Rational Christianity

After hearing several people recently (and in the past) talking about this reference in the Bible, I wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

Often in my experience, I have heard this dichotomy brought up in the context of a tension, the desire to try to balance two opposing goals. Some people speak truthfully. Others speak lovingly. The goal is to attempt to do both at once. Often, when there is tension between the two, people speak of 'erring' on the side of one virtue or the other.

But after at least a year of percolating this idea in the back of my mind, I think that view is inherently flawed. You cannot see Truth and Love as being opposed or even disconnected. Since both Truth and Love are virtues, you cannot 'err' toward a virtue, but rather you have to err away from a virtue. So when someone speaks of 'erring on the side of love,' what he really means is 'erring on the side of falsehood', and likewise when one speaks of 'erring on the side of truth,' he really means erring on the side of spite.

So what does this tell us about our views of this strange tension? Allow me to illustrate. Here is a graph (I'm a nerd) that shows how I think most people would view the Truth/Love relationship:



Note that in this diagram Truth and Love are unrelated to each other. You can have either Truth or Love or both or neither, and neither has any bearing on the other. The lines or axes of the graph are straight, and imply that you can speak absolute Truth with no attention to Love whatsoever. But again, both virtues are just that: virtues. I think that any virtue we practise will necesitate the excercise of all other virtues to some degree or other, so assuming that we can pick one over the other is fallacious.

I think, rather, that the following diagram illustrates how these two interact a little better:



Note a few things:
1) The axes on this graph are not straight. Both bend toward each other, meeting at the height.
2) In order to be completely Truthful, one has to be completely Loving, and vice-versa. If you are completely lacking in Love, you will - of necessity - be completely lacking in Truth.

Also see that there are several points on this graph where you can increase or decrease the 'value' of one virtue without affecting the value of the other. However that will only take you so far. Eventually you will run into a wall, and either you will decrease both values, or you will increase both values. Thus, you cannot 'err' on the side of one or the other, but rather you are forced to either sacrifice both or to maintain both.

Finally, note that in this diagram there is a definite end point. This graph does not extend toward infinite. Rather, the most Loving and Truthful you can hope to be is the exact amount you should be. Most of us hover around being half as loving as we ought to be, or 1/3 as Truthful as we ought to be, etc. There is a point of perfection, but it is very seldom reached even in a single interaction.

A couple of things today for two previous topics:

First, see these thoughts on capital punishment.

Secondly, for more insight on what I was trying to say regarding the unsaved dead, read Romans chapter 9. I was listening to it on audiobook today on the way in to work and realized that it is summed up fairly well there.

Originally posted by Rikeshar:

Here's a question for you, what do you think will happen to the Jewish people and the truely dedicated Muslims (as opposed to the minority fanatics), both who profess to worship the same God as Christians?

It depends somewhat on the situation. The previous post on this topic dealt with those who had never heard the Gospel of Christ, and thus had 'no chance' to respond to it. If the devout Muslim or Jew falls into this category, then I would put them in the same category as the devout Hindu, Buddhist, Animist, etc. who had never heard the Gospel: a resounding "I don't know, but I trust that God will have mercy (however that looks)."

If, on the other hand, the person has been presented with the Gospel of Christ and has rejected it, then they have no excuse; they have made choice against Christ. I'll offend at least one person by saying it, but while we may worship the same God in 'name', we do not worship the same God in spirit. The Jews still look to the coming of the Messiah, and as such reject Christ's redemptive work in the crucifixion. The Muslims believe (to the best of my understanding) in a more works-based faith, again denying the redemption of Christ. As Christ said, He is the way, and no man comes to the Father but through Him. Unless the Jew or Muslim acknowledges Christ as the Son of God who saves us from our sins, they are rejecting His redemption and choosing instead a way that does not lead to salvation. And I also believe that any Jew or Muslim who acknowledges Christ as such can be called a Christian, even if he is not one 'culturally'.

I think that a Jews, Muslims and Christians who claim that we all worship the same God do not fully understand the very real and important differences between the gods they worship. In other words, we may all be calling on the same name, but I believe that they are wrong about who it is they are calling to. Just as if I worshipped a man named Jesus who lived down the street. Or even another Jew, born around the time of Christ, who was named Jesus, but who instead of dying on a cross for our sins, he lived out a full, righteous life in the sight of all. In this case, the name is only part of the person.

Thanks for your comment and question on the previous post. I'll try to answer your questions:

There is still an issue that (I think) you haven't clarified for me. The death penalty would seem to go against the teachings of Jesus. Did you quote, an eye for an eye? Didn't Jesus effectively overrule the OT? I feel you are on sticky ground, which ever way you turn.

I don't think Jesus was speaking to the law, the legal system or the rulers. He was speaking to the individual, the common man on the street, the person who was appealing to the law. Thus, in speaking against the 'eye for an eye' rule He was not saying that the law should not carry out punishment against people - He wasn't an anarchist - but rather that the individual should not seek revenge against those who harm him. So no, Jesus did not seek to overrule the Old Testament Law, but rather to show people that the Law is not enough, that the Law cannot bring about spiritual renewal of your heart and mind, that the Law alone would not suffice for sanctification.

To give a simplistic analogy: If I were to hold a seminar exhorting businessmen not to sue people who infringe on their copyrights I would not be saying that copyright law should not exist. Rather I would be telling the businessmen that there are bigger issues. It's an analogy that falls flat on its face in many respects, but hopefully it is helpful.

Whenever we see Jesus interacting with the Law - notably His interactions with the scribes and the Pharisees - we see that He proves His innocence. We never see Him condeming or trying to change the law. Rather, we see Him condemning those people who follow the Law and rely solely on it for their status. But the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5ff) was given to a bunch of people on a hillside. It was a pastoral speech, not a political one - a set of spiritual guidelines, not legal ones.

I'm interested in your mentioning suicide and assisted suicide and being against them. This makes your position even harder to justify in my opinion. If a christian cannot bring himself to kill himself on religious grounds, why not just go through Singapore airport with a kilo of coke?

When I speak of killing yourself, I do not necessarily mean that you are the one pulling the trigger. Taking the example above, carrying the cocaine through customs in and of itself would be an act of suicide, unless you are particularly stupid.

I don't think that there is ever an excuse to kill yourself on religious grounds, but that is not the same thing as dying for religious reasons. We Christians have a long history of being killed for our beliefs, and I believe those people who have been martyred for their convictions deserve a special place in heaven. But again, this does not mean that you should allow someone to kill you for just any off-hand reason. If someone intends to kill me for the purposes of taking my wallet, I intend to make every effort to resist him. This is not what is meant by "Do not resist the evil man." However if I were to be hauled before a court and tried for being a Christian with the penalty being death, I hope to have the courage to stand tall, look the judge in the eye and plead "Guilty."

It's a petty starting point for my next argument, but I'm sure you'll get the idea! How specific is the bibel on motive versus actions exactly?

To my knowledge, the Bible only addresses motives in the negative sense. It never says, "Well, you did your best, good job." The saying is, "Well done, good and faithful servant," not, "Well meant, good and faithful servant." This sounds harsh, but then we also believe that God gives us the means to accomplish His goals.

I believe it is in Hosea where it says - and this is speaking to Jews who held to the Law and all its sacrifices - that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, The implication here is that sacrifice is only meaningful when the motive is correct, that being to restore a relationship to God, and not just to 'keep the law'. It might be similar to saying "I want you to live your life well, not just let it be dragged out in a hospital bed, becoming old and embittered." But that's me trying to put words in God's mouth, which is never a good idea.