Frank Schaeffer's Sex, Mom, & God: Bible Interpretation

In Sex, Mom, & God, Frank Schaeffer writes a great deal about how we interpret the Bible. Frank himself grew up in a home where the Bible was interpreted literally: God created the world in six actual days (Genesis 1:1-2:3); Adam and Eve were actual people who ate an actual piece of fruit in disobedience to God's command and were thereafter banished from an actual Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:4-3:24); the sun actually stood still for an extra twenty-four hours so that Joshua could finish his battle against the Amorites (Joshua 10:12-14); Jonah was swallowed by an actual big fish and lived three days in its belly before being vomited back up (Jonah 1:17-2:10); and so on. Frank grew up with the idea that it was important to believe, literally, everything that the Bible says because the Bible is directly inspired by God, and God does not make mistakes.

Unfortunately, as Frank points out, the God of the Bible says and does a great many terrible things--things that would be considered seriously wrong if anyone else said or did them. The God of the Bible sanctions sexual slavery of virgin women captured in war (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), commands the slaughter of conquered men and women and children (I Samuel 15:3), orders the stoning to death of Israelites who gather sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and personally kills Uzzah for reaching up to steady the Arc of the Covenant when God had said that no one but the Levites must touch it (II Samuel 6:6-7).

Trying to believe that God is all-good and all-loving while also believing that God condones sexual slavery, deliberate war-time killing of civilians including children and infants, and the death penalty for disobedience of minor commands requires some mind-twisting mental gymnastics. We wind up denying what our hearts tell us about good and evil so that we can affirm that otherwise evil actions are good simply because God is the one who does them. After all, if God does something, it has to be good, right? So, somehow, all this God-endorsed sexual slavery and civilian killing must be good simply because it is endorsed, or even committed, by God. When I was trying to so believe, I found this a terrible mental and emotional strain (as did Frank).

But then one day I actually found myself thinking something like this: Wait a minute. We are constantly told that we have to accept God's actions as good simply because God does them and that we must measure our own thoughts and words and actions by what the Bible says. But suppose we turn this around. Suppose we measure the words and actions of the God of the Bible by what our own hearts tell us. How about that, for a change?

Frank says something similar. First, Frank makes a distinction between the God of the Bible and the actual God who really created the universe. On page 83, Frank makes this wonderful statement, which I love: "[M]aybe the best thing a believer in God can do is to declare that a lot of the Bible is hate-filled blasphemy--against God." Wow! Those parts of the Bible where God is depicted as condoning such atrocities as sexual slavery and civilian killing are actually evil lies against God! How terrible to feel trapped into believing that one must honor and defend these despair-producing lies!

And these lies are despairing-producing. I remember my mother expressing to me how trapped she felt within the Catholic Church. She told me that she was afraid to leave the Catholic Church because it might actually all be true and she would find herself condemned to hell for eternity for rejecting the One True Church. On the other hand, my mother was also concerned that, when she died, she would find herself before the Real God, who would say to her, "I condemn you to hell for being a Catholic." How awful to believe that maybe the Real God condemns the Catholic Church and the Bible and the people who adhere to them, but then maybe the Catholic Church and the Bible are all true and people who reject them are the ones who will be condemned. How awful to believe that, whoever God may be, God is caught up with condemning.

The idea expressed above, that God is in the business of condemning, is despair-producing. I think that it is very important to realize that, when an idea is despair-producing, it is wrong. This should be a rule of thumb: When an idea leads to despair, let us reject that idea. If we think about God and feel despair, we can be sure that there is something seriously wrong with our ideas of God. This doesn't mean that we reject painful facts; it does mean that we refuse to interpret those facts in a despairing way. If it is clear, for example, that I am facing an imminent and inevitable death, I can accept that fact in a peaceful rather than in a despairing way. If it is clear, for example, that we are destroying our earth with pollution (and this should be clear to us), we can accept this fact and work to change our direction rather than succumb to despair.

Well, back to what Frank says about interpreting the Bible and God's words and actions therein. After stating that the Real God may not approve of the God of the Bible, Frank says that the sane way to interpret the Bible is with our hearts. On page 87, Frank says:

To reject portions of the Bible is not necessarily to reject God or even the essence of Christianity. A great deal of the Bible is contradicted by the Love that predates it and, more importantly, survives in you and me. And that Love edits the Bible for us. Call that editing the Holy Spirit, or call it a more evolved sense of ethics and human rights, but most people know what to follow and what to reject when it comes to how they live. Sacrifice for others, not sacrifice of others, is the message of the "better angels" of spiritual faith.

To boil this down to its essence, Frank says that "Love edits the Bible for us." Yes! Yes! Yes! You are so right, Frank. LOVE EDITS THE BIBLE FOR US! Our hearts shout out: No! Sexual slavery is wrong! Slavery itself is wrong! Deliberate war-time killing of civilians is wrong! Our hearts know what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil.

Our hearts, informed by love, know how to edit the Bible. Here is an example. When we read, "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters" (Colossians 3:22a), our hearts say, No! Slavery itself is wrong! When we read, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent" (I Timothy 2:12), our hearts say, No! Women are not inferior to men! But when we read, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), our hearts say, Yes! Yes! Yes!

Frank points out that there is much good in the Bible. Our hearts know how to zero in on the good and reject the bad. Frank also says that the Bible can be a blessing or a curse, depending on how it is interpreted. On page 99, Frank says, "Sometimes belief in the Bible leads to building a hospital. Sometimes it leads to justifying perpetual war and empire building. Same book--different interpretation."

I will end this post with a final thought: It is an act of maturity to move away from swallowing, whole and literally, whatever the Bible says and to move into interpreting the Bible with one's own heart informed by love. Frank shares this idea on pages 86-87 of Sex, Mom, & God by quoting from page 168 of Thom Stark's The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It). So here is what Thom Stark (as quoted by Frank) has to say:

An infallible Jesus, just like a set of infallible scriptures, is ultimately just a shortcut through our moral and spiritual development. To have a book or a messenger dropped from heaven, the likes of which is beyond the reach of all human criticism, is a dangerous shortcut. It is no wonder humans have always attempted to create these kinds of foundations. And it is a revelation of God's character, from my perspective, that cracks have been found in each and every one of those foundations.

To expect the Bible to give us all the answers in a literal and wholesale way is a mark of immaturity. For God to provide such ready-made answers, says Thom Stark, would be to cut short our spiritual development. In fact, says Thom Stark, God shows God's character by refusing to provide us with ready-made answers even when we clamor for them (just as a good parent shows his or her character by refusing to give in to a child's clamoring to gorge on unhealthy sweets). No, God insists on supporting our maturity. The Bible will not work as a wholesale revelation dropped directly into our laps from God. The Bible will only work when we interpret it with our hearts informed by love.

Frank Schaeffer, thank you so much for this beautiful truth: We interpret the Bible through the love in our hearts!

EfM Year 1 Chapter 9: Abraham Saga (Part II) in Genesis 15-18:15, 21-25:18

For EfM purposes, Part II of the Abraham Saga consists of these elements.

• Two covenant accounts: the first by the Yahwist writer where God binds Godself to the covenant by passing through the animal carcasses as a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch but requires nothing of Abraham; the second by the Priestly writer where God requires circumcision of Abraham
• Name change: Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah, inserting the Hebrew letter Hay, which represents the insertion of God's name into the names Abraham and Sarah
• Circumcising all Abraham's males
• Visitation of Yahweh to Abraham and Sarah and birth of Isaac
• Dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael
• Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac
• Sarah's death and Abraham's purchase of the Cave at Machpelah
• Abraham's old age and death

These are some of my thoughts upon working with this part of the Abraham Saga.

MYSTERIUM TREMENDUM ET FASCINANS (RUDOLF OTTO). The course materials say that Rudolf Otto describes the holy as "the mystery which both attracts with its fascination and terrifies with its overwhelming power." (Page 124) The course materials also say that, according to Otto, both elements are necessary: "An experience which simply overwhelms in a purely negative way could not be an experience of the divine but only of the demonic; one which attracts without striking fear would be merely sentimental." (Page 124)

I cannot imagine where Otto got this idea that any encounter with God has to both attract and terrify. I know that Catherine Marshall describes a time of great difficulty in her life during which she experienced the presence of God as a deep calming loving utterly peaceful presence--no terror at all. I think, too, of people who, during prayer, experience ecstasy and deep joy--no terror. I think of myself and how I have heard God simply as a quiet thought in my mind--no terror.

CIRCUMCISION. One wonders where this off-the-wall idea came from. The course materials suggest that circumcision may have originally been part of a marriage rite. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps it helped in keeping the penis clean in a desert, where water was scarce. Certainly it isn't necessary today.

It's also pretty clear that only the males rated having a sign in their flesh of their covenant with God. But then would we really want God to prescribe female circumcision as well, which I understand is quite awful.

I think that the penis is best left alone in its natural state.

It's interesting to consider what the mark of a Christian is. It's a life of love. People are to know who is a Christian by the love demonstrated in the Christian's life. I guess, though, that you could say this of any valid religion: a practitioner's life would be characterized by love.

HOSPITALITY. This was essential in the nomadic life of the desert. It was crucial to keep hospitality alive. Everyone's life depended upon hospitality at one time or another, and by offering hospitality, everyone ensured that hospitality remained active.

This leads me to think about hospitality today. Hospitality is essential today for spiritual sustenance. Opening our homes to each other for nourishment, refreshment, and soul enrichment keeps human connections alive.

ABRAHAM'S NEAR-SACRIFICE OF ISAAC. The course materials suggest that radical obedience to God may include obedience even when God commands something that is wrong according to usual moral sensibility. I say no. I will not obey if "God" commands something that I believe is wrong. My responsibility is to listen to my own inner knowing, not to some outer "God."

I can only imagine what this incident did to destroy Isaac's trust in his father and in God.

CHESED. Chesed, according to the course materials, includes the meaning of being true to one's nature. I think of God being true to God's nature of compassion. This helps me, somehow, in relating to very painful times in my childhood--times of terror and shame. I may at some point say more about this in my blog, but for now, further thoughts on this are best kept in my journal.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 8: Abraham Saga (Part I) in Genesis 11:10-14:24, 18:16-20:18

For EfM purposes, Part I of the Abraham Saga consists of these elements.

• Abraham's call to leave his father's house and go to the land which God would show him, along with God's promise to make Abraham a great nation and to bless all nations and peoples through Abraham
• Abraham's entrance into Canaan and his building of altars at Shechem and at Bethel, along with God's promise of the land
• Abraham's sojourn in Egypt during a famine and his deception of Pharaoh by telling Pharaoh that Sarah was Abraham's sister instead of his wife
• Lot's departure for the plains of Sodom and Gomorrah and God's contract of the land with Abraham
• Abraham's rescue of Lot from capture by neighboring kings and Abraham's encounter with the King and High Priest Melchizedek of Salem, who worshiped God Most High
• Abraham's pleading with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous were found there and Abraham's gazing over the smoking plains of Sodom and Gomorrah the next day
• Abraham's sojourn in Gerar and his deception of King Abimelech by telling Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham's sister instead of his wife

These are some of my thoughts upon studying this part of the Abraham Saga.

GOD'S WAY OF FAITH. The EfM course materials point out that, after the story of the Tower of Babel, we don't have a statement of God's continuing care, as we do after the fall of Adam and Eve, after Cain's murder of Abel, and after the flood. Instead, say the course materials, the Abraham Saga and actually the whole rest of the Bible is the statement of God's continuing care after the Tower of Babel and indeed after the whole sweep of spreading sin in Genesis 1-11. The course materials say that human initiative simply doesn't cut it in maintaining a relationship with God: humans are not able to sustain the goodness of being created in God's image nor to attain the righteous behavior of Noah. Instead, say the course materials, once sin entered the world, it spread and spread until sin ruled in human hearts. Given this state of sin, salvation simply cannot come from human efforts--I guess because the sinfulness of the human heart will subvert any effort to be good. Therefore, God has to take the initiative, and our role is to respond to God in faith as Abraham did. Even after responding in faith to God, God's chosen people of Israel keep falling away and God continues to extend grace. So that's where we are with the course materials.

Now, here's what I think. Yes, of course God's chosen people of Israel continue to fall away time and again. Why? Probably because they are obeying commands from an outside God authority that they haven't fully bought into. They have to follow what God wants all the time, and this makes them grumpy--just as it made me grumpy to have Jesus on the throne of my heart always telling me what he wanted me to do. Being good will never work if goodness is someone else's idea--even God's idea--imposed from outside. Being good will only work when it comes from one's own God-place within, when it emerges as one's own deepest desire.

Even when we do deeply desire to change, we usually find that change is a process, not something that happens overnight. We may make a decision to change and yet still find ourselves enacting our old thought and behavior patterns. This is because our old thoughts and behavior have become ingrained. To un-ingrain these patterns and replace them with new patterns, we need to recognize when we slip into old patterns, acknowledge what has happened, reaffirm our commitment to the new patterns, and, to the extent possible, reverse what we have thought or said or done.

We can take racism as an example. I may consciously reject racism, but it's also true that I was raised in a heavily racist society, so sometimes I may say something that reveals latent racism. When I notice that this has happened, I can say, "Ah, what I just said comes from the racism I was raised with. My automatic response shows me that I still have the remnants of racism within me. Now that I see what just happened, I consciously reject what I just said. Here is what I believe instead."

It takes regular conscious work to replace old ingrained thought and behavior patterns with new ones. As we see the old patterns continuing to surface, this doesn't mean that the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually. It just means that change is a process that occurs over time, even a whole lifetime of time.

Finally, I wonder how the idea of the sinfulness of all human hearts squares with the response of some native people groups to Christian missionaries. These native peoples say something like this: "Jesus came for Western people, but he didn't need to come for us because we have never strayed from the way God laid down for us in the beginning." There are groups of Native Australians who live in harmony with nature and each other and God, who wake up in gratitude for God's many blessings each morning, who pursue peaceful and fulfilling lives. They do not experience that the thoughts of their hearts are only evil continually. Quite the contrary.

ALLEVIATION OF ANXIETY ONLY THROUGH FAITH IN GOD NOT THROUGH HUMAN INVENTIVENESS. Yes, I can see this. A major source of human anxiety is not being able to get our basic needs met--and to get our needs met in our society, we need money. So we have retirement plans based on the stock market, which has a tendency to plummet. We have failed financial institution after failed financial institution, with the accompanying credit crunches and home foreclosures. We had Enron not long ago, with its creative financing (posting profits based on projected, not realized, income) and the subsequent loss of retirement funds by employees who were heavily invested in Enron stock when the company tanked. We have health insurance programs based on for-profit insurance companies who of course don't want to pay premiums because it's bad for their bottom line. Human inventiveness to alleviate financial anxiety seems only to produce more financial anxiety.

I would say that, whenever we find ourselves acting frantically to be secure, we're relying on human inventiveness in what we know deep down is a fallen world.

So what does it look like to rely on faith in God? Actually, I'm not sure I would word it quite like that, since this implies an outside God entity. We really need to come from the God-place within. Coming from the God-place within, I would say that we do need to be wise in doing what we can to provide for our own financial stability and that, when things are tight, we need to go to that deep God-place to find solutions. I do wonder what it would look like if wise leaders throughout the world would come together, go to the inner God-place together, and share their wisdom. In any case, it's clear that we are not doing this, and we are paying the consequences for grasping toward what we hope will lead to financial security, all based on human inventiveness--and these inventive humans are steeped in a fallen world.

ABRAHAM'S ALTARS. The course materials say this about Abraham's altars at Shechem (the Oak of Moreh) and at Bethel: "These verses show Abram coming to the shrines of the Canaanites and building altars to YHWH. The oak of Moreh was such a shrine, as was the mountain between Bethel and Ai (vv. 6, 8). In calling on the name of YHWH (v. 8), Abram claims these sites for YHWH against Canaanite gods. This is the first example of the opposition between Yahwism and the baalism (fertility worship) of the Canaanites; it will occur again and again." (Page 115)

If Abraham was really putting up his altars to YHWH in opposition to the Canaanites' gods, then I find this highly disrespectful. It also does not escape my notice that Abraham's altars apparently did not bother the Canaanites, who had no problem with other gods. They were happy to respect Abraham's altars next to theirs. (Neither does it escape my attention that the EfM course materials capitalize 'Yahwism" but not "baalism.")

ISRAEL'S MESSIANIC PURPOSE. Apparently, God called Abraham in order to have Abraham's descendants become God's special people who would bring God's blessing to the whole world. This is something to remember. As Jews or Christians, our purpose is to bring God's blessing to the world. Not to convert the world to our way of believing, but to bring God's blessing to the world.

In addition, I would extend this idea to all religions. All religions have a messianic purpose. Each religion has a special blessing from God to bring to the world. Jews bless the world in one way, Christians in another, Muslims in another, Buddhists in another, Hindus in another, Pagans in another. Yes, even the Baalists.

ABRAHAM'S PLEADING WITH GOD FOR SODOM AND GOMORRAH. The course materials make a wonderful point. The materials say that the ancient law of mass blood revenge required that the whole community suffer for the sins of the one or the few, that the later law of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth limited revenge to the specific offense and the specific offender, and that Jesus asked us even to forego revenge. But Abraham takes a different view. If, under the law of mass blood revenge, the many so often suffer for the sins of the few, why shouldn't the many be extended grace for the righteousness of the few? Thus, Abraham pleads with God to spare all of Sodom and Gomorrah if only ten righteous souls are found there.

This is a wonderful idea! It certainly fits with the idea that once a certain number of people live into a new paradigm, that paradigm suddenly tips, and nearly everyone starts living it out. It also fits with the idea of putting good energy into the world. It makes me excited about trying to be one who contributes to bringing compassion into the world.

ABRAHAM'S GAZE UPON THE SMOKING PLAINS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. Genesis 19:27-28 says, "Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the Plain and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace."

I find this heart-wrenching. Abraham had pled with God, God had promised to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people there, and not even ten righteous had been found. Abraham gazes out over the smoking plain, utterly destroyed, reduced to ashes.

Efm Year 1 Chapter 7: The Tower of Babel in Genesis 10-11:9

The story of the Tower of Babel tells how God confused the language of the earth so that people would be unable to communicate. This brings up the question of language and communication. What enhances communication and what inhibits communication? Even more basic, what is communication?

When people communicate deeply--really hear each other and understand each other--it is deeply fulfilling. I think that this is because it reinforces our essential oneness. In our physical forms on earth, we experience a certain degree of separation from each other. Intimate communication is so fulfilling because it brings us in touch with that deeper truth of our oneness. Even if we are expressing different opinions, the knowledge that among us we have these varied opinions and that we are united in understanding and respecting each other is fulfilling. We don't have to agree with each other to understand and to be understood.

As I think about the Tower of Babel story, I wonder if the people there couldn't have managed to understand each other if they had tried. In Genesis 11:7, God says, "Come, let us go down, and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech." The result was that God "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" (Genesis 11:8a). Was it really necessary for the people to scatter and leave off building their tower and uniting together in a city simply because they were suddenly unable to understand each other's speech? I don't think so. I think that this may be another indication of the spread of sin, as the biblical writers seem so insistent on emphasizing. The people suddenly couldn't understand each other's speech, so they scattered and left off their project. I believe that, if they had taken time to slow down, get beyond their initial frustration, and ask themselves how they could continue their project even with different languages, they would have found a way. Certainly, people can cooperate and build a tower without speaking the same language.

When people have different opinions, then respect and a desire for understanding can enhance communication. We can have very profitable conversations if we seek, not to convince the other, but to seek to understand the other. People can broaden and deepen their understanding of a subject if they listen closely to those with other views on the subject in a spirit of trying to understand these different points of view, especially if all participants in the exchange share this goal of mutual understanding.

Such a conversation allows me to clarify my own thoughts on the subject, to open myself to other views, to compare my own views with those of others in a spirit of openness, and finally to reach a deeper understanding of the subject. The key is a deep willingness to see how things look through others' eyes. I may come away more deeply convinced of my original view while understanding others' positions more fully, or I may modify my original view in light of what I have heard. I experience this type of listening at the Philosophy Cafe of the New Orleans Lyceum. At Philo Cafe meetings, we consider a question and everyone has a chance to speak to that question. There is much openness to the expression of different views. I have also experienced this type of listening in conversations with friends where we have different views but truly listen to each other in order to understand, not to convince.

Certainly problems arise in communication when we "speak different languages" even though we speak the same language. I think of the elderly gentleman at Galatoire's Restaurant a few years ago who tossed an after-dinner mint onto the table of nearby diners, meaning this as a traditional friendly greeting. One man at the other table, though, took the gesture as an insult, followed the elderly gentleman out of the restaurant, and bashed in his head on the sidewalk to avenge the "insult." This is an example of speaking different languages and of jumping to conclusions, assuming the worst of another. This kind of thing also happens on the international level and causes completely unnecessary wars.

Intercultural communication can be fraught with this kind of misunderstanding. U.S. Americans working with Japanese may appoint the most experienced team member, a young man, to head a task, and the Japanese will be appalled at the lack of respect shown in passing over the eldest team member. In the United States, it makes sense to have the most experienced person head a task, regardless of age or rank; in Japan, this honor is given to the eldest person out of respect, knowing that the elder will consult those more experienced before making decisions. In some cultures, children will avoid looking into the eyes of those in authority in order to show respect; in the dominant white U.S. American culture, the aversion of eyes is taken to be a sign of lying. This causes trouble for children of eye-averting cultures in school. A university student from another country may address a U.S. American professor by last name only without title, calling the professor "Smith" instead of Dr. Smith or Mr. Smith or Ms. Smith. The professor may feel insulted, while the student thinks that he or she is using the correct form of address. An Arabic speaker may ask, "Isn't Mr. Jones in today?" meaning "It appears to me that Mr. Jones isn't in today and I'm asking to confirm if this is indeed true," but a U.S. American may mistakenly hear an insinuation that Mr. Jones really ought to be in today and how dare he be away.

Intercultural miscommunication occurs, not only between people from different cultures, but also between different sub-groups within the same general culture. Books have been written about the misunderstandings between men and women stemming from their different styles of communication. Deborah Tannen has done a great deal of very helpful research and writing in this area. She says that men's talk often has a competitive goal, while women's talk has a bonding goal. As a result, a husband may not talk much to his wife, grateful for the respite from competition at home, while the wife feels that her silent husband doesn't want to bond with her. I also see miscommunication between faculty and students and between administration and faculty at universities.

Those are some of my reflections on communication, emerging from the Tower of Babel story.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 6: The Flood in Genesis 6-9

In the story of the flood, we have the spread of evil to all human society. Here is how the biblical writers put it.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. (Genesis 6:11-12)

And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth." (Genesis 8:21a)

Here is the explanation in the course materials.

It would be impossible, after this development of the theme of sin, to think of it only in terms of "bad things" that people do. Sin is not simply a few bad actions which occur more or less on the surface of life, so that we might go through a whole day, perhaps even longer, having "committed" no sin. Pride, community alienation, and corruption of the heart are, in the point of view of the biblical writers, more than part of the everyday makeup of humankind; by our fallenness they have become part of us. If we do "right"--and the biblical writers are as insistent on our obligation to do so as they are on the fact of sin--it will be through obedience, and not by "doing what comes naturally." The "nature" of humankind, in the true sense of the word, is "good" because we are God's creatures and are in God's image; but what has become "second nature" to us is not to be trusted: the "thoughts of the heart" are "only evil continually"! (Pages 92-93)

That last sentence in the course materials is important: "The 'nature' of humankind, in the true sense of the word, is 'good' because we are God's creatures and are in God's image; but what has become 'second nature' to us is not to be trusted: the 'thoughts of the heart' are 'only evil continually'!"

Is it true that the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually and that our second nature is not to be trusted? I wouldn't put it like that. I certainly don't think that it's helpful to teach this to children. Here's why: This implies that the source of our evil is inside us and that the source of our good is outside us. The course materials even say that the way we do good is through obedience, not by following what comes naturally to us. Obedience implies an outside authority whom we obey.

My goodness! Think how grumpy that will make / does make us. I have all these things I want to do naturally, but they aren't good, they are sinful, so to be good, I have to obey what God says even though I don't naturally want to. I spend my life suppressing what I naturally want and obeying this outer authority. I never get to fulfill my desires because I always have to obey God's desires. I'm always going against the grain.

I can think of an acquaintance who did something like this in real life--he obeyed his father rather than what he naturally wanted to do. This acquaintance naturally wanted to make music. He wanted to major in music in college and become a musician. His father, however, wanted him to be a partner in the family business and insisted that his son major in business and then work in the family business. This acquaintance did so. He did not follow what he naturally wanted to do (become a musician) but chose to obey his father (become a partner in the family business). This made him very unhappy and ruined his marriage. The minute his father died, he sold the family business and returned to his first love, music. And he is much, much happier!

The story of this acquaintance is much like what I experienced when Jesus was on the throne of my heart, controlling my life. I couldn't do what came naturally to me because I had to obey what Jesus wanted me to do. I was unhappy and grumpy because I was trying to twist myself into someone I wasn't, just as this acquaintance was doing. As soon as I removed Jesus from the throne of my heart and put myself back in control, I was much happier.

We just aren't going to be happy by suppressing who we are and what we desire in order to obey commands coming to us from outside ourselves, from God.

And it's just plain old not true that the thoughts of our hearts are only evil continually. Good is inside us. It's part of who we are as human beings. We need to learn to look, not to commands from God outside ourselves, but to our inner depths to discover what we desire at our core. We desire good. At our core, we will find a God-place that is ALREADY THERE INSIDE US AS PART OF OUR BEING. This is a place filled with wisdom, compassion, justice, creativity, love, joy, peace. It is far different from the surface emotions that blow across our lives and that can lead to evil, as when we hurt someone in anger just for the momentary rush of power or take from others to alleviate our fear of not having enough.

I believe that it is wrong to say that acting on surface emotions is acting from our selves and that acting from the deep God-place is acting in obedience to God outside ourselves, as though the evil comes from us and the good from an outer God. No, the evil and the good are both part of us--the evil on the surface and the good at our deep core. The deep core is very accessible. I found this out quickly once I got Jesus off the throne of my heart and looked to see what I really deeply want. What I really deeply want is not to get a momentary rush of power by displaying anger or to frantically alleviate fear by seizing what I think I need. What I really deeply want is to act from wisdom, compassion, justice, love. This is what I myself want, not just what obedience to God's commands asks of me. When I am just obeying God, I become grumpy because I am suppressing what I want. But when I myself find and act from the goodness within, then I am joyful.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 5: Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:1 - 6:4

The EfM course materials on Cain and Abel are very helpful. The course materials see the purpose of the Cain and Abel story as showing the spread and deepening of sin. Here is the progression of this spread and deepening of sin:

• Putting oneself in the place of God by deciding on one's own what is right and what is wrong apart from what God has said (Adam and Eve)
• Killing a brother because of jealousy (Cain)
• Killing another in revenge out of all proportion to the offending act (Lamech)
• Polluting the court of heaven (sons of gods and daughters of men)
• Becoming entirely evil of heart (all human society)

Here are some of the implications I see in the story of Cain and Abel, after working with the EfM course materials.

FALLEN WORLD. However one explains it, we do live in a fallen world. This means that we should not be surprised to find sin within ourselves and others. I am sometimes surprised at this myself, which I acknowledge is unreasonable.

We have forgotten that we already have everything we need and that we are all one. In fact, although we do have everything we need and we are all one in ultimate Reality, we have created our own reality in which we most definitely experience not having everything we need and in which we experience being separate from each other. We fear that we won't have enough for ourselves, so we grasp, hoard, and even take from others. We get angry when others take from us. There are those who crave power so much that they will hurt others just to enjoy the rush of power this gives them.

We live in a world where people will do whatever it takes to enrich themselves. As a consequence, we have Enron, we have the dishonest practices now coming to light on the part of bankers and mortgage brokers and Wall Street financiers, we have government money given to financial institutions for the purpose of stimulating the economy being used to pay high bonuses to corrupt executives instead. It doesn't matter that Enron employees lost all their retirement savings, that people suffered in California from the energy shortages created by Enron, that hard-working employees have lost their means of livelihood in the economic crisis, that families are reduced to homelessness, that some are living in incredible luxury while others are living in crushing poverty.

We live in a world where people will do whatever it takes to feel powerful. As a consequence, we have sexual abuse and bullying in all its forms. It doesn't matter that those raped and bullied are destroyed emotionally.

We live in a world where fear and anger predominate, and we need not be surprised to see them. I would say that a faith-filled response to this would be to envision and live into a world of compassion and justice and healing and creativity and beauty and community, yet to be realistic about the presence of evil in the world. Jesus did this. Perhaps the healer is a good image. The healer recognizes that something is not right and needs healing, and the healer works toward that healing. I think, for example, of a doctor who treats a person with a contagious illness: the doctor brings healing but also recognizes the presence of the disease by wearing protective gloves and mask.

SIN LURKING AT THE DOOR. God tells Cain, "Sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it" (Gen. 4:7). I like this image of sin lurking at the door, crouching like an animal of prey, lying in wait, ready to pounce. I like it because it helps me to place sin outside of myself and look at sin objectively. Oh, here is anger, crouching at the door, ready to pounce and master me, but I can recognize this anger and master it by choosing to act from wisdom and compassion instead. Oh, here is fear, crouching at the door, ready to pounce and master me, but I can recognize this fear and master it by choosing to act from courage instead. Picturing sin visibly helps me to see it clearly, to diminish its power, to turn away from it, to choose with wisdom instead.

CULTIC RELIGION TO REPLACE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. The course materials say that cultic religion came into being so that humans could relate to God in some way now that the direct relationship with God in the Garden of Eden no longer existed. I believe that we need to foster both. We need a community of religious practice, and we also need a more direct personal relationship with God. Jesus fostered both in his own life. He was a practicing Jew, and he spent long hours alone with God in prayer. I can see that relying on either cultic religious practice or direct personal prayer to the exclusion of the other will throw a person off balance. The group tempers the excesses of the individual, and the individual tempers the excesses of the group. Individuals have been known to believe that all sorts of odd-ball directives came to them in personal prayer with God, and groups are often known to cling to past traditions when we need to grow beyond them.

GRACE. The course materials say this: "God's punishment is always softened by grace." God made clothing of animal skins for Adam and Eve so that they would be clothed as they left the Garden of Eden. God gave Cain a protective mark as he became a wanderer.

The Bible does indeed see God as prescribing punishments for sin. I believe that we would do better to see the unpleasant things that happen as a result of sin as consequences. In any case, the consequences of sin are often softened by grace.

In fact, there is grace in every situation, if we can open our eyes to it. This is an important quality to develop: to be a person who sees the grace.

HORROR OF SIN. Sin has become so commonplace in our world that we don't see its horror. The course materials point out that Cain kills his brother, Abel, at the very place where Cain offered sacrifices of his crops to God. God gave life, and Cain destroys the life that God has given, spilling the blood, the life of his brother, onto the earth, with which humans are so deeply connected. We don't see the horror of killing. Nearly every day, someone is killed in New Orleans. We've become deadened to this horror. We are also deadened to the horror of polluting and destroying God's non-human creation.

By the same token, God Godself seems utterly unaware of the horror of some of God's own directives. I think especially of God's telling the Israelites that they are welcome to take any conquered unmarried women for themselves as sex slaves. What a horror for these young women. God doesn't see it.

RIVALRY BETWEEN GROUPS TODAY. The course materials point out that Cain was a farmer while Abel was a shepherd and that there has traditionally been rivalry between farmers and shepherds because the two ways of life are at odds. What is good for the settled farmer is not so good for the nomadic shepherd, and vice versa. The course materials ask this question: Where do you see rivalry between siblings or competition between groups coveting the same land or the same promise, and where do you see places in our culture that parallel the Cain and Abel story?

Having read Frank Schaeffer's warnings about the extremist fringe of the far political/religious right in the United States, I would say that I see this between Democrats and Republicans. Certainly there is a history of non-cooperation between the two parties, and of one party making it difficult for the other party to get important bills passed. The Republicans see capitalism, largely unregulated, as being good for our country. Certainly, this is good for big business. The Democrats see a need to regulate capitalism so that no one is crushed by it. Certainly, this is good for the little guys. It seems to come down to this: what is good for the rich is not so good for the poor, and vice versa. And then other elements of morality come into play: the tendency of Republicans to oppose abortion, and the tendency of Democrats to allow abortion.

Frank especially cautions us about the fringe members of the far religious right. Frank says that these are people who see themselves as politically disenfranchised. They see themselves as standing alone for God in a secular and godless culture, despite the fact that fundamentalist churches are quite strong and influential. They perhaps feel disgruntled with their marginal status within the overall culture. Their books, for example, do very well, with a large fundamentalist following, but their books are often ignored by the New York Times and hence the wider culture.

Cain felt that God did not have the same high regard for him as God had for his brother, Abel. The extreme fringe of the far religious right tends to feel that our society does not have the same high regard for them as society does for human secularists. Cain was jealous of Abel and killed his brother. The extreme religious right is jealous of the rest of society and is eager for God to kill them--or perhaps to help God with the killing.

In his newest book, Patience With God, Frank Schaeffer points out that the far religious right loves the Left Behind series of novels by Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye. These novels describe the End Times of the Apocalypse, when Jesus will return to earth, rapture his faithful into heaven, and unleash his fury upon the ungodly who are left behind on earth after the rapture. Frank says that the far religious right loves the idea of God taking vengeance for them against all whom they see as having deprived them of full cultural enfranchisement. In some cases, members of the extreme fringe of the far religious right have felt God calling them to kill and have actually killed doctors who perform abortions.

So I think we can see in the Democrats and the Republicans something of the rivalry that existed between Cain and Abel, at least in Cain's mind, and we can see how the kind of jealousy that led Cain to kill Abel also exists in the extreme fringe of the far religious right.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 4: The JE Account of Creation and the Fall in Genesis 2:4b - 3:24--Thoughts on Discernment

At our last EfM meeting, we discussed individual choice and discernment. Despite the importance of the scriptures, tradition, and the faith community past and present, I come down on the side of individual discernment.

Certainly, one can go to an extreme with individual discernment, thinking that one need not listen to anyone else and that voices from the faith community of the past are out-of-date and that we know so much better now. On the other hand, one can go to the extreme of overly revering what was said and done in the past; one's reverence for scripture, tradition, and our faith ancestors can be so great that we never change what should be changed, such as slavery or the refusal to ordain women priests.

I think that it's important to listen seriously to our faith ancestors through scripture, tradition, and the faith community's writings and voices--and I think that it's equally important to discern individually what rings true and what doesn't, what comes from God and what comes from our ancestors' personal and cultural filters. Either we discern this individually for ourselves, or we rely on the discernment of others.

If we over-rely on the discernment of others in scripture, tradition, or voices from the faith community, we get the perpetuation of unjust systems, such as the dominance/subordination model of social relationships. That's the way it was in scripture, that's the way it was for our faith ancestors, so that's the way God wants it. God has ordained a role for women that is inferior to the role of men. God finds slavery a fine acceptable social institution. God abhors all homosexual acts.

On the other hand, if we over-rely on our own discernment by rejecting any influence from the faith community, we get nuts life Saint Simon Stylites, who lived an extremely ascetic life perched for years on a tall pillar in the desert. It seems that individual discernment gone amok produces extreme masochists, who fast to the point of starvation, flagellate themselves, and crown themselves with thorns--or extreme sadists, who kill in God's name.

Even if we hear direct messages from God, either audibly or in our thoughts, we still need to exercise individual discernment. Is this voice really God? Would our faith community recognize this message as coming from God? Hearing this kind of voice can be God's message (something we need to know or are being called to do), or it can be our own selfishness (God supposedly approving what will benefit us unjustly), or it can be mental illness (God supposedly telling us to jump off a roof or crown ourselves king or exterminate an innocent person).

So I would say that we must discern individually what is God's word to us. We must not do this in a vacuum but in the context of scripture, tradition, and the faith community. Yet the responsibility for ultimate discernment is ours individually.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 4: The JE Account of Creation and the Fall in Genesis 2:4b - 3:24--Thoughts on Work

The fall of Adam and Eve apparently had serious consequences for work. Here is what God said to the man in Genesis 3:17-19:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, "You shall not eat of it," cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

And from our course materials:

The man and the woman will eat only as a result of toil. The man was created for work. He was to till the garden and care for it. Now, work has become toil. It is hard, bitter, and offers few rewards. Instead of being a plentiful garden, the earth is now a hostile place in which the barest necessities of life must be eked out by the sweat of one's brow. This is the kind of world in which humankind has lived throughout the ages and is still the situation of most people today. Modern affluent America is quite different from most of the societies of the world, but we are becoming aware that even we may not have escaped the ancient judgment after all.

Here I think we need to remember that the story of the fall and God's judgment upon the man and the woman is the Hebrew people's way of explaining why things are as they are--why work is so burdensome. This is not the actual unassailable pronouncement of God. It is a Hebrew story to explain life conditions.

The worst thing we can do is to submit to these judgments--to say, "Oh, well, God says that work will be drudgery, so I'll just have to accept it and go on drudging away." NO!!!

Even the Bible says that work was originally fulfilling and fruitful. So what do we want to create? Surely a world where work is joy-filled, creative, and soul-satisfying. Work requires discipline, yes, but discipline motivated by an underlying passion.

If we wanted to, we could have a world where everyone has fulfilling work and where we all share the mundane tasks.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 4: The JE Account of Creation and the Fall in Genesis 2:4b - 3:24--Thoughts on Moral Development

The story of Adam and Eve and the fall certainly has a lot to say about moral development. I also have some thoughts on the matter based on my own experience. I'll look at these three areas: development of an inner sense of right and wrong, sin, discernment.

DEVELOPMENT OF AN INNER SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG. I grew up with fear-based obedience. Fear was used to motivate me to obey: by my father, by the teachers at my Catholic school, by the Catholic Church, and by the God of the Bible. Obey--or you will be punished--you will be spanked or humiliated or sent to hell for eternity. To avoid those extremely undesirable consequences, I obeyed. I obeyed out of fear.

This ripped apart my inner sense of right and wrong. Right and wrong were outside myself--whatever the authorities said. I had little inner sense of right and wrong. I simply wanted to do what the authorities said was right so that I could avoid pain. THAT'S WHAT CHILDREN LEARN WHEN FEAR IS USED TO ENFORCE OBEDIENCE.

Children need to be taught to distinguish their inner core of wisdom from their surface emotions. That inner core of wisdom is present within each of us by the very fact that we are human beings. It's part of our nature. We need to learn to access it. But we will never learn to look within if we rivet our attention on authorities who will pounce to punish us for any disobedience.

One way to develop our inner sense of right and wrong is to develop our highest vision of the world we want to create. We then live into that vision. Our inner core of wisdom supports that vision. Our surface emotions may or may not support it. Certainly acting on surface emotions of fear or anger does not. We need to learn to recognize fear or anger in ourselves, acknowledge these emotions, and simply choose not to act from them for the temporary relief or power-surge they give but to act instead from our deep core of wisdom and compassion.

SIN. I'm starting to doubt that sin is a useful concept, largely because it refers to individual actions. The course materials define sin like this: "Acts of sin are specific things that we do that are wrong in the sight of God." I think that direction of movement is a much more useful concept than acts of sin. In which direction is my life moving--toward God or away from God? We need to be aware of the direction of our life. Certainly our acts will move our life in a certain direction, but it's the direction that's important, not whether any given act is a sin or not. In other words, an emphasis on sin seems to me to be so focused on details as to avoid the big picture of one's life.

That said, I think that my reluctance to see sin as a useful concept may be colored by the over-emphasis on sin during my Catholic childhood and adolescence. All those catalogues of mortal and venial sins. And the belief that one act of mortal sin could send you to hell forever if not confessed and forgiven (in which case you would escape hell but you would have to settle up with time in purgatory). No wonder I was so focused on individual acts of sin and whether any given sin might be a mortal or a venial one.

Maybe the correct way to see this is to consider both the big picture (the direction of life) and the details (individual acts which become that life direction).

DISCERNMENT. Oh, this is so important. The sin that caused the fall is seen as a sin of pride--human beings taking to themselves that which belongs to God alone. God alone determines right and wrong, and the fall was occasioned by human beings taking that function to themselves.

Well, okay, God alone determines right and wrong. But how does God communicate God's determination of right and wrong to us? God does not speak to us directly with an audible voice. So we either use our discernment, or we blindly accept what someone else tells us that God has said.

There are those who would say that God has told us what God wants us to know about right and wrong in the Bible. Oh, great. According to the Bible, slavery is just fine, men should dominate women, war is a great way to extend one's borders, homosexual acts are an abomination, and killing "God's enemies" is a godly act. No. We simply cannot blindly accept what the Bible tells us that God says. We must discern for ourselves: where does the Bible ring true as God's voice, and where does it not?

We each have a deep core of wisdom that comes with being human--God within. We need to learn to go within and listen to the God-part of ourselves. When someone tells us that God wants us to do this or that, we need to check out what they are saying with our inner wisdom. And that includes checking out the Bible.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 3: The Priestly Creation Story in Genesis 1:1-2:4a--Thoughts on Being God's Representative

Genesis 1:26 states: "Then God said, 'Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.'" Genesis 1:27 states: "So God created humankind in God's image, in the image of God God created them." What does it mean to be created in the image of God?

Our course materials offer an intriguing thought in response to this: "It was a common practice in the ancient world for statues of a king to be set up throughout his realm. These were not regarded simply as carved statues, but as the king's representatives, looking out for his interests in those places where the king himself could not always be. This seems to be the idea expressed here: humankind is God's representative, looking after God's interests in the world."

These statues intrigue me, representing the king's interests in places where the king himself could not always be. God, of course, is always present in the world--BUT--and this is very important--NOT PHYSICALLY.

WE ARE GOD'S PHYSICAL PRESENCE IN THE WORLD.

WOW! When people see us, hear us, touch us, they should should see, hear, and touch something of God. God simply cannot minister physically to someone in need except through us.

What does this imply for our ministry?

SUSTAINABILITY. At the very least, it implies maintaining, not destroying, God's creation. This means making decisions about purchases, transportation, heating and cooling, and disposal with sustainability in mind. Do we purchase biodegradable products for cleaning? Do we buy food in biodegradable containers, reusable containers, or even no containers? At church meals, do we employ reusable plates, cutlery, and napkins--perhaps asking people to bring their own? Do we take our church bulletins and newsletters, as well as news and publications from other sources, in online form? Do we recycle as much as possible? Do we compost? Do we walk or bike to places we want or need to go whenever possible? Do we use natural air conditioning--open windows--as much as possible?

INCLUSIVENESS. God pronounced all of creation good, even very good. This means that belonging should be available for all. For a church, this means full access and welcome for all people, including wheelchair ramps, interpreters for the deaf, and rides for those who are unable to drive.

JUSTICE. With inclusiveness goes justice. We need to advocate for the basic rights of all. The rights of humans to basic nourishing food, clean water, hygienic and attractive living arrangements, healthcare, education, freedom from fear of criminals. The rights of animals to live natural lives free of constant pain and distress. I think here of animals raised for food in crowded and stressful conditions with no regard for their well-being. We need to consider very, very carefully the necessity for any testing of products or medical procedures on animals, as well as the treatment of animals used for such testing.

BEAUTY. God made a world of infinite beauty. For aeons before any human walked the earth, there was abundant beauty. The plant world alone is stunningly beautiful. And for aeons, plants thrived with no human witness.

One huge part of being made in God's image is that we, like God, are creative. In fact, if we don't create in some form, we lose energy. Creating replenishes our life energy because being creative is part of who we are.

Our ministry should be done with an eye to beauty, with attention to the aesthetics of what we do and where we do it. I think of simple things, for example, like adding a small bouquet of flowers to a meal we take to someone who is ill. Making our places of worship beautiful with flowers on the altar, candles, stained glass windows, colorful vestments, organs and other musical instruments, singing. The arts in all their forms should be encouraged in church, and the church should be an advocate for the arts in society and in our schools. The church can be a place for us to share and showcase our art.

Perhaps beauty also extends to our physical appearance. I'm not very good at this, but my friend Merry is. Merry is always a delight to look at. I'm not speaking here of becoming obsessed with society's ideal of beauty and trying to conform to it, but simply of giving thought to our physical appearance: people will be looking at me today, and I want to give them something pleasant to look at. Merry is not obsessed with her appearance, but she just always looks nice and attractive, and she accomplishes this simply.

COMPASSION. This is perhaps the central quality of God. We are God's compassion in the world.

CENTEREDNESS. This implies connection with God, being still, going within, and connecting with the God-part of ourselves. In other words, acting from the wisdom within, at our center.

EfM Year 1 Chapter 3: The Priestly Creation Story in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a--Thoughts on Dualism

In my previous post, I spoke about dualism and some dualistic systems of thought, such as Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Platonism, and Neo-Platonism. In these dualistic systems, we have a good god of light and an evil god of darkness, or a higher world of spirit and a lower world of matter. "Two" is very important in dualism, as is separation. Things are either this or that. We certainly see dualism alive in the world today.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION. This is a huge area of dualism, although any glance at people's actual behavior should make clear that sexuality is far more complex than a dualistic understanding of it. People seem to think of two sexual orientations--heterosexual and homosexual--and want to fit everyone into one category or the other. These are not the only two sexual orientations, however. People may be bisexual, monosexual, asexual, having a preference for menages-a-trois, for orgies, oriented toward fetishes. People may have one orientation at one stage of life and another orientation later, such as adolescents whose sexual feelings are first aroused by members of the same sex and who as adults settle upon members of the opposite sex. People may have one orientation in certain situations and another orientation in other situations, such as those who behave heterosexually in ordinary life in the world, but homosexually in prison.

SEXUAL IDENTITY. We seem to think that there are only two sexual identities, male and female, and we tend to assign certain characteristics to each, though I think there is more openness today to assertiveness in females and nurturing qualities in males than there used to be. I think that it is important to recognize that an individual's make-up doesn't necessarily fit the male mold or the female mold, and I hope that we will continue to make strides in recognizing this.

I wonder if a greater recognition of the complexity of an individual's sexual identity might not cut down on the perceived need in some individuals to change their sex through drugs and surgery. From what I understand (and I admit that my understanding is imperfect), a man who wants to change himself physically so as to become a woman feels that he is really a woman trapped in a male body. He wants his body to reflect his inner reality. But here's what I would say. Suppose I notice myself having many feelings that have been attributed exclusively to males. Should I conclude that I need to become a male physically so that my physical body will be in line with my inner feelings? Or should I conclude that my feelings are actually within the realm of feelings that women have, even though such feelings have been attributed exclusively to men. I think I could say, "Hmmm. I have feelings that have been attributed exclusively to men. Well, guess what. It turns out that these are not exclusively male feelings. How do I know? Because I'm a woman and I'm having these feelings. So clearly these feelings are within the range of possibility for a woman, because I, a woman, am experiencing them."

In any case, male and female are not the only two sexual identities. There are androgenous people, transgender people, transvestite people, men who act the way we expect women to act, men whose bodies have womanly curves, women who act the way we expect men to act, and women whose bodies are muscular and lean.

RACIAL IDENTITY. There was a time when certain official forms asked people to check off one of two choices for their racial identity: white or black. This is beyond silly in a world with multiple races and people of mixed race. Some scientists who have studied the question of race have concluded that race is a human concept that doesn't objectively exist.

SAVLATION. This is an interesting area. It is an area particularly important to those whose faith leans more to fundamentalism. Certain fundamentalist groups see people as divided into two groups: saved and unsaved. In fact, people fall at many different places on the faith continuum--moving toward salvation, being newly saved, growing in their walk of faith, moving away from salvation, spurning salvation. I would say that the direction one is moving toward and growing in is far more important than any saved versus unsaved division.

OVERALL. Overall, I think we would do well to approach the world with an appreciation of nuance rather than a dualistic view.