Eusociality and the Bible, Part 2 of 2

Which came first -

human consciousness or eusociality?

Or, put another way, which created which?

Introduction

Here's an interesting take on humanity's evolutionary roots combining the evolutionary concepts of natural selection with group selection. From an Evolutionary Creationist standpoint, a Christian can look at this evolutionary process as yet another evidence of God's amazingly intricate involvement with the development of the homo sapien line of hominids. By coaxing forth a trait, gene, or tendency, towards sustaining/promoting "the group over the individual' the homo sapien line became the predominant species to survive and build itself into like-civilizations dedicated to protecting its community against all other forces. Apparently, man is not only social but "eu-social," behaving beyond mere self-interest to the promotion of a bonded group dedicated to one-another's survival through altruism, sacrifice of self-interests, division of labor, and become super-cooperators.

A Biblical Idea that is Evolutionary

Running with this idea a bit further in a theological direction (since as a Christian I must view humanity's origins from a Godward viewpoint, rather than as an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint) I might suggest some additional theologic observations.... In Scripture we read that God cautions time and again to sacrifice oneself for the promotion of one's neighbor (love one another); or, God directed His people towards assemblage and community as federated tribes such as is seen in the Jewish tribes of Israel; or that eusociality is seen in Jesus' works of social justice and benevolence towards others unlike himself; or even in God's sacrifice of Himself through crucifixion for the ultimate survivability of mankind's eternal future (in biblical terms); or in the resultant church's communal worship, witness and ministry evidenced over the past 2000 years; and finally, resulting in a future everlasting Kingdom made up of a society of converts super-cooperating with one another by providing humanitarian services described in terms of peace, harmony, good will; moreover, this Kingdom community further projects itself through a mutually determined co-existence with nature by nurturing the earth in a massive ecological reconstruction requiring the maintenance and preservation of all biological, geological, and cosmic subsystems. A final observation might be added in observing the Bible's usage of the significant Greek terms of koinonia (= "community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy") and allylon (= "one another") found throughout New Testament passages. Hence, the church celebrates Jesus' resurrection through the eucharist in a koinonia memorial of remembrance. Likewise, Christians are to devote themselves to one another in a whole host of services that focuses on practices and attitudes that would preserve unity, harmony, peace, love and forgiveness within the walls of the church made up of converts emerging from dissimilar environments to one another.

An Evolutionary Idea that is Biblical

Of course the downside to all this is that in order to get from "there to here" on an evolutionary scale the hominid line would fight and struggle for its survival over that of other lesser-enabled hominids (including its earlier apelike ancestors). However, sin being sin, one could mundanely state that "individual (natural) selection" was what was required in order to survive against a primordial world evolving apart from a later developing ethical and moral consciousness that would arise within both the animal kingdoms and hominid lines. So that a corresponding type, or kind of, prehistoric "self-consciousness" was also evolving within this very same prehistoric time of burly, bloody, self-interest, self-promotion, and survival. A consciousness that most probably had a very low-level (if at all) awareness of the ethical/moral possibilities occurring within this newly-arisen and social hominid being found in its earliest developmental stages.... And if one accounts for free will both within the animal/hominid line, as well as within creation itself (more popular known by the older term, natural law(s)), especially a free will that tended towards death and destruction (the Christian term for this is sin), than it gives us an even more amazing picture of the intricate involvement of a Creator-God in directing a disorderly cosmos (and animal kingdom) towards order and restoration through a formative consciousness and ethical responsibility. Even an order that would someday create a self-consciousness that could contemplate the ethereal, metaphysical concepts of morality and ethics - especially in social and existential terms! - relative to oneself, one's society, and even of a Deity as Sovereign/Creator. Amazing indeed when considering prehistoric man has arisen from the primordial soup of star dust to someday realize his very place amongst the stars themselves with the Lord of creation. Mankind's eternal North Star and heavenly compass sovereignly directing away from sin's death-and-destruction to life-everlasting by the very work of this Creator-God through His Son Jesus. Called in the Bible as man's bright Morning Star of redemptive rebirth and divine re-creation.

Conclusion

This apparently is what sets humanity apart from the animal world... that we have evolved - at the hand of God - into sentient beings. And even more than this... into sentient beings who can work together, live together, and host one another's interests over our own. Giving hope that even now, amidst today's societies where brutality and selfishness still exist, that we as a species are rapidly evolving in our eusociality capabilities (sic, through recognition, accommodation, and adaptability) into a super-sentient species wishing to massively cooperate with one another (as evidenced by technology's rapid promotion and ingestion of social networking and inter-cooperative social paradigms) from freedom campaigns and revolutions in despotic worlds of injustice, to the provisioning of social justice and equality to the needy, destitute, poor and socially outcast. All this despite our darker natures of individual self-interest. It gives one pause to wonder aloud the possibilities of our species at the hands of God (even now!) should we not destroy ourselves in the process.... a possibility that can give rise to greater and greater integration of mutually assured, and mutually promoting, complex organization within humanity's increasingly inter-dependent societies. It is the Christian hope. Even as it is a biblical truth that sin, death and destruction will remain against this hope until Christ comes again to put all right (both ecological and sociologically). But in order to put all things spiritually right, a repentance and rebirth must first occur, as provided through Jesus' atonement. And through this redemption will come the infinite possibilities for re-creation and re-newal down into the very depths of our personal beings and social orders. Verily, even into our sinful hearts and minds. A rebirth that would at once remove the internal disorders of sin within the human breast of lusts and temptations, and rebirth an abandoned divine order lost eons ago at the dawn of creation. An ancient primordial creative order that the ancient Jews would call "Shalom" - and we would acknowledge as "life and blessing" - wherein the image of our Creator God is birthed, mirrored, realized and brought into cosmic re-alignment and daily experience. Even so may God's shalom be our peace this very day through His Son Jesus Christ. And may that shalom become our evolving spiritual reality day-to-day personally, socially, ecologically, and with the very God of Creation Himself. The Redeemer and Lover of our souls.


R.E. Slater

April 16, 2012

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Edward O. Wilson’s New Take on Human Nature

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Edward-O-Wilsons-New-Take-on-Human-Nature.html

The eminent biologist argues in a controversial new book that

our Stone Age emotions are still at war with our high-tech sophistication

By Natalie Angier

Smithsonian magazine, April 2012

Wilson says our instinct to settle down both ensures our success and dooms us to conflict.

Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University knows the terrifying power of the nest firsthand—and first-ankle, crook of the knee, any patch of skin that happened to be unsheathed as the eminent evolutionary biologist has crept through tropical rainforests studying some of the most aggressive ant species in the world. Ants are a wildly successful sector of nature’s bestiary, accounting for maybe a quarter of all terrestrial animal matter—the same percentage of biomass that we humans can claim. They’re found on every continent save Antarctica and in just about every possible setting, and though you may dislike ants at a picnic, you’d dislike even more a park that was scrubbed antiseptically ant-free.

As Wilson has learned through painful experience, ants will defend their nest vigorously, violently, to the death if need be; and the more elaborate the dwelling, the more ferocious the homeland security system. In the forest canopies of equatorial Africa and Asia, weaver ants construct spectacular swaglike nests of leaves stitched together with silken threads extracted from the colony’s larval ranks. Should any creature venture within smelling distance of the nests, weaver ant soldiers will boil out to bite and spray bullets of formic acid. In the Solomon Islands during World War II, Wilson writes, “marine snipers climbing into trees were said to fear weaver ants as much as they did the Japanese.”

In his newly published The Social Conquest of the Earth—the 27th book from this two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize—Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too. Ants rule the microhabitats they occupy, consigning other insects and small animals to life at the margins; humans own the macroworld, Wilson says, which we have transformed so radically and rapidly that we now qualify as a kind of geological force. How did we and the ants gain our superpowers? By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. There are plenty of social animals in the world, animals that benefit by living in groups of greater or lesser cohesiveness.

Very few species, however, have made the leap from merely social to eusocial, “eu-” meaning true. To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson’s definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice “at least some of their personal interests to that of the group.” It’s tough to be a eusocialist. Wouldn’t you rather just grab, gulp and go? Yet the payoffs of sustained cooperation can be huge. Eusociality, Wilson writes, “was one of the major innovations in the history of life,” comparable to the conquest of land by aquatic animals, or the invention of wings or flowers. Eusociality, he argues, “created super­organisms, the next level of biological complexity above that of organisms.” The spur to that exalted state, he says, was always a patch of prized real estate, a focal point luring group members back each day and pulling them closer together until finally they called it home. “All animal species that have achieved eusociality, without exception, at first built nests that they defended from enemies,” Wilson writes. An anthill. A beehive. A crackling campfire around which the cave kids could play, the cave elders stay and the buffalo strips blacken all day. Trespassers, of course, would be stoned on sight.

As Wilson sees it, human beings are eusocial apes, and in our brand of extreme togetherness we stand apart—from other living monkeys and apes, and from the many hominids that either preceded or coexisted with us and are now extinct, including Homo neanderthalensis, who apparently weren’t much for constructing elaborate campsites or other nest equivalents. Against the impetus of a Homo sapiens united front, forged at the campfire and undoubtedly amplified through the frequent singing of “100 bottles of mead on the wall,” the Neanderthals may well have been as helpless as grasshoppers in the path of army ants.

Yet our eusocial nature, Wilson emphasizes, is nothing like that of the robotic ants. It developed along an entirely different route and is bound up with other aspects of our humanity—our anatomy, our intellect and emotions, our sense of free will. He takes us on an elegant spin through our prehistory, highlighting the stepwise rules of engagement for achieving total global dominance:

Rule No. 1: Be a terrestrial animal. “Progress in technology beyond knapped stones and wooden shafts requires fire,” Wilson says. “No porpoise or octopus, no matter how brilliant, can ever invent a billows and forge.”

Rule No. 2: Be a large terrestrial animal. The vast majority of land creatures weigh barely a pound or two, but if you’re going to have a big brain, you need a large body to support it.

Rule No. 3: Get the hands right. Forget standard-issue paws, hooves or claws. To hold and manipulate objects, you need “grasping hands tipped with soft spatulate fingers.” With our flexible digits and opposable thumbs, we became consummate kinesthetes, sizing up the world manually and enriching our mind. “The integrative powers of the brain for the sensations that come from handling objects,” Wilson says, “spill out into all other domains of intelligence.” That goes for social intelligence in spatulate spades. With hands we can wave hello, seal a deal, keep in touch or join in a circle, unite the many as one.

Our hypersocial spirit is both a great blessing and a terrible curse. Experiments have shown that it is shockingly easy to elicit a sense of solidarity among a group of strangers. Just tell them they’ll be working together as a team, and they immediately start working together as a team, all the while attributing to each other a host of positive qualities like trustworthiness and competence—an instant five-star customer review.

Yet we are equally prepared to do battle against those who fall outside the fraternal frame. In experiments where psychologists divided people into groups of arbitrarily assigned traits—labeling one set the Blue team and another the Green, for example—the groups started sniping at each other and expressing strong prejudices toward their “opponents,” with the Greens insisting the Blues were untrustworthy and unfair. The “drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group membership easily translates at a higher level into tribalism,” Wilson says, and can spark religious, ethnic and political conflicts of breathtaking brutality.

Wilson also traces what he considers the tragedy of the human condition to the private struggle of us versus me. He sees us as a kind of mixed economy, the complicated fruit of a sharply disputed process known as multilevel selection. By this reckoning, some of our impulses are the result of individual selection, the competition of you against everybody else for a share of life’s goodies. Other traits are under the sway of group selection, prompting us to behave altruistically for the sake of the team:

* Individual Selection - It appears our individually selected traits are older and more primal, harder to constrain, the ones we traditionally label vices: greed, sloth and lust, the way we covet our neighbor’s life and paper over our failings with pride.

* Group Selection - However, our eusocial inclinations are evolutionarily newer and more fragile and must be vociferously promoted by the group if the group is to survive. They are the stuff of religions and Ben Franklin homilies and represent the virtues we admire: to be generous, kind and levelheaded, to control our impulses, keep our promises and rise to the occasion even when we are scared or disheartened.

* “The human condition is an endemic turmoil rooted in the evolution processes that created us,” he writes. “The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be.”

Not all biologists agree with Wilson’s ideas about the source of humanity’s dominance or existential angst. Some resist calling humans eusocial, preferring to restrict that term to animals like ants, in which just one or a few group members reproduce and the rest attend to the royal ones’ brood. Other biologists dislike invoking group selection, saying simpler, time-tested models based on individual genealogies will do. Still others have adopted a remarkably sunny view of humanity and its prospects. The social scientist Steven Pinker, also of Harvard, argues in his recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature that war and violent conflict have been declining steadily and may soon be obsolete. Like Wilson, Pinker believes that evolutionary forces have shaped human nature into a complex amalgam of the bestial and heroic, the compassionate and pitiless (although in Pinker’s view, those forces do not include group selection). Yet Pinker argues that, even while we retain our base and bloody impulses, historical trends such as stronger governments, increased prosperity, literacy, education, trade and the empowerment of women have allowed us to effectively tame them.

For his part, Wilson cultivates a beautifully appointed gloom. “We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions,” he says. “We thrash about” and are “a danger to ourselves and the rest of life.” Our conquest of earth has happened so quickly that the rest of the biosphere has not had time to adjust and our heedless destruction of species shows scant signs of abating.

Nevertheless, Wilson says, “Out of an ethic of simple decency to one another, the unrelenting application of reason, and acceptance of what we truly are,” we may yet turn earth into a “permanent paradise for human beings, or the strong beginnings of one.” We’re not ants, and we can do what ants can’t: pull up to the nearest campfire, toast a marshmallow, sing a song.

Go to Part 1 -

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 1





For further reflection on Evolutionary Creationism -

Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?





God's Role in Creation
What role could God have in evolution?





Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 1 of 2

Which came first -

human consciousness or eusociality?
Or, put another way, which created which?
 

Introduction

Here's an interesting take on humanity's evolutionary roots combining the evolutionary concepts of natural selection with group selection. From an Evolutionary Creationist standpoint, a Christian can look at this evolutionary process as yet another evidence of God's amazingly intricate involvement with the development of the homo sapien line of hominids. By coaxing forth a trait, gene, or tendency, towards sustaining/promoting "the group over the individual' the homo sapien line became the predominant species to survive and build itself into like-civilizations dedicated to protecting its community against all other forces. Apparently, man is not only social but "eu-social," behaving beyond mere self-interest to the promotion of a bonded group dedicated to one-another's survival through altruism, sacrifice of self-interests, division of labor, and become super-cooperators.

A Biblical Idea that is Evolutionary

Running with this idea a bit further in a theological direction (since as a Christian I must view humanity's origins from a Godward viewpoint, rather than as an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint) I might suggest some additional theologic observations.... In Scripture we read that God cautions time and again to sacrifice oneself for the promotion of one's neighbor (love one another); or, God directed His people towards assemblage and community as federated tribes such as is seen in the Jewish tribes of Israel; or that eusociality is seen in Jesus' works of social justice and benevolence towards others unlike himself; or even in God's sacrifice of Himself through crucifixion for the ultimate survivability of mankind's eternal future (in biblical terms); or in the resultant church's communal worship, witness and ministry evidenced over the past 2000 years; and finally, resulting in a future everlasting Kingdom made up of a society of converts super-cooperating with one another by providing humanitarian services described in terms of peace, harmony, good will; moreover, this Kingdom community further projects itself through a mutually determined co-existence with nature by nurturing the earth in a massive ecological reconstruction requiring the maintenance and preservation of all biological, geological, and cosmic subsystems. A final observation might be added in observing the Bible's usage of the significant Greek terms of koinonia (= "community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy") and allylon (= "one another") found throughout New Testament passages. Hence, the church celebrates Jesus' resurrection through the eucharist in a koinonia memorial of remembrance. Likewise, Christians are to devote themselves to one another in a whole host of services that focuses on practices and attitudes that would preserve unity, harmony, peace, love and forgiveness within the walls of the church made up of converts emerging from dissimilar environments to one another.

An Evolutionary Idea that is Biblical

Of course the downside to all this is that in order to get from "there to here" on an evolutionary scale the hominid line would fight and struggle for its survival over that of other lesser-enabled hominids (including its earlier apelike ancestors). However, sin being sin, one could mundanely state that "individual (natural) selection" was what was required in order to survive against a primordial world evolving apart from a later developing ethical and moral consciousness that would arise within both the animal kingdoms and hominid lines. So that a corresponding type, or kind of, prehistoric "self-consciousness" was also evolving within this very same prehistoric time of burly, bloody, self-interest, self-promotion, and survival. A consciousness that most probably had a very low-level (if at all) awareness of the ethical/moral possibilities occurring within this newly-arisen and social hominid being found in its earliest developmental stages.... And if one accounts for free will both within the animal/hominid line, as well as within creation itself (more popular known by the older term, natural law(s)), especially a free will that tended towards death and destruction (the Christian term for this is sin), than it gives us an even more amazing picture of the intricate involvement of a Creator-God in directing a disorderly cosmos (and animal kingdom) towards order and restoration through a formative consciousness and ethical responsibility. Even an order that would someday create a self-consciousness that could contemplate the ethereal, metaphysical concepts of morality and ethics - especially in social and existential terms! - relative to oneself, one's society, and even of a Deity as Sovereign/Creator. Amazing indeed when considering prehistoric man has arisen from the primordial soup of star dust to someday realize his very place amongst the stars themselves with the Lord of creation. Mankind's eternal North Star and heavenly compass sovereignly directing away from sin's death-and-destruction to life-everlasting by the very work of this Creator-God through His Son Jesus. Called in the Bible as man's bright Morning Star of redemptive rebirth and divine re-creation.

Conclusion

This apparently is what sets humanity apart from the animal world... that we have evolved - at the hand of God - into sentient beings. And even more than this... into sentient beings who can work together, live together, and host one another's interests over our own. Giving hope that even now, amidst today's societies where brutality and selfishness still exist, that we as a species are rapidly evolving in our eusociality capabilities (sic, through recognition, accommodation, and adaptability) into a super-sentient species wishing to massively cooperate with one another (as evidenced by technology's rapid promotion and ingestion of social networking and inter-cooperative social paradigms) from freedom campaigns and revolutions in despotic worlds of injustice, to the provisioning of social justice and equality to the needy, destitute, poor and socially outcast. All this despite our darker natures of individual self-interest. It gives one pause to wonder aloud the possibilities of our species at the hands of God (even now!) should we not destroy ourselves in the process.... a possibility that can give rise to greater and greater integration of mutually assured, and mutually promoting, complex organization within humanity's increasingly inter-dependent societies. It is the Christian hope. Even as it is a biblical truth that sin, death and destruction will remain against this hope until Christ comes again to put all right (both ecological and sociologically). But in order to put all things spiritually right, a repentance and rebirth must first occur, as provided through Jesus' atonement. And through this redemption will come the infinite possibilities for re-creation and re-newal down into the very depths of our personal beings and social orders. Verily, even into our sinful hearts and minds. A rebirth that would at once remove the internal disorders of sin within the human breast of lusts and temptations, and rebirth an abandoned divine order lost eons ago at the dawn of creation. An ancient primordial creative order that the ancient Jews would call "Shalom" - and we would acknowledge as "life and blessing" - wherein the image of our Creator God is birthed, mirrored, realized and brought into cosmic re-alignment and daily experience. Even so may God's shalom be our peace this very day through His Son Jesus Christ. And may that shalom become our evolving spiritual reality day-to-day personally, socially, ecologically, and with the very God of Creation Himself. The Redeemer and Lover of our souls. 

R.E. Slater

April 16, 2012

Wilson says our instinct to settle down both ensures our success and dooms us to conflict.

Biologist E.O. Wilson on

Why Humans, Like Ants, Need a Tribe
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/01/biologist-e-o-wilson-on-why-humans-like-ants-need-a-tribe.html

by E.O. Wilson
Apr 2, 2012

Religion. Sports. War. Biologist E.O. Wilson says our drive to join a group—and to fight for it—is what makes us human.

Have you ever wondered why, in the ongoing presidential campaign, we so strongly hear the pipes calling us to arms? Why the religious among us bristle at any challenge to the creation story they believe? Or even why team sports evoke such intense loyalty, joy, and despair?

The answer is that everyone, no exception, must have a tribe, an alliance with which to jockey for power and territory, to demonize the enemy, to organize rallies and raise flags.

And so it has ever been. In ancient history and prehistory, tribes gave visceral comfort and pride from familiar fellowship, and a way to defend the group enthusiastically against rival groups. It gave people a name in addition to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world. It made the environment less disorienting and dangerous. Human nature has not changed. Modern groups are psychologically equivalent to the tribes of ancient history. As such, these groups are directly descended from the bands of primitive humans and prehumans.

The drive to join is deeply ingrained, a result of a complicated evolution that has led our species to a condition that biologists call eusociality. “Eu-,” of course, is a prefix meaning pleasant or good: euphony is something that sounds wonderful; eugenics is the attempt to improve the gene pool. And the eusocial group contains multiple generations whose members perform altruistic acts, sometimes against their own personal interests, to benefit their group. Eusociality is an outgrowth of a new way of understanding evolution, which blends traditionally popular individual selection (based on individuals competing against each other) with group selection (based on competition among groups). Individual selection tends to favor selfish behavior. Group selection favors altruistic behavior and is responsible for the origin of the most advanced level of social behavior, that attained by ants, bees, termites—and humans.

Fierce weaver ants (in Malaysia)
work and fight together

Among eusocial insects, the impulse to support the group at the expense of the individual is largely instinctual. But to play the game the human way required a complicated mix of closely calibrated altruism, cooperation, competition, domination, reciprocity, defection, and deceit. Humans had to feel empathy for others, to measure the emotions of friend and enemy alike, to judge the intentions of all of them, and to plan a strategy for personal social interactions.

As a result, the human brain became simultaneously highly intelligent and intensely social. It had to build mental scenarios of personal relationships rapidly, both short term and long term. Its memories had to travel far into the past to summon old scenarios and far into the future to imagine the consequences of every relationship. Ruling on the alternative plans of action were the amygdala and other emotion-controlling centers of the brain and autonomic nervous system. Thus was born the human condition, selfish at one time, selfless at another, and the two impulses often conflicted.

Today, the social world of each modern human is not a single tribe but rather a system of interlocking tribes, among which it is often difficult to find a single compass. People savor the company of like-minded friends, and they yearn to be in one of the best—a combat Marine regiment, perhaps, an elite college, the executive committee of a company, a religious sect, a fraternity, a garden club—any collectivity that can be compared favorably with other, competing groups of the same category.

Their thirst for group membership and superiority of their group can be satisfied even with symbolic victory by their warriors in clashes on ritualized battlefields: that is, in sports. Like the cheerful and well-dressed citizens of Washington, D.C., who came out to witness the First Battle of Bull Run during the Civil War, they anticipate the experience with relish. The fans are lifted by seeing the uniforms, symbols, and battle gear of the team, the championship cups and banners on display, the dancing seminude maidens appropriately called cheerleaders. When the Boston Celtics defeated the Los Angeles Lakers for the National Basketball Association championship on a June night in 1984, the mantra was “Celts Supreme!” The social psychologist Roger Brown, who witnessed the aftermath, commented, “The fans burst out of the Garden and nearby bars, practically break dancing in the air, stogies lit, arms uplifted, voices screaming. The hood of a car was flattened, about thirty people jubilantly piled aboard, and the driver—a fan—smiled happily ...It did not seem to me that those fans were just sympathizing or empathizing with their team. They personally were flying high. On that night each fan’s self-esteem felt supreme; a social identity did a lot for many personal identities.”

Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong. Even when the experimenters created the groups arbitrarily, prejudice quickly established itself. Whether groups played for pennies or were divided by their preference for some abstract painter over another, the participants always ranked the out-group below the in-group. They judged their “opponents” to be less likable, less fair, less trustworthy, less competent. The prejudices asserted themselves even when the subjects were told the in-groups and out-groups had been chosen arbitrarily.

The tendency to form groups, and then to favor in-group members, has the earmarks of instinct. That may not be intuitive: some could argue that in-group bias is conditioned, not instinctual, that we affiliate with family members and play with neighboring children because we’re taught to. But the ease with which we fall into those affiliations points to the likelihood that we are already inclined that way—what psychologists call “prepared learning,” the inborn propensity to learn something swiftly and decisively. And indeed, cognitive psychologists have found that newborn infants are most sensitive to the first sounds they hear, to their mother’s face, and to the sounds of their native language. Later they look preferentially at persons who previously spoke their native language within their hearing. Similarly, preschool children tend to select native-language speakers as friends.

The elementary drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group membership easily translates at a higher level into tribalism. People are prone to ethnocentrism. It is an uncomfortable fact that even when given a guilt-free choice, individuals prefer the company of others of the same race, nation, clan, and religion. They trust them more, relax with them better in business and social events, and prefer them more often than not as marriage partners. They are quicker to anger at evidence that an out-group is behaving unfairly or receiving undeserved rewards. And they grow hostile to any out-group encroaching upon the territory or resources of their in-group.

When in experiments black and white Americans were flashed pictures of the other race, their amygdalas, the brain’s center of fear and anger, were activated so quickly and subtly that the centers of the brain were unaware of the response. The subject, in effect, could not help himself. When, on the other hand, appropriate contexts were added—say, the approaching African-American was a doctor and the white his patient—two other sites of the brain integrated with the higher learning centers, the cingulate cortex and the dorsolateral preferential cortex, lit up, silencing input through the amygdala. Thus different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness, as well as to mediate this hardwired propensity.

When the amygdala rules the action, however, there is little or no guilt in the pleasure experienced from watching violent sporting events and war films in which the story unwinds to a satisfying destruction of the enemy. The horrors make the fascination. War is the strong life; it is life in extremis. Literature and history are strewn with accounts of what happens at the extreme, as in the following from Judges 12: 5–6 in the Old Testament: the Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivor of Ephraim said, “Let me go over,” the men of Gilead asked him, “Are you an Ephraimite?” If he replied, “No,” they said, “All right, say ‘Shibboleth.’?” If he said “Sibboleth,” because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time. Research has shown that tribal aggressiveness goes well back beyond Neolithic times. And there is a good chance that it could be a much older heritage, dating beyond the split 6 million years ago between the lines leading to modern chimpanzees and to humans, respectively.

The patterns of collective violence in which young chimp males engage are remarkably similar to those of young human males. Aside from constantly vying for status, both for themselves and for their gangs, they tend to avoid open mass confrontations with rival troops, instead relying on surprise attacks. The purpose of raids made by the male gangs on neighboring communities is evidently to kill or drive out its members and acquire new territory. The entirety of such conquest under fully natural conditions has been witnessed by John Mitani and his collaborators in Uganda’s Kibale National Park. The chimp war, conducted over 10 years, was eerily humanlike. Every 10 to 14 days, patrols of up to 20 males penetrated enemy territory, moving quietly in single file, scanning the terrain from ground to the treetops, and halting cautiously at every surrounding noise. If they encountered a force larger than their own, the invaders broke rank and ran back to their own territory. When they encountered a lone male, however, they pummeled and bit him to death. When a female was encountered, they usually let her go. (This latter tolerance was not a display of gallantry. If she carried an infant, they took it from her and killed and ate it.) Finally, after such constant pressure for so long, the invading gangs simply annexed the enemy territory, adding 22 percent to the land owned by their own community.

Our bloody nature, it can now be argued in the context of modern biology, is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are. In prehistory, group selection lifted the hominids to heights of solidarity, to genius, to enterprise. And to fear. Each tribe knew with justification that if it was not armed and ready, its very existence was imperiled. Throughout history, the escalation of a large part of technology has had combat as its central purpose. Today, public support is best fired up by appeal to the emotions of deadly combat, over which the amygdala is grandmaster. We find ourselves in the battle to stem an oil spill, the fight to tame inflation, the war against cancer. Wherever there is an enemy, animate or inanimate, there must be a victory.

Any excuse for a real war will do, so long as it is seen as necessary to protect the tribe. The remembrance of past horrors has no effect. It should not be thought that war, often accompanied by genocide, is a cultural artifact of a few societies. Nor has it been an aberration of history, a result of the growing pains of our species’ maturation. Wars and genocide have been universal and eternal, respecting no particular time or culture. Overall, big wars have been replaced around the world by small wars of the kind and magnitude more typical of hunter-gatherer and primitively agricultural societies. Civilized societies have tried to eliminate torture, execution, and the murder of civilians, but those fighting little wars do not comply.

Civilization appears to be the ultimate redeeming product of competition between groups. Because of it, we struggle on behalf of good and against evil, and reward generosity, compassion, and altruism while punishing or downplaying selfishness. But if group conflict created the best in us, it also created the deadliest. As humans, this is our greatest, and worst, genetic inheritance.

Go to Part 2 -

Eusociality and the Bible, Part 2





For further reflection on Evolutionary Creationism -

Evolution: Is God Just Playing Dice?





God's Role in Creation
What role could God have in evolution?





Index to past discussions -

Index to past articles on "Science & Religion"

N.T.Wright - "What Sabbath was, What it is now; and What it isn't any longer"

http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/06/01/tom-wright-scripture-and-gods-authority/

by Scot McKnight

posted June 1, 2011

The biggest problem many of us have with how we frame the “doctrine” of Scripture is that it isn’t adequate to how Scripture arose as our Sacred Text or how it operates either in the church or with us as Bible readers. Here’s the traditional model: it’s a top-down deposit or transmission of information. In other words, Scripture is framed as revelation.

I, too, would place Scripture within a framework of revelation, but that’s not enough, nor is it the primary framing. [Handmade chart with Penultimate app on the iPad.]

What is your model? What model is most “biblical” for you? And, what do you think of Tom Wright’s take on Sabbath as an illustration of how his model of Bible reading works?

Scripture flows out of the Trinitarian inter-communicative Logos and it is connected to the Holy Spirit and it is a “product” as well of the church. The revelation model has a top-down model that moves from God to revelation intent to inspiration and author/text and inerrancy and authority and reading. It’s all framed as a top-down revelation. It’s inadequate because God chose to manifest truth and grace and redemption through history, at specific moments and over time and through authors and through a community, and that history is nearly eliminated in the revelation model. The model needs supplementation to frame a view of Scripture that is organic to how Scripture came into existence. This top-down model is too much golden tablets dropping from the sky.

But Scripture at the organic level emerges from authors who are part of God’s People (Israel, Church), and the books in Scripture arise out of particular circumstances and are written by authors with intent and agenda, and the individual authors interact with one another (Micah, Isaiah, Matthew, Romans, Hebrews, Revelation) and carry the Story forward so that the last version of the Story can reframe the former versions. And then there is the ongoing life of the church — and tradition. Many of us think the revelation model tells us very important things, but it is inadequate.

That is why so many of us value the voice of Tom Wright in this discussion. His newest book, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, is both a revision and an expansion of his former book The Last Word.

This book of Tom’s both revises and expands and, in particular, adds chapters that are test cases for how his theory of Scripture works out. He examines two topics, Sabbath and Monogamy. Today I will look at his Sabbath chapter, but first a brief on the big ideas of the book.

The expression “authority of Scripture” is shorthand for “the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow through Scripture” (21). There is something important here, for Wright acknowledges that authority is God’s — and derivatively of Scripture. Any time someone equates the two, there opens the possibility for idolatry to occur. Furthermore, Wright is keen on showing that this authority of God is God’s authority in working out the Kingdom mission for his people and creation. Scripture, then, is a sub-branch of mission, the Spirit, eschatology, and the Church itself (29). Again, very important.

When Wright comes to sum up his entire argument, on pp. 115-116, he says this: The authority of Scripture is “a picture of God’s sovereign and saving plan for the entire cosmos, dramatically inaugurated by Jesus himself, and now to be implemented through the Spirit-led life of the church precisely as the scripture-reading community.” Thus, the “authority of Scripture” is put into action in the Church’s missional operations. Scripture, he says, is more than a record of revelation and was never simply about imparting information — it is God’s word to redeem [and involve!- res] his people as God works out his plan for the entire created order. And you may know how the Bible teaches what Tom calls a 5-Act play: creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, Church. We are in the 5th Act now....

The Sabbath -

What it was, What it is now, and What it isn't any longer

Now to Sabbath. Tom provides an exceptional illustration of how both to read Sabbath (i) in its OT setting, (ii) what Jesus and Paul “did” to that teaching, (iii) how the Jubilee principle extends the Sabbath principle, and (iv) how Jesus is the transition to a new kind of time — death and resurrection and new creation, and thus how the Sabbath principle finds fulfillment in Jesus himself, and then he probes (v) how to live that Sabbath principle out in our world. Here are some highlights:

1. In the OT Sabbath was a strong commandment, it was the day YHWH took up abode in the temple of creation (here he chimes in with John Walton) and asked image-bearers to enjoy that same rest.

2. Sabbath shows that history is going somewhere, it is a temporal sign that creation is headed toward that final rest, and it is sacred time.

3. Sabbath has to be connected to Jubilee, and therefore to justice and compassion for the poor, and that means Sabbath and Jubilee point us toward the restoration of creation.

4. Jesus thought the entire Sabbath principle pointed toward himself. Time was fulfilled in him; a new kind of time begins with him. Paul does not seem to care about Sabbath, and he observes its absence in Romans 13:9; Col 2:14-16; Rom 14:5-6. I have to be brief: it’s about time’s fulfillment. Sacred time finds its way to Jesus Christ and new creation.

5. To continue celebrating sabbaths is to focus on the signposts when we have already arrived. Thus, “Come to me and I will give you rest.” You don’t need the alarm clock when the sun is flooding the room with its light. [Sabbath has occurred. Restoration has come. - res]

6. The early Christians didn’t transfer Sabbath to Sunday. [Nor do we - res].

7. We don’t need to back up into a Sabbatarianism. [sic, Christians do not need to become Seventh Day Adventists; nor Judaise or prosyletize their Christian faith backwards into the restrictive/antequated OT regimes and lifestyle observances; etc. - res].

8. We “celebrate” instead of “rest” — a kind of celebration rest. We reserve this day for new creation life. Music, the meal, family, service, peace, justice, love — these are the notes of Sunday for those who see the fulfillment of Sabbath in Jesus.

We live in a perpetual sabbath.

*res = re slater

Accepting the Complexity and Ambiguity Inherent in Scripture, Part 2

Topical References and Sidebars related to Part 1

Blog Sidebars

Anything found under "Bible..."
Anything found under "Hermeneutics..."
Anything found under "Theology..."


Specific Blog Articles

Accepting the Complexity and Ambiguity Inherent in Scripture, Part 1
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/accepting-complexity-and-ambiguity.html


What Is Narrative Theology? "The Grander Story of God and Creation"
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/02/christian-narrative-grander-story-of.html


The Infallibility and Multi-Vocality of Scripture
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/infallibility-and-multi-vocality-of.html


Why Inerrancy Doesn't Matter
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/11/why-inerrancy-doesnt-matter.html


Text & Culture - The Relevancy of God's Word to Contemporary Culture
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/10/symposium-text-and-culture.html


How Should We Read the Bible?
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-should-we-read-bible.html


NT Wright on "Scripture and God's Authority"
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/06/scripture-and-gods-authority.html


Jesus, the Fulfillment of God's Revelation to Man
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/12/jesus-fulfillment-of-gods-revelation-to.html


Which Hermeneutic Do We Choose? Christological or Trinitarian?
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2011/08/christological-exegesis-for.html

Learning to Accept Inter-Faith and Religious Dialogue Beyond Your Own Faith

An Introduction

Rachel Held Evans has been conducting interviews with individuals outside of the Evangelical Christian Faith. She has interviewed Muslims, Quakers, Jews, Pentecostals, Agnostics, Atheists, Gays, Political Conservatives and Libertarians, Unitarians, and so on. She has shown a phenomenal effort in allowing people of differing faiths and beliefs to explain their views to Evangelical Christians, particularly because she has taken comments and questions from Evangelical Christians and had her interviewees respond to them in a non-threatening, personally affirming environment.

Now I have found this "Ask a..." series to be enriching to our understanding of people outside of our own cultural, religious groups in that it also helps to bring those who are "different" into a more personal, human perspective. Lately it seems that to be a "Christian" one must be critical of other people's faiths and beliefs while vigorously "fighting or contending" for one's own faith and beliefs. However, an emergent Christian should be one who patiently listens to others unlike him/herself; who does not feel threaten in being with other people of differing persuasions; who can enjoy others "as they are" without wishing to "change" that person into their own image but into God's image.

This is the basis of God's love. It is patient, kind, non-judgemental, does not dishonor others, is not self-seeking nor easily angered. Love always protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres with others, but does not allow one to be "used by others for their own selfish purposes;" it does not "enable others who are toxic in their relationships;" it does not "condone wrongs, hurts, unkindness, or intolerance;" nor does love in its desire to protect, trust, hope and persevere with others allow itself to be willfully naive, ignorant, blind, or indifferent to those it comes into relationship with. It walks a delicate balance between wisdom and sound judgment requiring prayer, acts of mercy, forgiveness, a desire to speak truth to one-another (but not one's biases or prejudices). It requires a supportive fellowship actively involved in each life seeking to make Jesus' call to love one another a consistent habit of life. A habit that is unnatural and does not come easily (if at all) to the flesh (our past sinful nature now redeemed). But in Christ can love become a reality (or characteristic, trait, intention, a mindfulness or attitude) that only the Holy Spirit can groom everyday to be lived out and tested.

What Love Is and Isn't

God's love is a divine act requiring the work of Christ's atonement in a person's life which is in the process of "being made new everyday" through the Holy Spirit. Consequently, and quite unnaturally it seems, Christianity is not a faith that is condemnatory or judgmental. But one that is less protective and territorial of itself. Less good at eviscerating another person's faith and beliefs. Of bringing harm and destruction into people's lives. This is not a mark of God's holiness. A holy person is one who seeks to love, to forgive, to serve others. Holiness is self-sacrificial service. It is kind. It is thoughtful. It shuns the deeds of the flesh. The criticisms of the heart. Fears, tyranny and oppression of others.

However, by bearing this persuasion in our attitudes and willfulness does not mean that we do not speak truth to one another. If anything this web blog is a testament to that.... As Christians we seek to know and understand God. To do that we must listen to the world around us - to science in its many disciplines; and to other religious perceptions (or conceptions) of God that might orientate us away from our own cultural preferences and biases. But most importantly, overall, we seek God through His Word, the Bible. And in seeking God through Scripture we must learn to discern the Bible - not on the basis of protecting our traditions and dogmas - but on the basis of using good, solid hermeneutics that "opens the Bible" up in new ways to be explored - not in new ways of shutting down conversation. Nor shutting others off from exploring a theology that could teach us of God, of ourselves, of God's plans and purposes for this world. But to participate in this process one must create the discipline of learning to listen. To study. To examine life with others who hold differing opinions from our own; differing sets of knowledge and experience that we might learn from; and to cultivate good wisdom and judgment within Christian doctrine and practice. Do you want to be a good theologian? Learn to listen. Want to preach? First allow God to preach to you. Want to minister? Earn it from others. In every way learn humility, patience, kindness, and love. These attitudes and acts serve best those who would serve God. And without which there can be no effective service.

The Apostle Paul Made Mistakes Too

Curiously, the very apostle Paul (known as Saul in Acts) who wrote of "God's love" in 1 Corinthians 13, was a self-righteous, bigoted, harmful, zealot committed to persecuting, oppressing, perhaps even condemning to death (sic, Stephen?) anyone teaching that Jesus was the risen Jewish Messiah. And it was this very Jesus whom he persecuted that came into his life on the road to Damascus. Making him to understand that God's Torah became incarnate in Jesus' life and ministry as God's Incarnate Word and Resurrected Messiah. Then, and then only, was the apostle Paul willing to cast away his religious zealotry, his passionate judgments and condemnations made against Jewish Christians seeking obedience to Jesus' lordship.

Paul was a man of Torah. A well-versed student of the Hebraic Law. He was a Pharisee's Pharisee.A Scribe's Scribe. Who mostly likely was unreceptive to Jesus' teachings in the Temple and throughout the land of Israel during Jesus' time of ministry. And if so, had built up quite a few convictions about this decidedly un-Jewish faith he was hearing being spoken through the land. Convictions that were wrong-headed and mistaken about what he thought the Old Testament taught. Convictions that burned in him when he heard Jesus contradicting the Judahistic teachers of his Torah-based faith. A faith that taught the precepts of the Law but not the spirit of the Law. A faith that could look away from helping another fellow human being destitute and in need, while justifying itself for its loveless acts committed through religious pride and zeal. A faith that rigorously observed Sabbaths, holy (feast) days, fasting, and all things pertaining to temple service and covenant. But missed the very Sabbath itself in the personage of Jesus, the Restorer of heaven and earth. That refused to dine and sup with Jesus in holy renewal of their Mosaic Covenant cut between God and man to bring redemption and atonement. Who serviced the temple and made sacrifices for the people while missing the Lord of the temple who Himself would provide the sacrifice for redemption. Who would be tried in the very house of God that was built to honor Him, and then be crucified outside the city gate upon a hill dedicated for thieves, evil doers, and wicked men. The irony is thick and disturbing. Here was a religious man. A man of Scripture. A man who should be discerning. Full of zeal. Full of religious faith. But full of all the wrong kind of stuff that Jesus was deconstructing in His disciples so that they could see the Messiah of Israel in all His glory, day-after-holy day, serving and ministering amongst the needy, the blind, the lame, the oppressed, the forgotten, thirsty and hungry. He who was bread and water, life and light, prophet and priest, of the Almighty God. The very Son of God. This God was the God that Paul (then named Saul) did not know. But thought he did.

Much later, this same Paul was found on the Road to Damascus to inflict more harm and destruction upon a gathered group of early Christians. It was his intention to continue persecuting Jesus and to extinguish this Holy Spirit flame of repentance and rebirth. And there on that hot, dusty road came the searching light of God by the hot illumination of the Holy Spirit causing the scales to fall off of Paul's blinded eyes so that he could see Jesus as his Messiah King. As the Holy One of Israel, who had come to bring God's kingdom to earth, through His people Israel by a new institution called the church. One not requiring tribal affiliations but a faith commitment. Not requiring works of the hands but a mighty work of God in the heart. Hence, God smote Paul's blinded heart with a perception so clear that he would trade in his dead, Messiah-less religion for a "stateless religion." One committed to a Person and not a Cause. To godliness and not self-righteousness. Nor to a dead tradition. But to real truth and not a truth of intolerance to others created by his own cultural preferences and traditions, fears and dreads, and misled unloving heart. That he was to use the humbler trade tools of Messiah Jesus until He come again - that of faith, hope and love - and not the prouder tools of his former religion of status, power, ego and pride.

To be a Christ follower is hard. It is not easy. The cost is high and requires much. Each of Jesus' disciples (turned apostles by God's calling to build His church) discovered that cost as they learned to be fishers of men in Christ's absence. Servants of God who once were served by the God of heaven. Followers of the Way when no other way could bring such stirring conviction. By their examples we know that polishing up our doctrines is not enough unless those doctrines breath life and love into the heart and word of God. Without those elements a Jesus follower cannot minister. Cannot witness. Cannot serve. They have become like Paul in his former religious life. Full of wind with no blessing by God. Sowing seed with no root. Casting pearls among the swines of intolerance and zealotry. Setting a table that cannot feed those who are starving and needing food and wine.

Simply said, Christians need to relax in God's truth and trust that we can lead others to God's truth, but not through unloving dogmas. It is God's doctrine we are charged to teach, and not ours to unteach through poor judgment and darkened wisdom. That it is God's Spirit who fights evil, and not our own spirit to bring evil. It is God's problem to communicate His will-and-word, not ours to mis-communicate and confuse. It is God's responsibility to make His revelation plain, not ours to darken with hollow words. For the key to learning, and teaching, and ministering is love. And by this love God urges us to use our spiritual gifts. If to serve, then serve. If to teach, then teach. If to witness, then preach Jesus. But to do all in a way that will glorify God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And to do it through l-o-v-e.... For these things we pray, Our heavenly Father. Amen.

R.E. Slater

April 14, 2012

1 Corinthians 13

¹ If I speak in the tongues^[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ² If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. ³ If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,^[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. ¹¹ When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. ¹² For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

¹³ And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Links to Rachel's "Ask a..." Series

Blog Sidebar Articles (more up-to-date) -

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/search/label/Commentary%20-%20Rachel%20Held%20Evans%3A%20%22Ask%20A%22%20Series

A recent summary listing which opens with

the same introduction as above -

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/rachel-held-evans-ask-series.html

Accepting the Complexity and Ambiguity Inherent in Scripture, Part 1

Taking the Bible seriously means

embracing its tension and complexity

http://rachelheldevans.com/bible-made-impossible-tension-complexity

by Rachel Held Evans

March 5, 2012

Comments

*R.E. Slater:

[I have included my comments within the body of the text this time, rather than before the article itself, as I normally do. I did this to be helpful and to further illustrate Smith's propositions and ideas that we've been discussing these many months. If you do not wish to read these comments then please skip ahead. Thank you.]

 

Rachel:

This week, we’re wrapping up our discussion of Christian Smith’s excellent book, The Bible Made Impossible.

As expected, this book has been a fantastic conversation-starter and a great launching point for our yearlong series on learning to love the Bible for what it is, not what we want it to be. Next we’ll be discussing N.T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God. So if you want to read along, consider ordering the book this week.

In The Bible Made Impossible, Smith tackles the problem of “biblicism,” which he defines as “a theory about the Bible that emphasizes together its exclusive authority, infallibility, perspicuity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability.”

Biblicism falls apart, Smith says, because of the “the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism,” for “even among presumably well-intentioned readers—including many evangelical biblicists—the Bible, after their very best efforts to understand it, says and teaches very different things about most significant topics.... It becomes beside the point to assert a text to be solely authoritative or inerrant, for instance, when, lo and behold, it gives rise to a host of many divergent teachings on important matters.” (p. viii)

While Smith does not question the inspiration and authority of Scripture, he questions attempts to reduce the Bible to a “blueprint for living” with a simplistic attitude that begins with, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

First, we looked at some of the problems of Biblicism. (See The Problem with Biblicism, God Hates Cretans?, and A Very Biblical Blog Post.)

Then we discussed Smith’s case for a Christocentric hermeneutic as an alternative to Biblicism. (See Is there a difference between a Christian worldview and a biblical worldview? and "You think that by Scripture you possess eternal life...”)

Today we look at Smith’s admonition to move beyond Biblicism by accepting the complexity and ambiguity inherent in Scripture.

Writes Smith:

“[We ought to humbly] accept the real scriptures that God has provided us as they are, rather than ungratefully and stubbornly force Scripture to be something that they are not because of a theory we hold about what it must and should be. One of the strangest things about the Biblicist mentality is its evident refusal to take the Bible at face value. Ironically, while Biblicists claim to take the Bible with utmost seriousness for what it obviously teaches, their theory about the Bible drives them to try to make it something it evidently is not... Regardless of the actual Bible that God has given his church, biblicists want a Bible that is different. They want a Bible that answers all their questions, that tells them how to have marital intimacy, that gives them principles for economics and medicine and science and cooking—and does so inerrantly” (p. 127).

I certainly relate to that! I don’t know about you, but sometimes I really miss the security of thinking I had an infallible, comprehensive road map for life sitting on my nightstand, that there was no question the Bible couldn’t answer, no decision it wouldn’t help me make, no argument it couldn’t help me win. I still struggle sometimes to accept the fact that faith isn’t about having everything figured out ahead of time, that it’s about trusting God daily—with or without a road map.

Here Smith quotes our friend Pete Enns:

“I have found again and again that listening to how the Bible itself behaves and suspending preconceived notions (as much as that is possible) about how we think the Bible ought to behave is refreshing, creative, exciting, and spiritually rewarding... One must observe how scripture does behave and draw conclusions from that... We are to place our trust in God who gave us Scripture, not in our own conceptions of how Scripture ought to be.” (p. 128-129)

And Gordon Fee:

“God did not choose to give us a series of timeless, non-culturally-bound theological propositions to be believed and imperatives to be obeyed. Rather, he chose to speak his eternal word this way, in historically particular circumstances in every kind of literary genre. By the very way God gave us this Word, he locked in the ambiguity [...more to the point, the human language carries in it's very structure linguistic ambiguity; which also comes from how God created us as His-image bearers in our symbolic linguistic makeup. - RE Slater].

One should not fight God and insist that he give us his Word in another way, or, as we are more apt to do, rework his Word along theological or cultural prejudices that turn into a minefield of principles, propositions, or imperatives but denude it of its ad hoc character as truly human. The ambiguity is part of what God did in giving us the Word in this way.” (p. 129)

Smith reminds readers of the idea of divine accommodation, which suggests that “in the process of divine inspiration, God did not correct every incomplete or mistaken viewpoint of the biblical authors in order to communicate through them with their readers... The point of the inspired scripture was to communicate its central point, not to straighten out every kink and dent in the view of all the people involved in biblical inscripturation and reception along the way." (p. 129)

*R.E. Slater:

[In response, Evangelics have forced this point in the 1980s by bringing into Christianity the additional unnecessary burden of "inerrancy" by which Evangelics now speak of the bible as being inerrant, or "without error." However, it would be better to dismiss this concept altogether than to force this post-interpretive, theological concept of inerrancy upon the natural linguistic ambiguities of the human language. In the process it also has skewed the theological understanding of the process of divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit by flatly expecting that Scripture be error free since its written by God through human automatons. Rather than positing that God allowed (sic, free will) the New Testament disciples/apostles to write (sic, free will again!) their burden and vision of the gospel through their own words, experiences, knowledge, cultural context, and personal idiosyncrasies. This would then account for the wide breadth of interpretation over the entirety of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.

But by creating a context of inerrancy Evangelicalism has unfortunately created a theological concept that allows no exceptions in its black-and-white dualistic mindset. Consequently, Evangelic theologians are discovering that if they wish to modify this concept they must do so moving from an inerrant basis rather from a non-inerrant basis as many non-inerrant theologians are now doing. Thus, it has become an uninspired theological theologumena that is neither necessary nor helpful.]

Rachel:

Smith therefore concludes that “there is no reason whatsoever not to openly acknowledge the sometimes confusing, ambiguous, and seemingly incomplete nature of scripture... All of scripture is not clear, nor does it need to be. But the real matter of Scripture is clear, ‘the deepest secret of all,’ that God in Christ has come to earth, lived, taught, healed, died, and risen to new life, so that we too can rise to life in him.” (p. 132)

*R.E. Slater:

[I would propose that Christian Smith's assertion be the lowest, minimum attitude of biblical authority.... NT Wright had also mentioned this and it certainly has helped to place many of the dogmatic questions on inerrancy into their rightful place. However, this assertion can also be unduly limiting by saying that the Bible is simply a book about salvation. Assuredly it is, but it can be much more than this too without necessarily becoming dogmatically restrictive. Which is why Smith and Wright have written about God's communication with man in the way that they do, by saying that God has clearly told us about His evolving plan of salvation. And ultimately this plan came through, and is centered in, Jesus Christ as man's Redeemer. They say this to help avoid the unnecessary dogmatic restrictions that have occurred by not saying this.

Nor do they wish to make the argument that everything the Bible teaches is true. This would be to show gross naivety on the part of the reader and would-be teacher/preacher. Which is why it is important to understand the cultural context of Scripture; the purpose of a passage; the inherent spiritual concepts that are relevant; as well as the physical concepts that are not relevant; various themes and concepts that have either continued or been discontinued within their cultural/societal context; that bear either Christological import, or anthropologic/social import; along with a wide variety of other themes pertaining to worship, life, being, love, hate, maturity, witness, etc. and etc. Interpreting Scripture bears with it the heavy duty to interpret it in a way that is authenticating. And when authenticism is discovered than will come spiritual authority. Not a dogmatic authority, but a Spirit-driven authority. Not a human authority, but a godly authority as if by the hand of God.

Thus, to say that the theme of redemption is God's primary communication to us vis-a-vis biblical inspiration, should be the lowest, minimal denominator because there are many non-redemptive subject themes in the bible that can be beneficial as well. But by saying this we are trying to allow for the "pervasive interpretive pluralism" (aka, Christian Smith) found within Scripture. We are not trying to reduce the Bible to simplistic, daily living beliefs and attitudes. No, on the contrary, we are recognising the infinite number of possibilities that God has given to us about Himself who is an infinite God, eternal in wisdom, pervasive in His cosmos, and infinitely committed to revealing Himself to us in as many ways as we can behold Him through our limited, self-centered, prideful, sinful hearts. We dare not reduce God's Word to mere religious statements, formulas and platitudes. But must hold up God's Word to be wiser than ourselves. Wiser than our thoughts. Wiser than our very concepts of who we think God is, is doing, has done, and will do.

So then, biblical inspiration should spur us on towards allowing Scriptural authority and authenticity to work its way through to us on as many themes and subjects as possible. It's what drives this web blog towards examining the Scriptures on as many contemporary matters as can be possible since start up in the spring of 2011. Themes of situational ethics; human standards of morality; the meaning of our meta-narratives for us, for others, for the church, Israel, and God; creation stories; the role of science and philosophy in the bible; the role of theology in the bible; the church's place of being; understanding what ministry is and isn't; not to mention the many other thematic areas about God, the world, and ourselves. The statement that God primarily wishes to teach us about Jesus is certainly true, but it is too simple an explanation to fall back on when trying to explain the purpose of God's revelation to man. God has communicated many things to us, including the reason and meaning for His Son Jesus. But we also will find communication speaking to the area of hermeneutics, relational theism, scientific discoveries, postmodernism, the interrelationships between the Gospels and Paul (and vice versa), besides Christological themes, to mention a few.]

Rachel:

And I love this:

“Where scripture is sometimes internally at odds with itself, even apparently self-contradictory, we would do better to let stand the tensions and inconsistencies than force them into an artificial harmony” (p. 133).'

*R.E. Slater:

[Amen! A postmodernist does not mind ambiguity and dangling questions like "Is God in control? Why is sin so uncontrollable? Why does evil seem to win? (if you prefer dualisms; myself, dualism seems to force unnecessary qualifications leading to unnecessary dogmatic statements and assertions claiming God is this or that; and that Christians who are truly Christians must believe this or that!). However, that does not mean that we cannot work through those tensions towards providing a temporal, cultural interpretation that might be helpful towards our understanding of God and ourselves."]

Rachel:

I’ll never forget how, when I was struggling with doubts about my faith and questions about the Bible, someone recommended I check out Gleason Archer’s massive Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, a book which promised to resolve every possible conflict or tension within Scripture. The book only made things worse, of course, because I didn’t even realize half of those conflicts existed!

While there was a certain security to having this infallible road map on my nightstand, there was also a deep fear that came along with my belief that if just one thing was out of place in Scripture, if just one thing didn’t resolve, the whole thing would fall apart.

And so, for me, leaving behind biblicism and embracing the ambiguity, tension, and nuance of Scripture has been both frightening and liberating. I no longer live with the security of having a simple, infallible blueprint for living...but I no longer live in fear and denial when the Bible turns out to be difficult to understand and apply.

As I tell students when I speak in chapel: If the Bible were a blueprint, if it were a clear-cut list of do’s and don’ts and bullet points for living, we would have nothing to talk about—with God or with one another! There would be no theology classes or midrash or Bible studies or 2:30 a.m. dorm room debates about predestination and free will...because there would be nothing for us to talk about.

We’re part of this dynamic, centuries-old, ongoing conversation with God and with one another precisely because the Bible is difficult to understand. I believe that God wants us to wrestle with Scripture like this because being a person of faith isn’t about being right; it’s about being in relationship with God and a community.

A blueprint would do nothing to draw us into communion with God and with one another. But this beautiful and frustrating collection of stories, letters, laws, poetry, and prophecies certainly does. The Bible is meant to be a conversation-starter, not a conversation-ender.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Continue to Part 2 -

Accepting the Complexity and Ambiguity

Inherent in Scripture, Part 2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/04/accepting-complexity-and-ambiguity_17.html