I look for treatment of theological issues in sources not identified directly with theology, even if some of those sources are close neighbors to theology. Biblical Archaeology Review reports on studies in the field as related to verification or modification of the biblical record of persons and events appearing in the book of history known as the Bible. Often the magazine reviews books about the themes of the Bible in the belief that theology is a factor to be included in understanding and interpreting artifacts of archaeology. In an article entitled, The Evil Inclination, Brian E. Dailey, SJ, there were reviewed two books dealing with the topic of sin. The first was a sweep through classical sources in identifying sin, described in various meanings and contexts but reflecting on human inclination. The topic is handled objectively, without sensationalism. The second book offered the sin question as interpreted by Jesus, the Apostle Paul, Valentius, Justin, Origen and Augustine. The titles are rather well received by the reviewer. However, he remarks on the closing of the review that one of the authors after making a main point that this: is not to argue that the idea of sin requires an idea of God. (BAR July-August, 2014, Pages 64-65)
The reader is rightly puzzled, unless the author explains the point. The statement is a good one to illustrate several Pages in this series about the distortion (often inadvertent) of language in the course of history. In point of history’s logic, if there is no God there is no sin – as religious history has understood the meaning of the word. If there is no God, and there is sin, then mankind becomes the author (god) who determines what sin is. Generations change morality. What is done in human conduct belongs to human culture and is permitted or denied within the various cultures by human authorities – rife with contradictions and no absolute authority for morality. Without God there is no morality except as the individual in person or in congress with others determine what they believe it is. Legal standards determine what is approved and disapproved. Christian Scripture or elevated writings may be used, not amended by admittedly faulty human beings. That morality changes with cultures so that one group follows their history and culture. The neighbor may follow another order so different that contradictions may lead to warfare with its gruesome death and general destruction. All this leads us to consideration of fundamental positions.
The word, fundamental, has a negative reputation in our time when used in a context of faith and/or human conduct. In a review of a catalog of courses, offered in a secular context on the internet, I found the following statements. In the course description on Calculus appearing on page 20 is the following statement: . . . the fundamental insight of calculus unites the way we see economics, astronomy, population, growth, engineering, and even baseball . . . . On page 21, dealing with the concepts or Probability the description includes the following: In 12 stimulating half-hour lectures, you explore the fundamental concepts and fascinating applications of probability. Apparently we need some fundamentals in space flight and baseball, or probability calculations for the interpretations of genes or the minutes to be spent waiting for a bus, but when we talk about God and faith one concept is as good as any other.
Are we to lose something important in faith because of the bad manners of some fundmentalists, lack of adequate education by some, shown in loud mouths and fierce mien as seen in some advocates of Christianity – or advocates of nearly anything we discuss even including faith persons like John the Baptist, John Brown, in social morality, perhaps Hitler and Osama ben Laden in government contexts; and, in the varieties of business moguls, in the alleged freedom celebrities advancing disparate beliefs and lifestyles. Is there no basic standard that underlies the differences in interpretations of life factors? Scripture outlines human morality that is workable whether the individual or group espouses Christianity or no spiritual context at all. The application of that standard for all does not offer spiritual safety, which is an important issue, but it does offer a base of understanding, for application that leads to a moral society. Faulty understanding tends to confuse the moral/ethical unity for all people, and spiritual life for faith Christians. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020