Preaching Forgiveness is Christianity's Weakness
I have always thought Steven Prothero's book, God is Not One, contained a wisdom usually overlooked by those deep in theology. Prothero finds the average Christian is focused on sin, not on forgiveness. The argument by some in theology is forgiveness is bigger than sin in the Bible.
The reason the average Christian focuses on sin is that he/she has looked at the world and decided that if sins are easily forgiven there will be more sin. A woman who was raped constantly by her father is now on a crusade to alert Christians to the dangers of offering forgiveness to child abusers.
While she is a Protestant, her experience mirrors that of the Catholic Church. Apparently, Catholic Bishops focused on forgiveness of Priests who abused children. With the forgiveness of an invisible and apparently non existent god the Priests were free to abuse again.
The sin preached by the faith is fraught with confusion. Sins preached in ancient times is now seen as not sin. That which is now considered sin by many was unknown in ancient times. When forgiveness is tossed in it is complicated beyond understanding.
Here is something I cannot understand. It is often said people like me are not believers because we want to live lives of sin and not be called out for it. But, if we were believers and committed the same sins all we would have to do is ask forgiveness.
Why then is it said believers less sinful than atheists?
“Christian forgiveness is … a stubborn refusal to act in the same way as the violent other, it is a refusal to become like them.”[1] An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was to be replaced by turn the other cheek i.e. no counter punching. Humility as a substitute for reciprocal punishment. Yet, “[Resentment] is the collateral damage of forgiveness.”[2] Whether sub-conscious or not the sting of the encounter, however sublimated, leaves a residue of smoldering anger. “For quite a lot of Christian theology has little place for forgiveness. The evangelical doctrine of penal substitution, for instance, argues that human beings are saved through a process whereby the violence that is due to human beings (because of human disobedience) is instead discharged upon Jesus: thus, the cross.”[2] This doctrine seems to short circuit the turn the other cheek kind of Christian forgiveness. It appears to provide tacit approval for subscribers to respond in kind and discharge their resentment the old fashion way, an eye for eye. If not directly then vicariously - the revenge of the impotent. Witness todays politics.
ReplyDelete[1][2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/24/philosophy-religion-nietzsche-girard
And "today's politics is a far cry from Christianity. It is in a word "secular".
DeleteIn this post I see conflation of the sacred and secular.
"Evangelical doctrine", process, " short circuit", Nietzsche". Yes, I see the connection.
Thanks for your comment little helper. Any philosophical training I was exposed to was early in life. It centered around Alfred North Whitehead (panentheism), and Friedrich Nietzsche (atheism). Both process philosophers. Quite a pair to draw to.
DeleteI too have been drawn to N, not because I agree with him but because I see him as one of the fathers of post-modernism. And you probably know, post-m is big right now. BTW have you ever tried Plato and Aristotle. or Augustine. or Locke. Or Hobbes. Or Kant.
DeleteAh yes, "philosophy" A famous philosopher, (can't remember his name just now), said; "Philosophy, That nobel art which makes so much dust, not much can be seen through it".
DeleteI have found beyond philosophy that a full knowledge of the subject matter is the best tool in a discussion----or argument.
Deleteunknown: Most of the exposure I had to Plato, Aristotle, and Kant was through the works of Whitehead and Nietzsche. Much of what I had learned 50+ years ago is lost to time. If I recall Whitehead said of Plato that the fact that Plato has been a footnote in philosophic texts for over 2000 years is a credit to his insights. Nietzsche thoroughly worked over Kant's categorical imperatives as I remember. In conjunction with Whitehead I read some Charles Hartshorne who further developed Whitehead's process philosophy. You might find Hartshorne's "Anselm's Discovery" and his other writings interesting. Later on, in the 80's I found Gilles Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy" helpful. Thanks.
Deletelittle helper:"Philosophy, That nobel art which makes so much dust, not much can be seen through it". You won't get an argument here on that point. Somewhere I read a quote that philosophy is an activity not a body of doctrine. That works for me. Regrettably I do not have full knowledge of any subject matter yet I do enjoy and learn from the discussions that occur on this blog. Reading the discussions and laboring to understand much of it is good for my aged brain. I'll play out in left field and comment when I think I have something, however oblique, to offer from my perspective. Thanks.
your aged brain is still working very well. that said, another philosophy quote (paraphrased): there is no idea so foolish that some philosopher hasn't embraced it. Moreover, I tend to agree with you that philosophy is more than a body of doctrine. Regrettably, however, there are those who have turned certain philosophical ideas into hard, and often dangerous ideologies. As in Marxism. On the contrary, however, philosophy is a rational discipline that seeks ultimate truth, the meaning of human existence and purpose, the ways in which we should live and behave, etc. And a book on Nietzsche that I have found very helpful: Nietzsche as Philosopher by Arthur C. Danto.
DeleteRe. "split hairs"; Not a split, but a sharp distinction.
ReplyDeleteJon; re; Prothero; "average Christian is focused on sin, not forgiveness. The argument by some in theology is forgiveness is bigger than sin in the Bible.--- He may be right to a degree with the modern version of Christianity, but I would argue "average is way too encompassing.
The remainder of your post, your understanding, AND common with SOME of Christianity can be summed up in the absence of admission of guilt. On the individual level, For someone to admit to something is necessary before forgiveness can be legitimate. We all have seen in the news killers with no remorse in court, where in victim statements, being told they were forgiven by family members. Well, whoopy doo. They may be sorry they were caught, but that's about all. Yes, one can forgive internally, but cart blanch means nothing, but it superficially sounds good.
The woman who was raped has a good point. In civil law, , caught is jail, no repentance is required.
Re. the priests or any other institutional cover ups. The cover ups (CYA) in and of themselves thwart admission of guilt, or repentance. They furthermore prevent civil action. The church or any other institution then is not in the position to determine repentance, or even forgiveness.
The best solution is confession, (if sincere,) then absolution,( if sincere.) followed by restitution if possible, Confession being public, private, or personal. In the civil area, personal, OR religious.
re. "all we would have to do is ask for forgiveness". This is in the area of what Dietrich Bonhoeffer was against. Apart, and against "Justification by grace through faith for Christ's sake, " it is nothing more than "Cheap Grace", which is meaningless.
re. last sentence; "Why then is it said believers (are?) less sinful than atheists?" Who said that? Whoever says that is poorly informed, a fool, and a pietist.
re. "poorly informed, a fool, and a pietist". Include in that list an atheist with a martyr complex.
Delete