Niebuhr and Desire

I think the main problem I have with H. Richard Niebuhr’s essay, Faith in Gods and in God, is his perspective regarding the individual. I hate to use this word, but I think it’s going to help me express what I’m trying to say. I think his perspective is too consumerist. So, I know I’m being reductionist here, but I’ll do it anyway. I think in essence he views the individual as a rational consumer, moving from product to product, never finding ultimate satisfaction. Each product works fine for a time but always seem to let us down. None of these finite products can “save us from the ultimate frustration of meaningless existence.” Then we meet with this idea of void, the destroyer of all our penultimate products/idols, but I don’t want to go into that here.

I’m going to have some trouble putting my thoughts together here, but I’m going to try anyway. Niebuhr, I think, has the understanding that this consumerist desire originates within the individual. I think we need to look at the idea that desire originates outside of the self, that it comes from an Other. I’m not talking of desire for food or water, etc., but desire on a more existential level. We form our desires in imitation of others. It’s not a coincidence that marketers use celebrities, cultural idols and very attractive people in their advertising. They understand that desire does not originate in the individual. Desire must be created from outside the individual. For the most part people want to be like celebrities, or whatever other role-model happens to be in his/her proximity.

I think if we understand desire as not originating within the individual, but coming from the culture / the group / another individual it’s going to open this essay up quite a bit. It’s going to bring us into a whole new territory that I think will be quite fruitful.

Faith and Becoming

I'm still focusing on the H. Richard Niebuhr essay I've discussed in previous posts.

It seems to me faith is more appropriately defined as allowing yourself to become something. I don't think the idea of faith as reliance and dependence is particularly helpful. We don't rely and depend on gods/models for our being as much as we allow them to create us in their image and to give us whatever being they have. If we make the titanic social-darwinian gods of market capitalism our models we will be created in their image. We will assume their values and their understanding of the nature of reality. We will become a reflection of those gods. Same thing happens when we select one of the permutations of the American Dream to become our model or guiding principal. We begin to look, act and think like our gods and models. Don Quixote and Madame Bovary are excellent examples of this.

Faith and Idolatry

As I mentioned in my previous post I love H. Richard Niebuhr’s essay Faith in Gods and in God, which is a chapter in his book Radical Monotheism and Western Culture, but I think his definition of faith needs some adjustment. We’re not only dealing with the nature of faith here, but the nature of idolatry also. Niebuhr’s definition of faith is “a personal, practical trusting in, reliance on, counting upon something”. He’s getting close to saying something really groundbreaking but can’t quite formulate it, but there are quite a few hints. I don’t think understanding faith as reliance is going to get us very far.

I think before I try to explain the adjustments I would like to make to Niebuhr’s essay we should look at a couple of classics of western literature. Specifically, Flaubert’s Madame Bovary and Cervantes’ Don Quixote. I think it is fair to say that both Madame Bovary and Don Quixote are idolaters. What is the nature of their idolatry and thus what constitutes their faith? In these novels faith is not defined as reliance, but I think as becoming, as in they want to become what they idolize.

Don Quixote uses Amadis of Gaul as his model / mediator. (I’m making an obvious use of Girardian terms here). Don Quixote’s actions and understanding of reality are modeled and mediated by the books he has read on chivalry and knight-errantry. Don Quixote sees and understands the world through the eyes of Amadis of Gaul. His relationship with people and things are determined by Amadis of Gaul. Don Quixote’s desires and understanding of reality are dictated by someone else.

Emma Bovary desires through the romantic heroines she reads about in her books. Madame Bovary imitates the exterior appearance and interior thoughts of her models. She has freely chosen a model, but the model chooses her desires. Her desires are given to her by the heroines in the books she reads.

I’ll write more on this idea of faith as choosing and imitating a model / mediator later.

H. Richard Niebuhr

For me H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Faith In Gods and In God” (Google Cache) is a foundational text. Let me first say that I don’t exactly agree with equating faith with reliance. He says, faith is “a personal practical trusting in, reliance on, counting on something” This will not be my definition of faith, it will be similar, but we’ll deal with that later. The idea of faith as reliance on something leads him to some important conclusions. We cannot live without relying or having faith in such things as the safety of roads, food supply, traffic signals, democracy, family, self or any other numerous things and ideas. Everyone, including atheists, live by faith.

He says “reliance on certain centers of value as able to bestow significance and worth on our existence…we cannot live without a cause”. As you will see later I will not use the word “cause”.

“We never merely believe that life is worth living, but always think of it as made worth living by something on which we rely. And this being, whatever it be, is properly termed our god.”

“Our natural religion is polytheistic”. We have many centers of value. Each of these centers of value demand our full devotion. This is a very important point.

This is an incredible essay, I remember my theology professor in college overcome with tears and leaving the room for a few minutes, while reading it aloud. This part is very good:

Yet this is true -- and this constitutes the tragedy of our religious life -- that none of these values or centers of value exists universally, or can be object of a universal faith. None of them can guarantee meaning to our life in the world save for a time. They are all finite in time as in space and make finite claims upon us. Hence we become aware of two characteristics of our faith and its gods: that we are divided within ourselves and socially by our religion, and that our gods are unable to save us from the ultimate frustration of meaningless existence.

“The gods”, Niebuhr says, and this is a very important point, “are divisive socially and as well within the person”. He is hinting at something here, but doesn’t disclose the full meaning of “divisive”.

This is the most beautiful theological essay I’ve ever read.

The tragedy of our religious life is not only that it divides us within ourselves and from each other. There is a greater tragedy -- the twilight of the gods. None of these beings on which we rely to give content and meaning to our lives is able to supply continuous meaning and value. The causes for which we live all die. The great social movements pass and are supplanted by others. The ideals we fashion are revealed by time to be relative. The empires and cities to which we are devoted all decay. At the end nothing is left to defend us against the void of meaninglessness. We try to evade this knowledge, but it is ever in the background of our minds. The apocalyptic vision of the end of all things assails us, whether we see that end as the prophets of the pre-Christian era did or as the pessimists of our time do. We know that "on us and all our race the slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark." All our causes, all our ideas, all the beings on which we relied to save us from worthlessness are doomed to pass.

Part 3 is powerful stuff, make sure to read it. God is the destroyer of our idols, he is the “undefeatable cause”. I’m not in complete agreement with the language of his conversion narrative at the end of the essay, I would definitely shift the focus, but he is headed in the right direction.

I want to use this essay as a starting point or template to go into my discussions and definitions of sin, faith, idolatry, etc.

Sin and Language

In the conservative evangelical world sin is divergence from the standards / tastes / lifestyles of that community. This is why the so-called “literal” interpretation of the Bible is so important to that subgroup. I think it is axiomatic that language / meaning and the interpretation of symbolism is determined by groups of people. Language comes about by the common agreement / understanding of a community. The conservative evangelical community, through their participation in American culture, are a group of people who have come into agreement regarding language and meaning. Divergence from this language and meaning is sin. The community has determined the language, meaning and the interpretation of reality. Thus, to the people involved in that community, the Bible reflects the language, assumptions and expectations of that community. In this scenario the community is the ultimate arbiter of truth, thus the Bible is viewed through the eyes of the community. Absolute truth lies in the community.

Here is some discussion of the literal interpretive method that I think illustrates what I mean. What I've linked to is, of course, defending the literal method, but I think it pretty much admits my analysis and criticism. Here are some relevant portions:

"The customary, socially-acknowledged designation of a word is the literal meaning of the word."

"The 'literal' meaning of a word is the basic, customary, social designation of that word. The spiritual, or mystical meaning of a word or expression is one that arises after the literal designation and is dependent upon it for its existence. "

"To interpret literally means nothing more or less than to interpret in terms of normal, usual, designation. When the manuscript alters its designation the interpreter immediately shifts his method of interpreting."

The words "customary", "socially-acknowledged", "normal", "social designation" and "usual" are pretty much code words for what I've explained.

With literalism, meaning changes as the community's assumptions and expectations change. So under this method truth resides with the community.

The Power of Group Reality

In my continuing progression to some sort of definition of sin I present a quote from Simone Weil. Here she discusses the power of the group:

The power of the social element. Agreement between several men brings with it a feeling of reality. It brings with it also a sense of duty. Divergence, where this agreement is concerned, appears as a sin…The state of conformity is an imitation of Grace

Here’s Admiral James B. Stockdale discussing how agreement and comradeship between people can even get you through the most difficult trials. You can survive by making strong attachments to a group and an ideology or view of reality.

In the end, the prisoner learns he can’t be hurt and he can’t be had as long as he tells the truth and clings to that forgiving hand of brothers who are becoming his country and family. This is the power of comradeship.

Sin and Non-Conformity

I’ve got to develop this further, but as of right now I’m saying that conservative evangelicals equate or define sin as non-conformity with whatever micro or macro community of which they may be a member. I think we all can agree that the sin du jour for our conservative brethren is homosexuality. Homosexuality, of course, transgresses the idealized 1950’s lifestyle, but I don’t think that explains the conservative fascination with it. I think it comes down to the fact that most people are either, at the very least, uncomfortable with it or just downright don’t like homosexuals. There is a strong existing bias in American society against homosexuals. Most people attracted by the right-wing in this country are not homosexual and don’t know any homosexuals, thus homosexuals are prone to demonization. Homosexuality makes a good scapegoat, all other so-called sins dissolve and disappear when they are compared to homosexuality. Divorce and adultery are easily forgiven and forgotten. There are too many divorcees and adulterers in conservative circles for those people to be demonized, other sexual sins are looked down on, of course, but they get no where near the opprobrium that homosexuality gets. The group must agree and be united when they demonize something, there is way too much resistance for the demonization of adultery and divorce. There is a lot of guilt, and that guilt must be placed somewhere, and not just somewhere, it must be placed somewhere outside the community. Denouncing members of your own community will not get you anywhere. The negativity of the community must be placed outside of the group. Homosexuals are a small, and for the most part, non-taboo minority. This is why homosexuality is the sin du jour. It easy to define us and them.

I will definitely be refining and expanding upon this idea and the relationship of sin and group conformity.

Sin and the Ten Commandments

The ten commandments are not arbitrary laws that God gave to the Israelites, they have a very important goal. That goal is peace. The greatest problem of primitive societies, as well as modern ones, is internal violence. The ten commandments are not so much laws as they are a very astute exposition upon the nature of human desire. Human desire is by nature imitative, or as Rene Girard puts it, mimetic. The ten commandments recognize this. Commandments six through ten explain what happens when human desire becomes distorted, or more specifically when humans desire through the eyes of someone/something other than God/Jesus. Here Rene Girard discusses the ten commandments from his book I See Satan Fall Like Lightning.

Cigars For Everyone!!!

Simon Ulysses Eschaton arrived in the world today.
Both baby and Mrs. Eschaton are doing very well.

Sin and Difference

I don’t know why I’m picking on Albert Mohler, but a section in this (I know it’s old) column was noteworthy. The section I’m concerning myself with today is actually a quote from someone else. I think it typifies conservative evangelical thinking on the subject of Sin.

Throughout the column, Jewel made her convictions clear, but also insisted that homosexuality is not the only sin of her concern. She made a clear biblical case, drawn from both the Old and New Testaments, and argued that "sin is sin," and that tolerance of sin is deadly to society. "The problem is that people do not recognize this as sin when the Bible clearly states that it is."
Jewel also extended a truly Christian response to those dealing with this sin. "In God's condemnation of any-and-all sin, He does not tell us to condemn the people involved in it. He tells us to hate the sin, but love the sinner. That is exactly what He does with us. None of us is worthy of the gift of salvation that He so graciously bestows upon us, but we do have the choice as to how we live our lives in the choices that we make in accordance to His will."

The clear meaning of sin in this article is non-conformity. No reason given why homosexuality is sin, just that it’s not in “accordance to His will”. “Jewel’s” understanding of sin is that it is some sort of non-conformity to God’s seemingly arbitrary will. The phrase “Sin is Sin” is almost laughable for its meaninglessness, and we’ve all (or at least I have) heard those words many times. Then she goes on, “Tolerance of sin is deadly to society.” There is so much wrong with that phrase that I can’t possibly begin at this point. So she is saying sin, meaning lack of conformity, is deadly to society. Tolerance of difference is deadly to society. How is tolerance, meaning forgiveness, deadly to society. She doesn’t actually say it, but in the end it will lead to the expulsion of people society deems to be sinners. This is not pretty, or really even remotely Christian. This is a very debased understanding of what sin is and how sin affects society, but it’s so prevalent.

I hope later, in what I’m calling “Sin Week”, I’ll have time to go through the ten commandments and at least start to get a better idea, a much more primitive understanding of what sin is and why it is harmful to individual human beings.

SIN

I'm really trying to understand what conservative evangelicals mean when they use the word sin.  I realize I'm going to be pretty cynical here.  But what is it that they mean?  Two words come to mind, "Conformity" and "Order". Maybe a third, "Transgression".  “Design” is also another conservative buzzword.  A sinner seems to be anyone who isn't aligned with the cultural expectations of conservative evangelicalism.  Thus homosexuality is a terrible threat to marriage and the Christian way of life, but divorce is relatively benign and really not much of threat to anything, at least if you compare the emphasis put on each one in right-wing circles.  War is perfectly fine and even to be encouraged and reveled in as long as it is waged by the U.S

The conservative evangelical bluster about sin is meaningless.  Inside the box is goodness, outside the box is sin, which leads to Hell.  Hold tight to the popularly elected morality.  Goodness is in numbers and strength/volume.  Sins are the things/lifestyles/ideas which are not popular, which are not approved of by the majority, or against an individual's or group’s particular moral taste or expectations regarding cultural norms and standards.

This column, by Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on deliberate childlessness is an example, I think, of how conservatives respond to any breach in cultural conformity.

SIN WEEK

I think if you want to launch any kind of critique of what has become the dominant popular form of Christian theology, at least in America, you have to start with what is at the center of that theology. The main character in conservative evangelicalism is Sin. James Alison says the following:

Sin, not God is the central character...You can tell this by the fact that once sin has come into the story -- at the fall -- all the other characters are reduced to dancing around it, wondering what they should do about it. Well this means that sin runs the story. All the other characters are reactive in one way or another. And of course it is the non-reactive character who is the real god of the story, while the other characters, being reactive, none of them are god. I guess it is no surprise that in a world formed by this storyline, evil should become fascinating, while good becomes boring.

With Sin being such a central character and so important to the whole conservative evangelical storyline I think it would be a good thing to define our terms. What is Sin? Let's begin by describing what Sin is from a conservative evangelical position.

We all know that the "fundagelicals", as one of my beloved Pastors is fond of calling that particular subset of modern Christianity, rely heavily or are the inheritors of the Anselmian doctrine of Penal substitutionary atonement. So looking at Sin through those eyes it can be described as any offence to God's infinite honor and righteousness. Sin is a contradiction of the excellence of His moral character. It contradicts His holiness, and he must hate it. Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude or nature.

Sin is devotion to self
Sin is search for pleasure
Sin is missing the mark (not living up to the mandates of the law)
Sin is man's declaration of independence from God
All sin is a kind of lying
Failure to submit (presumably to God's law)
Sin is want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God
Sin disunites God from man
Sin is abuse of human appetites, of human passions and human faculties

There are so many things undefined here. What exactly is the law? What is the purpose of the law? Where did this idea of God's honor come from? How exactly does sin, if it does at all, disunite God from man? Why does sin often seem to be just nonconformity with the cultural expectations of the conservative evangelicals?

This is a huge subject, with many questions and terms/ideas to be defined, and of course I'm only barely even scratching the surface in this particular blog post.