theological/biblical/psychological anthropology
Submitted by Ray on March 23 1999 at 06:18:31
In reply to On the other hand... Submitted by d on March 22 1999 at 17:47:56
|
-d, You wrote: Not everything is good in the eyes of God, and not everything that is good is good in all circumstances. When it comes to people, we are all (IMHO) fallen and but for Christ's blood, would remain so for eternity. I think there is a better way of doing Biblical interpretation and theology on several points of what you have said here. The discussion centers around how we are to understand people. First, let me introduce a phrase from Martin Luther: simul justis et peccator, simultaneously righteous/justified and sinner. I think this is a better way to understand human nature than to talk of people as sinful, unclean -- fallen. Especially when it comes to sexual minorities, of which boylovers are at the bottom of the list! In my congregation about 4 years ago I participated with 2 groups studying the issue of gays and lesbians and the conclusion was at best: "Love the sinner, hate the sin." And statements intended to be positive are still often introduced by phrases such as: "Since we are all sinful and unclean ... ." Seems to me that Christianity and Freudian psychology have, in the latter part of the 20th century, combined into a negative view of human nature. The Biblical intrepretation of humankind as fallen and sinful combined with society's subtle taboos squelches the spirit of boylovers and others. There is little said about affirming the righteousness of the minorities. For some Christians, combining the words "righteous" or "justified" with "gay" or "boylover" is not possible! I say it is! Second regarding "fallen" man, I don't regard that as a very useful concept or a helpful interpretation of the initial chapters of Genesis. This is a quote on the subject from a paper I sent to the Division of Church and Society of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America about 5 years ago. I appologize for the length, but I wasn't able to shorten it more! Hope you can follow the argument whether you agree or disagree with it! _____ start quote from a paper from 6/24/94 _____ HUMAN NATURE & THE "FALL" TO FLOOD IN GENESIS My view of human nature, or my theological anthropology, is based on an interpretation of Genesis 3-11 which differs from the common Christian tradition. One element of New Testament Christology is that the sin of one man, Adam, was paid for by the death of Christ. (See Romans 5:12-21, especially 18-19: Therefore just as one man's tresspass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.) When I read Genesis 1 - 11, I don't see "fallen man" or "fallen mankind" or Adam's disobedience as the locus of all sin. To present an alternate view and an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1-11, I will first present some extensive quotes from Claus Westermann (Creation, John J. Scullion, S.J., trans., Phila.: Fortress Press, 1974). Then I shall comment on points where my viewpoint converges with Westermann -- unity of chapters 1-11; man is created "adequate" but transgresses limits; speaking of the "Fall" is misleading -- and points of divergence from Westermann -- man is "defective"; "crime and punishment" narratives. the beginning, when what now is came to be (p.13) 4. The remainder of the text [see references in this quote] belongs to a peculiar group of narratives: crime and punishment (all belong to the literary source J). The Yahwist wanted to show that man created by God is defective man. He was concerned to point out the many ways in which man could fail. There are two groups of narratives in which this happens. In the one it is the individual who shows himself defective, either in relation to God (ch. 3) or in relation to his fellow man (4.2-16); in the other it is mankind, the group, that is defective, one in transgressing the limits of race and th en in transgressing man's limitations. In both cases the human state is characterized as being-in-the-world within certain limitations which alone make possible the true human state. In both cases one can discern a significant arrangement. The two passages which deal with the defectiveness of the individual are subordinated to the creation of the man; the two passages where the defectiveness is that of men or of mankind are subordinated to the Flood narrative: Gen. 2 :: 3.1-24 & 4.2-16, 6-9 :: 6.1-4 & 11.1-9. This demonstrates that the biblical account of the origins is a deliberately planned whole. One must begin with this whole so as to understand the individual units. (p. 26f) This long series of correspondences shows that chs. 1-11 are conceived as a unity and so sets the path that exegesis must follow. One part can only be understood together with and from the other. It is no longer possible to cut chs. 1-3 loose from chs. 4-11 and label them "Creation and Fall". An almost necessary consequence of separating chs. 1-3 from chs. 4-11 is to misunderstand them. The God-created man and the God-created world are presented by the biblical authors not in chs. 1-3 but in chs. 1-11. (p. 28) Man is from God's point of view "adequate"; he has been created good, but it is of the very essence of man, inseparable from his nature, that he is defective. He is such that he can rise up against his Creator and be disobedient to him. (p. 72) The Old Testament knows nothing of a narrative which says that man sank into a state of corruption, that from that moment on he was "fallen man." (p. 89) ... it is misleading to speak of the story of the Fall. The title "Fall," which goes back to late Jewish interpretation, suggests that man was created on a definite plane, that through the sin of one individual the whole of mankind, so to speak, "fell" to a lower plane and that all subsequent history was played out on this lower plane right up to the time of Christ. But this is to deal rough-handedly with the biblical data. The account of the origins shows in great depth and with great clarity that it belongs to man's very state as a creature that he is defective. And this defectiveness does not show itself in one single act in history, but in a variety of ways. (p. 120f) To me, the starting point of understanding Genesis 1-11 is that therein lie answers to questions of how and why, to use Westermann's phrase, "what now is came to be." And what similarities and differences are there between "what now is" for us and for those who wrote the book of Genesis in its present form? The first account of creation holds a different world view. In my introductory meterology course at college, I wasn't told that it rained when the floodgates beyond the heavens were opened! However, Genesis 3-11 seems surprisingly well to describe human ambition and method which "now is." The first chapters in Genesis set parameters for relationships to God and other humans, just as do the Decalogue and Christ's summary to love the Lord your God and your neighbor. To view Genesis as saying that "man" is imperfect after the Fall and cannot meet God's standards of perfection diffuses the intimate relationship God establishes with "man," particularly, in the second creation story. And Westermann's use of "defective" mankind is too close to a "fallen man" interpretation for me. My understanding is that the stories of origins demonstrate humankind's potential responses in relationships, that there must be limits on behavior and activity and exceeding the limits has consequences for individuals and communities. As Westermann stated: "The human state is characterized as being-in-the-world within certain limitations which alone make possible the true human state." (p. 26) However, I view the narratives which Westermann called "crime and punishment" as examples of the consequences of exceeding the limits -- chaos and confusion invade the created order when individual or group transgresses the limits. Considering those narratives in light of Jesus' and Paul's directives for living a Christian life, the limits become more clear. The results seem more as natural consequences of behavior rather than divine punishment and as a call to responsible behavior rather than a statement that humankind is bad, will never learn, and deserving of what it got! _____ end quote from a paper from 6/24/94 _____ So, I suppose my thinking is close to what Bach stated in his post at the top of this thread. Ray |