Thoughts on The Righteous Mind and the God of history

I recently read the book The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and it was an interesting read. He offers some interesting insight into how the political left mindset is built on a different set of what he calls moral 'pillars' than the political right, and I find much of what he has to say to be helpful for our understanding of each other across the political spectrum. Still, I also find his viewpoint to be limited in a very critical way in regard to the matter of religion.


First, some things that resonated with me. His acronym of WEIRD for Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic is a nice one! Those of us in that world are indeed statistical outliers in regard to seeing the world as a world of individuals rather than as a world of relationships. He points out that the WEIRD-er we are, the moral narrow the moral viewpoint becomes. He goes on to explain how the political left consistently expresses a morality that is built on fewer 'pillars' (notably 2; fairness and care/harm) than the political right that is more evenly concerned about all 6 'pillars' that he identifies, including those of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity that are notably absent on the left. One result of this is that the political left has a much harder time even understanding the political right than the other way around. Several matters of concern to those on the right are either almost entirely absent from the mindset of the left or considered downright immoral rather than a part of moral 'pillars'. Haidt does a good job of showing how this limited set of moral pillars on the left is often harmful even on purely non-religious and evolutionary grounds. I would go even further and say that he demonstrates well how the political left endorses a form of morality that is basically impoverished.


While I think he does demonstrate why the conservative view of morality has more merit than liberals would like to admit,  even in a world where only non-religious and evolutionary arguments are permissible, he does not even mention the issue of history as a basis for religion. As he discusses the rise of religion in the world, the various views of this which he discusses perhaps have some validity in regard to what the apostle Paul would call 'man made religion' (Col. 2:23). However, he does not allow the possibility of a God that injects Himself into history as a person and validates that action by doing unthinkable deeds like resurrection from the dead. He simply rejects historical Christianity out of hand and lumps it together with man-made religion. He seems to assume that all conceptions of God are based solely on an overactive sense of 'agency',  attributing an agent of cause (God) to things that are just natural. He accepts the mistaken notion that a God who is active in history is just myth.


So overall I think he offers some interesting and useful insight into the conflict between the political left and right, and offers some useful proposals by recognizing some good points on both sides of some key issues like health care and marriage. I think this is most helpful for understanding the mindset of the non-religious left and the non-Christian right; but he cannot understand the Christian viewpoint, both left and right, without understanding the God of history. As a result, his argument will only go so far. As he points out himself, many on the left hate all religions so completely that they cannot bring themselves to accept even the possibility that it has any merit.


I write this during the Christmas season when we celebrate God's invasion of human history to make Himself known. That coming into history culminated in His resurrection, an event that radically transformed those who witnessed it to the point of changing the world by their selfless love. It seems to me that there is a 7th pillar of morality that is greater than the rest: Christ Himself.

Pentecost 2014

Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, begins today at sundown (June 3). In Hebrew it is called Shavuot, which means 'weeks' or 'sevens'. It is interesting that Pentecost gets so little attention among Christians, especially evangelicals. Among Jews, it is one of the 3 primary holidays, one of the 3 when the Old Testament called for traveling to Jerusalem to be at the temple for the celebration of this holiday. Why was this such an important time to the Jewish people who took their faith seriously? And why was it chosen as the day for the Holy Spirit to initiate the church age in the book of Acts?


I ran across this short post by a Jewish rabbi about the significance of both Shavuot and the number seven in the Bible. It is interesting and fun, and of course lists 49 (seven times seven) examples of the significance of the number seven:

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_seven.htm

At the start of this post he speaks of what happened when the time of Shavuot came around for the first time after Israel left Egypt in the exodus: Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving the Torah from God. He calls this 'the most seminal event in the history of mankind'.  This event is recounted in Exodus 19, and in Exodus 19:18 the scripture points out that 'Mt. Sinai was all in smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire'. At this same holiday in Acts, the believers in Jesus were also descended upon with 'tongues of fire' to inaugurate the church age. The similarity of the way God made His presence known and the choosing of the same date is striking! The coming of Pentecost should be just as important to the church as it is to Israel.

It is also of interest that God included in His revelation to Moses the instructions for His dwelling among them, the tabernacle. After the conquest of the Promised Land it was later replaced by the temple in Jerusalem. At Pentecost in Acts 2, He took up residence in His people through the Holy Spirit instead of in a building. This is amazing since it took Christ's atonement to create a people no longer in need of ongoing atonement over and over each year, so that God's presence could be among His people!


The prophet Jeremiah had foretold a time when the Torah would be written on the hearts of believers.(Jer. 31:31-33).  At the first Pentecost in Exodus 19, the Torah was given; at the 'fulfillment' of Pentecost in Acts 2, the Torah was written on the hearts of believers to inaugurate the new covenant time that Jeremiah spoke about.

I have not heard much about Pentecost through the years. We mostly take it for granted. I read a best-selling Christian book recently that described it as a 'minor Jewish holiday'. We in the western church clearly do not understand how important it was for Israel, or how important it should be to us as the church. Let's take some time tonight or tomorrow to reflect on how blessed we are to have our God dwelling with us in His Spirit and not separated from us in a temple, writing His Torah on our hearts!

Biblical 'Remembering' at Easter

The Last Supper of Jesus with His disciples appears to have been a Seder meal, though it seems to have been the night before the temple hierarchy was celebrating Passover (there continues to be debate about the nature of this meal, whether an actual Passover meal or the kind of ritual meal a rabbi would have with his disciples in advance so they could do the Passover with their families). At this ritual meal, Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper and said to do it 'in remembrance of me'. (Luke 22:19). This is also how the Passover itself was being kept, as a 'memorial' done in remembrance (Exodus 12:14). Paul also recalls this in I Cor. 11; as he refers to the Lord's Supper he mentions that it is kept in remembrance and then mentions consequences for failing to observe the Supper properly that include weakness, sickness, and even death. These consequences sound very much like the warnings to Israel in Exodus that those who fail to keep Passover properly are to be 'cut off' from Israel. Overall, the observance of the Lord's Supper as a memorial sounds very much like the observance of Passover as a memorial, and this observance as a memorial is not the same concept as a sacrament.


Dr.Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., in his book Toward an Old Testament Theology, points out that the entire Exodus experience, where Passover began, is a type of 'remembering'. God had heard the Israelites groaning in Egypt and 'remembered' His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Kaiser goes on to say that all of the divine activity of bringing Israel out of slavery "could be subsumed under one concept: it was a 'remembering' of His covenant' (Exodus. 6:5)." That 'remembering' was not a mere mental activity since it was the motivating force for the entIre exodus event, a 'remembering' that results in His action.  Likewise, Israel's ritual remembering of Passover is in imitation of God's remembering,  'in His image' if you will. Israel was to remember God's redemption just as God had remembered His promise to Abraham. So also is our ritual of the Lord's Supper. In both cases we remember in a manner that includes bodily actions, eating the bread and wine, as an impetus to renewed focus on living out in actions our calling as believers to walk as His followers each day.


As we observe Easter let us 'remember' biblically, recognizing both His covenant with us that was sealed with His blood on the cross and our commitment to follow Him.

Learning to Love the Old Testament

The April 2014 issue of First Things includes an article about how often it is that we learn to love a particular subject area-music, art, philosophy, science, or whatever-because of a person. Often that person is a teacher, but it can also be a parent or friend or pastor, anyone who causes us to recognize that this particular thing is not just factual or important for some reason but it is also worthy of being pursued, even loved. The article is entitled 'Learning in Love', and emphasizes how we do indeed learn to love in a certain way through coming to care about an area of learning that somehow unlocks to us an insight into what a meaningful life really is. It is usually a person that unlocks this for us, since these pursuits are often hard work and not that easy to fully enter into. We usually need a push and encouragement and some insights from them to continue pursuing this learning.


I had been thinking about my college days as I began to read this article, for several reasons. A friend from college is on the verge of death; the weather now reminds me of a similar week in March when I was in college and about to go to see the ocean for the first time; and I have recently done a study of the Jewish feasts in the Old Testament. With these thoughts jumbled in my head, I read the article and was reminded of Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr..


At a weekend retreat during my college years, Dr. Kaiser came to our campus to lead a retreat focused on how the books of Moses, the Torah, are still relevant today. Up to then I knew in a detached sort of way that the Old Testament was important, that I ought to know more about it, that I ought to care more about it than I did. I had read through the Old Testament from this sense of guilt but really only the prophets and Genesis were very compelling to me. I knew that the rest of it was somehow important but I didn't really care much about it.


What I heard from Dr. Kaiser that weekend was a first glimpse of why the whole Old Testament was worthy of being pursued, even loved. He clearly loved it. It showed in his enthusiasm and the way he tied many parts of it together to show its unity. While I knew in a cognitive way that it was important, that retreat gave me a glimpse of how much more it could be, how understanding it would unlock my understanding of the New Testament and would make life itself more meaningful.


It has been a long journey since then, around 40 years, and I am no great scholar of the Old Testament still, but as I have continued to seek understanding I have been startled at times at how the things I have learned from the Old Testament have changed my understanding of Christ and the gospel. So today I am reminded in gratitude of Dr. Kaiser, and I am thankful for how his love for the Bible that I saw that weekend in Oxford, Ohio, continues to influence my life.

Law versus Grace? The False Dichotomy

We Protestants have heard so much about 'law versus grace' that the role of the Old Testament has become muddled in our thinking. Our thought model, the paradigm in which we think, is that of 'law versus grace', as if the Old Testament were in opposition to grace. That is what 'versus' means after all, like in an athletic contest, one team versus another as opponents. That is an unfortunate development that, in my opinion, seriously misreads the apostle Paul on this matter.


The epistles of Romans and Galatians both come to mind. In Romans we read things like 'by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified' (Rom. 3:20) and 'for you are not under law, but under grace' (Rom. 6:14). Surely that sounds like the two are opposed! And what about 'Oh foolish Galatians!...did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law?' (Gal. 3:1-3) and again 'by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified' (Gal. 2:16).  Yet this same Paul goes to great pains to point out that the Law is good!  'The Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good' (Rom. 7:12), and 'For we know that the Law is spiritual' (Rom. 7:14); in Galatians, he goes on to say that the Law is good because it in fact leads us to grace, rather than being 'versus' grace, when he says, 'Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ that we may be justified by faith' (Gal. 3:24). In both Romans and Galatians, in the very same chapters where he speaks strongly about being under grace instead of under law he also takes pains to point out that the Law is good, holy, and leads us to faith. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah says that in the New Covenant God will write the Law onto the hearts of his people (Jer. 31:31-33). The very nature of grace, of the New Covenant, is that the Law will be written onto our hearts! How can it be 'law versus grace' if  receiving God's grace results in God's Law being written on our hearts?


If you look up the word 'Torah', which is the Hebrew word usually translated 'Law', the primary meanings given are 'teaching' and 'instruction' rather than 'Law'. We think of it in terms of 'the Law of Moses' but this Law was given to Moses as God's instructions to mankind. If we replace 'law versus grace' with 'teaching versus grace' it doesn't even make sense; God's instructions to us lead us to grace, they don't oppose it. That makes Paul's comment about the Law being our 'tutor' so much more clear: of course it teaches us! That is the very meaning of the word 'Torah'!


Paul, as a Jew, would have considered the Torah, the Law, a gift from God. He says as much in Romans 9:4 in talking about how God 'gave' the Law and the promises of the Old Testament. In fact, if you ask someone Jewish what they are celebrating at Shavuot, the Feast of Weeks which is also called Pentecost, they will tell you that Shavuot remembers and celebrates the gift of the Torah to Moses, and according to Exodus 19 the first time the date for Shavuot occurred after the first Passover was while Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving the Torah from God. This helps me understand the Acts 2 Pentecost as well: at the first Pentecost, we received the gift of the Law and at the Pentecost of the New Covenant we received the gift of the Holy Spirit, which writes the Law on our hearts!


Viewing the Old Testament as promise and the New Testament as fulfillment, as Dr. Walt Kaiser points out so often in his writing, is a better paradigm than 'law versus grace'. The Torah instructs us so that we might come to grace, which then writes that Torah on our hearts.

Embodied Worship

I have recently been reading Desiring the Kingdom by James K. A. Smith, which considers the importance of our embodied nature on worship and education.  I agree with the idea that as evangelical believers we often have a dualistic view of human nature, viewing ourselves as 'souls' that happen to have a body rather than as embodied creatures with a body/soul unified nature. Recognizing that our very humanity involves our bodily nature is the starting point for thinking about whether our worship and education has become too centered on ideas as separate from living in bodily form. This seems to me a worthwhile issue to think about. In the book he challenges the mindset of people as beings whose lives are determined mostly by what we think by proposing that we are beings whose lives are determined mostly by what we love and deeply desire. He proposes that both our worship and education should show forth what we love in visible, bodily ways as well as in propositions and ideas. This kind of approach that involves body as well as ideas he calls 'liturgy'.

What if our worship has unwittingly taken on the 'liturgy' of the shopping mall, he asks? He walks through some 'liturgies' of the secular world like the shopping mall, athletic events, and the university in the book. The question arose in my mind: has the interest in 'contemporary' worship unwittingly taken on the 'liturgy' of the rock concert? Does this show forth our love of God, or our love of the rock concert experience?  I recently went to the contemporary service at our church and this book reminded me of the unexpected bodily reaction I had to it. I physically felt it in my stomach, and it was not good. Not quite nausea, but close to that. As I thought of this while reading the book, it occurred to me that what I felt was rather like what I had felt as a college student.

This is something of a diversion, but I entered college at age 17 and did not turn 18 until near the end of my first quarter of school (we were on quarters rather than semesters then). One of the 'rites', or what the book would call 'liturgies' of entering college was that dormitory groups (typically a 'corridor', the area of one dorm Resident Assistant) would have a 'beer blast' with a neighboring dorm (one guys dorm RA and one girls dorm RA as the organizers). While only 3.2% beer was legal for 18 year olds, I was not 18 so I could go along but not drink. I recall how I felt during that 'liturgy', and it was the feeling of being in the wrong place and wishing I was not there. I have had similar physical feelings, 'in the pit of my stomach' so to say, at sports events when surrounded by drunks (though I have not felt that at similar events when surrounded by friends). That feeling is a physical, bodily reaction to what is happening. It isn't just a thought or idea. I had similar feelings at the 'rock and roll' church service.

There is much in the book I don't agree with, however. He seems to be invested in the idea of bodily sacraments as 'means of grace', which I cannot agree with. I think he gives liturgy and bodily habit more credit than it is due in formation of  character. As I look at folks I grew up with, those from more liturgical churches have been less like to live out their faith than those from Evangelical churches with less liturgy. Still, most churches have at least some of what the author would call liturgy, and I do think those bodily evidences of faith (like baptism and the Lord's supper) are important. They are just not enough, and in some (especially the so-called 'mainline' churches) there seems to be little beyond the ritual.

Yet, my own bodily reaction at that recent contemporary service tells me that there is something here worth pondering.

The Tyranny of 'Rights'

As our country has lost sight of the idea of the 'common good' and descended into a collection of conflicting interest groups, the focus has increasingly become 'my rights'. Everyone is concerned about maximizing their personal 'rights' regardless of what that might mean to the common good. Many claim only to want to defend their rights when no else is harmed but that strikes me as patently untrue since their view of 'harm' seems limited to physical attack and pays no mind to even physical harm in the case of abortion, which kills a baby.  In fact, the rights talk of today seems to me to have more in common with the arguments used in the mid-1800's to defend slavery than seems to be recognized.

For example, the pro-abortion interests like to say that 'it's my body, my right'. Regarding slaves, the owners felt that 'it is my property, my right' to treat slaves as they wished. The pro-abortion lobby essentially treats unborn babies in the same manner as a slave was treated by owners, as a piece of property to be treated as they chose. The intent seems to be to make it look as if the issue is not about people; rather, it is about property or a 'blob of tissue' which is clearly mine.

Some who favor abortion like to say that the aborted baby is 'better off', assuming that they would be unwanted and therefore abused or at least neglected if allowed to be born. Supporters of slavery often argued that slaves were 'better off', being looked after by a master since most had no education and few if any marketable skills.

Many supporters of slavery liked to circumvent the slavery issue by claiming that the real issue was 'states rights', not slavery. They were just fighting for the rights of states to make their own decisions, they were not defending slavery, even though the main decision that the states wanted to defend was the decision to keep slavery legal. This is much like the 'my body' argument but at the state level instead of the personal level; 'it is our state, and we get to decide'.  Similarly, abortionists try to avoid the issue of life by talking about 'freedom of choice' instead of 'right to abortion' since the idea of choice is so much more palatable than killing babies.  Both in the case of slavery and in abortion, the idea is that 'freedom of choice' supersedes all other rights, including the right to life itself.

The homosexual lobby takes a similar approach. The approach is to focus on personal autonomy and choice with our own 'property' (body) and neglect the issues about morality and the common good. The idea that marriage is purely private rather than a public institution takes this approach, claiming that homosexual 'marriage' is somehow a right, but this seeks to ignore the public nature of families and child rearing and the common good to society of marriages that both produce children and raise them with both male and female role models, which nearly all studies on the subject have repeatedly demonstrated as vitally important. It is in fact the disintegration of the family that is responsible for much of the social dysfunction in our society, and homosexual 'marriage' adds to that destructive legacy even further.

 So it seems to me that the pursuit of 'rights' has become more like tyranny than like freedom, especially since the approach has been to try to force them upon the nation via court action rather than by legislative approval. The pursuit of rights has become a matter of tyranny rather than of freedom.