The principle of intentional vagueness

It is said that Scripture is perspicuous, that the Bible is easy to understand. And it is, in general. Much of the narrative can be comprehended. The poetry is frequently accessible. This is not to say that we find it easy to understand the why of what we read.

I think much of Scripture is perspicuous, at least at the surface level. There is much that is difficult to understand as well. One may need to dig deeper to grasp what is being said and why, and the full depths of Scripture may be indeed difficult to plumb.

As well as this depth, or perhaps part of it, is what I see as a principle of intentional vagueness. There are parts that are difficult to grasp but it seems that, at times, this is intentional.

Some of what is difficult may be due to cultural differences. We don't come to the Bible with underlying suppositions that the authors and immediate hearers did. But there is an indication that God intends for some things not to be immediately apparent. There are several examples of this.

Prophecy at times seems to be this way. Not that prophecy is not specific, but it may discuss an issue with no or little spatial or chronological clues. So Isaiah gives prophecies about the Messiah as a suffering servant and a reigning king. While it may be difficult for the hearers to meld these issues, it does make sense with what we now know about death and resurrection of Jesus, his position currently, and his return to rule.

Jesus also said things that were intentionally difficult to understand. He specifically stated that he spoke in parables

so that 'seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.' (Luke 8)

It is not just that there are things that are hard to understand, rather that God intends for them to be hard to understand.

A complaint from infidels is, Why is the Bible not clearer in places. Leaving aside the fact it may be clear to culturally astute persons that pay attention to genre, at times the Bible does lack clarity. The question arises as to why.

I can think of a few reasons.

1. It creates interest. Leaving something hanging promotes a desire for its resolution. Why did he say that? What did he mean? Surely it can't be thus?
2. It distinguishes between those who wish to understand and those who do not. Enough information is given for genuine seekers, and the righteous to know and seek more; it leaves out enough information such that the uninterested, the mockers, and the fools can dismiss it.
3. It allows for prophecy such that those prior to the event struggle to fully grasp what is to happen and those after the event to recognise the amazing accuracy of the fulfilment.
4. It grows faith. We can and are encouraged to ask questions of Scripture, about what it means. But we will not understand everything. By seeing God's activity clearly in some areas of the Bible and finding him faithful, we can trust him to be faithful in areas we are yet to comprehend. Not that we won't grow in knowledge over time, we will; but we can never fully grasp everything. Vagueness reminds us that we can trust God with incomplete information.
   
   I don't mean the (false) claim that we should believe Scripture despite it being untrue; that we should have "faith" in things we otherwise "know" are not the case.
   

The Bible is not just a source of true information. Though it is true, and a worldview based on the Bible is the correct one. But God intends for people to follow him. We see that in the explanations around why Jesus spoke in parables.

Then the disciples came and said to [Jesus], “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘You will indeed hear but never understand,/
and you will indeed see but never perceive./
For this people's heart has grown dull,/
and with their ears they can barely hear,/
and their eyes they have closed,/
lest they should see with their eyes/
and hear with their ears/
and understand with their heart/
and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” (Matthew 13)

This is a quote from Isaiah 6 where God sends Isaiah to the people. Paul also quotes it to some Jews in Rome who refused to believe the gospel (Acts 28). There seems to be a will by some men to refuse to accept the truth. If they had honest hearts and wanted to be part of the truth then they would turn to Jesus and he would heal them. Yet their hearts (wills) remain impervious to the truth and so Jesus speaks in parables and the secrets of heaven are not revealed to them.

There is enough in the Bible for a believer to study a lifetime and more. There is enough in the Bible (and world) to condemn the unbeliever, yet enough difficulty to allow for the mockers to reject it and instead choose deception.

The change wrought in the moral sentiments of Christendom

I was discussing with a fellow blogger the effect of Christianity on Western culture. It reminded me of a recent post by John C. Wright where he denied that increasing wealth has led to increasing freedoms. He argues that it is not wealth and education, or civility and law, that effects good social change, rather the Christian worldview which is in stark contrast to world it arrived in. It may be tempting to think the West was always like it was but this merely betrays historical ignorance. The West may be in decline now but its height was not a product of the evolution of European culture, it was the transformation of it by Christian belief.

I propose a radically different reading of history from yours. I propose that Christ introduced a view of man so remarkably different from that known in the ancient world, or in the East, as to be without compare or parallel. The change wrought in the moral sentiments of Christendom was so significant and widespread that you and every other scion of Christian philosophy have not even any awareness of it.

The Greeks with their infanticide, divorce, and slavery, held men to be innately unequal. Barbarians were fit only for servitude. The Romans, even worse, held it to be noble to condemn gladiators to fight to death for the amusement of idle crowds. Lavish executions by slow torture were commonplace. The idea of killing a man quickly, painlessly, even offering him a blindfold and cigarette so that he will not die without dignity is as alien to the ancient mind as non-Euclidean geometry. It is literally something from another universe.

The Indians with their caste system and the Chinese with their Confucianism and Legalism held the same view of man. Rulers rule. Servants serve. Slaves slave. Women bear children, which, when unwanted, are killed.

Imagine the scene of Jesus, a man of a conquered people, standing in chains before Pilot, the epitome of Roman power, law, and dignity. In the eyes of the ancient world, by the philosophy of the greatest and noblest sages of East and West, that scene would look like a clown confronting a demigod, with Jesus, the slave, in the role of the slapstick clown, someone whose role was to be hit with a pie or blown up by dynamite, and Pilot, speaking with the divine authority of Caesar, as the voice of heaven. The idea that the slapstick clown, whose mission in life was to die in torment for the amusement of the mob, was somehow greater than the voice of Caesar was inconceivable, radical, paradoxical, and backward by every ancient standard.

The Jewish notion that God was good is radically different from the Greek notion -- in Greek myth, after all, Cyclopes is the child of Neptune, and the gods are not always on the side of humanity -- just ask Ulysses. The Jewish notion that creation is GOOD is a radical defiance of the Greek notion that the world arose from chaos without purpose.

The adoption of the Christian world-view is what led to notions like the separation of church and state, the subordination of kings to the laws they make, the equality of men in the eyes of God, and so on. Without these ideas, the additional ideas of the security of property and the equality of slaves and women could not have surfaced. They are not natural ideas; they are not even rational ideas; they are mystical ideas having roots nowhere but Christendom.

The industrial revolution, the rising capital base, the specialization of labor, the rule of law and all other things you name or might name as sources of the increased felicity of man are products of nothing but Christendom.

Why did the industrial revolution happen in Europe, and nowhere else?

Why did modern science arise in the so called Dark Ages, and not earlier?

Why did the modern university system, with the notions of free inquiry and academic freedom, arise in Christian countries, and no where else?

Why did no one, no one, no one except the Christians ever free slaves, and why does slavery reappear within a few years in any land where Christians powers once ruled and now have withdrawn?

Why is Monogamy the rule, rather than the exception, in Christian lands, and why does the ruthless exploitation of women reappear within a few years in any land where Christians powers once ruled and now have withdrawn? -- We have God Damned HONOR KILLINGS happening in the United Kingdom these days. Is that just a coincidence or happenstance that this arose just when England moved sharply and clearly away from Christianity?

I humbly submit that you are conflating cause and effect. The cause of the improvement of man is the rise of highminded moral sentiments informing the laws and customs of man, producing such minor side effects as respect for reason, rights, and property, and which do not long last in the absence of the underlying moral sentiments.

Christian libertarianism

I read with interest Young Mr Brown's post Is libertarianism compatible with Christianity? and Mike T's posts on Problems facing a "Christian Libertarianism" part 1 and part 2.

I have increasingly developing libertarian tendencies, perhaps in part because of the increasing role the state in the West wishes to assume, though I am possibly better described as a minarchist.

The opposition of Christians to libertarianism may be due to several things, including the idea that governments should be socialist, or at least promote social justice (whatever that is). Young Mr Brown highlights another reason that is worth exploring. Firstly his definition of libertarianism

The philosophy that holds that the ultimate political value is the freedom of the individual, and that the most effective way to uphold that freedom is to limit the scope of the state to those activities which directly defend that freedom.

And the complaint

A lot of libertarians speak about "self-ownership" being the basic principle of libertarianism, though I find that philosophically problematic, and don't accept it.

To which I concur. Mike T identifies the same issue

For libertarianism, the highest good is liberty and human autonomy. For Christianity, the highest good is summarized in the first commandment which is to love Lord with all of one's strength, above all things, and render obedience to the same.

And goes on in his 2 posts to discuss the problems this raises.

While I think that libertarianism is compatible with Christianity, the reason Christians hold to it differs quite fundamentally from many who hold to freedom and autonomy.

Firstly, I think Christianity does value liberty, at least in thought, but also in action. Freedom to think and hence act in ways that God approves is foundational. To force a man to act against his conscience is damnable. God calls us to obey him buts gives us the freedom to do this. So our freedom is not the freedom of a libertine, but that of a bondservant; one who enters into a relationship freely, but is constrained within such relationship.

Secondly, the Christian recognises that man is fallen. We are broken and we rebel against the good. Without God we choose our own way. But even belonging to God we battle the sinful desires of the flesh. So a free person will not naturally choose good paths. Fathers, community elders, and national governors are required to punish errant people, especially when they infringe on their fellow man—the libertarian position.

So the Christian values liberty in order that man can serve God, and the Christian knows that men will choose evil, at least in this current age. Neither of these positions may necessarily be held by an unbeliever.

Returning to autonomy and self-ownership we note that the Christian denies self-ownership. We do not own ourselves. God is our creator and he has claim on us

The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours;/
the world and all that is in it, you have founded them. (Psalm 89)

This claim means that we are answerable to God for our behaviour. Despite denying self-ownership, the Christian does hold to autonomy, or at least a variant of such. Autonomy  is defined as the right to self-government whereas the Christian subscribes to the responsibility of self-government. It is not defending the right of men to do what they want, but the realisation that we are answerable to God for the responsibilities we are given, one of which is the governance we choose to have over our minds and bodies. This is not to say that we bear 100% of the blame for all our choices, but ultimately each man is answerable to God for how he acts. Nor does it mean that we are only responsible for ourselves, we bear some blame if we encourage others in rebellion against God; and we may have added responsibilities as a father, an employer, or as a politician.

If the greatest commandments are loving God, then loving man, then freedom to do so is important. And these acts are voluntary, they mean nothing if done under compulsion. Thus liberty to do so seems consistent with Christianity.

But just as the responsibility of self-government points toward liberty, the fallen nature of man points away from excessive state control.

There can be little doubt that while good leaders have done good for their people, evil leaders have done much damage. Open wickedness may be obviously wrong, but excessive control is frequently harmful. Further, if we allow for a large state when we approve of our leaders, the same state can do proportionally more damage when bad men come into power.

Further, even if leaders don't seem overtly evil, our fallen nature affects our reason. So  government that seeks to interfere in the lives of men will frequently do so in the wrong way. Policy that seems kind may lack justice. Provisions that alleviate suffering short term may exacerbate it long term. Laws that give men positive "rights" may severely restrict others' negative rights. Basically the detrimental effect of the fall on the ability to reason means that men can and do reason wrongly. And even if they reason rightly they may lack the will to do right. By restricting the role of the government to that of justice, and in that to punish wrong rather than to create good, the fallen man is limited in his ability to do evil. Given that probably far more people have died at the hands of government than have died at the hand of bandits throughout history, restricting leaders seems more essential than restricting citizens.

God ordained cultural structures

I currently don't mind democracy, though I am not adverse to monarchy and possibly other governmental structures. Christians are called into a different kingdom and can live under any political or economic structure, although some are more pleasant than others. Nevertheless, it is good to understand the proper role of the state; and if one finds himself in a democracy then it is good to vote well (if one thinks he should vote).

How should we frame our ideas about the state? The state is a social structure where leaders oversee community. There are, however, several God ordained social structures in this world and we need to start with the central ones.

Prior to the Fall we have Adam relating to God which is the first and highest order relationship. I think that the individual relationship and the group relationship with God—Adam and Eve pre-Fall; God-worshippers, faithful Israel, righteous Gentiles, and the church post-Fall—are all part of what will become the Bride of Christ. This is the pre-eminent social/ spiritual relationship in the universe. All of this world is building toward that relationship.

Prior to the Fall we also have marriage and family:

So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man....

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2)

I have included family, however children, while very important and a blessing, are not as fundamental as marriage. They are temporary; given to us to train them to love God so they can depart to form a new unit—the son leaves his parents and joins with his wife.

These 2 relationships: God and man, and man and wife, are central to social order. Note that they both pre-date the Fall. Note also that the latter is a copy of the former:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5)

And that marriage is temporary:

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22)

The other social structures are the community and the state, the state being the power that oversees the community as mentioned above. We are first introduced to the embryo of the state some 1600 years after creation. Earlier judgments are made directly by God; note the examples of Cain and the Deluge. Men take things into their own hands such as Lamech and the mighty men of old, but there is no evidence this is sanctioned by God. I am not certain if we can infer anything from the existence of antediluvian cities. After the Flood God gives specific commands to Noah and his sons:

But you* shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your* lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,/
by man shall his blood be shed,

for God made man in his own image...." (Genesis 9)

God is the giver and owner of life, we are made in his image. Thus God gives commands concerning life: Men are to refrain from eating blood because of the life symbolism; and men are not to kill men.

The context suggests that it is murder that is forbidden here, as the murderer is to be subsequently put to death for his actions, capital punishment being commanded not condemned even though it removes life. These commands of God establish legality. Even if full government is not required, there needs be some community structure to deal with murderers; be that egalitarian, or community elders, or kingship, or some other structure.

So the state is enacted by God some centuries after the Fall and it is necessary because we are fallen creatures. If marriage is a temporary institution, how much more so then is the state! There is much the Bible teaches us about ideal government, what God intends leaders to do, what they should concern themselves with, how they should rule; but this is on the background of the above concepts. Our ideas about temporal government need to be tempered by thoughts on eternal relationship and our current fallen nature.

Did God give us a false understanding of ourselves?

A further argument for freewill is that men think that it exists. Within my mind I am certain that I have freedom of my own choices. I think it likely that others think the same way. Granted some cultures have a more fatalistic view of life, but even if their outlook is, "If God wills it," they still think that they are making some decisions.

That I think I have freedom to make choices comes from God. If in reality I do not have that freedom, that is all my thoughts and actions are essentially God's thru me, then I think this implies that God is deceitful. Of course God can do as he wills, but deceiving all men totally (thru general revelation) about an aspect of reality does not seem to be in God's nature.

One may argue that my fallen nature prevents me fully understanding myself, let alone God. The problem with this argument is that it is not claiming that I do not fully understand my freewill, rather it is claiming that my belief I have freewill is completely incorrect. There are many attributes that we have because of God's image, and these are broken because we are fallen; The more we take on the mind of Christ the more we can rightly understand these attributes; but I can think of none that are so broken that our view is completely the opposite of reality.

Take justice. Even though this can be very distorted such that gross injustices are done, the concept that there is an ought remains. And those doing injustice frequently do so claiming they are doing true justice, the appeal to justice (albeit false) is still there.

Take design. Even an extreme Darwinian, while accepting a false path to the complexity of life, acknowledges that proteins, structures, cells and organisms work. So they would deny design but can still see function.

Take truth. Even liars are usually aware that they speaking unreality. It takes a long legacy of deceit to no longer be able to tell the difference between truth and untruth in one's own life, and even then there is an awareness of some aspects of reality.

The claim that freewill does not even exist but is only a false belief of our mind is not consistent with the other attributes. It is the odd one out. The claim is not that part of the image of God is broken, it is a claim that we think this way despite being completely incorrect. And even worse, freewill is an attribute that God does have, and we falsely think he has given it to us.

And those who are redeemed still have this sense of freedom within them. Even those who subscribe to no-freewill theology still feel they have some freedom of their decisions.

So we have a claim that humans think they have an attribute that God really has, yet they are incorrect in their thoughts (not just broken reasoning), and even redemption is not enough to alter these intrinsic thoughts.

Babies lie

Recent research shows that babies lie from as young as 6 months.

Until now, psychologists had thought the developing brains were not capable of the difficult art of lying until four years old.

Well obviously they did not know of or have any children under 4 years old.

Dr Vasudevi Reddy, of the University of Portsmouth's psychology department, says she has identified seven categories of deception used between six months and three-years-old.

Infants quickly learnt that using tactics such as fake crying and pretend laughing could win them attention. By eight months, more difficult deceptions became apparent, such as concealing forbidden activities or trying to distract parents' attention.

By the age of two, toddlers could use far more devious techniques, such as bluffing when threatened with a punishment.

Dr Reddy said: "Fake crying is one of the earliest forms of deception to emerge, and infants use it to get attention even though nothing is wrong. You can tell, as they will then pause while they wait to hear if their mother is responding, before crying again.

This is what we do know from this investigation but this does not preclude deception from a younger age that we have yet to identify.

Kind of gives more credence to those who think Adam's sin had consequences.

Christianity: All men are intrinsically bad but treat them well anyway.

Both the axioms of Christian belief and the behaviour demanded of its adherents excel the secular humanists.