How do you bring people around behind a barrier they cannot see? Our society is so deeply pervaded by the influence of Western rationalism, the very frame of reference people hold for thought, even their subconscious processes, we hardly know where to begin. If they have attended a good college, they may have been exposed to courses in philosophy. Even then, it's altogether unlikely they have been able to see how it forms the basis for their very thoughts about thinking. If they went to any lesser college, it's unlikely they have even the most basic grasp of philosophy. Oddly, it's the idiocy of political liberalism which provides some useful introduction to the concept of thought processes which might have strayed from reality.
In dealing with born-again believers, we have the singular advantage of their recognition Ultimate Truth is found in Scripture. The primary key is God's declaration:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," saith the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)
We still have to explain that declaration does not mean merely: "You can't get there." Rather, it calls to us to come up ever higher. With this, we can begin showing Western believers there is something beyond themselves to which they must aspire.
It helps to show how our current situation is faulty, and something of how we got in this mess. Unfortunately, to make something accessible to the masses, we are forced to oversimplify. We can talk about the overbearing influence of the pagan Greek philosophers, but the list of their names and ideas is long and confusing. Thus, I choose to pick on Plato and Aristotle. Without bogging everyone down with a mass of reading, it's fair for our purposes to say both of these men made one very wrong assumption: man can conceivably figure it out on his own. This was, of course, a part of the bill of goods Lucifer sold to Eve: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) Eve bought it, and every human since has fought hard to prevent discarding it. The revelation from Our Heavenly Father says now we have accepted this lie, we are all the more unable to do precisely that. We are fallen, and fully unable to so much as even want good as He defines it. Indeed, He is the definition of good. That's the heart of human failure: to believe man need not refer to God. Because there is indeed a simulacrum of usable reason which allows us to understand mere natural mechanisms, we assume we can use the same tools to discover and establish higher ideals on our own. What a sweet lie.
Let's look at this a bit more closely. A fallen human is capable of observing events, and eventually seeing a cause and effect connection between certain things. A solid object bouncing off your head is painful, and can cause serious injury. Bouncing a rock off someone else's head can make them easier to deal with if they seem resistant to your efforts to direct their behavior. Bouncing a rock off the head of a small animal can mean dinner. Thus, we form an idea about rocks and living beings. It always works the same. We call this "scientific method" or "inductive reasoning." Two things are going one here.
Between the two, along the way, our relative comfort and happiness seems to have been raised a good bit, so we call this "good." For those things we don't understand, we come to assume we will eventually work out the relationships of that, too. To some degree, we can use this method to explain the complexities of human behavior. What we cannot fully explain is well adjusted people waking up in terror at a nightmare. We can explain what provokes nightmares, but not why they are nightmares, as opposed to sweet dreams. This method certainly cannot explain why Jesus rose from the dead, so it dismisses the claim He did. We seem to be doing fine without believing that, no?
No. You see, there is a God in Heaven. He made all this, and we have taken it and run away from Him. He calls us back to Him, but the path of return is not going to be pleasant, so we don't want it. Yet, for some reason we do want it.
Throughout history, we find a record of human longing and seeking for that one missing piece of understanding which makes sense of things which don't make sense. We keeping seeking that one connection which bridges the gap, which helps us reach beyond to something or someone and quiet those unfulfilled, unnamed longings. Those of us who find faith and trust in Jesus Christ have that which everyone seeks. Sure, other religions make that claim. There is no proof which can be stated so clearly as to move people past the barrier. It's been tried. Josh McDowell in a public debate managed to prove beyond all doubt, according to the rules of Western logic, the gospel message is objectively true. His opponents admitted they would be fools to reject it, but he observed this did not change any of them into Christians. Why did the power of logic and ideas fail?
There was no faith. There was no miracle of God touching a human heart to match with the logical conclusions, to make them a reality for the individuals. God was not in the logical proofs. Clearly, rules of logic have their limits. Thus, medical science cannot explain healing miracles, psychiatry can't quantify convictions which defy all efforts to educate, and tyrants can't force people of true faith to break under torture. True faith is a work of God, and no human authority can defy it. While faith can hardly be explained, its effects are notable.
We who live by faith understand instinctively there is something which comes down from Above which cannot be grasped by human understanding. However, with so many believers held fast by the a Western materialist frame of reference, there is an endless failed effort to apply human understanding to that something. Tragically, these believers seem quite satisfied by the results -- until some piece of it falls apart. Sadly, this leads to doubts, even a loss of trust in God. Faith takes a beating when trials come, and your expectations are rooted in a false understanding. While such questions inevitably must come in all Christian lives, they need not be so numerous, nor so severe. Could it be we have pre-conceived notions of what that something is supposed to do, which notions are false?
In Mathematics courses, particularly Geometry, we learn about rules of logic, including dealing with certain "given" parts of the puzzle. In other words, in working toward a solution, there are things we aren't permitted to question. Working from such givens, we use a method of logic called "deduction." We deduce from known premises, using certain rules of logic, a reasonable answer to a question. This is considered the opposite of "induction" described previously as the "scientific method." Induction is about inputs, pulling together details and making sense of them. Deduction is about pulling down sense and making details fit. Even then, the frame of reference for mathematical givens is the result of much work in the past, discovering principles by induction. We are amused to discover it makes no difference what language or culture the discovering mathematicians come from, the principles are universal. We take comfort in that, because we know we can trust it. In Mathematics and in some fields of Science, certain basic facts are immutable.
Trying to push that frame of reference into the study of living things is tricky, at best. All the more so if we undertake a study of humans and human nature -- making sense of humans is probably the hardest. Some things are rather predictable if we take in large sectors of humanity at once, especially over large periods of time. Yet, as we delve more deeply into the individual, all the rules become soft, wobbly. Theories notwithstanding, it's pretty hard to really figure out another individual, or even ourselves. Making sense of life, and the big questions humans tend to ask, is by no means precise. When you consider there is a source of sense which is responsible for creation of all things, including the ability to make sense itself, it might be wise to pay attention. There is a whole raft of givens from this Creator. We fail because we refuse to accept His established basic principles from which proper actions can be deduced.
Indeed, the first human culture which acknowledged Him was based on viewing the world from His givens. The starting point of all thinking was revealed truth from Above. As you might expect, this resulted in a rather different set of assumptions about the world. It's easy enough to prove historically this world view is the oldest, the original, if you will. As time went on, more revelation came from Above (Hebrews 1:1), which clarified and extended these assumptions.
Oddly, this same culture was not known for leaving a great deal of archaeological evidence. This makes sense, when you consider a major element in this culture was a powerful awareness of the Fall. In accepting the given idea of all creation under a curse from the Fall, you won't take the material, tangible world too seriously. Instead, you'll be given to other-worldly concerns. This is not an atmosphere conducive to material progress, so building cities, discovering metals, creating masses of artifacts, and similar concerns are quite unlikely. In fact, the greatest legacy from this oldest human culture is literature. Much of that literature is found, or reflected, in the Old Testament. Of course, theirs would be an oral literature, for which writing down came somewhat later. Indeed, writing and carrying documents in physical form was an innovation they picked up from others. The others were a different type of people who were rather more concerned with material goods. You can read about the division of these two cultures way back in the beginning of human existence on Earth in Genesis 4. While there's nothing to condemn material progress itself, you'll note a distinct moral condemnation of those who pay too much attention to acquiring it. The material folks begin to take human life less seriously, while the other group are characterized chiefly by the comment: "Then men began to call upon the Name of the Lord." (v. 26) This latter is called "Sons of God." The former, "Sons of Men," form a majority human trend of leaving some of their precious material goods buried in the sands of time.
The record of revelation we call "the Bible" is the only significant tangible product of the Sons of God. It presents a very consistent viewpoint about human events, and this viewpoint reflects the various revelations from God. The problem is, we keep trying to read the record of this revelation from a logical framework quite different from those who wrote it, not to mention a different time and place. Those events recorded in the Bible were mostly an area of Earth on the far eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea (the name means "center of the earth"). European culture was born west of those lands. We are stuck with a logical framework which arose in Europe. By the definitions of that same European viewpoint, we refer to this ancient biblical viewpoint as "Eastern" or "Oriental." Our own viewpoint is called "Western" or "Occidental." It's not as if we can't bridge the divide, as scholars have shown by the massive library of material addressing the differences. I intend to digest some of that academic material here so we can begin grasping the viewpoint of the Sons of God, for we have inherited that title.
First, understand this is not a simple matter of East versus West, nor of deductive versus inductive. Those categories do overlap a great deal respectively, but to see them as competing and exclusive is to surrender to Western prejudices. Nor is it merely knowledge by rational evaluation versus knowledge by mystical apprehension. Again, simply framing it that way is at accept a rationalist prejudice, which considers mystical logic "illogical." There is a particular logic in the mystical viewpoint, but that, too, is missing the point. The real conflict is spiritual versus worldly. The spiritual mind starts with revealed truth, itself impossible to verbalize. However, it can be exemplified. Each question life presents -- this, that, or some other choice -- requires referring back to the original revealed assumptions. Yet we must understand God Himself orders the events in life which bring us these questions, so that our understanding of the revelation is refined by each experience. We can gain much insight into spiritual logic by trying to understand properly how it manifests itself in what we know of Eastern culture, particularly Hebrew culture. Let me attempt to explain in terms Western minds might understand.
Everything is personal. Not in the sense of being subjective, for the subjective-objective dichotomy is a purely Western invention. To the Eastern mind, the single essential fact of life is the relationship between persons. This is not the touchy-feely emotional side of human interaction, something we Westerners associate with feminine psychology. Rather, everything is a matter of roles. God is the only one in His role. As Creator, His is the ultimate authority in all things. He has revealed how all authority among humans flows from Him, and has prescribed how various human roles interact. Most tension between humans is a result of unsettled definition of roles. In any given situation, there may be multiple roles at play, and it is taken for granted the various roles one person may hold will conflict to some degree. Even more challenging is the fluid nature of shifting roles, and the renegotiation of them. The first step in reaching toward peace with God is accepting your role before Him. From this we begin working out the other roles we have with the rest of His Creation, by reaching toward an understanding of His calling.
Every human relation is established by a covenant. In our minds, we could contrast the elements of covenant versus contract, for this latter is the essence of human interaction in the West. A contract is the commitment of resources, whereas a covenant is a commitment of persons. Contracts focus on measurable performance, an exchange of concrete quantities of goods and/or services. Feelings and harmonious relations are for the most part immaterial. This is completely the opposite of covenants. A covenant is the bond of assumed roles between two people. It establishes the nature of interaction, regardless of particular objectives. Specific behaviors may be stipulated as definitions of the relative roles. Time limits are rare in covenants, but are often central in contracts. Rather, covenantal relations are for life; if life brings major changes, then roles have to be renegotiated, though often this may be a mere formality establishing that everyone understands the obvious. The whole point is everyone being satisfied, happy with how things work.
Feelings are critical, but not commanding in Eastern thinking. Even when they are ignored, they are significant in the consideration; they have to be recognized to be discounted. Emotion is the basic means of communication. What passes between parties is not mere data, but significance. Thus, almost everything is expressed in symbolic terms, and hyperbole is rather expected. Emotions are often assumed like a mask, merely for the sake of expression. It's not important whether they are felt at that moment; they are built into the experience being shared. A subject is not described by its mere external qualities, but the impression one gets from encountering it. It may well be every encounter with that subject is the same, but such is not assumed. Context is everything. Thus, one seldom seeks to communicate mere facts, but communicates themselves -- again, everything is personal. Facts for future reference may be deduced from the expression of self. Understanding your world is a matter of understanding persons. It is not anthropomorphic to speak of every subject as a "person," as Westerners sneeringly assume. It is assumed in Eastern conversations a thing is not inherently good or bad, so much as how well it fits the purpose, or role. Nor is a specific behavior inherently good or bad, but viewed as proper or improper in the context, whether it matches the role assigned. Obviously some actions are always inappropriate, but they are considered good or bad based on propriety. Thus, even beneficent actions can "feel" wrong, and a particular event can be both good and bad at the same time.
Intent is everything, but is measured by responsibility within a given role. Everyone is responsible to someone, everyone serves a master, and that responsibility is defined by a covenant. A failure to please the one you serve is a matter of violating the definition of your servant role. Even if your master is not particularly surprised, nor upset, there is an assumption of official anger over the failure. Everyone is expected to slip up now and then, but if your heart belongs to your master within that role, forgiveness is usually available. As one personally committed to serving, you are obliged to pass through whatever symbolic action is required to restore the covenant, to re-assume the proper role and reassert devotion. The master is not required to accept your apology, but you are required to give it. The master must decide whether the violation represents a permanent flaw in your covenant relations, or whether there is some hope for recovery. A living thing has been injured, and must be healed. If healing is not possible, there is always amputation. Cutting off a valued servant "limb" is the last resort. What that means in concrete terms depends on the context, of course. Even the most egregious mistakes can be justified on the basis of a faithful intent.
Because Easterners are so used to assigned roles, Westerners mistake acceptance for fatalism. Every human born wishes for more freedom and authority than he already possesses. However, Easterners realize authority is rooted in roles, broadly defined by revelation from God. Demanding a discretion not inherent in one's role is sinful. One gains new freedoms by gaining new roles. New roles are offered by some authority, and invariably there are strings attached, because there must be a covenant. The abstract notion of independence from all authority, the individual against the world, is utterly evil, a rejection of God's authority. However, if one has ascertained from revelation that their actions please the Master of All, he need not worry too much about lesser authorities being pleased. These lesser masters may well do him harm, consistent with the authority of their own roles, but they will surely have to deal with God for interfering in His business. As agent of any master, one knows whether enforcement of that master's will is included in the servant role.
Accomplishments matter, but only as a mark of faithfulness to the role. Thus, time is not measured by steady beats of the timer, but relative to the context. Appointments are kept, but not by the second or minute, though perhaps by the hour. One appears before his master as ordered as soon as possible, because events are not nailed to a specific schedule, but when the time is right. One is on time when one appears at the right moment for the purpose of the master. Hindrances outside your authority may or may not be counted against you. Much depends on whether you explain appropriately, taking into account your role and the context of the moment. Obviously, some things won't wait, and some things can't be blamed on others in some roles. Those who understand holiness will accept full responsibility for some things on the general principle of being fallen. Death is peacefully accepted on such terms, because one's life is not about length of years, but about faithfulness.
In the end, we see even the variance between East and West, induction and deduction, rationality and mysticism, are all about roles and propriety. Each has its place in God's order of things. The spiritual mind seeks to place things in God's order, while the worldly mind has no such concept.
We have only scratched the surface, yet with this most folks should be able to better understand the Bible. It should be easier to realize the nature of the Bible narrative, what really matters. Reading the Scriptures with worldly eyes will see things not there, will miss what is there. The Westernized and worldly mind assumes inductive logic, which turns the world into objects, and results in materialism. Discovering things by induction has its place, but not where Scripture has already spoken.
Again, even this explanation is framed in Western terms. To have done it in Eastern terms would require telling stories, and takes much more time and space. In the long run, it is more efficient for one to absorb an understanding, rather than have it handed over in a simple and dry format. To fully internalize wisdom, to become wise, is much more important than knowing and having skill. Cranking out skillful hands can be destructive if those hands are attached to foolish souls. Quantity is distinctly less important than quality. Thus, it's common in the Bible to think of males as "boys" until they are near 30. Yet females, in their God-given roles, are usually ready for marriage well before 20, so a decade or two difference between husband and wife is common. Historically, it has worked out exceptionally well for social stability. God's favor is by far the number one concern, because that will assure any other apparent weaknesses -- wealth, size, productivity -- whether a person or a nation, won't make any difference. Thus, ancient wisdom shows a bustling, acquisitive and powerful nation will burn out in just a few generations because they lack depth. The seeds of destruction are sown from the start. In other terms, they have chosen to stand under God's wrath, to take on traits inappropriate for their role.
With a spiritual mind, we can judge all things in wisdom. We should expect Western civilization to collapse before long. The foundation of democracy is very shaky, because it assumes the individual is inherently virtuous, or can be made so with mere education. Rather than recognizing God has appointed a few to rule, we demand everyone take part in government in some childish assumption this is the best of all possible worlds. This ignores the Fall. Education by Western standards is rarely more than mere conditioning and training. This guarantees a false understanding of Creation and how things actually work at a deeper level. By God's design, humans cannot be made ready to carry the burden for stewardship of His Creation this way. Pretending God did not reveal the true nature of humanity is not the way forward. The short term gains in technology are no substitute for real wisdom. Human history is littered with civilizations crashing shortly after choosing to depart from God's revelation. Aside from concerns for personal redemption, there is a model for national survival often ignored. This is what the Law of Moses was all about. It had nothing to do with personal salvation, and everything to do with keeping the Jews together in the Promised Land until it was time for Messiah to be born.
Most of the conflict Jesus had with the Jewish rulers of His day was about their failure to follow even that simple, worldly model. They had left the true Semitic understanding nearly 200 years before, having adopted Western logic wholesale. They developed a large body of corrupted understanding of the Law, compiled into what we call the Talmud. This Talmud was the "tradition of the elders" Jesus referred to in some of his debates with the Pharisees, which they considered more binding than the actual text of the Torah. Thus, it's no surprise those born in His generation saw the final destruction of Jerusalem, the final dispersion of Jews from their homeland. Even today religious Jews are blinded by this Westernized corruption of Eastern culture. Neither they, nor any other nation, can expect God's full protection until they embrace the original culture of the Sons of God.
This does not mean strictly obeying the Law of Moses, but grasping the viewpoint underlying it. What Moses received on the Mountain of God was not all new and revolutionary. Much of it assumed the old Semite culture, incorporating its ways, and much of its religious understanding. Many of the rituals were similar to previous worship practices. Thus, we learn from Jesus the rituals themselves are not important, but the mental habits, the frame of reference. This is what Paul meant about "rightly dividing the Word" (2 Timothy 2:15), for the Scripture of his day was the Old Testament. Even today, the blessings promised in the Old Testament are largely available to us if we obey the intent of Law, as explained in teachings of the New Testament. Added to this, we have the promise of personal redemption, the presence of the Holy Spirit, Who enlightens our understanding of the Word, and empowers our obedience.
By Ed Hurst
revised 30 May 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)