the next day. Obviously, I am under no obligation to give that person the money: A genuine promise never existed, because I did not understand what I was doing when I said, "Of course I'll give you $5.000.00."

What applies now to promises in general applies also to that solemn promise called a marriage vow. An actual vow requires, for truly taking place, that conditions such as sufficient maturity, acting of one's free will, not being under a threat of violence if one refuses to say yes are met.

Being able to demonstrate the absence of one or more of the conditions necessary for a valid marriage vow to take place amounts to demonstrating that what appeared to be a valid marriage never really was a marriage. That's where the idea of annulment comes into the picture: An annulment is based on a finding that a valid marriage never existed because one of the conditions for such a marriage to come about was absent. A person about whom it is discovered that he or she is not really married is free to marry. Thus, a marriage following an annulment is a first rather than a second marriage. In contrast, in the case of a divorce, it is acknowledged that a valid marriage actually has existed, but that that marriage is now dissolved.

Naturally, the Catholic Church allows marriage following an annulment. Anything else would be an injustice.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/16/12 (Class # 22)

4.    Differences in Church discipline

a.    Marriage of clergy

Roman Catholicism requires, with few exceptions, priests to be unmarried (since this is a matter of church discipline, this could in principle be changed).

Examples of exceptions are: First, suppose that a married Eastern Orthodox priest becomes Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Eastern Orthodox ordination ceremony as a valid sacrament; thus, the Eastern Orthodox man is considered to be a validly ordained priest. The Roman Catholic Church would allow him to continue exercising his priestly functions. Second, suppose that a married male Episcopal priest (this does not apply to female Episcopal priests) becomes a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church does not accept the validity of Episcopal ordinations; but in the United States at least, the person would be ordained to the priesthood if he wishes to be ordained, and allowed to exercise priestly functions although married.

Eastern Orthodox priests may be married, provided they marry prior to their ordination (they are not allowed to remarry of the wife dies); only Eastern Orthodox bishops are required to be unmarried.

b.    Ordinary minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation

The Eastern Orthodox churches consider priests as the ordinary ministers of the Sacrament of Confirmation, while in Roman Catholicism, ordinarily, the bishop administers confirmation; priests are allowed to administer it only under special circumstances, such as if an adult person is received into the church.

c.    Confirmation and infants

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, infants are confirmed immediately following their baptism, while Roman Catholics confirm older people only (usually during their teenage years).

5.    World-wide membership

There are around 270,000,000 Eastern Orthodox Christians.

PART TEN: FOURTH SPLIT: THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION

I.    IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THE REFORMATION

There is no time to take up the more remote causes of the series of events that have come to be known as the Protestant Reformation. I must limit discussion to the immediate causes.

The cause setting the Reformation in motion can be described as a lack of vigilance among Church officials concerning misunderstandings among "rank and file" Catholics with regard to the nature of indulgences, as well as concerning the way the indulgence system was administered.

1.    Definition of "indulgence"

Thus, I must explain first what in itself is a rather "specialized" Catholic teaching, the teaching on indulgences, and how Catholicism sees the power of the pope with regard to them.

To understand what Roman Catholics understand indulgences to be, we must put to the side the meaning that "to indulge" has in everyday conversations, where it means "to yield to a desire" or "to allow oneself unrestrained gratification." Rather, one must go back to the Latin word from which "indulgence" is derived. This word is "indulgentia," meaning "forbearance" or "tenderness." The essentials of the Roman Catholic understanding of "indulgence" can be captured in the following definition:

An indulgence is a (complete or partial) remission of the temporal punishments still due to sins which have been forgiven already.

2.    Explanation of the definition of "indulgence"

Understanding this definition requires one to appreciate two distinctions, that between the eternal punishment and temporal punishments due to sins, and that between forgiveness of sins and remission of temporal punishments due to them. 

a.    The distinction between the eternal punishment and temporal punishments due to sin—purgatory

The first distinction, that between the eternal punishment and temporal punishments due to sin, is easier to explain than the second:

Eternal punishment is, for traditional Christianity, being consigned to hell forever. Christians hold that certain serious sins (a.k.a. mortal sins) deserve that punishment if the person who has committed them does not repent of them.

Temporal punishments are difficulties and hardships one must endure as a consequence of certain sins, sufferings one must, in the normal course of events, experience to be "purified" from the disfigurement which wrongdoing causes to one's personality. While in many, possibly in most, cases of suffering we experience, the reason/deeper meaning may be hidden to us, I at least have no difficulty recognizing that I better take many of the hardships I must endure as the just consequence of wrongs I have done. (One does not have to be religious to see this about oneself; even many agnostics or atheists would acknowledge that it is so.) Those hardships would fall under what the Catholic Church calls "temporal punishments due to sins."

For Catholics, that's also where purgatory comes into the picture. Purgatory is a temporary state a person must go through if he or she departs this life basically in the friendship with God, but is still burdened with illegitimate attachments, unresolved grudges, envy not totally conquered, etc. Purgatory is the place (better: "the state") where one is purified through suffering from these attachments. A person who finds him- or herself in purgatory following his or her death has "made it"; it is only a "matter of time" for that person to come to be in an intimate union of love with his or her creator.

b.    The distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of temporal punishments due to sins—an analogy for indulgences from the life of a teenager

Somewhat more difficult to understand might be the second of the distinctions presupposed in the definition of indulgences given above, that between forgiveness of sins and a remission of all temporal punishments due to sins.

The eternal punishment due to certain sins is always remitted when these sins are forgiven.

Catholics teach, however, that forgiveness of sins does not necessarily always involve a remission of all temporal punishments due to them. The person whose wrongdoings are forgiven may still have to endure sufferings which are a direct consequence of these wrongdoings.

Here is an illustration of what this might mean: Go back mentally to your teenage years. Imagine having done something that hurt your mother deeply; suppose further that it also was dangerous for you. (I let you fill in the details from your own past.) Very much to your consternation, your mother, the proverbial "grown woman," cries about your conduct when she finds out about it. She also grounds you for three weeks.

As you're sitting in your room upstairs, thinking about the mess you're in, the thought of her tears moves you, and you go down to ask sincerely for her forgiveness. She smiles at you, obviously deeply touched by your sincerity, and her smile is like a precious gift to you. You know that she means it when she says, "Yes, I forgive you." But then, her face becomes serious once again as she adds, "But for your own benefit (and for my peace of mind), you're still grounded. You need to learn, you know."

You go back upstairs, not surprised at all that, although she has forgiven you from her heart, the penalty remains in force.

This illustrates the Catholic teaching that forgiveness of sins (exemplified by your mom's forgiving you) is not necessarily connected with the remission of all the temporal punishments due to these sins (illustrated by your mom's still "keeping you grounded").

The following addition to the "your-mom-and-you-example" illustrates what Catholics consider indulgences to be:

Suppose that while you are grounded, you are on your best behavior. You are kind to your mom, you do the dishes without being asked, you help your little brother with his homework, you pick up after yourself, and at one point, your mom says, "Well, by now, you've been grounded for almost two weeks. You've been really nice and helpful. So why don't I relent a bit and let you hang out with your friends tonight." This is an analogy for what the Catholic Church calls an indulgence. It's no longer a matter of being forgiven for your wrongdoing; your mom has forgiven you from her heart already. It's now a matter of the remission of a penalty that was imposed for the wrongdoing.

Catholics maintain: Just as in the teenager example there is a difference between being forgiven by one's mom and a remission of all penalties, so is there is a difference between one's sins being forgiven by God and a remission of all temporal punishments due to them; just as it may be sensible for a parent not to remit all temporal punishments when forgiving a child, so is it sensible for God not to remit all temporal punishments when forgiving sins. Further, just as it makes sense in the teenager example for the teen's mom to remit a part or even all of the penalty on the ground of subsequent good behavior, so doe it make sense to assume that God would remit penalties for subsequent good deeds.

3.    "Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven"—the supposed power of the Pope with respect to indulgences

In line with what Roman Catholics consider as the key biblical passage defining the powers of the pope (Matthew 16.18-19), one of the powers Christ gave the Rock on which the church is built (Peter and his successors according to Roman Catholicism) is the power to bind and to loose. This includes, according to Roman Catholicism, the power to connect indulgences (that is, remissions of temporal punishments due to sins) with certain good deeds carried out in the right spirit, with certain prayers, for example, or with acts of charity. The penalties that can be remitted include those to be suffered in purgatory (Christ said to Peter, after all, "Whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven").

It is important to note that according to Catholicism, God grants indulgences independently of a papal decision that they be linked with certain good deeds specified. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, any good deed (giving to charity, visiting the sick, helping people in distress, etc.) is connected with a remission of temporal punishments due to sins. Catholics believe, though, that the pope has the power to link indulgences to certain activities the Church deems especially important.

The teaching on indulgences is, by the way, not only of historic significance. Even though it might not be popular to mention it in U.S. Catholic circles influenced by religious liberalism, it continues to be officially proclaimed by Catholicism. Clicking the "Indulgences" link gets you to an English translation of the "Enchiridion [= Handbook] on Indulgences," a document normative for the contemporary understanding of indulgences. Revisions to that document which have been made since its 1968 publication under Pope Paul VI do not affect the essential parts.

4.    Misunderstandings about indulgences among Catholics in the early 16th century

In the early 1500s, the pope needed large sums of money to finance the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. A decision was made to use indulgences to increase the flow of money, with the donation of money being understood as the good work with which the indulgence was to be connected.

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/18/12 (Class # 23)

Giving money for a good cause is most certainly a noble act; but in Germany, many people mistakenly assumed (1) that "shelling out money" without the right attitude, without a wish to do good, was sufficient for acquiring an indulgence--no change of heart was deemed necessary; (2) that indulgences involved a forgiveness of sins when in fact, all that was involved was a remission of punishment due to sins which had been forgiven already; and (3) that buying an indulgence even involved an insurance against sins one intended to commit--that future sins would not be held against a person who had given money for the building of St. Peter's Basilica.

These misunderstandings aroused the ire of a hot-headed German monk, Martin Luther.

II.    REMARKS ON MARTIN LUTHER'S LIFE

Martin Luther was born in Eisleben/Germany in 1483. In 1505, he entered an Augustinian monastery in Erfurt/Germany. In 1507, he was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood. In 1508, he was sent to Wittenberg to study and teach at the university there, and in 1510, he was appointed as a professor at the University of Wittenberg.

In 1517, he learned about the scandalous situation concerning indulgences as they were administered in Germany. On October 31 of that year, he is said to have nailed 95 theses (= short statements) on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. These theses set the Protestant Reformation in motion. [Here is a link to the 95 theses: "Link." You are urged to look at them and even "skim-read" them; but you are not required to study them carefully. (Did I just hear Martin Luther groan? If you want to do him a favor, do a careful reading of his 95 theses.)]

Luther died in 1546 in Eisleben where he happened to be for the purpose of mediating a dispute between two friends. His body was transferred to Wittenberg and is buried in the Castle Church there.

III.    Remarks on Luther's 95 theses

Luther's 95 theses contain strong language, and do not mince words whit respect to a critique of the indulgence practices of his time. Most of what Luther says in them, though, conforms to Catholic teachings. It also is clear that Luther had no intention of breaking with the Catholic Church; rather, there are theses implying his conviction that the pope would be on Luther's side, would he only know about the details of the indulgence machinery in Germany. Some theses, though, formulate views at variance with the Catholic indulgence doctrine. These disagreements were comparatively minor, though, while the abuses that Luther castigated were serious.

Chiefly, they centered around the Pope's power with regard to indulgences. As explained earlier, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the Pope has the power to attach to good deeds the remission of penalties to be suffered in purgatory; Luther maintained that the Pope's power was limited to remission of penalties that he had either imposed himself, or that followed from Church law. Neither penalties imposed by the Pope or by Church law do have any relation to purgatory.

If one asks what would appropriately have been considered as the higher priority, correcting the abuses Luther pointed at, or pursuing a disagreement on a comparatively minor matter, one may reasonably argue that rooting out the abuses should have been the much higher priority. In fact, though, the abuses were ignored for the time being (corrections came only after the "damage had been done"), and Martin Luther's disagreements with official Church teaching came to be the "theme of the day." This caused Luther to progress from the relatively minor disagreement with his Church contained in his theses to much more fundamental discrepancies with official teachings of the Catholic Church.

IV.    The rift deepens

During the three years following Luther's composition of the 95 theses, his disagreements with official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church moved from the minor matter on indulgences to much more significant items. These disagreements were expressed, among other ways, in three works he wrote in 1520. These works are, (1) Appeal to the German Nobility, (2) The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, and (3) The Freedom of a Christian.

1.    The universal priesthood of all believers to the exclusion of a special ministerial priesthood to which one must be ordained by a bishop

In Luther's work, Appeal to the German Nobility, he formulates the teaching on the universal priesthood of all believers:¹ "Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: 'You are a royal priesthood, a holy nation.'" (Luther is quoting here 1 Peter 2.9.) This view by itself is not contrary to the teaching of Roman Catholicism, for Roman Catholics also affirm the universal priesthood of all believers. Luther understood that doctrine, however, as excluding a special ministerial priesthood of which one becomes a part through sacramental ordination by a bishop, and which includes the special power to consecrate bread and wine so that it becomes the body and blood of Christ, and to forgive sins ("absolve") in Christ's name.

To make his point, Luther uses the following example: "If a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among themselves a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them and were to order him to baptize, to celebrate the mass, to absolve, and to preach, this man would as truly be a priest, as if all the bishops and all the popes had consecrated him."

Thus, Luther holds that the two powers (celebrating the mass, absolution) Roman Catholicism limits to those belonging to the ministerial priesthood are shared by all the faithful by virtue of their being priests by baptism. This amounts to arguing that the special ministerial priesthood is to be replaced, rather than supplemented, by the universal priesthood of all believers.

2.    Reduction of the number of sacraments from seven to three; disagreements with Roman Catholic teachings on the Eucharist

Luther's work, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, contains, among other things, objections to the Catholic Church's sacramental system: "In the first place, I must deny the existence of seven sacraments, and must for the time being assert three only, baptism, penance, and the bread; and that these have been led into pitiable bondage for us by the Roman Curia." Thus, he reduces the number of sacraments from seven to three, baptism, penance, and communion.

Among many objections against the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacraments, by way of example, three points concerning the Eucharist shall be mentioned:

First, at Luther's time, it was practice that communion was distributed to laypeople (i.e. the "regular" faithful) under the form of bread only, not, however, under the form of bread and wine. Luther demands that communion under both kinds is to be given to laypeople. This can be interpreted as being more a disagreement with a practice, though, rather than a theological disagreement.

Second, he argues against the idea of transubstantiation, that is, the idea that during mass, as soon as the words of consecration are spoken by a validly ordained priest, the substances ("inner nature") of bread and wine are no longer present, but have been replaced by the substance ("inner nature") of Christ's body and blood. Luther does not deny the real "physical" presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though; rather, he argues that after the words of consecration, what is present is the substance of Christ's body and blood in addition to the substances of bread and wine, which also remain present.  Later, this view came to be called "consubstantiation," although Luther does not use that term, and traditional Lutherans do not appreciate it.

Third, he denies the sacrificial character of the mass: According to Roman Catholicism, the mass is a sacrifice, not in addition to Christ's sacrifice on the cross, not even in the sense of being a repetition of that sacrifice, but in the sense of that sacrifice being made present in an unbloody manner whenever mass is celebrated. Each instance of attending a mass is, according to this view, like a "removal" of the wall of roughly 2000 years (about 1500 years at Luther's time) that separates contemporary humans from Calvary, so that, in a manner of speaking, each and every human has a chance to stand beneath the cross whenever mass is celebrated. It is that view Luther rejects (although he may very well have misunderstood the Catholic position as considering each mass as a sacrifice different from and in addition to Jesus' sacrifice on the cross).

3.    Another key reformation doctrine: We are saved by faith only, not by works

a.    The essentials

In his work The Freedom of a Christian, Luther formulates a key reformation doctrine: That humans are saved by faith, not by works. In his own words (quotations from the text could be multiplied beyond the three I've selected): "The soul . . . is justified by faith alone, and not any works." "This, then, is how through faith alone without works the soul is justified by the Word of God, sanctified, made true, peaceful, and free . . ." "It is clear, then, that a Christian has all that he needs in faith and needs no work to justify him."

Whatever one may think about the merits of Luther's position, it is clearly a reaction against the tendency fostered by the indulgence abuses to focus on the outward act, to the exclusion of the inner attitude, when assessing the worth of the works being done.

b.    Luther does not mean to say that there will be no good works on the part of the person of faith

Luther's view is, however, not that there will be no works in the case of a person of faith, or that works are totally unimportant. All he is denying to works is that they contribute in any way, shape, or form to a person's salvation; that contribution is made exclusively by faith. Good works are, for Luther, however, a natural outgrowth of saving faith, as becomes clear from the following passage, also taken from The Freedom of a Christian Man: "[The person of faith] cannot be idle, for the need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works to reduce it to subjection. Nevertheless the works themselves do not justify him before God, but he does the works out of spontaneous love and obedience to God."

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/23/12 (Class # 24)

c.    Luther's view different from that of the antinomians

It is important to note that Luther disagreed with the antinomians ("anti" = against; "nomos" = law), such as Johannes Agricola (born in Eisleben in 1492). Taking Luther's view to an extreme, they held that believers were not subjected to any standards of the law. They held that, just as much as good works do not add to the justification of a believer, so do evil works not distract from that believer's justification. Luther took strong exception to this view to the extent to which it lent itself to defending an immoral life.

For Luther, being a person of strong and saving faith simply meant that there also will be good works as the natural fruit of that faith, and that's what the antinomians did not recognize according to him. (Most antinomians were personally honorable individuals; only a minority of them took to practicing their principle by leading immortal lives.)

d.    Luther, Paul, and James

(1)    Does the Bible say that humans are justified by faith only?

If one were to ask Lutherans (or other Protestants) what the most important Scriptural evidence is for the "saved by faith only" doctrine, it is likely that they would refer to a passage from Paul's Letter to the Romans: Rom 3.28. Interestingly, Luther does not mention this passage at all in his work The Freedom of a Christian (he quotes numerous other Bible passages). In his New Testament translation, though, completed about two years later, he renders Rom 3.28 as follows "So halten wir es nun, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben." His translation translated into English is, "Thus, we hold that man is justified without the works of the law, only by faith."  In accordance with this, Lutherans (and many other Protestants) hold that faith is the only contribution humans make to their justification; if this is so, no human works of any kind contribute to justification.

(2)    How does Rom 3.28 square with James 2.24?

Some suggest, however, that the following New Testament passage from the Letter of James is "raining on the parade" of Luther and the Lutherans: "See how a person is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2.24)

"Justified . . . only by faith" (Paul according to Luther) vs. "Justified . . . not by faith only" (James) . . . is that not a flat-out contradiction?

Does not James give Martin Luther the lie? And is what James says not also in conflict with the words of Paul in his Letter to the Romans?

(3)    "Invention" of the word "only"? Works of the law vs. works of mercy (a type of "good works")

Some reply that James contradicts Martin Luther, but not Paul. First, they point out that when Luther translates Romans 3.28 with the words, ". . . only by faith," he inserts the word "only" for which there is no warrant in the Greek original. Second, they say, the contradiction evaporates if the matter is understood as follows:

We are justified through faith, but not only through faith. Works of the law (in the sense of complying with the prescriptions of the Torah--even the Pharisees were proud of doing so) do not contribute to our justification. However, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2.26); so there must be another type of works besides works of the law; works belonging to that other type contribute to our salvation. What could they be? Why, the ones James writes about in his letter (see James 2.14-26): Helping one's fellow humans; works of mercy. These are the same type of works Jesus mentions in his account of the Last Judgment as a condition for "inheriting the kingdom"; conversely, the only reason which Jesus mentions for being "consigned to the everlasting fire" is failing to carry these works out. (See Mt 25.31-46) Jesus does not even mention faith. Given what he says in other places, one cannot conclude from this that faith is not of crucial importance; but it means--or so the argument goes--that works of mercy also are important.

"Works of mercy" belong into the group of deeds that have also been called "good works." Interestingly, even Paul's Letter to the Romans states that these good works determine what the final outcome for humans will be: "God ... will repay everyone according to his works: Eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works; but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness." (Rom 2.5-8)

Thus, people disagreeing with Protestantism on this matter hold: Works of the law do not save; faith saves, but not by itself; it must be accompanied by works of mercy. They maintain: Saying that works of the law do not contribute to our salvation while works of mercy do contribute is as little a contradiction as saying that a grade of "F" does not increase the number of credits counting towards graduation, while a grade of "D" does increase that number.

Needless to say, this is another dispute on which I am not to take sides.

V.    Summary of the doctrines of traditional Lutheranism in contrast to Roman Catholicism

Contemporary Lutheranism is strongly influenced by religious liberalism. There are, however, also Lutheran denominations that belong to traditional Christianity. They make up what can be called traditional Lutheranism. Below is a brief summary of the chief disagreements between traditional Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism: [Note: Most of the titles in Section V are in italics. In these cases, the Lutheran position has been adopted by many of the other traditional Protestant denominations.]

1.    The "Scripture Only" doctrine

Lutheranism accepts—with most of traditional Protestantism—the so-called Scripture only doctrine.

All traditional Christians, including Roman Catholics, hold that God has given to humans a revelation which has a clearly identifiable content.

The disagreement between Lutherans and Roman Catholics concerns the question, "How has this content been transmitted to us?" According to the Scripture only doctrine held by Lutherans, there is one and only one mode of transmission: The Scriptures of the Old and New Covenant (Old and New Testaments). Accordingly, nothing is to be believed if it cannot be found in Scripture. "Where is it in the Bible," is a key question Protestants ask in their debates with Roman Catholics.

In contrast, Roman Catholics hold that revelation has been transmitted to us through Scripture and the Tradition of the Catholic Church (to be distinguished from mere human traditions, which Christ condemns).¹

2.    Salvation is through faith only, not trough works

In accordance with Luther, Lutherans hold that humans are saved through faith only, not through good works. While, as explained earlier, good works are a natural outgrow of faith, they do not contribute to a human's salvation.

In contrast, Roman Catholics hold that our "regeneration" is unearned, undeserved, entirely Christ's doing, not based on anything we have done; but after it has been accomplished, we are enabled (and expected) to perform works contributing to our salvation. If we fail to perform them (and/or perform evil actions), we forfeit our salvation.

3.    Denial of the authority of the papacy

Lutherans do not acknowledge any authority the Pope has over Christianity. In a sense,  they go even further than the Eastern Orthodox in their rejection of papal authority. Eastern Orthodox at least acknowledge that the Pope has authority over Western Christianity; Lutherans do not even acknowledge papal authority over Western Christianity.

In  contrast, Roman Catholics hold that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) has, according to the will of Christ, in religious matters authority over all Christians.

4.    Sacraments

Lutherans characteristically believe in only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Penance, which Luther continued to consider as a sacrament, has largely come out of use in Lutheranism, though it enjoys a "comeback" is some quarters.)

In contrast, Catholics hold that there are seven sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Reconciliation (Penance), Anointing of the Sick (used to be called Extreme Unction), Holy Orders, and Holy Matrimony (Marriage).

5.    Denial of a special ministerial priesthood in favor of the universal priesthood of all believers

As mentioned in the context of Luther's work Appeal to the German Nobility, Luther opposes the universal priesthood of all believers to the Roman Catholic teaching on the ministerial priesthood. Lutherans accept that teaching.

Like Martin Luther himself, Lutherans justify that position with a Bible passage taken from the First Letter of Peter: "You are 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own' [= God's]." (1 Pt 2.9) These words are addressed to all Christians in the communities to which the letter is sent; if all people are priests, then there is no need for a special ministerial priesthood held only by a few. Thus, Lutherans hold that the special ministerial priesthood that existed in Old Testament times is replaced by the universal priesthood of all believers.

In contrast, Roman Catholics hold that in addition to the universal priesthood, there is also a special ministerial priesthood including deacons, priests, and bishops. One becomes a member of this special priesthood through sacramental ordination (= Holy Orders).

Concerning the argument Lutherans use in support of their position, Catholics hold that that argument ignores the fact that in the Scripture passage from the First Letter of Peter (see above), Peter is quoting from the Old Testament book Exodus, where God instructs Moses to tell the entire people of the Israelites that they are a "royal priesthood, a holy nation." (Ex 19.6) Thus, in ancient Israel already, there was a universal priesthood participated in by all belonging to the people of Israel. This universal priesthood existed side by side with the special priesthood to which only the male descendants of Aaron belonged. If it was possible for a universal priesthood to coexist with a special priesthood in Old Testament times, then, the same is surely possible in New Testament times. Thus, Catholics maintain, the universal priesthood of all believers is not to replace the special ministerial priesthood; rather, both continue to exist, even if both are different from how they were in Old Testament times.

Concerning the special priesthood of which one becomes a member through sacramental ordination, Catholics hold that ordination to be a priest confers the power to make Christ present in the Eucharist, to forgive sins in the Sacrament of Penance, to administer the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, and to confirm (although according to Roman Catholic practice, ordinarily, the bishop confirms); ordination to be a bishop confers the power to ordain deacons, priests, and bishops.

[Two of the sacraments are not mentioned in the previous paragraph: Baptism and matrimony (marriage). Catholics holds that every person has the power to baptize although ordinarily, the minister of baptism must at least have been ordained to be a deacon; the ministers of marriage are the bride and the groom, with the priest being only the Church's witness.]

Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/25/12 (Class # 25)

6.    The Lord's Supper

Lutherans believe in Christ's real pres­ence in the Eucharist, but deny transubstantiation--bread and wine remain present, but the substance of Christ's body and blood also come to be present. In Luther's own words, Christ comes to be present "in, with, and under the forms of consecrated bread and wine." As stated earlier, this view is at times called "consubstantiation," although Luther does not use this word, and traditional Lutherans do not appreciate it.

In contrast, Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation, i.e. a replacement of the substances (= inner natures) of bread and wine by the substances of Christ's body and blood.

Both Catholics and traditional Christianity Lutherans agree, though, that in the Eucharist, Christ is fully and physically present in his divinity and humanity. This is one of the major disagreements between Lutherans and those Christian denominations influenced by Calvinism.

In spite of the agreement between Roman Catholics and traditional Lutherans on the real and physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist/Lord's Supper, there is the following "fly in the ointment":

According to Roman Catholicism, one must be a validly and sacramentally ordained priest to make Christ present in the Eucharist--belonging to the universal priesthood of all believers is not sufficient. Lutherans, however, do not recognize the Sacrament of Holy Orders--there is no sacramental ordination among them; there are no validly ordained priests. Thus, with that precondition for making Christ present in the Eucharist not being met, the real and physical presence of Christ does, according to Catholic teaching, not occur in the Lutheran celebration of the Lord's Supper.

7.    Predestination

Luther himself believed in what has come to be called "double predestination." Accordingly, not all humans have been created for the same purpose. Some have been predestined (predetermined) for the purpose of being saved; others have been created for the purpose of being condemned.

This is supposedly borne out by Romans 8.30: "And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he also justified; and those he justified he also glorified."

Lutherans say that believers are predestined to salvation; they refuse, however, to say that non-believers are predestined for eternal damnation.

Roman Catholics agree that some persons are predestined to glory. They maintain, however, that this predestination to glory is based on God's foreknowledge of a person's cooperation with saving grace given. They argue that this is borne out if one reads Romans 8.30 together with the previous verse: "For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His son, so that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." (Romans 8.29.)

In line with this, they consider the sequence to be, "foreknew--predestined--called--justified--glorified," not "predestined--called--justified--glorified."

VI.    A word on Calvinism

1.    John Calvin

John Calvin was born in 1509 (France), and  died 1564 in Geneva/Switzerland. Around 1533, he became a supporter of the Reformation. His main work has the title, Institutes of the Christian Religion (first version completed in 1536). Two disagreements between Calvinism and Lutheranism shall be mentioned.

2.    The Lord's Supper

Calvin denied that in the Eucharist, bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of Christ (transubstantiation) or that Christ's body and blood are added to the substances of bread and wine (consubstantiation): Bread and wine remain what they were before, and Christ does not come to be physically and substantially present. This lead to a break between Lutheranism and Calvinism.

Calvinists use, however, the word "real presence" in their explanation of the Lord's Supper; however, it seems to be more a real presence in the sense of the word of Jesus, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the mist of them." (Mt 18.20)

3.    Predestination

Traditional Calvinists hold the strictest view on predestination that can be found within Christianity. Accordingly, some humans are predetermined for being saved; in contrast, others are cre­ated for the explicit purpose of being eternally condemned. In Calvin's own words, "We call predestination that eternal decree of God according to which he has determined within himself what shall happen to each human being. For all are not created for the same fate, for to some, life eternal is assigned, to others eternal damnation. Therefore, we call someone predestined for life or death accord­ing to whether he has been created for the one or for the other purpose."

The view on predestination held by Calvinists agrees with Luther; but, as indicated earlier, Lutherans mitigate the harshness of Luther's teaching. Many American denominations influenced by Calvin also have adopted a less harsh position.

VII.    Anglicanism

The word "Anglicanism" designates the Church of England. Up to the reign of King Henry VIII (ruled 1509-47), Christianity in England was firmly Catholic. Matters changed with Henry VIII, the second of the Tudor kings. In 1534, he persuaded Parliament to declare him head of the Church of England because the pope refused to annul Henry's marriage to Katherine of Aragon. This separated the bonds with Rome, but in terms of beliefs, the church of England remained Catholic under Henry.

Things changed under Henry's successor Edward VI (king 1547-53, son of Henry VIII and his third wife Jane Seymour¹): There was a turn into the direction of Protestantism. This was reversed under Edward's successor, Queen Mary (ruled 1553-58), daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon: There was a turn back to Catholicism.

But under Mary's successor, Elizabeth I (ruled 1558-1603, daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn), the Church of England moved back to Protestantism with a strongly Calvinist bent, except that the offices of bishops, priests, and deacons were retained. This form of church governance is known as the Episcopal church governance. ("Episcopal" is derived from the Greek "episcopos," literally translated as "overseer"; the English word "bishop" comes from it.)

In the mid-1800s, the so-called Oxford Movement reintroduced many ideas characteristic of Catholicism into some segments of the Anglican Church. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s, religious liberalism made inroads into other segments of Anglicanism. In consequence, three branches of Anglicanism can be distinguished:

First, there is the high church. It agrees in almost everything with Roman Catholicism, except for accepting the authority of the pope.

Second, there is the low church. It is Protestant in outlook, with a Calvinist "spin."

Third, there is the broad church, characterized by religious liberalism.

VIII.    The aftermath of the Reformation in Europe

Prior to the Reformation, most of Europe was Roman Catholic. The exception were some parts of Eastern Europe where Eastern Christianity prevailed. In consequence of the Reformation, central and northern Europe and England came to be religiously divided into the following four chief groups: (1) Roman Catholicism; (2) Lutheranism; (3) Calvinism; (4) Anglicanism.

1.    Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholicism continued to exist in southern and western Europe, in southern Germany, in Austria, and in Poland.

2.    Lutheranism

Lutheranism came to be the state religion in Northern Germany, the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark), parts of Latvia and Estonia, and Iceland.

3.    Calvinism

Calvinism (officially known as the Reformed Church) came to be the preferred religion in parts of Switzerland, of the Netherlands, and of Hungary. Originally, it also existed in some parts of France (the French Calvinists were known as the Huguenots), although Calvinism was cruelly suppressed there, and many were forced to emigrate. Also, the Puritans in England and the Presbyterian Church in Scotland represented a Calvinist theology.

4.    Anglicanism

The Anglican Church is the Church of England. Its ecclesiastical institu­tions were spread around the world (including North America) through English colonialism.

IX.    The situation in the United States

In the United States, there are significantly more Protestants than Ronan Catholics. The Protestants are, however, split into numerous subgroups. In consequence, the largest individual denomination in the United States is the Roman Catholic Church.

1.    Roman Catholicism

Currently there are about 68,500,000 U.S. Catholics (a little under 22% of the U.S. population of about 313,500,000). The Catholic Church is one of the few main-line Christian denominations in the United States that keeps on growing in membership. (The world-wide membership of the Roman Catholic Church is about 1,150,000,000, which comprises a little over half of the about 2.28 billion Christians living in the world.)

Roman Catholicism came to North America first with Spanish colonists; in the areas currently belonging to the United States, it came to be established in Florida, in New Mexico, and in California. In the English colonies, Catholicism could be practiced only in Maryland and in Pennsylvania. Following the U.S. War of Independence, Catholics were tolerated, and in 1790, John Carroll was the first Catholic bishop to be appointed. His see was in Baltimore. The 1800s saw a marked growth of Catholicism in this country, chiefly through immigration from Ireland, from Italy, and from Poland. Today, there are about 130 Roman Catholic dioceses. (A diocese is a geographic area presided over by a bishop. The diocese of Providence is identical in extent with Rhode Island; larger states are divided into several dioceses.)

2.    Lutheranism

Lutheranism, the most influential of the Protestant denominations in Europe, is of much smaller significance for the religious situation in the United States.

Concerning its history in these parts of the world, there were Lutherans among the Dutch people who settled the Southern part of Manhattan Island in 1625,¹ a settlement to be named New Amsterdam the following year, and today known as New York City. These Lutherans founded a congregation only in 1648, though; which means that the honor of being the site of the very first North American Lutheran congregation and the beginning of Lutheranism as a formally organized group belongs to Wilmington in Delaware: In the year 1638, Swedish Lutherans arrived there, and founded Fort Christina, together with a Lutheran congregation.

Most Recent Posting -- Back to Top -- Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- 4/30/12 (Class # 26)

The beginning of Lutheranism in the south of the United States also goes back to the colonial area. In fact, it involves a connection leading straight to your humble instructor's home: Salzburg. That town and the province surrounding it (also called Salzburg) were, for about 1000 years (until 1803), an independent principality ruled by the Archbishop of Salzburg. One of these rulers was Leopold von Firmian, who was Archbishop 1727-1744. In 1731, he issued a decree expelling the Lutherans from the area over which he ruled; about 20,000-30,000 of them emigrated. Most of them moved to Prussia, under a Lutheran ruler. About 300 of them made it, in 1734, across the Atlantic Ocean, and settled in Georgia which had been established the previous year.

Today, there are at least 10 Lutheran groups in this country, with a combined membership of about 7,360,000. The two largest groups representing traditional Christianity are the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (a little over 2,350,000 members) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (almost 400,000 members). The largest U.S. Lutheran group, known as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (a little over 4,500,000 members), is strongly influenced by religious liberalism.

3.    Calvinism: Presbyterians, Reformed Churches, Baptists

Calvinism arrived on these shores with the Pilgrims in 1620 (Plymouth/Massachusetts).

Originally, the Presbyterians (a little under 3,500,000) and the Reformed Churches (about 460,000), both split into various groups, were strongly Calvinist; today, they are for the most part extremely liberal, as is the United Church of Christ (about 1,000,000 members).

Calvinism also has had a strong impact on the Baptists. There are about 30,000,000 of them in this country, split into at least 19 groups. The largest Baptist denomination is the Southern Baptist Convention, with a little over 16,000,000 members also the largest Protestant denomination in this country. Its beliefs and practices correspond to traditional Christianity.

Most Baptists in the north of the United States belong to the American Baptists in the USA (a little over 1,300,000 members), strongly influenced by religious liberalism. The denomination traces its origin back to Roger Williams (died 1683), the founder of Rhode Island (he founded Rhode Island in 1636, and a church in 1638).

4.    Anglicanism--The Protestant Episcopal Church--Methodism--The Salvation Army

Anglicanism came to North America with the English colonists who founded Jamestown/VA in 1607 as the first permanent and successful English settlement in North America. After the American Revolution, the successor church of that offshoot of Anglicanism came to be the Protestant Episcopal Church (current membership: a little over 2,000,000). That church is a sister church of the Anglican Communion, consisting of the Church of England and the other churches which originally had been offshoots of Anglicanism, brought by English colonialism to various parts of the world, and made independent from the mother church following the independence of the colonies. The Archbishop of Canterbury (since October 2002, Rowan Williams) is the spiritual head of the Anglican Communion. He has no formal authority over any of the sister churches, except for the church in Great Britain. The world-wide membership of the Anglican Communion is about 86,200,000.

The Methodists are an offshoot of Anglicanism. The founder, John Wesley (1703-91), considered himself an Anglican clergyman up to his death.

In the United States, the Methodists split from the Episcopal Church while Wesley was still alive (1784); in England, the split with the Anglican Church occurred only after his death, in 1795.

There are about 13,750,000 Methodists in this country, split into at least 9 denominations. The largest of them is the United Methodist Church, with about 7,800,000 members.

William Booth, an English Methodist minister founded, in 1865, the Salvation Army, an interdenominational Protestant group which has charitable work as one of its main activities. The group came to exist in many countries--today, it is present in about 120 of them. It came to the United States in 1880; there are about 400,000 U.S. members.

FINAL PART: END-OF-THE-SEMESTER REFLECTIONS; OR "AGING TEACHERS DO HAVE SOME LEEWAY"

1.    A limit to academic freedom

Secular United States institutions of higher learning are proud champions of academic freedom. In accordance with this, the mere fact that a view is controversial is not a reason for banishing it from what teachers may defend in the classroom.

Interestingly, though, there is a surprising limit to this freedom--surprising, that is, for many people used to what is customary in other countries where academic freedom also is practiced.

Consider the following six questions:

(1) Should nude sunbathing be permitted on quadrangles of public universities? Yes or no?

(2) Are the United States involved in acts of terrorism just as bad as those perpetrated by so-called radical Muslims? Yes or no?

(3) Has the U.S. government been behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center? Yes or no?

(4) Is Christianity a dangerous ideology? Yes or no?

(5) Should chapters of NAMBLA (= North American Man/Boy Love Association) be allowed as officially recognized student organizations on public university campuses? Yes or no?

(6) Did God speak to us trough his son? Yes or no?

Defending affirmative answers to these questions in public university classrooms may be controversial; but affirmative answers may be defended¹--to all of them except for the last one. With regard to that one question, defending an affirmative answer is considered illegal. It is considered to be not just against some obscure law, but against the United States Constitution, at least as understood by the U.S. Supreme Court, the final arbiter of that document.

During the 1970s, when the Soviet Union was still a world power, second only to the United States, a "wise guy" (I have no idea as to the identity of that person) posted the following item on my department's bulletin board: "Question: With regard to religion, what is the difference between American secular universities and the University of Moscow? Answer: Location." Defending religion during class at public U.S. universities was just as illegal as it was in Communist Russia. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, things may be different in Moscow today; they have, however, remained the same at URI.

As a consequence, courses like this one must be taught according to what I have called the Fox principle: "I report, you decide." All I was allowed to do was inform you what "they" believe and how "they" argue in support of "their" beliefs; whether the beliefs are true and/or whether the arguments are any good is not for me to say.

One way of formulating the restriction I am under is, "All I am allowed to do is point out how human life would be if what 'they' say is true; whether it really is that way is not for me to go into."

Let me take what I just said as my cue for the final question to be taken up: How would human life be if Christianity would be true?

2.    An analogy: Being "doggedly" pursued by a lover . . .

By now, you know, of course, that I like to use analogies. Let me use one more of them.

Picture a man deeply in love with a woman. She does not seem to be interested, though. Suppose him to know, however (and here, the human analogy does not quite work, for no human could truly have the knowledge required; so I'm asking you to give me some latitude)--suppose him to know that her lack of interest is not due to the fact that she would not be capable of loving him deeply--no, he knows that in a sense, she is "made" for this love; but the way she leads her life "crowds" matters of the heart "out" of it: Against great odds, she has made it in the professional world; her job, her business, her admirable accomplishments along those lines are all that is important to her. She does not take any "time out" for emerging from the frantic pace of her work. She does not even give the time of day to the question of how she feels about that man. In contrast, he knows that if she would only give him a chance, a mutual love between the two would be possible of a greatness and intensity that would cause her to exclaim, "What I considered most important up to now is totally insignificant in comparison to our love." Picture that man--deeply in love with her--constantly arranging for situations that might cause her to wake up from what is compared to a mutual love between the two of them only a life of superficialities. No lack of success deters him; no failure keeps him from continuing to try; nothing causes him to give up.

3.    The analogy applied

Well, if Christianity is true, everyone of us is pursued, doggedly pursued, by such a lover, by someone who tries to awaken my love for him, every day, in myriads of ways, most of them gentle and easy to overlook, none of them obtrusive or overpowering, some of them rather spectacular, though.

Who's that?

Yes, you guessed right.

4.    Christianity and the goal of human existence

If Christianity is true, then there is one and only one goal to human existence: Falling madly and passionately in love with God and being forever deliriously happy in that love.

Remember, though, that love must be freely given. The one who loves for a reason other than because that's what he or she wants—that person does not truly love. Love can be gently motivated, carefully prodded; but forced love is an oxymoron if there ever was one: Love cannot be compelled.

If Christianity is true, then one must look at the course of one's entire life as nothing but a sequence of attempts on the part of God to make us love him.

5.    A perfect absurdity? Maybe; but . . .

Some of you, looking at their own lives and the dreadful things that have happened in them, might now say, "How perfectly absurd. If his goal is getting me to love him, he is going about it precisely the wrong way."

Maybe so. I am not to take a position one way or the other.

But do me a favor: If you are tempted to say, "How perfectly absurd," reserve judgment until you've listened to the following story which circulated on the Internet in the wake of 9/11, written by Stacey Randall:

6.    "Meet me in the Stairwell"

"You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news on September 11, 2001. Neither will I.

"I was on the 110th floor in a smoke-filled room with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK . . . I am ready to go.'

"I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he would not be coming home that night.

"I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said. 'Of course I will show you the way home--only believe in Me now.'

"I was at the base of the building with the priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his flock in heaven. He heard my voice and answered.

"I was present on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer.

"I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them.

"I was in Texas, Kansas, London. I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense my presence?

"I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name--though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor.

"Some sought Me with their last breath.

"Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; 'Come to Me . . . this way . . . take my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me; but I was there.

"I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do. However, had you been there in that explosive moment of time, would you have reached for Me?

"September 11, 2001 was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you will be prepared to go.

"I will be in the stairwell of your final moments.

God"

A Christian also claims to know what it is that you will encounter in the "stairwell of your final moment": You will be met by a love best expressed with the following words--quoted here once again:

"Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one, and come! For you, the winter is past, the rains are over and gone. The flowers appear on the earth, . . . and the song of the dove is heard in our land. . . Arise, my beloved, my beautiful one, and come! O my dove in the clefts of the rock, in the secret recesses of the cliff, let me see your face, let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet, and you are lovely." (See Song of Songs 2.11-14.)

"Will you be ready to respond by accepting the love these words express--or will they be altogether too much for you, and will you close your heart forever?" That's the question Christianity would ask.

Next Quiz Start -- No more quizzes

Office hours after last day of classes:

Tuesday, May 1: 11:00-12:00, office hour.

Wednesday, May 2: 2:00-3:00, office hour.

Thursday, May 3: 11:00-12:00, office hour.

Tuesday, May 8: 11:00-12:00, office hour.

Thursday, May 10: 11:00-12:00, office hour.

Final Exam:

RLS 126/0001 Final: Thursday, May 10, 3:00-5:00.

Back to RLS 126/0001 Main Page -- Back to Top