Skip to content

Monthly Archives: October 2016

Who Lied? Literal Truth and Deception – Part 2

Share

In my last post, I closed with an accusation of lying against God. In this post I intend to clear him of the charge—even though he does not need my defense.

How you understand what someone says depends on how much you trust that person. If you trust them a lot, you will try to interpret what they say as truthful. You will be generous and allow them a lot of freedom to use metaphorical language. If you don’t trust them, however, you will treat what they say with suspicion. You will be guarded and construe what they say as literally as possible.* You can see the difference if you compare love letters to legal contracts. Love letters are written with an expectation that the reader will construe what is said with love and kindness. The language is very open and highly metaphorical. Legal contracts are written with the expectation that the reader may construe them with suspicion and hostility. The language is very careful, circumspect, and literal. Terms are clearly and carefully defined.

We think that we trust others because they tell us the truth, but that is actually backwards. We believe that others tell us the truth because we trust them. Our default is trust. We meet strangers and trust them immediately, and our trust is usually justified. We don’t normally fact-check the clerk who tells us the price of an unmarked item is $12.99. Occasionally we meet people who take advantage of our trust to lie to us or cheat us, but they are the exception not the rule. We normally expect others to tell us the truth even though we do not know them and have no reason to trust them. True, we don’t construe what they say with the same generosity that we use with those who love us, but we also don’t treat them with the same suspicion that we reserve for people who have already wronged us.

In the myth of the Fall, the serpent does not lie to deceive Eve. Instead, he insinuates that God has an ulterior motive for his prohibition. He implies that God is not concerned about protecting her life but about excluding her from opportunities she ought to have. He introduces suspicion into her normal and natural trust of God. Eve is tempted by the prospect of improving her life but also by the suspicion that God is withholding that improvement from her.

Adam and Eve do not suffer biological death when they eat the fruit. It is not poisonous. Something happens, however. They experience shame. They feel exposed and want to conceal themselves from one another and from God. They hide. They blame others for their own choices. Though their bodies remain healthy, something within them has died just as God had said. This metaphorical understanding of death continues throughout the whole bible. Read Ezekiel 18 with this in mind, and it makes a whole lot more sense. Paul tells the Ephesians that they were dead in there sins until they believed in Christ. In the same way, the eternal life implied in Genesis that comes from eating the fruit of the tree of life is not an unending biological life. It is the eternal life that Jesus promises his followers, a life that overcomes their fear of death and makes them invincible. Those who put their trust in Jesus pass from death into life. He restores them to a relationship with God characterized by mutual trust and love.

Some people have strayed so far from this trust in God that they do not even believe he exists. They imagine that the whole story is a fairy tale perpetuated by the powerful to dominate the ignorant. I know that for the most part I cannot change minds and hearts so distrustful of God. Jesus came into a culture where God was viewed as an exacting tyrant, insisting with hair-splitting accuracy on correct behavior. Jesus revealed God to be utterly different, a loving Father who embraces those who return to him and throws them a party. Yes, he is demanding, but in the way a good Father demands the best of his children, encouraging them, comforting them, loving them, and at times disciplining them. But he is not harsh. His commands are not burdensome; they are easy. His way is not weighed down with impossible demands; it is light. He encourages his children to love one another, help one another, carry one anothers’ burdens, and forgive one another. This is the God I serve. He does not lie. He does not deceive. He invites us to trust him and live.

*This goes a long way toward explaining the wildly differing accounts of events offered by supporters of Hillary Clinton and those of Donald Trump. Trump’s supporters give Hillary’s statements and events in which she has been involved the worst possible construction. Clinton’s supporters do the same to Trump. They trust their own candidate and treat as self-serving and cynically manipulative anything the opposing candidate says or does. This is not to say that the candidates are equal. But their supporters are roughly equal in their regard for truth and justice.
Share

Who Lied? Literal Truth and Deception – Part 1

Share

The myth of the Fall as told in Genesis 2 and 3 is one of the fundamental narratives of Western culture. Even those who completely reject it have to come to an understanding of it because it so pervades our perception of what it means to be human. The common understanding of it is this:

God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden, a lush sanctuary where they could live and work in comfort and security. Along with all the trees God provided for food, he placed two special trees. One was the Tree of Life, of which a man might eat and live forever. The other was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, of which God forbade the two to eat, telling them that if they did they would certainly die.

One day the serpent, who was craftier than the other beasts, encountered Eve and asked her, “Did God really say you must not eat from any tree in the Garden?”

“We may eat from any tree except the one in the middle of the Garden. He said if we eat from it or even touch it we will certainly die.”

“You will not certainly die,” said the serpent. “God has forbidden it because he knows that if you eat from it, you will become like God, knowing good and evil.”

Eve believed the serpent. She saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and desirable to make one wise, so she took some and ate it and gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate it. Then their eyes were opened. They became aware of their nakedness and sewed together fig leaves to cover their bodies.

Later God discovers them cowering among the trees and finds out that they have disobeyed his command. He pronounces curses on each participant. The serpent becomes a slithering beast who must eat dust. The woman is cursed with pain in childbirth. The man is cursed with drudgery, working very hard just to survive. Then God expels the pair from the Garden and places cherubim and a flaming sword at the entrance to prevent them returning and eating from the Tree of Life and living forever.

First off, it’s worth noting that by any objective standard, God is the villain of this piece. He does not appear as a loving Father but as an arbitrary and vindictive autocrat, punishing an outcome he surely must have foreseen, even if he were of only average intelligence and not all-knowing and all-wise. The hero of the story is the serpent. He risks God’s wrath to bring a wisdom and understanding to the human pair that God had apparently reserved for himself. Like Prometheus giving fire to humans, he defies God and lifts the unwitting humans out of their subservience and into genuine autonomy, by which they become fully human. If God chooses to curse them for their defiance, it is because he is evil, for their intentions were noble: they wanted to be like him.

Yet this is not the common interpretation given to this story. A few visionaries (for example, William Blake) have seen it this way, but for the most part, we all know that God is good and just, the serpent is the devil, and the human pair sinned and brought evil into the world. I don’t want to go into the differences between the interpretations we’ve inherited and the one I just expressed (which might be called a literal interpretation). I want to focus on just one question that we might ask of the story. Who lied?

According to the traditional understanding, the serpent lied. Eve lends support to this understanding when she testifies, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” Yet her testimony is suspect because she seeks to deflect the blame that Adam had just cast on her. In fact, if we carefully consider the serpent’s words, we find that everything he said was literally true. God really did forbid eating from just the one Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When they ate, they did not die. God himself testifies later that they had become like him, knowing good and evil.

The one thing that the serpent says which flatly contradicts what God had said is this, “You will not certainly die.” In fact, Adam and Eve did not die. They both lived on for many years—for hundreds of years, if the stories of antediluvian longevity are to be believed. Since what the serpent said was true and contradicts what God had said, it is rather God who must have lied. He told the human pair that they would die, but they did not. By taking God’s and the serpent’s words literally, we have to conclude that God lied and the serpent told the truth.

Share

Why I Am Voting for Hillary Clinton

Share

“Then it came burning hot in my mind, whatever he said, and however he flattered, when he got me home to his house, he would sell me for a slave.” -Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan

I am a conservative. I say this because it is true, though some may doubt it. I have always been conservative, always slow to accept change, always cautious, always preferring the tried and true to the new and exciting. People have come to accept certain policy positions as conservative and others as progressive, but in actuality it is not policy positions that define whether you are conservative or progressive. It is something more like temperament. My daughter, Libby, for example is a natural progressive. She enjoys the thrill of rising to a challenge, putting out a fire, or rescuing our dog from the river. She will be inclined to press for change just to see what will happen. I am more inclined to advocate for the status quo for fear that what will happen will involve more effort or unintended outcomes.

When it comes to policy positions, I am harder to classify. I am pro-life because I believe unborn children deserve opportunities to grow and develop as much as born children do. I am opposed to the death penalty. It serves no rehabilitative purpose, and as punishment, it is cruel and severe. It is also too often unjust. I am a feminist because I believe women are people who deserve the same respect and autonomy accorded to men. I support relatively open immigration because I believe a continuing influx of new people with fresh perspectives and ideas can only make America stronger. Besides, if you are worried about losing your job to an immigrant, you should know that they don’t have to come here to take it. For the most part, I am in favor of policies that help people and opposed to those that harm them. I believe most people are good—not in the absolute, theological sense—but in the common, quotidian sense that most people are eager to be well-thought of and act accordingly. You can trust most people most of the time as long as you don’t tempt them too sorely. Strangers will help you. The clerk will run after you if you forget your change.

It is because I am a conservative with a generally positive view of people that I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton for President. She is the most conservative candidate from a major party. She represents the status quo. She will, for the most part, continue the policies of the Obama administration. Those policies have generally been good for the US. They have lessened the impact of the recession. They have strengthened the United States globally. They have encouraged people to seek redress of grievances through democratic means.

Some of my friends, relatives, and acquaintance who have fed themselves on right-wing “news” sites will not see any truth at all in what I just wrote. They will have heard nothing but evil of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They will blame her for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. They will claim that her use of a private email server while Secretary of State jeopardized national security. They will point to rumors and conspiracy theories about her, claiming that there is no smoke without a fire. Some may even point to prophets who admonish us that a vote for Hillary will help usher in the Great Tribulation. Most of these claims are either completely without foundation or wildly exaggerated. Hillary Clinton is not evil—or at least no more evil than the average politician seeking to do the job they were elected or appointed to do.

Lastly, there are some who will see Donald Trump as a conservative candidate. There is nothing at all conservative about Trump. He has threatened to jail Hillary Clinton, though she has been found guilty of no crime. He has threatened to muzzle the press, despite its being protected by the first amendment. He has threatened to treat Muslims as potential terrorists, despite that being a violation of the freedom of religion and rights to due process. He has threatened to suspend the rule of law and impose his will by force if necessary. He has hinted that his followers should lead an armed rebellion if he is not elected. He has confessed to having said vile things about women and treating them as objects available solely for his own gratification. There is nothing conservative in any of these threats or actions. If allowed, he would overturn our centuries-old traditions of deciding hard issues by ballot and replace it with a system of rule by fiat. His one and only aim in everything he does is to glorify Donald Trump. There is no one on earth he admires more than himself. His is no ordinary self-interest, but an all-consuming desire to be universally acclaimed as the best, the brightest, the greatest man who ever lived. He is not a conservative but a radical, advocating for radical changes in our country, our government, and our way of life.

Some see these changes as a return to glory days of yore, but there is no going back. You can’t unscramble an egg; you can’t put the omelet back in the shell. The hard-fought gains made by people of color and women and gays and lesbians and other marginalized groups will not be easily yielded up because President Trump says so. The nation cannot be made more Christian by discarding all the teachings of Jesus Christ and replacing them with laws to make people act as they ought. Trump cannot do the things he has promised. If he tries, he will fail but not without wasting a lot of resources on grandiose pipe dreams.

Of course, I can’t tell anyone who to vote for, and there’s no way to prevent some from thinking I’ve succumbed to some kind of liberal spell. I have not. My mind is in good working order. More than that, my sense of decency is utterly repulsed by Trump. Clinton is not the best possible candidate for President, but she will be a pretty good one, and she is undoubtedly qualified.

Share