"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." -- Isaiah 55:8
Man's logic is a logic of equality and equivalence. It is a logic that measures things by reason and prudence. It is a logic that gives us rules to live by -- an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
God's logic is neither reasonable nor prudent. His logic is one of generosity and superabundance. His reasoning transcends rules and regulations. Instead, he gives us patterns of response -- turn the other cheek, walk a second mile. The Christian pattern of life is one that responds to others by giving more than can be asked by ordinary judiciousness.
The pattern of response that Jesus asks of us is the same pattern we find in God's response to us. That is what prompted Paul to say, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." -- Romans 5:20
Note: This post is a synopsis of an essay on the "Logic of Jesus, the Logic of God" by Paul Ricoeur published in Christianity and Crisis sometime in the late 1970's.
5 comments:
I don't buy it--this talk of man's logic and God's logic.
First of all, Aeschylus taught us humans well before formal logic developed, that a principle of revenge--an eye for an eye--is absolute idiocy. It is illogical. It leads to unending retaliation, until all are blind or dead except the last one standing--who is severely wounded.
We humans have no means of drawing an intelligent distinction between "human logic" and "divine logic." We have only our own ability to think, to reason, to explain, to experience, to feel. When we suppose we have done a bit better job of it than ordinarily, we tend to attribute it (in some cultures) to God. We project our thoughts onto God; we project our "logic" onto God; etc.
The thinking, reasoning, commanding we find in our scriptures are there because human beings thought it, felt it, experienced it, and believed it was extraordinary enough to attribute it to God.
We mediate our experience of God through our own culture, thinking, feeling, reasoning, "logic," etc. in an effort to share it with others, as best we can.
The proposed distinction between "man's logic" and "God's logic" is completely bogus.
Asinus,
I've always thought the similarities between the logic of self-interest and the logic of grace were fairly limited.
Actually, the commands of grace to which Bruce refers most commonly come straight from the teachings (and deeds) of Jesus in response to the actions of people - which were typically contrary to the commands of grace.
They weren't merely "projections" of humankind's logic onto God - they were the grace of God transmitted to humankind through His Son.
By the way, it's important to realize that Moses' admonition to demand an eye for an eye actually RAISED the bar. Our natural logic, if you will, when harmed, is to return the harm not in kind but many times over.
So, from the beginning, God was working to change the heart of humankind - from one of mere self-interest, to which Bruce alludes, to one of other-interest; better yet, to one of mercy and grace.
I agree with Bruce. There is a chasm between the logic of humankind and the logic of God - just as there is a chasm between humankind and God, because of our sin, without Christ.
"The Law kills, the Spirit gives life."
Jesus was alluding to the letter of the law interpretation the Pharisees insisted upon compared to the Spirit of the law or proper understanding of the law provided by Grace.
Common Law which is what our legal system is based on is a spirit of the law system and allows for Jury nullification and Judicial Review.
Civil code is a letter of the law system. Fundamentalists and neocons have tried for thirty years to take us back to Diving Right of Kings and Civil code. All the rulings on torture, signing statements, exemptions from testifying before congress, political persecutions come from Civil code.
Which legal system should Christians support that fit within our understanding of Jesus teachinigs?
Bruce and Bill are indulging in begging the question.
As I read the gospels, I find at least four different and sometimes conflicting efforts to express their experience with God through Jesus--using their own minds of course. Paul had earlier taken his own stabs at doing the same thing. They do not fully agree on this sort of thing you are apparently calling "God's logic."
So, how am I to figure out whose version of "God's logic" actually got it exactly correct?
If anyone had an adequate answer to that, then we would have God wrapped up in a neat box--or perhaps it is a book-like box!
Lots of people seem to have thought they had that box or book-like box. Alas, they are all different and conflicting.
I guess we just have to pick the one we are most familiar with, if we pursue that course.
Post a Comment