Can a sinner/saint DNA help address “the truth” issues we face?
A story
In the fall of 1984 I was a freshman at the University of NE when the foundations of everything I thought I knew nearly crumbled. I was walking past the student union one day when I noticed a group of people huddled around a man holding a large wooden cross. Most people kept walking but I was curious. Who was this person and what was he ‘preaching’? Maybe I needed to join the crowd and help set him straight. I was after all, a pretty smart eighteen year old who knew a thing or two about religion. I went to a Lutheran parochial school!
But over the course of the next few days, and then weeks, and then months, this man’s words triggered a cascade of questions that led me into a fairly deep depression. He called himself a prophet and preached a generous amount of damnation for college life, sexual immorality, and organized religion. Some of those judgments resonated as “true” with me while others didn’t. The problem was I didn’t know what to do with that. Was this man lying or telling the truth? Was he from God or not? Should I condemn him or follow him? Was my church faithful or one where “the devil helped pastors write sermons on Saturday nights”? I still remember that quote for some reason!
After much soul searching, agonizing, and sinking to a place I wasn’t sure I could get out of, it was the church who eventually provided the hand to pull me back up. I was still questioning many things of course but I was also held fast by the love of many people, including my grandmother and an older man who sat beside me in the church choir named Ed. Yes, these people had their faults -as did the church- but I also experienced love from them in a way I can only describe as “holy”. I wasn’t sure exactly yet how that could be possible but accepting the paradox rescued me from the darkness.
Some theology
Years later, I realized I had experienced the Reformation concept of “saint and sinner”. Luther was convinced that the accepted theologies of his day took neither grace, nor sin, seriously enough. Scholastic theologians taught that baptism removed sin in such as way as to leave the faithful with only the “inclination to sin” (concupiscence). With enough grace and will power, (or threats perhaps) human beings could choose not to sin. And some -the Saints- did just that. Even today, some branches of Christianity believe baptized people do not sin. (A friend in seminary said he was baptized more than a dozen times in his youth because he kept testing this hypothesis ?)
“NOT SO!” said Luther. He and other reformers would go on to describe sin as total “corruption”. Yes God created humanity good but we have been fully corrupted (or infected) by sin. We aren’t then, good people inclined to sin every once in a while. We are sinners, so much so that even our good deeds are tainted with it, as is our notion of “truth”. No one is immune to the condition. No one has been fully cured, even though our hope is that one day we will. The Lutheran confessions state:
“… we believe, teach, and confess that original sin is not a slight, but so deep a corruption of human nature that nothing healthy or uncorrupt has remained in man’s body or soul, in his inner or outward powers, .” (Formula of Concord I:8)
Yet for Luther and the reformers, the more infectious the disease, the more potent the cure. God’s grace is not amazing because it magically makes people stop sinning but rather because it chooses to love the sinner! Justification is not God eliminating the presence of sin from our lives but rather forgiving it, covering it, absorbing its pain into God’s very being. In this way the power of sin and its hold upon us, is broken so that through Jesus, God declares the sinner not only loved but also holy. In his commentary on Galatians, Luther writes:
Thus a Christian is righteous and a sinner at the same time [simul iustus et peccator], holy and profane, an enemy of God and a child of God. None of the sophists will admit this paradox, because they do not understand the true meaning of justification.(AE 26:232; WA 40I:368)
What does this mean?
I know this has been a lot of theology talk but now we get to the application. Seeing human beings as simultaneously “saint and sinner” has enormous ramifications not only for diagnosing but also addressing the “crisis of truth” at the heart of our ills, manifest most recently and violently in the attack on the capitol.
First the diagnosis. A serious awareness of structural sinfulness -not only in “them” but also in “us”- calls us to profound humility and compels us to admit no one knows “the whole truth”. The stress here is on “us” because it’s easy to judge others for their lack of truth. Right now, you’re likely thinking of any number of people (or groups of people) who wouldn’t know the truth if it “hit em in the face”.
Yet there are also people who believe the same thing about you. Those who attacked the capitol were convinced of their own righteousness and truthfulness. “But they were wrong,” we say. “They were fed lies” and we will get to that in a minute but first we must ask that if ‘the truth’ is so easy to discern, why is it that so many of us disagree about that truth at any one moment?
Jesus once said, “Why do you point out the speck in your neighbor’s eye and ignore the log poking out of your own?” Kellyanne Conway might have been the first person to coin the phrase “alternative facts” but science is now confirming we all have a tendency to measure others by an alternative standard from the one we apply to ourselves.
A helpful resource
Last week I mentioned a book by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt titled, “The Righteous Mind”. It’s well worth your reading. This week I want to direct you to the January 4th episode of the Hidden Brain Podcast hosted by Shankar Vadantam called “Double Standard”.
Psychologist Emily Pronin lays out several concepts usingscientific language to unpack what the church often views as a spiritual reality. We make judgements about truth based on different standards: We judge the truth about others based on their behavior but we judge truth for ourselves based on a whole array of internal introspection and reasoning that only we have access to.
Problem is, there is a lot happening in our noggins that we are not aware of. Psychologists call this introspective illusion – meaning we don’t actually have access to all our our interior processing. What we think is true actually results from a significant bias blindspot, which by definition we cannot fully recognize in ourselves even though we can easily see bias in the thinking of others. This leads to motivated reasoning where we think we are running through a rational process but it is actually motivated by unconscious (and perhaps predetermined) factors.
All of that leads to a type of naiveté (or arrogance) best pointed out by the genius of comedians who remind us we all think “everyone who is driving slower than us is an idiot, while everyone driving faster than us is a maniac.” Either way, our “sinfulness” is that we are stuck in a bubble of ourselves and fail to even begin comprehending what is inside anyone else. I’m guilty of that even as I write these words!
Moving forward
So do we just through up our hands and give up, settling into the comfort of like-minded groups and condemning the other side? That doesn’t appear to be working so well at the moment. So what if instead, we leaned into the inherent and entrenched sinfulness (selfishness) of our humanity? Might that actually be a key to unlocking a greater understanding of the saintliness (selflessness) of our species as well? This is the point I hope we can have more conversation about but here are three implications I think the sinner/saint dynamic make possible.
- A greater agreement on the general idea of truth. Even though we may never have access to the “whole truth” we can reach better probabilities. When a majority set aside their absolute certainty, there is a greater possibility to engage actual evidence and reason to allow minds to be changed. Maybe that’s wishful thinking but if we all let down our defenses a bit, we might see a bigger picture. The assertion of the capitol rioters that the election was “stolen” is demonstrably false according to the usual standards society employs in the court system and election certification processes. Yet the voting system itself might very well be in need of better transparency and accountability.
- A more vulnerable yet powerful way to engage disagreements. We may not be able to change the mind of someone else to match our own but that shouldn’t be the goal. The goal might better be a conversation where both minds are changed and arrive at some type of common ground or at least establish a relationship. The sovereignty of God is such that even in those with whom we differ, we might find something to learn. We are conditioned to approach one another with the unassailability of our own position. What if we started with how we might be wrong first. It works in marriages! Could it also work in our political life?
- The freedom to insist on accountability while also extending mercy. This may be one of the most difficult dynamics to manage but justice and peace go hand in hand. Yes those who broke the law in the capitol attack should be held responsible, whether they perpetuated the act or incited it. But people are not all bad or all good. The choice is not between “woke” and “deplorable”. How can seeing the full humanity, even of those who commit violent acts, help us to repair the breach that exists between us? How can understanding be a more effective agent of change than punishment?
So you know… more things to ponder! Remember, I never claimed to have the answers. This is a conversation and I would love to hear any musings rumbling inside your own brain. But remember to be kind, because you never know what is happening inside the life of someone else.
Peace. Pastor Tim
The past few weeks I have truly search for away to understand how friends and family even some branch’s of the Christian church can embrace a alternate set of facts and values. Pastor writings here have by far come the closest to help me to understand the process that I may need to understand. Thank you
Thanks for your thoughts Bill. I have struggled as well especially with leaders or pastors who embrace a version of Christianity that seems far removed from the words of Jesus and more in line with a nationalist agenda. But I have much to learn and hopefully the conversation can continue.
Thanks for this series. These are many questions and thoughts I have ,and it’s difficult for me to realize my thinking may be fake and not fact (love that photo above). I know I certainly have a log in my eye to address and I need to use both ears more and my mouth less?
Thanks Cory. If only we were all as willing as you to be able to listen to others!
I am now realizing that most of the current news seems to be generated on the internet….which is not regulated or edited by anyone. The internet is many opinions by many people.
Years ago I used to call on/sell products to dealers in 36 different states with one of the companies I used to work for. During those years, I subscribed to the Omaha World Herald, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. My goal was to have some knowledge of events and/or concerns that my dealers might have in their parts of the country.
Now it’s tv, Time magazine, the Omaha World Herald, the Lutheran, AARP magazine, AAA magazine, and the Kiplinger News Letter….. plus a few others.
The younger generations don’t seem to have the time and/or take the time to follow a lot of news sources. Probably a combination of too busy, too many choices in life and/or not as much interest in “news”.
Being retired, I have time to read about many other opinions. Unfortunately, I also have no answer on how we can all get along and agree on some common points. With reading to gain more knowledge, it seems to me that I am realizing how much more is wrong everywhere. The trust in everyone, from the faith that I grew up in, is not very strong anymore.
I’m am now very thankful for the church and my church friends. The church may not always be right in all the things we are doing but a strong positive effort is there.
The church also provides the positive thoughts and goals I am looking for as I begin the aging process.
I can’t provide many answers but I wanted to provide some of my thoughts and concerns.
Thanks so much for your wise comments Kyle. There are researchers who come to the same conclusion as you…that we don’t have a common place to gets facts and the internet let’s everyone and anyone make claims that have not been vetted by anyone else. We have a lot of work to do as a society.
I can’t believe how quickly Wednesdays come around. I was going to respond last week, but oops, I missed it.
I am really enjoying this blog. It feels like a safe place to ponder and comment. Thank you so much, Pastor Tim, for your thoughts and giving us an opportunity to explore ours and then share.
I just finished reading a book entitled Holy Envy by Barbara Brown Taylor. It is subtitled : Finding God in the Faith of Others. Maybe for our purposes, we could change it slightly to Finding God in the Politics of Others. Taylor, an Episcopal priest, taught World Religions 101 in college out east. She introduced the major religions through discussions beliefs and traditions. They attended their worship services and met with their members.
Could we learn from her example? Could we engage in conversation with those who have different political views and than we do? It has to be with respect as we acknowledge the humanity of others. Jesus did not command us to love our politics, but we are to love our neighbors (omewhat of a paraphrase from the book).
That is not easy! Where can we do this? Certainly not on social media sites like Facebook! I’ve often said, “How can they think that’s true?” I also find the comments degrading and hurtful. It’s also not easy to converse with family members who think differently from our thoughts no matter what side we find ourselves.
With the pandemic around, it is impossible to meet face-to-face with others for genuine conversation but maybe someday. Until then, I really appreciate this blog. It feels like a safe place share. It makes me think about things other than “What’s for dinner tonight?” and “What day is it today anyway?” I hope I didn’t ramble too much. I don’t get out much anymore ?.
Thanks for your words Cindy! Barbara Brown Taylor has given much wisdom to the church over the years and we would do well to head her advice. We will continue this discussion on “truth” because I don’t want to leave the impression that we can never arrive at a decision that something can be regarded as “true” or “false”. Certainly there are a great many falsehoods permeating our society. But if we begin by first assuming none of us are faultless, we can perhaps approach the conversation with others in such a way as to provide an opening for minds to be changed. As it is now, I feel like all that happens is a boxing match, where people are simply trading punches!
I agree about the boxing match. We can all be bruised! Often I don’t want to get into the ring because I’m not sure what’s true or where to look for the truth. Walter Cronkite is no longer here.
Even though it appears to be almost impossible in the polarizing times, I believe we need each other more than we realize.
I did enjoy Shankar Vadantam’s interview with Emily Pronin in the Hidden Brain podcast. It reminded me a little of what David Eagleman said “Our brains run mostly on autopilot, and the conscious mind has little access to the giant and mysterious factory that runs below it.” (Eagleman, David. Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain (p. 5). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.) It’s not always easy or comfortable, but even for if for just selfish reasons, I believe we need it for survival, for ourselves as well as the community.
King David, the greatest of great grandfathers of Joseph, Mary’s husband, and father of Jesus, needed the clever advisor, Nathan, to point out his errors. Even in Nathan’s not-so-subtle story, King David still couldn’t see that the story was about him and he was the villain. King David was the killer (Nathan says “You are the man”). As painful as it is to read this tragic story, it resulted in one of the greatest classical songs of all time, Misère. I don’t understand Latin, but I can see King David lying prostrate in repentance while praising God for his steadfast love as I read Psalm 51. Insisting on accountability while extending mercy?!
There’s a line from The Queen’s Gambit (Netflix 2020 mini-series) that is one of my favorites and always gets my attention every time I watch it. It’s an exchange between the younger Elizabeth Harmin (chess playing protégé) and William Shiebel (the orphanage’s custodian) after a recent chess game between the two.
Elizabeth : [concerned inquiry] “Am I good enough”
Mr. Shiebel: [genuine affirmation] “To tell you the truth of it, child. You are astounding.”
Mr. Shiebel, acknowledged her brilliant spirit and even though he was aware of the suppressed but potentially destructive anger that Elizabeth possessed.
It was painful to see the assault on the Capital. I am prone to less-than-gracious snap judgements. I still don’t get it. But quite certain, I need a few more Nathans and Mr. Shiebels.
Conversation is good, especially when we can safely share. I enjoyed the commentary. I too look forward to when we can engage face-to-face.
Pastor Tim, thanks for getting this started.
Billy thank you for reminding us of Nathan and David! The truth is often hard for us to see. We need one another to find it because on our own (or surrounded by ‘yes’ men) we can be blind.
thank you so much for your thoughts and information. I so wish I was better at reaching common ground and understanding better where others are coming from. Thank you
Thanks Joe. There is much work for all of us to do if we are to work our way out of this entrenched division. Yet with God, all things are possible!